Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 25: With What Kind of Cult Images Are Adored; the True Cross
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 25. With What Kind of Cult Images Are Adored
The fifth conclusion. The cult which is owed to images in themselves and properly is a certain imperfect cult, which analogically and by reduction belongs to the species of that cult which is owed to the exemplar. I explain: to images there properly belongs neither latria, nor hyperdulia, nor dulia, nor any other of those which are given to an intelligent nature. For a lifeless thing, without reason, is not capable of such cults; but a certain lower cult, varied according to the variety of the images. And so to the images of the saints dulia is not properly owed, but a lower cult, which can be called dulia in a certain respect, or dulia analogically, or by reduction. Likewise to the images of the Blessed Virgin hyperdulia is not owed simply, but hyperdulia in a certain respect, or analogically and by reduction.
Lastly, to the images of Christ true latria is not owed, and simply, but a cult beyond comparison lower, which yet is reduced to latria as the imperfect to the perfect. It is proved: as the image stands to its exemplar, so the cult of the image stands to the cult of the exemplar; but the image is the exemplar itself analogically and in a certain respect, for a painted man is a man in a certain respect and analogically; therefore to the image too is owed the cult owed to the exemplar itself, imperfect and analogical.
Besides, the image is reduced to the species of the exemplar; for a painted man and a painted horse differ in species, because a true man and a true horse differ in species; therefore the cult of the image too is reduced to the cult of the exemplar. And perhaps blessed Thomas and blessed Bonaventure and others meant only to say this, when they said that the image and the exemplar are honoured with the same cult; for so Gabriel interprets their opinion; and if it is so, we all agree.
From these we have also what is to be said of the true cross of the Lord, of the nails, the thorns and the other relics. For all these are to be honoured with a lesser cult than Christ or the saints whose relics they are, yet with such a cult as analogically and by reduction belongs to the species of the cult with which Christ or the saints are honoured. For relics deserve honour for this reason, that by reason of contact, or in some other way, they have a bearing on those whose relics they are.
Chapter 26. On the Adoration of the Cross
Although the cross of the Lord is venerated partly among relics and partly among images (for that true cross on which the Lord hung is to be held among the most precious relics because of the contact of the sacred body and blood, and not only the whole of it, but also its small pieces; while that same cross, inasmuch as it represents the figure of the Lord crucified, and likewise the other crosses like it, are counted among the sacred images), yet because special errors and special arguments are found about the cross, we have thought that a special disputation should be set up about it too.
It was, then, in the first place the heresy of Claudius of Turin, who beyond the other images cursed the cross of the Lord, on the witness of Jonas, book 1; and Claudius lived about the year of the Lord 800. At the same time in the East the Paulicians taught the same, so called from a certain Paul, on the witness of Euthymius in the Panoply, part 2, title 21. Then about the year of the Lord 1130 there arose Peter of Bruis and Henry, who likewise attacked the cross of the Lord and its cult, on the witness of Peter of Cluny, who at that very time wrote a long and learned letter against them to all the bishops. About the same time, or a little after, there arose in the East the Bogomils, who taught the same with the same arguments, on the witness of Euthymius, Panoply, part 2, title 23.
No less afterwards did the Wycliffites detest the honour of the cross, in Thomas Waldensis, volume 3, title 20; Calvin, book [1?] of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 7; the Magdeburgers, Century 4, chapter [4?], column 302, and chapter 6, columns 458 and 460, where they also shamelessly lie that the use of the sign of the cross was new in the fourth age. For Tertullian, in the book On the Soldier's Crown, mentions the sign of the cross, though he flourished in the second age. As they lie too, Century 7, chapter 6, column 191, that Pope Sergius was the first author of the cross being adored and kissed. For Pope Sergius sat in the year of the Lord 688; but Evagrius mentions the adoration and kissing of the cross, book 4, chapter [26?], who is a hundred years older than Sergius. Jerome too mentions it, in the letter to Marcella that she should move to Bethlehem.
The arguments of the Bogomils and Petrobrusians were three. First, because the cross brought pain and shame to Christ; therefore it is to be detested by those who love Christ.
Second, because a son would be judged foolish and impious who loved and honoured the gibbet on which his father had been hanged.
Third, because if we must adore all crosses because Christ hung on a cross, we must adore also all tombs, because the Lord rested in a tomb; and all mangers, because he was laid in a manger; and all pillars, lances, sponges, scourges and so on. Nay, and all asses (says Claudius), because Christ rode on an ass.
Fourth, Claudius argues: the enemies of Christ rejoiced at the Lord's passion and grieved at his resurrection; and on the contrary his friends grieved at the passion and rejoiced at the resurrection; therefore those who honour the cross and love it imitate the enemies of Christ.
Fifth, the Wycliffites argued, in Waldensis: if we adore the cross by reason of contact, or because it was the instrument of the passion, we must adore also the lips of Judas, which touched the Lord's mouth in kissing, and the hand of that servant who touched the Lord when he struck him a blow; for all these touched the Lord and were instruments of the passion.
Sixth, the Centuriators argue: it is superstition to attribute power to characters; but the Papists attribute to the figure of the cross the power of driving away demons and all evils; therefore they are superstitious. Which objections will be answered below, in chapter 30. But first we will explain the matter. We will say, then, three things: first, of the cross itself; second, of the image of the cross; third, of the passing sign of the cross.
Chapter 27. On the True Cross of the Lord
As to the first, before I come to the proofs, some things are to be noted about the figure of the cross itself. It is to be known, then, that the cross was made of three pieces of wood, of which one was long, to which the body clung; another crosswise, laid over the long one, to which the hands were fixed; the third piece was fixed into the long piece, that the feet of the crucified might stand on it and could be fixed with nails. Irenaeus testifies to this, book 2, chapter 42: “The shape,” he says, that is, the figure, “of the cross has five ends and summits: two in length, two in breadth, one in the middle, on which rests he who is fixed with the nails.” Justin has the same, in the dialogue with Trypho, past the middle.
