Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 4: 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).
From what has been said it will not be hard to undo the arguments which we set out at the beginning.
To the first argument, then, which was John Wyclif's, drawn from the Gospel, we answer that the Lord does not rebuke the Jews for building or adorning the monuments of the prophets, but because they did not imitate those whose monuments they adorned, but rather those who killed them, and so condemned themselves. For so almost all the Fathers expound that place, as Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom and Theophylact on chapter 23 of Matthew, and Ambrose and Bede on chapter 11 of Luke.
“By the building of the tombs of the prophets,” says Ambrose, “they convicted of crime those who had killed them, and by the imitation of like deeds they declared themselves also the heirs of their fathers' wickedness; it is not then the building, but the imitation, that is counted as the crime.” So he. And Chrysostom, homily 73 on Matthew: “Not because they build,” he says, “nor because they accuse their fathers, did he say woe to them; but because, doing so and saying so, they dared to condemn their fathers while they themselves were committing worse things.”
You will say: But in Luke 11 the Lord says: “Truly you bear witness that you consent to the doings of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and you build their sepulchres.” Where the Lord seems to accuse the very building as a testimony of consent to the killing of the prophets.
Chrysostom answers, in the place cited, that the Jews were wont to build the tombs of the prophets not to honour the prophets, but to show the strength and power of their forefathers, who were able to kill the prophets. For although the Jews said that this was not their intention, but altogether the contrary, yet that this was in truth their intention is plain, because they sought to kill the very Lord of the prophets.
Jerome, on chapter 23 of Matthew, expounds it a little otherwise. For he says that the ancient Jews killed the prophets out of pride, and the later ones built their tombs out of pride and ambition, and so by that deed consented to the works of their fathers.
Origen, in his own manner, expounds it [figuratively; the passage at the top of page 471 is damaged in the scan]. [Hypocrites] build and adorn, so that the crime may lie hid. And the Jews, although they said that they built the tombs of the prophets to honour them, yet in fact they were seen to fill up the works of their fathers, as is plain from this, that afterwards they killed greater prophets, that is, Christ and his apostles.
To the second I say that in the monuments there is present, at the least, the memory of the saints; for hence the tombs of the saints are again and again called memorials among the ancients. And the memory of the saints is honourable. Otherwise neither is the soul or the flesh of Christ now present in the sepulchre of Christ; and yet, according to Isaias, chapter 11, his sepulchre shall be glorious. I say besides that in the tombs of the saints is found the other part of their substance, that is, that very matter which the spirits of the saints gave life to and will give life to again.
To Calvin's first, about the body of Moses, it can be answered in many ways. Hilary on chapter 17 of Matthew, Ambrose, book 1 On Cain, chapter 2, and Gregory of Nyssa in the Life of Moses say that Moses is not yet dead, and so not buried, but translated with Enoch and Elias; which some of the moderns also teach. But this cannot easily be defended, and Rupert attacks that opinion with firm arguments on the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Philo, at the end of the books on the Life of Moses, teaches that Moses indeed died and was buried, but that it belongs to Moses' glory that he was buried in a tomb so wonderful that no man was ever worthy to see it. To which Oecumenius too seems to allude on the epistle of Jude. Yet what Chrysostom writes, homily 5 on Matthew, is probable, that the tomb of Moses was hidden lest it should be worshipped by the Jews as God.
You will say: Neither did they worship Moses living as God; therefore much less would they have worshipped him dead. I answer: They did not worship him living, because they heard from him daily that there is one true God, and that he was his servant. But after his death, remembering his wonders and not hearing his words, they could easily have been led to believe that he was God, and to adore him if they knew where he was; especially because it is very credible that his body, though dead, still kept the splendour of face and the beauty which it had before, as has happened to many of the saints. We have an example in the bronze serpent. For in Numbers 21, at Moses' command, the Jews bitten by serpents looked at that bronze serpent and were cured; and yet they did not adore it with the cult of latria, because, namely, Moses had told them that that serpent was not God but a sign of divine help. And in 4 Kings 18 they burnt incense to the serpent as to God, when it no longer worked any miracles; so that for that reason it was broken by Ezechias.
You will say: The same danger is there now in the relics of the other saints. I answer that there is none. For the people of the Jews at that time was most prone to idolatry, so that it even worshipped golden calves. Therefore after the Babylonian captivity, because that people no longer worshipped idols, we see that God made glorious the tombs of Isaias, Ezechiel, Jeremias, Eliseus, Abdias and others with many miracles, and held pleasing the cult which was shown to them, as Epiphanius and Jerome relate. Add that it was never heard of among Christians that any gave divine honours to the relics of the saints. Nor are there wanting in the Church those who teach the peoples, by writings and by sermons, what cult is owed to relics.