But whether the crosswise piece was laid on top of the long piece, so that the long piece did not stand out upward, is not certain. For Bede, in the questions on Genesis, where he speaks of the victory of Abraham, says that the cross was like the Greek letter T; and such, Jerome teaches on chapter 9 of Ezechiel, was once the Hebrew Thau. But blessed Augustine, letter 120, chapter [26?], says that the long piece stood out above the crosswise one. And this is more probable; for it agrees better with the words of Irenaeus, and with the words of the Apostle to the Ephesians, chapter 3, where, alluding to the figure of the cross, he names the height, the depth, the length and the breadth. Yet those who say that the cross was like the letter Thau say what is true, because it differed little.
But what Bede writes in his Collections and Flowers, that the cross was made of four kinds of wood, of cedar, pine, cypress and box, and what is written in the Scholastic History about the wood taken out of the sheep-pool and so on, have not the testimonies of the ancients, nor do they seem probable.
But this is not to be unknown, that the ancients added something for the sake of mystery, which is kept even now in part. For they carried the long piece upward, and bent it in the manner of a pastoral staff, that it might show the Greek letter P; a little lower they put two crosswise pieces after the likeness of the cross of St. Andrew, which showed the Greek letter X; so that those two letters by abbreviation signified Christ. Below that they put a crosswise piece, which truly completes the cross, and from it hung a spread-out banner. Below the crosswise piece was the long piece like a spear; at the lowest part they added a handle for carrying it conveniently. All these signified that the cross is the standard of Christ the emperor. For the figure itself bore witness to the cross; the two letters X and P showed the name of Christ; the standard was known from the banner, the spear and the handle. See John Pierius Valerianus, On Hieroglyphic Signs, book 50, and Primasius, book 1 on the Apocalypse, where he calls this very sign the monogram and sign of Christ. Such almost was the labarum of Constantine too. For, as Eusebius reports, book 9 of the History, chapter 9, Constantine brought into the form of the cross the labarum, which was wont to be carried before the emperors and adored by the soldiers, yet so that it did not lose the form of a standard either. And Eusebius describes the labarum itself in book 1 of the Life of Constantine, where he says that it was a spear all covered with gold, on whose top was set a most precious crown; below it a crosswise horn in the form of a cross, from which hung a purple banner most richly adorned with gold and gems, at whose lower part were seen the images of Constantine and his sons. And on the spear itself, under the crown, were the letters of the name of Christ.
Now the common way of crucifying was not, as many think, by binding with ropes, but by fixing with nails. Painters indeed are wont to paint Christ alone fixed with nails, but the thieves and St. Peter with ropes. But it is not so; for all were fixed with nails; nay, and all carried their own cross, and before that were beaten with scourges. See Plutarch, On the Delays of Divine Vengeance; Tully, the seventh action against Verres; Nonius Marcellus on the word patibulum, who speaks thus: “Let him carry the patibulum through the city, then let him be fixed to the cross”; Macrobius, book 1 of the Saturnalia, chapter 11; Josephus, book 6 On the Jewish War, chapter 12. And in the passion of St. Andrew the proconsul says: “On this cross which you praise, I order you to be bound.” For when St. Andrew was to be crucified, beyond the common custom, the same proconsul ordered the lictors to hang him on the cross with ropes, and [not] fixed with nails, that he might not die quickly. [The top of page 507 is merged across columns in the scan; this paragraph is rendered from what reads.] Add that for this reason it was doubted which of the three crosses found was the cross of the Lord, because all three had like form, and nails, and so on. See Rufinus, book 10 of the History, chapter 8.
These things then set down first, we come to the arguments. And first, that the wood of the cross is venerable is proved by a reason taken from the Scriptures. For Scripture testifies that Christ was not crucified by chance, or unwillingly, or for his own sins, but that he himself freely chose the cross, and chose it as the altar of the highest sacrifice by which God was to be appeased; as the ladder for himself to the kingdom; as the instrument of the deliverance of the human race; and lastly as the instrument by which he was to conquer the devil and triumph over him. From which it follows that that true cross was honoured by God himself, and ought to be honourable and venerable to all of us.
That he chose it freely is plain from Isaias, chapter 53: “He was offered because it was his own will.” John 10: “I lay down my life. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself.” In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2: “This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have crucified and slain.” Acts 3: “God, who foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, hath so fulfilled.” Acts 4: “For of a truth there assembled together in this city Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, to do what thy hand and thy counsel decreed to be done.”
That the cross was the altar of the highest sacrifice is plain, because Christ crucified is himself the highest sacrifice, in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7. Hence to the Colossians 1: “Making peace through the blood of his cross,” that is, through his blood shed on the cross as on an altar. And the stone set up and anointed and called the house of God by Jacob, Genesis 28, signified this.
That the cross was a ladder for Christ to the kingdom: John 12, “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.)” To the Philippians 2: “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him,” and so on.
That it was the instrument of deliverance very many figures teach, which John Damascene gathered, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 12. For the tree of life in paradise, Genesis 2, signified this; the wooden ark of Noe saving his house, Genesis 7; the rod of Moses opening the sea, Exodus 14; the wood making the waters sweet, Exodus 15; but especially the bronze serpent lifted up in the desert, Numbers 21, of which the Lord says, John 3: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.” Hence the Church sings, following Paul to the Galatians 6: “But it behoves us to glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom is our salvation, life and resurrection.”
That by the cross he conquered the devil and triumphed over him is plain from the epistle to the Colossians 2: “Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: and despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.” Origen, homily 8 on Josue, says that in the Greek it is had, “triumphing over them on the wood of the cross.” And although we do not have this now “on the wood” but en autō, that is, “in it,” yet it can very well be referred to the cross, of which he had said above, as Theophylact reports. Origen says, then, that on the cross two triumphed: Christ visibly, of his own will, and for a time; but the devil invisibly, unwillingly, and to his everlasting shame. And he proves this from this place, where the Apostle uses the manner of speaking of a triumph, wishing to show that the cross was the triumphal chariot, on whose top Christ sat triumphing, and in whose lower part the devil was dragged bound and shown as in a procession. For the words edeigmatisen and thriambeusas signify this.
The second argument is taken from the mysteries signified in the cross itself. For, as Augustine says, letter 120, chapter [26?], “He who died because he willed, also died as he willed; nor without cause did he choose the cross rather than another instrument of death.” And what the cross signifies mystically is taught by Irenaeus, book [5?]; Gregory of Nyssa, oration 1 on the Resurrection; Augustine in letters 119 and 120; Jerome and Theophylact on chapter 3 to the Ephesians, where they expound of the cross the words of Paul: “That you may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth.” For the crosswise piece is called the breadth; the height, the part of the wood where the title is, above the crosswise piece; the length, the part of the wood from the crosswise piece down to the earth; the depth, the part of the same which lies hid under the earth.
And this figure signifies, first, the whole Christian perfection, as Augustine teaches: the depth, faith; the height, hope; the breadth, charity; the length, perseverance.
Second, the effect of Christ's passion. For the highest piece signifies heaven opened by Christ's passion and God appeased; the piece fixed under the earth, hell emptied and the devil conquered; the crosswise piece, looking to the east and west, the whole world redeemed. And so for this reason the things in heaven, on earth and under the earth adore Christ crucified, as Nyssen draws out.
Third, the two arms of the cross under the one title of the Saviour signify two peoples (says Irenaeus) joined together under one head, Christ; according to that of John 12: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.”
Minucius Felix in the Octavius, and Ambrose, sermon [56?], add that the figure of the cross is saving even naturally. For birds would never fly unless with wings spread out they imitated the form of the cross; and a ship would not move unless a cross were made of the mast and the yard; and the ploughman would not cut the earth unless he made a cross of the plough and the handle; and again another of the yoke and the pole. Heaven itself makes a cross, if lines are drawn from east to west and from north to south.
Lastly, even among the Egyptians, who used hieroglyphic characters, the cross signified the life to come, as Rufinus reports, book 2 of the History, chapter 29.
The third argument is from the finding of the cross, from which a manifold testimony is taken that the veneration of the wood of the cross pleases God.
First, that God did not allow that wood to be sunk in the sea or consumed by flames. For that the enemies of the Christians tried to abolish the cross and all its traces is plain from this, that they hid the cross very deep under the earth, and in the place of the cross set a simulacrum of Venus, in the place of the resurrection of Jupiter, in the place of the nativity of Adonis, as blessed Jerome reports in the letter to Paulinus on the training of a monk. Why, I ask, did they not burn the cross, since they wished to and could, unless because God took away from them the thought, that the most precious wood might be kept for the comfort of the godly?
Second, that God willed the cross to be found at the time when it could safely be honoured, namely at the beginning of the reign of Constantine. For if it had been disclosed before, while the persecutors reigned, it would have been received with mockery rather than honour; and if it had been found long after the times of Constantine, the holy cross would have been cheated of its due honour. Then, then, divine providence first made the cross known, when first it could be honoured.
Third, because by evident miracles it was shown that it was the true cross, and so that the finding of the cross and that revelation was from God. For when three crosses had been found together, and the cross of the Lord could not plainly be told from the crosses of the thieves, all three were brought to a certain woman at the point of death; and when the first two had done nothing, the third, brought to the woman, at once made her well. Rufinus writes this, book 10 of the History, chapter 8; Socrates, book 1, chapter 13; Theodoret, book 1, chapter 18; Sozomen, book 2, chapter 1; and Nicephorus, book 8, chapter 29. Nor did it only heal a sick woman, but it also raised a dead man at the same time, as Paulinus writes, letter 11 to Severus; Severus, book 2 of the Sacred History; and Sozomen, book 2, chapter 1, who mentions both the dead man and the sick woman.
Nor does it stand in the way that Ambrose, in the oration on Theodosius, and Chrysostom, homily 84 on John, say that the cross of the Lord was known from the title, which the other two lacked. For Rufinus shows that the cross of the Lord was indeed known from the title, but not wholly evidently, because the title was not fixed to the cross but lay near it; and so, that no doubt might remain, they took refuge in the miracle. Nor did the cross alone shine with that miracle, but also the nail which Helena sent to Constantine. For of it, as Ambrose testifies in the place cited, the Jews said: “Behold the nail is held in honour, and that which we drove in for death is a remedy of salvation, and torments the demons by an invisible power.”
Fourth, because Helena was not moved of herself to seek the cross of the Lord, but warned by divine revelations. For so Eusebius testifies in the Chronicle, which Jerome put into Latin: “Helena, the mother of Constantine,” he says, “warned by divine visions, found at Jerusalem the most blessed wood of the cross on which the salvation of the world hung.” And Ambrose, Rufinus, Paulinus, Sulpicius and others say the same. From which appears the shameless blasphemy of the Magdeburgers, who, Century 4, chapter 6, column 458, call Helena superstitious because she went to Jerusalem to find the wood of the cross; whom yet all the holy Fathers praise wonderfully, and say that she sought the wood of the cross by the inspiring of the Holy Spirit.
And the history itself, though most famous, the Magdeburgers try to make doubtful, Century 4, chapter 13, columns 1448 and [1450?], by two conjectures. The first is that Ambrose is the most ancient of all who report this history; but Erasmus does not receive his oration on Theodosius, where this is had, as genuine. The second, that Eusebius, book 3 of the Life of Constantine, tells many things of Helena and of the clearing of Mount Calvary, and yet does not mention the finding of the cross.
To the first I say, first, that no such judgement of Erasmus exists; nay, the Magdeburgers themselves, Century 4, chapter [10?], in the life of Ambrose, attribute this oration to Ambrose by Erasmus's judgement. From which you can see their consistency.