To the second I say that in 2 Corinthians 5, where it is said, “And if we have known Christ according to the flesh; but now we know him so no longer,” by the flesh is understood mortality and the capacity to suffer; and the sense is: if we once knew Christ mortal and able to suffer, now we know him only immortal and incapable of suffering. As in 1 Corinthians 15 it is said, “Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God”; and Hebrews 5, “Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications,” and so on. So all expound it: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrose, Anselm and others.
In the same way the seventh synod, action 6, answered the same argument, which had been objected by the Iconoclasts; where too it adds the testimony of St. Cyril. And that the Apostle does not mean to teach (what Calvin says) that whatever was fleshly in Christ, that is, all memory of his humanity, is to be given over to forgetfulness and let go, so that we think only of his spirit and divinity, is plain. For Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, says that the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted in memory of the passion, and adds: “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.” And he himself repeats nothing more often than the cross and passion and death of the Lord. And how, I ask, according to Isaias, chapter 11, would his sepulchre be glorious, if we ought to forget the death of the Lord? Lastly, either we ought to think over the benefits of the Lord or not. If not, we are most ungrateful, and contradict Paul, who says, Hebrews 12: “Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself.” If so, then we ought to think of the incarnation, the birth, the passion and the death of the Lord.
To the third I say, first, that the cult of relics is not a self-chosen cult, that is, devised by men, but is inspired by God, as is plain from the Scriptures cited. For Scripture approves the cult of the sepulchre, of the hem of Christ's garment, likewise of the shadow of Peter, of the handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul, and so on.
I say, second, that in Paul, Colossians 2, ethelothrēskia does not signify any self-chosen cult whatever, that is, not commanded by God but devised by man; but a superstitious cult, as our Interpreter rightly turned it; or a false religion, as St. Jerome expounds in the letter to Algasia, question 10. Calvin would have had to prove, then, that the cult of relics is superstitious or false, if he wished it to be rebuked by Paul.
To the fourth. I deny that there is danger of idolatry; nay, the cult of relics is a detestation of all idolatry. For the martyrs died to destroy idolatry; he therefore who honours the relics of a martyr shows that he rejoices in the destruction of idolatry. And rightly the Christians in Rufinus, book 1, chapter 35, when they translated the relics of Babylas, sang with a loud voice: “Let them be all confounded that adore graven things.”
To that about candles I say that candles lit before the tombs of the martyrs are not a sign of the adoration owed to God. For candles are not offered to the martyrs as sacrifices, but are lit as a sign of gladness. For fire is wont to be lit to signify gladness even in profane matters. Besides, fire is a sign of glory; hence fire was carried everywhere before the Roman emperors and empresses, as Herodian witnesses, book 1. And the saints now enjoy true glory, and reign and rule with Christ in heaven, so that fire may rightly be lit to their memory. Lastly, fire is a sign of life; and so by candles we declare that the souls of the saints live, and that the bodies themselves will live in their time.
To Jerome I say that when he says of those who light candles before relics, “I grant they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge,” he speaks of those who light candles thinking that the martyrs are brightened by them. For Vigilantius had said in irony: “Great honour such men give the most blessed martyrs, whom they think to be brightened by the meanest little candles.” Of those, then, who light candles with such a false opinion, Jerome says that they have zeal, but not according to knowledge.
And that Jerome thought it simply good that candles be lit before relics is plain, first, because in the letter to Riparius he himself brings forward the use of lighting candles as an argument for the cult of the saints; and in the book against Vigilantius he says: “The apostles too once complained that the ointment was wasted, but they were corrected by the voice of the Lord. For neither did Christ need ointment, nor do the martyrs need the light of candles; and yet that woman did it in honour of Christ, and the devotion of her mind is accepted; and whoever light candles according to their faith have their reward.” And below: “That was done to idols, and therefore is to be detested; this is done to the martyrs, and therefore is to be received.”
Second, the same is plain because in Jerome's time the use of such candles was not only among silly women but also among bishops and the whole Church, as is plain from Paulinus, Theodoret and the others cited above.
Third: if it were superstition to light candles by day before relics, it would also be so to light them when the Gospel is read, and when the dead are carried to the tomb. And that candles were wont to be lit at the Gospel through the whole East Jerome teaches in the same place against Vigilantius; and that they were lit at a funeral the same teaches in the Life of Paula, where he says that at Paula's funeral even the bishops carried lighted candles.
To the Council of Elvira we answered, when we treated of purgatory, that the council forbade it because it was done after the manner of the heathens, among whom the Christians then lived, and so on.
To Augustine I say that he calls adorers of tombs certain people who (as he then thought) offered a sacrifice of bread and wine and other foods to the shades of the dead, and then gorged and made themselves drunk with the same food and wine. For so he speaks: “I know,” he says, “adorers of tombs; I know that there are many who drink most luxuriously over the dead, and offering feasts to corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and count their gluttony and drunkenness as religion.” But Augustine wrote this at the beginning of his conversion. Afterwards he did indeed find fault with that custom, but not as idolatry. For in book 6 of the Confessions, chapter 2, he says that his mother was wont to do it out of piety, but that at Milan she was forbidden by Ambrose's clergy. For Ambrose had forbidden that custom lest occasion be given to drunkenness, and because it seemed akin to the superstition of the heathens, although it was done by the Christians with a sound mind. The same Augustine too, book 8 of the City of God, chapter 27, says that the better Christians do not do it; but that those who do it do not sacrifice to the dead martyrs, but set foods on the tombs of the saints that they may be sanctified by God through the merits of the martyrs.
And that Augustine did not think it evil to venerate the tombs of the saints is plain from letter 42, to the people of Madaura: “You see,” he says, “the most eminent summit of the noblest empire, with its diadem laid aside, making supplication at the tomb of the fisherman Peter.” And note that Augustine writes this to idolaters, to show that the cult of idols had been destroyed by the Christians. Besides, when Augustine finds fault with the adorers of tombs, he surely does not find fault with Chrysostom and Jerome, but with crowds of the unlearned. Yet Chrysostom, in the sermon on Saints Juventinus and Maximus, says, “Let us adore the tombs of the martyrs”; and Jerome, to Marcella, that she should move to Bethlehem, says that the tombs and ashes of John the Baptist, Eliseus and Abdias are rightly adored by the faithful in Palestine.
Gaudentius of Brescia, a contemporary of Ambrose, treatise 4 on Exodus: “For the sake of their gluttony,” he says, “men first began to prepare dinners for the dead which they themselves would eat; after this they dared to celebrate even sacrilegious sacrifices to them; although they themselves no less sacrifice funeral offerings to their dead, while, pouring out wine over the tables of the tombs with hands trembling from drunkenness, they stammer out the spirit,” and so on. Where he rebukes that custom as left over from the error of the heathens. And so perhaps a few did sacrifice to the dead, who also are rightly rebuked; but not for that reason is all cult of the sacred relics to be abolished, because an excessive cult has justly been rebuked.
To the fifth argument, we deny that the relics which are set out publicly in the churches to be venerated are counterfeit. For the Church has always taken diligent care that frauds should not happen, and especially after the decree of the Lateran Council, in which it is provided that no relics be received publicly without the authority of the supreme pontiff.
To that of Augustine, “if indeed of martyrs,” I say it is no wonder if Augustine doubted of the relics which certain private men carried about. But we do not treat of the relics which private men carry about, but of those which are kept publicly in the churches.
To that about many bodies I say that in various places there are parts of the same bodies, but they are named from the part as the whole. For, as Basil writes in the oration on the forty martyrs, the whole forty martyrs were said to be in various cities, because each city had a part of them. Theodoret too, book 8, On the Martyrs, says: “The bodies of the martyrs are seldom found whole each in one monument, but divided and distributed into various places.”
Lastly St. John Chrysostom, in the book That Christ Is God, says that the apostle Peter lies both at Rome and at Constantinople, though at Constantinople there was nothing but some small portion, since the body itself was buried at Rome, as the same Chrysostom testifies, homily [32?] on the epistle to the Romans. But let us hear his words from the book now cited: “At Rome,” he says, “which is the most royal of cities, leaving all else, kings and governors and soldiers run to the tombs of a fisherman and a tentmaker; and at Constantinople our kings think it a great favour, not if their bodies are buried near the apostles, but even outside their porch, and kings become the doorkeepers of fishermen.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum
V.K iis, quae dicla sunl, non erit dilHoile argu-
mcnla solvcre. quae initio proposuimus.
Jgilur ad Primum iirgumenlum, quod eral Joan-
nisWiclcfcx evangclio dcpromptum, respondc-
mus, Dominum non rcprehendcre Judaeos, quod
aediticareut, vel oruiirenl monumenta prophela-
rum, sed quod non imitarentur eos, quorum mo-
nuinenla oruabant, sed potius eos, qui illos occi-
derunt, alqueita seipsos condemnarent. Sic enira
exponunt eum locum fere omnes Patres, utHilari-
us, Ilicronymus. Ctirysostoraus, Theophylactus iii
ciip. 23. Miitthaei, el Ambrosius ac Beda in cap.