I say, second, that if it did exist, Erasmus is not a divine oracle who must necessarily be believed, when he brings no reason.
I say, third, that it is false that Ambrose is the most ancient of those who report this history. For Sulpicius, Paulinus, Rufinus, Jerome and Chrysostom, who recite the same, can be called contemporaries of Ambrose, since they lived at the same time, though Ambrose was perhaps a little older. Then Cyril of Jerusalem, older than Ambrose, recites the same in the letter to Constantius Augustus; likewise Constantine himself, likewise older than Ambrose, mentions it in the letter to Macarius, which Eusebius reports in book 3 of the Life of Constantine, where he has it thus: “So great is the goodness of our God that no service of words can be worthy of the present miracle. For this surpasses all wonder and amazement, that the token of the most sacred passion, buried under the ground for so many years, should have lain unknown until, the common enemy being slain, it appeared to his freed household,” and so on. In the same place he adds that the faith has been declared by new miracles.
To the second objection we say that Eusebius mentioned this thing in the Chronicle; but in the books of the Life of Constantine he made no mention of it, because the thing was very well known to all, and he thought it enough that he had touched on it in the letter of Constantine. To this finding of the holy cross can be added the finding of the sacred lance, which was found by divine revelation at Antioch in the year of the Lord [1098?], and made famous by a miracle. See William of Tyre, book [6?] On the Holy War; Paulus Aemilius, book 4 On the Deeds of the Franks; and Dodechin, the continuator of Marianus Scotus, in the chronicle for the year 1098.
The fourth argument, from the testimonies of the ancients, who again and again report how devoutly the faithful sought, kept and venerated the particles of the true cross, which could not happen unless God himself had approved the honour of the cross. In the first place blessed Cyril of Jerusalem, catecheses 10 and 13, says that from the wood of the cross found at Jerusalem the whole world is filled, very many seeking particles. Constantine put a particle of the cross in his statue, which he set up at Constantinople, trusting that by that particle of the cross the city would be guarded, as Socrates reports, book 1, chapter [17?], and Eutropius, or rather Paul the Deacon, who added much to Eutropius, book 11 of the Roman History. Gregory of Nyssa, in the Life of his sister Macrina, writes that she used to wear on her neck a cross in which a particle of the true cross was set.
Paulinus, letter 12 to Severus, writes that he sends him, as a very great gift, a particle of the true cross enclosed in gold. The same, in the tenth birthday poem of St. Felix, writes that he put out a very great fire by showing a particle of the cross:
I myself bring out the wood, small indeed, but great for salvation,
taken for me in a fragment from the eternal cross,
and with my frail hand I thrust it out against the flames… [the verses are damaged in the scan].
Chrysostom, in the homily That Christ Is God, writes that those who had been able to get a particle of the cross kept it enclosed in gold, and believed that they were rightly adorned and guarded by it. Evagrius, book 4 of the History, chapter [26?], and Procopius, book 2 On the Persian War, tell that there was at Apamea a particle of the holy cross, which the people wished to be shown them, when the city, long besieged, seemed now on the point of being taken, that, having seen the cross of the Lord at the last, they might die more readily. But when the cross was shown by the bishop once and again and a third time, there shone out once and again and a third time a bright fire, not burning but giving light; terrified by which the enemies raised the siege. Gregory, book 7, letter [126?], to Reccared, king of the Visigoths, sends a particle of the cross as a rare gift.
Ambrose, in the oration on Theodosius, speaking of the nail which Helena put into the emperor's helmet: “Wisely,” he says, “did Helena act, who raised the cross” (a particle, namely, of the cross, that is, one nail) “on the head of kings, that the cross of Christ may be adored in kings.”
Jerome, on Psalm 98, expounds of the cross that verse, “Adore his footstool.” And in letter 17, to Marcella, he says: “Will that day then come, when we may enter the cave of the Saviour, and lick the wood of the cross?” and so on.
Augustine, book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, writes that at holy earth brought from Mount Calvary into Africa miracles were wont to happen, and that he himself with another bishop came to the place and set up a place of prayer over it. With what honour would Augustine have followed the cross, when he so honoured the earth where the cross had been?
To these let there be added the Sibylline verse, which is had in book 6 of the Sibylline poems, near the end:
O wood most blessed, on which God was stretched out.
The fifth argument, from the exaltation of the cross. For it is certain from Paul the Deacon, Zonaras and Cedrenus, in the Life of Heraclius, that Heraclius, in recovering the cross, which the Persians had carried off from Jerusalem, was helped by God, so that the heavens themselves fought against the Persians with great stones, as once they had fought with Josue. In the very bringing back of the cross into its place too certain miracles happened, as Sigebert reports in the chronicle for the year [631?]. Hence a feast was also instituted on this account, as Otto of Freising testifies, book 5, chapter [9?], Bede, and Ado in the Martyrology.
The sixth argument. If the place where the angel stood is holy ground, Josue, chapter 5, and Exodus 3, why not much more the cross, where Christ stood? If the handkerchiefs or aprons of Paul were honoured because of contact, why not much more the cross of Christ sprinkled with blood? If the sacraments are honoured because they are instruments of grace, why not the cross, which is the instrument of redemption?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.\PUT XXV.
Quo (jcncrc cullus adorenlur iniagines.
Quinia ConcUisio. Cullus quipersc, proprie
dobenir wuiginitius. cst cu.ltu,s quidamiin^^erfc-
clus, qui analogicc el reduclivc pertincl ad spc-
ciem ejiis cullus, qiU debetur exemplari. Expli-
co: lm;ii;;!'ibus nou convenil propric noc ialiia,
ncc hypordiilia, ncc dulia, nco uUus aUus coruni,
ipii IribuunUir niUurae iniclligcnli. Non cnim cst
c;ip;ix rcs inanima, ol rationis cxpcrs cjnsmodi
culluum: scd cuUus qnid;mi inforior ct varius pro
Y;irict;ilo imaginum. lUiquc im;igiiiibus sancloruiu
nou dobclur propric dulia, scd cullus infcrior, qui
dici polcsl dulia secundnm quid. vel dnlia analo-
gice, sive rcduclivo. Simililcr imaginibus b. Vir-
ginisnon dobelur hypcrdulia simpliciter: sed hy-
perdulia secundutn quid, sive analogicc redu-
ciive.