11. Lucae.
rroplieticorum, inquit Arabrosius, aediflcatio-
ne tumfdorum, sceleris eos, qui occiderant, ar-
fjuchant. et SLmilium aemulatione factorum se
(pboque doclarabant paternae iniquitatis haere-
de^: non i.gitur aedificatio, sed aemulatio loco
criminis aesUmatur. ILiec ille. Et Clirysoslomus
liom. 73. in Malth. Non quia aedificanl, inquit,
7i,ec quia Patres suos accusant, vae illis dixil,
sed quoniam ita facientes, et ila diccntes Patres
siios condemnare audebant, cum ipsi pejora
commitlerenl.
Dice/i: Al Luc. 11. Dominus ait: Vrofeclo tesli- _
ficamiiii,quia consentitis operibus Patrum vestro- |
rum, quia illi proplietas occiderunt, vos autem
aedi[icatis eorum sepulchra. Ubi videlur Domi-
nus iiccusare ipsam aediGcalioncm taraquam tesli-
moniurn consensus in necem propheiarum. |
Unspoudct Clirysostomus Io(;o cilato: Judaeos
a(!di(iciu'e solitos sepulctira prophcliirum non ul
honorarcut propliclas, sed ut ostendereni vires, et
polcnliam majorum suorum, qui prophetas occi-
dere poluerunl. Licel enim Ju(Jaei non esse hanc
suam intentiouem dicercnt, sed omuiuo conlrari-
Lllil.ll SL(.l.M)LS
l.i
Hni; laiiiuii rnvcr.i liaiic, rnissis tioniiii iiiIciiIioihmii
piilt'l,(|iiiii oecitliiro t|iiii*>ri!l) nil l)i)iiiiiiiitii |irti|iliiv
l.iniiii.
lliinDiiyiiiiis iii iM|). 2.1. Millli. |i.iitl(i .ililcr r\-
|)iiiiil,ilici( ciiliii iiiilii|iiiis Jiiil.iiMis r\ Mipcrliiii oc-
citlis.sc iMiiplicliis-, rct-iMili(ir''s iiiilcin <u sii|)iM'l)iii
(tl niiiliiliDin) iiiMliticitssii scpiilclirit ciiriiii'ltMii ,
cl proiiiilc co riicli) ciinsciiMSM" opiMiliiis P.ilriiiii
juoritiii.
Oiijt^l.iniis siiiis iiccuiiiiiio l.ilc i*\piiiiil, iMiiii. ipii
NCpclll «llll.slllll. pilsM> lll r.l((M'C Vl.>l Ul IkiIIiiICI
iiKirliiiiiit, vcl (ii cDiiiplciil iicliiiit liiiiiiiciilitc; tinli-
ll.iri(>. (Mlllll llllllllllCS DlMMllllttl, (>l piHtCil S|>|)l>|llin-
tur,iil sccliis l.ilciil. .htliiiM iiiilciit cliiiiitsi (lircrciil
su acililicjtrn s(i|)itlc!irii prDplt(!liiriiiii. iil ros liDno-
r;ircitl, laiitcn iii fitc(MM> vKlcli.iiilnr, nl CDniplrr(>nl
opcra P.ilruiii snDriiin, til piilcl c\ (>d, (|!iiiil ipsi
poslcit inaiDrcs pioplicliis, hlcsl, (llirislitin.cl iipo-
slolos iili.fuos occiiicriint.
Ad Scciiiiilitin ilico: lii mDitiiinciilis iitlcssc. nl
niiiiiiiutin, niciiKinaiii SiiiictDruia; niun inil(> scpnj.
clira sanctoruin apud vclc.rcs piissini iticnnlur iiitv
niDriac. Porro mcmoriii sanclDruin lionoriiliiliscst.
Alioipii iicc in sc|)iilcliro (ilirisli ailcsl niinc ani-
ma, vcl caro ('Itrisli, cl lamiMi ju\la IsaiiU! riip.
II. cril scpulcltriiin cjns ;,'l()riDsnin. Uico praclc-
rcn. in scpiilcliris Siuiclorniii invcniri a]|(>.r;im piir-
lont snl)s(iinlii)(> ipsorum. iilcsl, m;ilcriiiiii illiun
ipsani,quain Spiritus sanclorum anunarunl, clnir-
sum ;inim;il)unl.
Ail Primiiin ('alvini dc .Moysi corporo mullis
modis rcspondcri polcsl. IIil;irius in cap. 17. Miil-
lli. Ambrosius lib. 1. dc Ciin (Mp. 2. el Orcijorius
Nyssciuis in vi!;i .Moysis diiMiul. .Moyscin iiondiim
cssc nuirUuini. cl proindo, uoc si^puliuni.sod lr;iiis-
I;ilum cum llciioc ol llclia: id quod cli;im ;iliqui
rocouliorum do(M>nl. Sod id iioii lacilo dcfcndi pn-
l(>st: cl lirmis arpunicntis cam sciUonliain oppu-
j;n;il Hupcrlus in cap. uU. Dcnler. Philo in iinc
lihroruin do vil;i Moysi doccl, morlnnm qnidcni
Hloyscin cl scpnllnni, scd ad pIori;iin Moysi pcr-
tincre, quod scpnllus sil in scpulcliro lain aclini-
riiiulo. ul luiHus Iiominuiu digiius luoril unqnain
illud consi)icero. Quo cli;im vidolur allnderc Oc-
cumcuius in cpisl. Jud;ic. iMobabile lamcn csl
(luod scribil Cbrysoslomus liom. o. in M;illh, oc-
(Millalum fuisse Moysi scpulcbrum, ne a Judacis
colcrctur pro Doo.
Dices:i\ec coluernnl Moyscm vivcnlcm pro Dco,
croo multo minns coluisscnl morluum. Rcspon-
dco: Vivonloin non colucriinl. quia (pjolidio ab il-
lo andiobanl. unum esse vcrum Deum, sc aulcm
illius scrvu'u:Al posl morlcm rccordali mirabilium
cjus, el non audienles verba cjus,faciIo poluisscnt
odduci ul crederenl esse Dcum, cumque adora-
reni si scirent ubi esscl.praesertimquia valdc crc-
dibile csl corpus cjus, licel inorluum. conscrvas-
se adbuc spleiuiorcm vullus ol dccorcm, qucm an-
tca babcbal. sicul mnllis sanclorum accidii. Ex-
emplum babemus iu scrpcnle acneo: nam .^um.
21. jubenle 31oysi aspiciebanl Judaci taoli a scr-
pcntihus in illum aimeum scrpentem, cl curabnn-
lur: nec lamcn eum ador;d)anl ruHu bdriae. qiiia
nimirum Moy.ses dixeral illis.serponloni illum nnn
cHso DiMni, «ed »1^1111111 iliiitl/ivit nilijll^: nl 4.
Hc^. tH. i>li|i>in Horpnnli lnmqiKiiii n<'(i »(ierin(M*
liiiiit, ciim l:iincii j.iiii ntill.i opiTarcliir inir;iiMil;i,
ul idiMi iib |'i/.i'c|ii.i rMiifr.icliin fuil.
DitM>.s:|i|iMii p(>riculiiiii t-sl tiiinc lii rcli'|iiii)» iilio-
riiiii s.iiicloniiti. |(cspi>nt|c(i: Kiilhiim vssi'.: iiinii
piipiiliis Jiid.icDriun iir» iciiipdrn propiMiHiHHiinuf
cr.il :id idDlDl.iinaiii.il 1 iil cti.iiii viIiiIds iiiircoH ro-
lcrol; IJidi^ pnsl c.iptivitiiliMii h:ibyliiiitc<iiii, f|iiiii
popiiliH illc itfui timpliiM ('(ilitil idiili vidcniiig
Driiiii ilhtstr.isst; Hcpulrlini ii Is.iini!. K/.ccliii-liK,
lliori-iniiK*, Klisiinl, Abilinft, cl iilioriun niultis ini*
raciilis, t>t i^r.iliitii biihiti^^-^o ritllnin, ipii ii<-siliiis
coiiiMi cxliibcbiiiitr, ni l'!|ii|dt;iiiiii> c.l llicroiiyiiius
tritdiint. A Ido, ipiod niini piiini csl iiiitlitiiiii apuil
(Ihristiitnos, iit itliqiti s;iiti-tDriiitt rclKpiiis divinoii
honoros dclulcrinl. .Ncc dcsnnl iit Kcclosia. tpii (;i
lil(>ris. («t scrinoiiilMis populos dociiant, quisciil-
liis rcliqiiiis dt>I)(!;ilnr.