Denique imaginibus Chrisli non debelur liitria
vcra, et simplicilcr, scd caltus sine comparalione
inferior, qui lamcn rcducilnr ad latriam, ul ira-
perlcclum ad pcrfeclum. Probalur, sicut sc habet
imago ad suuin cxcinplar, ila sc habet cullus ima-
^lniH ild cillldiii c\(;iii|diirii, «cij Ilii;i('(i cst IpMlill
cxcnipliir iin.ilo^icc, cl MMnnilniii (|niil; itain Iiook)
pi(;lns csl hoitio hccniidniii ipilil, rl nn.ilo^lrc. cr*
^'o ('tiaiii iiii:i^'lni (|(*lictiir rnliiiH ipHi itKeiiiplnrl de*
hiliis, impcrlcclus d analo^Mi im.
I'ra('l(;r(;ii, liitiiKO rodiiriliir nd ii|)ftciciii cxuin-
|d;iri-.; naiii lioiiio pirtns.ct cipnis piiins dilT^Tiiiit
spccic, (|(ii.i hoiiio V(;rns cl cqniis vurus dillcriiiil
spccn;: cr^^o cliam cultiis liiia(;iniH nMlucitiir nd
culluin c\(;tiipl:irh, c( ror(i< h. Ihoiiias (;t li. iioiiii-
vcnlura, ct idii lioo soluiii diccr^; voliK^rnnl, riim
(hxcrnnt, cndciii ruKii coli iiiiii|,'in(;in cl (;x''inp|:ir;
il.i ciiiin coruin s(;iil('iiti;iin intcrprctalur (luliricl:
(piod si ita i<sl, oniiics convcnimns.
i-A his hiihciiiiis ('il:iiii,qni(| sit dircnditiii d'; vo-
rn criicc hoinini, dc chivis, spinis, nliistpic rcli-
(piiis. .Suiit ciiiiii hiicc oinni;i honor:ind:i ininoru
rullit, (piiiiii Chrisltis vcl s:incti, (pioriim r''li'|ii)a(*
suiit, sod (iiiiicn (iili, (pii :inalot'ic(; ct n^dtictivc
pcrlinciit :id spccicm ciiltiis, (pio Chrislns vcl s;m-
cli colnnlnr. ii.iin rcliipiirn; idco mcrcnliir hoi 'i-
rcin. (pii.i r.ilioiio (onl.icliis, vcl aliipio alio iiiodo
h.ihiludinctn habcnt ;id cos (piornin sniit rdi-
qui^ic.
CAPUT XXVI.
De adoralionc. crucis.
Elsi criix Doinini parlini iiilcr rciiipiias vcncro-
tur, |)arliiii iiilcr im;:;^iiics ( nam crux illa vcra, iii
qua I)oiniiius pepcndil, proplcr coiitaclum s:icri
corporis cl s:uiguinis, inlor piclosissiiiias rcliqiii-
as iiabcnda cst, n(;c soluin ips;i inlogra, scd cli;im
parUtuhie cjus: ;it crux illa c;idcni. qualonus llgu-
rani crucifixi Domini rcpracscntal,ct siinililer cae-
tcrac '•riiccs illi similcs, intcr s;icras imagincs nu-
mcranlur ) laiiien quia peculiarcs crrorcs, ct pc-
culiaria argumcnta de cruce inveniuntnr, peculia-
rcm ctiam dc ilia dispulalionem inslilucndaiu pu-
tavimus,
Fuil igilur liacresis iu primis Claudii taurincn-
sis, qui praeler caeleras iinagines cruccm Domini
cxccrabalur, tcslc Jona lib. 1. Vixil aulcm Claudi-
us aiino Domini 800. Idein eodem lcmpore in ori-
enle doccbant ranlitiani, a quodain Pauio sic ap-
pcllati, tosle Eiilhymio in Panoplia parl. 2. tit. 21.
Deindc circa anniim Domini 1130. exslilcrunt
Pclrus Bruis, et Hcnricus, qui sinililer cruccm
Domini, cjusqnc cuUum oppugnabant. testc Pctro
Cluniacensi, qui contra eos e[.islolam prolixam ct
eruditam i!lo ipso tcmporc scripsit ad omncs cpi-
scopos. Circa i(Jem tempus, vel paulo post exstitc-
runt in oricnte Bogomilcs. qui idcm iisdcm argu-
racnlis doccbant, lesle Eutbymio Panopl. par. 2.
til. 23.
Non minus poslca crucis bonorera delcstali sunt
Wicldislac, apud Thom;ini Waldcnscm tom. 3. lit.
20. Calvinus lib. 3. Inslilut. cap. 11. § 7. 3Ingde-
burgens. Cenlur. 4. cap. i. col. 302. cap. 6. col.
4o8. ct ioO. ubi eliam impudenter menliuntur.
usuni signi crucis saeculo IV. novu:n fuissc. Nam
Tcrlullianus lib. de corona militis, raeminil signi
UOi
DE IMAGIMBUS SANCTORUM
ci'ucis,cum lamcn florueril sneculo II. Slcul eliam
Cenl. 7. c. 6. col. 191. mentiunlur, Sergium pa-
pam fiiisse auclorcm prinuim. ul crux adorarehir,
el cxoscuiurclur. Nam Sergius papa sedit anno l)o-
mini G88. At meminil adai-alionis et exosculalio-
Tiis crucis Evagrius lib. 4. cap. 2(). qui cst cen-
lum amiis Scrgio anliquior. Mominit eliam llio-
ronynms in epislol. ad Marcellam , ut migret Be-
Ihlehem.