Ad Si'citndiiin dicD 2. <'.Driitllt. ."». riiiii dicilur:
Kl!<i Wivimwi ('.livislntn i><'i'nn'lnin v(ivn<nn, noil
jani mm nnvinina, pcr Ciirnciii iiUcIligi morliilil;i-
lcin ct p;issd)ilil;it'-in: cl sonsiiitt cs^^o. si nDvimus
aIiqu;indD Christnin ntDrt;il(MU ol [);)ssibiliMii. niinc
non itoviimis. nisi immorliilcin cl impassihilcm;
siciit I. CDrinlh. \'i. tli'-itiir: ('.nvo ol s(in<ini>i rc-
ijniini /)('/ nnn jtitxnidfhnnl. \'A llcbr. ."». Qni iii
dii-htis (uivnia snnc pvacoa, stipplirdlionns^ino nh-
InliL (?/(,'. Sic cxponiinl omitos. ChrysoslDimis.Thc-
odi.rctus, Thcophylaclns, Occumenius.Ambrosiiis,
Ansclmiis olc.
Eodcm modo rcspondil VII. synodus acl. 0. to-
mo i. cid''nt ar|.;nmciito: ipio.l ;ih lcDnomai-bis o!)-
jcctum fucr;it. i'bi eli;ini ;idililiii- t(>slimDiiium .s;in-
cli Cyrilli. Kl quod iion vclil apostolns doccrc
(quo(l C.ilviniis ait ) osso ohlivioni lr;idcndnin. cl
missunt f;i(-icndum (luidqnid in Chrislo ciirnalc
fuil. idcst. omnciu m(Mnori;im buni.-.nihilis cjus. ul
solum dc spiritii cl divinitatc co{,Mloinus, palct;
nnni Paulus 1. Corinlb. II. dicil Siicnimonlum cu-
cbarisliiio inslilulum in mcmori;iin passionis; d
i\(\(V\\:Qnnlifi^cAimqm mandiicahilis imnem hnnc,
cl cnlicpm bihclis, morlcm Domini annnncvthi-
hilis donccvenial: (i[ \\)sc. nihil sacpius repclil,
quam crucem el passionem cl morlcm Domini.
El quomodo. qiiacso. juxla Isaiam cap. 11. cssct
scpulcbrum ojus tjloriosum, si debcrcmns oblivi-
sci morlis Domini? Dcniquc vel dcbcmus rccogila-
re bencficia Domini, vcl non: Si non. ingralissimi
sumus. conlradicimusquc Paulo. qui Ilcbr. 12. ait:
Recofjilale eum.qui Uilem adversum scmelipsuni
a peccnloribus suslimiil conlradiclionem. Si sio
erfio debemus incarualionem. nalivitalem, pnssio-
neni ol morlem Dnmini cogilarc.
Ad Torlium dico. Primo, cullum reliquiaruin
non psse cullum volunt;irium. idesl, ab bominibns
cxcofiUalum. scd css?. a Dco ir..spiratum. ut ptUet
ex Scriplmis cilatis: nam Scriplura approbal cul-
lum sepulcbri. fimbriae Cbristi: ilcm umbrac Pe-
Iri. sudariorum ct semicincliorum Pauli elc.
Dico Secundo. apud Paulum Coloss.2. sO^AoOor,-
cy.ziav non signillcarecuHum qucmodocumque vo-
limtariura.idcst.non praeceplum aDeo.sed ab ho-
mine pxcogilnium; ssd cullum sup?r?l:r:csur3.. ut
472
DE «ELIQUIIS S.VAr/rOUUM
nosler Interprcs recle verlil: sive falsam religio-
nem, ul exponit sancliis Ilieronymus in cpisl. ad
Algasiam (piaest. 10. Probandnm igilur essct Cal-
viiu) culliim rcliquiarura essc superstiliosum, vel
fiilsum, si vellet esse rcprcliensum a Paulo.
Ad Quarlum; nego pcriculum esse idololalriac,
immo cultiis reliquiarum esl dotcslatio omnis ido-
lolalrine. Nam marlyres mortui sunt, ut idololatri-
am dcstruercnl; qui crgo martyris rcliquias colit,
indicat sc gaudere de idololalriae dcstructionc: et
recte Cliristiani apud Rutfinum lib. 1. cap. S.').
cum transferrent reliquias Babylae cauebant ma^
gna voce: Confundaniur omnes, qui adorant
sculptilia.