Argumcnla Cogomilium el Pelrolirusianorum o-
ranl iria. Primum, quia crux dolorem ct ignomini-
am Chrislo aliulit,ergo detestanda esl iis,qul Chri-
slum diligunt.
Secundum. quia stultus et impius judicarelur fi-
lius, qui palibulum amarel et honoraret , in quo
paler cjus suspensus fuisset.
Terlium, quia si oporlel adorarc omncs cruces
quia Chrislus in cruce pependil; oporlebit cliam
adorare omnia sci)ulchra, quia in sepulchro Donii-
nus quicvil; et omnia pracsepia, quia in praosepi
recliualus luit; etomnes columnas, lanccns. spon-
gias, llagella etc. Immo et omncs asinos ( inquit
Claudius ) quia Christus asino vecAus fuit.
tjuarlo arguit Claudius,hosles Ctirisli gaudebnnt
de passione Domini, de resurrectione dolobant: el
contra, amici cjus de passione dolobant, de rcsur-
rectione gandcbant, ergo qni cruccm honoranl, et
illam amant, imilantur Chrisli hostes.
Quinlo argumentabantur Wiclefistae apud AVal-
dcnsem, si ralione conlaclus, vel quia istrumcn-
tum passionis fuil. crucem adoramus,oportcbil et-
iam adorare labia Judae, quae conligerunl os Do-
mini osculando, et manum illins servi, qui Domi-
n.um tctigil, cum alapam illi inilixit; nam haec o-
mnia leligcrunt Dominum, et inslrumcnla passio-
riis fucrnnl.
Sexlo arguunt Ccnluriatores,superslilio esl cha-
racteribus tribuere virtutoiti; al Papislae tribuunt
figurae crucis vim pellendi daemones, et omnia
mala: ergo supersliliosi sunt. Quae objectiones
infra cap. 30. diluenlur: Antea vero rcm cxplica-
biraus. Dicemus igitur tria; Primo, dc ipsa cruce.
Secundo. de crucis imagine. Tertio, de signocru-
cis Iranseunlc.
CAPLT XXVll.
De c/'Mce' vcra Domini.
Quanlum ad primum, antequam veniam ad pro-
bationes, nolanda sunt aliqua de figura ipsius cru-
cis. Sciendum igitiir, cruccm cx tribus lignis fa-
ctam esse, quorum unum crat longum, cui corpus
adhaerebal, allerum transversum suporpositum
longo, quibus afiigcbantur manus, tcrtium lignum
erat infixum in ligno longo, ut in eo pedes crucifi-
xi starenl,elc!avis iigi possent.Id teslalur Irenaeus
lib. 2. cap. 42. Ilabitus , inquil , idest, figura
crucis (ines et suriimiiales liabet quinquo, duas
in lowjiludinem, duas in latiiudinem, unam in
medio, in qua quiescit, qui clavis affi,gilurA[Qm
habel Juslinus in dialogo cum Triphone ullra rae-
dium.
Utrura aulemlignum transversum essel supra-
positum llgno longo, ita ut non emineret lignum
iongum sursum vcrsus, non est cerlum; !\am Be-
da in quacst. in Genes. ubi de vicloria Abrahac lo-
quilur.dicil crucem similcm fuisse lilcrae graecao
T, qualom eliam fuisse ohm hebraicum Thau, do-
cet flieionymus in c. 9. Ezcchielis. At b. Augusli-
nus epist. 120. c. 20. dicit, lignum longum emi-
nuisso supra Iransversum. Et hoc esl probabilius;
nam esl conformius verbis Irenaei, et vorbis apo-
stoli ad Ephcsios c. 3. ubi alludens ad figuram
crucis, nominat sublimitatem, profundum, Jongi-
ludinom et latitudinem. Porro qui dicunt crucem
fuisse similem literae thau, dicunt verum, quia
parum diHcrebat.
Qnod autcm scribilBeda in suis collectancis ct
floribus, crucem faclam ex quatuor generibus li-
gnorum, ex cedro, pino, cypresso et buxo : et
quod scribitur in hisloria scholaslica de ligno eru-
lo ex probatica piscina etc. non kabent veterum
testimonia, nec videnlur probabilia.
lilnd autem non esl ignorandum,veteres aliquid
addidisse mysterii gratia.quod eliam nunc ex par-
te servatur. Nam lignum longum producebant sur-
sum versus, etflcctebanl ad modum baculi pasto-
ralis. ut referrel liieram graccam P. paulo inferi-
us apponobiinl duo ligna transversa ad similitudi-
ncm crnois s. Andrcae quae referrent literam grae-
cam X.ila ut duao illae litcrae per abbreviationem
signilicarent Chrislum; infra illum ponebant li-
gnnm Iransversum, quod vere perficit crucem , et
inde pendebatvelumexpansura:Infra lignum Irans-
versum erat lignum longum in simi-
liludinom hastac ; ad infimam par-
,tem addebant capulum ad commo-
ditalem gestandi. Hacc omnia signi-
ficabant crucem esse vexillum im-
pcratoris Chrisli; nam crucem testa-
baluripsa figura: Christi nomen indi-
cabant due literae X et P, vexillum,
cx velo, hasta ct capulo dignosccba-
lur.Yide Joannera PierumA^alerianum de signis hie-
roglyphicis lib.50. elPrimasinm lib.l.in Apocalyp.
uln 'hoc ipsura signura vocal manogramma el si-
gnumChnsli.Talefere fuitet labarum Conslantini.
Nam ut Eusebius refert lib.O.hisl.oap. 9. labarum.
quod ante imperatores gcstari solcbat el a militibus
adorari.Conslantinus in formam crucis redegit, sic
tamen, ut etiam vcxilli formam non ammilteret.