Ad illud de cereis, dico: Cercos accensos coram
lumulis marlyrum non csse signum adoralionis,
Dco debitac; nam non offeruntur cerei marlyribus
tamquam sacrificia, sed accenduntur in signura
laetiliae. Ignis enim accendi solet ad lactitiam si-
gnificandam etiam in rcbus profanis. Practerea, i-
gnis signum est gloriae, unde imperatoribus ro-
manis, et impcratricibus ubiquc ignis praefercba-
lur, leste Ilcrodiano lib. 1. Sancti aulem vera glo-
ria nunc fruunlur, et cum Cliristo regnant, alque
imperant iu coelis, ut merilo illorum memoriae i-
gnis acccndi possit. Denique ignis signum esl vi-
lae, proinde cereis protestamur vivcre sanctorura
animas, el ipsa corpora suo tempore victura.
Ad Hieronymum dico: Eum, cum ait (\e iis qui
accendunt cereos coram reliquiis (ConfUeor zc-
lum Dei habcnt, secl non sccundum scientiam)
loqui de iis, qui cereos accendunt, cxistimautes
inde martyres illuslrari; nam Vigiianlius dixerat,
per ironiam: Magnum lionorem praebeiil hwjus-
modi homines beatissimis marl.yribus, quos pu-
tant dc vilissimis cereolis illuslrari. De Iiis ergo
(jui cura tali opinione falsa cereos accendunt,Uie-
ronyraus dicit, eos zelura Iiabere, sed non secun-
duni scienliara.
Quod autem Hieronymus absolute putaveril bo-
num coram reliquiis accendi cereos, patet Primo:
Quia in epist. ad Riparium ipsCmel affert in argu-
menlum cullus sanctorum usum accendendi cere-
os:et libro in Vigilantium Q\{'.Caussabanlur quon-
dam et aposloli, quod- perirct unguenlum, sed
D.omini voce correpli sunt. Nequc enim Christus
cgebal unguento, nec martyres lumine cereo-
rum: el tamen illa mulicr in honore Chrisli fe-
cit, devolioque mentis cjus recipilur: et quicum-
que acceridunt cereos secundum fidem suam,
habcnt mcrcedem. Et infra: llludfiebatidolis, et
idcirco delestandum est;hoc fit marlyribus,et id-
circo recipiendum cst.
Secundo: Idem patet, quia Hieronymi tempore
crat usus ejusraodi ccreorum non solum apud
mulierculas, sed etiam apud episcopos ot univer-
sam Ecclesiara, ut palet ex Paulino, Theodoreto,
Cl aliis supra citatis.
Tcrlio: Si esset superslitio accendere cereosin-
lerdiu coram reliquiis, essct etiam acccndere cum
legitur evangelium, ct cum morlui defcruntur ad
scpulchrum. Atquc consuevisse ad evangelium ac-
ccndi ccrcos in tolooriente, docel Hicronymus i-
bjdem cont^ra Tigiianlium: et accendi in funere,
docel ipsc idem in vita Paulae, ubi dicit in funere
Paulae cliam ci)iscopos cereos acccnsos geslasse.
Ad concilium clibertinum rcspondimus cum a-
gercmus de purgalorio, concilium id prohibuisse,
quia fiebal more gentilium, inler quos tunc Chri-
stiani versabantur clc.
Ad Augustinura dico: Eum vocaro sepulchrorum
adoratores quosdain, qui (ut spe putabat) sacrifi-
cium paniset vini, aliarumquc epularum Manibus
defunctorum offercbant, et deinde iisdem cibis et
vino se ingurgitabant et inebriabant. Sic enim lo-
quilur: ISovi, inquit, sepulclirorum adoralores ,
novi multos essc, qui luxuriosissime super mor-
tuos bibant, et epulas cadaveribus exhibentes,su-
pcr sepultos seipsos sepeliant , e\, voracitates , e-
brietatesquc suas deputent religioni. Sed haec
scripsit Augustinus initio conversionis suae. Post-
modum autcm reprehendit quidera illam consue-
tudinem, scd non taraquam idololatriam; nara lib.
0. Confess. cap. 2. dicit, matrem suam consupvis-
se ex pietate id facere: sed Mediolani ab Arabrosii
clericis fuisse prohibitam. Arabrosius enira prohi-
buerat istam consueludiuem, ne daretur occasio c-
brietali, etquia videbalur affiiiis superstitioni gen-
lilium, licet integro animo a Christianis id fieret.
Idem etiam Auguslinus lib. 8.de Civit.Dei,cap. 27.
dicit, meliores Christianos id non facere, eos au-
tem, qui id faciunt, non sacrificare defunctis mar-
tyribus,sed ponere super tumulos sanctorum epu-
las ul a Deo per merita martyrum sanctificenlur.