Describit aulem ipsum labarum Eusebius lib. 1.
dc vita Conslanlini, ubi dicit, fuisse haslam totam
auro circnmdalam, in cujus summilale posila erat
corona prctiosissima,infra eam cornu transversum
ad formam crucis, cx quo pendebat velum purpu-
rcum auro el gemrais ornalissiauim, ad cujus par-
tem inOinam visebanlur imogines Conslanlini el fi-
liorum. In ipsa vero hasla sub corona eranl lilcrae
nominis Christi.
Jam vero modus crucifigendi communis non e-
rat, ut mulli pulanl, funibus alligando, sod clavis
C"-cndo. Piclorcs vero solenl solum Chrislum de-
pmgcrc clavis aflixura, lalrones aulem, et s. Po-
trum fnnibus. Sed non ita est, omncs enim clavis
fi^ebanlur. immo cl omncs crucem suamfcrcbant,
i.li!i:ii si;<;i.\lil.s
jO>
nmno'!(iiii^ luilcn n;it.M;llis (•iicilclnmlur.Vlilc IMuliir-
rluiiii (/(■ tiiiiln nuinini» i //((/(('/(cMiiiciiMi Titlliinii
iicl. 7. iii ViUTnii; IN(uiiiiiii M.ucclliiiu mtIio hi-
til>uhiiii,i\\\\ >ic iiil:/'((/('/u// (/(/ i>itlil>iilniii iininn-
l'rniniiii\\l''iinl(' cniri /i,'/(/u/«./'.M.icniluiiiu lili. 1.
SiiUini. c. 11. .luscpli. Ijl). Ct. (lu licllii jutliiico c.
12. cl iii vilii suii iii lili. (Ic |i:issiiiiii^ s. AiKlrciic,
iu(|uil |U'iM'(uisul: lii i|iMi ciiicc. i|ii.iin liuulns, l(<
iu>li^;aliiiii iil1i;;i |u-iicci|)iiiiii. Oticlcruiii ciiiii s. Aii-
ilroiis ci'iicili;^ciiilus csscl, priiclci' ukhIuui (Uiliun-
riiini, jussil iilciii prucousul iil lutiiluis cuiu iii
cruco siispciitlcrciil, cl cliivis iilliMis ( ilo dcllccrcl.
Adtlc, (]Uotl itlco (luliiliiliiiliir, (|iinciuiiii c\ liil)us
rcpcrlis criiciliiis, oscl cru\ tltiiiuiiicii, t|iiiii (iiiiucs
lr(>s liiilicliiiul siiiiiliii luriiiiiiu.i. cl cl.ivtis cic. Volc
niinimiui lili. 10. hisl. n)|). S.
Ilis cr^^o practioiiilis. iul iirpiiiiiciil.i vciiiiiiiius.
Ac. priiiutm. (piod li^Muim crucis vcncriiliilc sii,
proliiitur liiliutic c\ .SiMipluris (lcsumplii. Aiiiu
Scnpliirac. losliiiilur. (llirislum iinii crucili\iini cii-
su. vcl iiiv iiiin, vcl pn^plcrsuii pccc.ilii, sctl ipsnm
.spoulc clc^jissc criiccm. cl clc^i^sc iil iilliirc sum-
nii siirrilicii, quo pliicnrclur Dous, ui s('iiliim sihi
ipsi lul rcjiiuim, iiislrumculiim rilKUiiliotiis jjoiicris
liunuini, iic. (Ifiiuuu ul insliuiKMilum. (pio (liiitio-
liiui viiicorol. ac do oo Iriumpliiircl. K.v (pio S0(pii-
lur, crncom illiuii vcriini ii l>co niinlicc. fuisso lio-
iioriiliuu, cl nohis omnihus luniihilciu cl votuMiilii-
loiii csso (lohcro.
Qiidd sponio iilain cl(>j:oril, paloilsaiao cap. .'>3.
Ohldtii^ cs/, (/(//(/ ij.<c voliiil. .Fnim. 1(). /''//o pono
aninianiinvam. nvnu) lollit cani a ino, scil cno
pono cani. In Aci. Aposiol. cap. 2. Ilunc, dclinilo
consilio. cl pracscicnlia Dci trodilinn inlcrcmi-
stia. Acior. ;?. }h'us, qui pracnunciavil pcr o.s
omnium propJiclarum. paU Chrishmn siium. im-
plcvit sic. Aclor. i. Conrcwrunl vcrc in c/ivilatc
isla Ilcrodcs ct Ponlius Pilalus cum rjcnlilais. cl
populus Isriicl faccrc, quac ■manus tna cl consi-
lium (mm dccreverimt tieri.
Qwoi] cru\ fuoril iira sumnu s.ncrificii. piitcl.
quia Ohrislus ipso cruciri.xus ost summuin sacrili-
cinin. in cpist. ad llchr. cap. 7. Undo ad C.oloss.
\. Pacijicans pcr san()uincm crncis cjns. idesl,
por sangnincni cjus in cruco. qniisi in allari fu-
sniu. El lioc signilicavil lnpis croctus ol iiuuiclus,
oi domus Dci vocaliis a .lacoh Gcn. 20.
Qood crux scala fuoril Ciirislo ad roirnnni .Tonn.
12. yunc princcps hujus mundi cjiciclur foras.
ct Cf/o si cxaUalus fucro a lcrra. omma traliam
ad meipsum. Hoc autcm divcbat. sigiiilicans.qita
morlc essct moriturus. Ad Piiilip. 2. IlumHiavit
semvtip)sum. favlus obcdicns usquc ad mortem.
mortem autcni crucis, propter quod cl Dcus exal-
ittvil illum ctc.