Quod autem Augustinusnon putaveritmalura ve-
nerari sepulchra sanctorum, patet ex epist. 42. ad
Mandaurenses: \idetis, inquit, imperii nobilissi'
mi eminenlissimum cubnen ad sepulc]irum pi-
scaloris Pelri submisso diademate supplicarc, Et
Kota, Auguslinum haec scribere idololalris, ut o-
slenderet idolorura cultum a Christianis destru-
clum. Practerea Augustinus cura reprehendit se-
pulchrorum adoratores , cerle non reprehendit
Ciirysostomum et Hieronymum, sed turbas impe-
ritorum. Atqui Chrysostomus serm. in sanclos Ju-
ventium et Maximum dicit: Tumulos martyrum a-
doremus; et Hieronymus ad Marcellam, ul migrct
Belhlehem, dicil, sepulchra et cineres Joannis Ba-
ptistae. Elisaei, el Abdiae merito adorari a Qdeli-
bus in Palaeslina.
Gaudentius Brixianus Arabrosii aequalis, tract.
4. in Exodum: GulaeAnquii, sua caussa primum
coeperu7it homines prandia mortuis praeparare,
quae ijm comederent; post hoc sacrificia eliam
ausi sunt eis sacrilega celebrare , quamvis nec
ipsi minus mortuis suis sacrificcnt parenlalia ,
dum super sepulclirorum mcnsas tremulis ebrie-
tale manibus vina fundentes, spiritum balbu-
tiunt etc. ubi arguit morem illum lamquam ex
gentiliuro errore relictum. Itaque fortasse pauci
quidam mortuis sacrificabant, quietiam merilo re-
prehendunlur, sed non propterea omnis cullus sa-
crarum reliquiarum abolendus est , quia niraius
cullus jure reprchensus est.
Ad quintum argumcntum, negamus reliquias ,
quae publicc in lemplis exponunlur venerandae ,,
essesupposilitias. Scmper enim Ecclcsia diligen-
ter curavit, ne fraudes fierent, et praecipue post
Lllll.ll SKCl.MtCS
471
(l(MM'l>llHII COncilii lllll>l'!lll(*llsis, lll lllllltir |-I'lil|llilll!
|)iil)lii-(^ ri!(-i|)iiiiiliir sliii) iiiii-lonliiti'. nitiiniii poiili-
ll(;is.
Ail illml Aiit;nsliiii (si l(inir)i nitirliiniiii) tlico :
Noii iiiiiiii iiiii,si Aii^Misliiiiis iliihiliih.il i|i> i'i<lii|iiiis,
(|iiiis i|iiiiliiin priviili hoii)iii(<s (-ir('iioirt<i-i>h;iiil. Ndh
iiiih'111 th> i-(>li(piiis ii^iiniis.ipiat! piihlit-t! iii Ifinplis
i-onstTViinlor.
Ail illiiil, ih^ pliirihns i'ot'pot-il)iis, ilico, in viiriis
locis cssc p;irh's coriimilrin corpoiiini. s(>il ilfiio-
niiniiri .-i p:ii lc loliiin; ti:iin, nl scnhil ii.isiliiis o-
riil. in K). iniirlyrcs, loli inarlyrcs Mt. (lic.chiinlnr
liiiic. css(; in viiriis nrhihns, ipiiii iptiiclihcl civiliis
liiihclial piirlcin cornin. riicodorclits cliiini lih. H,
(lc niiirlyrihns iliril: MiirlyrMin corporii niro inv(!-
niri iir.c^rii in uiioiilitpio ntonntneiilo,sc(losso di-
visii ct (lislrlhiilii in viirin locii.
Pcniipto; ."^..loiinnos (llirysoslomns in lihrn.tpiod
r.hrislns sil l)(nis, iipostolntn IN^trnni (U lloiniic cl
Oonsliuiliiiopoli jiiccrc tlicil, ciitn tiiincn (liMistiin-
liiiopoli nihil csscl, nisi !iliipi;\ p;n-lic.nlii;niiiit cor-
pns ipsntn Uomno osso sopnltntn rtlctn (Ihrysoslo-
imis lcsliilnT hotnil. '.Vl. in cpisl. atl lloiiiiinos. Sctl
vorha cjiis andianuis cx lihro irun ciliito; Honuui ,
impiit, r/uac urhiutii csl roijiiUssiinu . rolicliii o-
mnibiis, ad scpulchra piscitlnria ct pcUionia cur-
runl rcijcs, cl priu-sidci^. cl mililcs: cl Connldvli-
nopoli r('|/('s 7i()s//-i nuujnuin ijraliunipuldnl.niui
tii prope aposlolos, scd si vcl cxlra corum vcsli-
huht. corpora stui scpcUantiir, fiantquc jriscato-
runi osliarii rcgcs.