(^nod liioril insirumcntum liheralionis. doconl
pUirimac figurao. qnas collcgit Joannes Damasce-
nus lih. i. do iide cap. 12. Id cniiu significavit li-
gnum vilac iii paradiso Gcncs. cap. 2.'arca lignca
INoc domum ejus salvans Gen. 7. virga Moysis apc-
rions marc £xod. 14. lignnm aquas dulccs reddcns
Exod. l.j. Scd praocipuc scrpoiis aonous cxallatus
in dcserto. i\'um. 18. dc quo Dominus Joan. ;]. Si-
cul exallavil .Vo?/scs scrpenlem in dcscrlo, ila
c.cnttan 1'piirtrl l-Uium /ioi/urio. /// nimun. iim
rliilil 1/1 c(/;/j, TioM pcmil, ttnl luihral vttnm «m*
tcrnnm. Iliiii'. vldi liccl EccIi^hiii MMpniiii 1'aiiliiiii
iitt Giliil. (■». ilii II: /VoH antrin iih>nnn o/)(»rl/*J in
(•/•(/('«' Ihiinini iiDxlri Ji.^H i.linfli. tu qiin vnl nn-
lnH, vitn i'l rcmrrccllu noMtrn.
(Jitod cnicc (ll.iholiiui viccnl, i i iir . >
nl, piilcl o\ cpiwl. 11(1 Oolo^H, 2. (,h . ,. / in
dcrrrti, quod crnl niulrnrinm -inihin. luttl dc inc-
iliu, nlliip-n», iUndrriiri, c.i'i prinrtpnlun
rt pittv.slittrs. trndn.ril pnlnin < •■•,,i':i ntrv. triniii-
plinns ///o.s /ji HrinrlipHo. Ontrcnc.s tioiii. H. iii Jo-
siii>, dicit, in (ir!ii'( is liahrri: IriiiitiplintiM iIIoh in
li|^Miti ( ruci>: c( licct liniic lioli liiihciiiiilis iii li^Mio.
simI :v dty:!;), i(l osl, iii ipso. taiiKMi opliiiio rch-iri
polcsl iid cnicciii.ih; (|iiii siipni (li\cr«i(, ev 'd ^au^v).
iit rcfiMl 'riKMipliyliiclus, Dicil rr\i^o (►ri^MMics. tli
criico diios niissc. ani\os , Ghrisiuin vi>tl»ilii(;r ,
spotiii; siia. cl ad t(Mnpus: (lii)h(iliiin aiiliMii iiivisi-
hililiT iiivitum. cl in .siMiipilortiuin cjiis opprohriiini;
cl hoc |)r(ih:ii o\ islo lo( o, iihi rnulus iilitur liiotii-
|)liiirii Iriiitiiplii, itiditiiro volctis, criiccm os.sc ciir-
ruiii IriumphaltMu. iii cujus sumtiia parli; simIcI
Glirislus Iriiiiuph.iiis. cl iti pario itiiii iriihilur du)-
holiis i4lli;.,Mlus, ol OshMiliittir (|Uiisi iii |)0iup:i. Id
(Miiiii signiruiil vorhifu 'iOzv(\i.iv.'yzu cl 0;ita;A'ii'J-
cac.
Ar;.,niinonluin socundum sumilui' ii itiysloriis iii
ipsii ( riKM; siguili(;alis. .\.un. iil ail Au;,Misliiiiisopist,
120. cai). 2(». Qiii mortuus cst. quiavoluit: eliuni
morlnus cst. <ianndo vnliiit.nrr xinr caiissa cru
ccni polius. qu,am aliud instrumrnlum 7/ioj7/..
clcijit. Qiud auliMn cru\ myslica sipiiiliccl doconi
Iroiiacus lih. ti. (Jrcii. nyssiMius orai. 1. dc rosui •
rcciiouo: Aui:usliuus iii opisi. 11J>. ol 120. Ilicro-
nyinus cl Tlico[)liylaclus in c. .1. ad Kphcs. uhi do
crucc cxponuni vorha Pauli : l't ])ossilis coinprc,-
licndvrc cum omnihus .'<anvtis. (juac sil laliliido
vl lonniludo, sublimilas cl profundum. Aain liiii-
iudo vocaiur ligiuim inmsvcrsum; suhlimilas pars
lii,Mii . u!)i csl litiilus supra transvcrsum; loii-
i^iludo liirui pars ii Iraiisvorso usquo iid lcrraiu ;
proiundum , pars ojusdcm . quao lalcl sub icr-
ram.
Significiil autcm isla figura priiuo loiain perfo-
ciioiKMn chrisluuiam. ui Auiiustiuus doccl; profun-
(ium, iidem; sublimilas, spcm: hitiludo, charila-
icm : hmgiludo. pcrscverantiam.
Sccundo. Chrisli passionis oiToclum; nam lijinum
suproiuum significal cocluiu Clirisli passionc apcr-
Imu ol Douin placaium ; lignuin suh tcrram iufi-
\um. iii!'oriium cviicuaium oi diabolum dcvictum;
ligiuun transvcrsum rospicions ortnm el occasum,
lolum orbcm lerrarnm redemplum. Daque prople-
rca Cliristiim crucifixum adorent coelcslia, lerrc-
siria cl iuferna. ul Aysstuius deducil.
Tcrlio, duo bracliia crucis sub urro tilulo Salva-
toris : signilicant duos populos ( inquil Ircnaeus )
sub uno capitc C.hrislo inier sc conuoxos. juxta il-
lud.Ioan. 12. Eqo si cxallatus facroalerra.omnia
traham admcipsum.
Addunt fllinulius Fclixiu Oclavio. et Auihrosius
sorm. 50. orucis figuram cssc cliiuu luiiuralilcr
sDlularem Nam aves numquam volarent, nisi cx-
m
DE I.MAGLMIUJS SArSCTORUM
j):insis ;ilis cnicis ronnaiii in)ilaroiiUir: ol inivis non
movcrclur, iiisi ex nialo et anl(Mina crux (iercl: <!t
aralor lerrani iion scindorcl, nisi c\ aralro ot sliva
fruccni faccrcl: et rnrsum aliain ex jnjTo ot lc-
inonc. Coeluin ipsnm crucein facil , si lincaodu-
canlur ab orln ad occasuiii , ab aquilonc ail au-
slruni.
Dcni([no. );ti;ini ViJsypliis (lui liioroglypliicis
cliaracteribus nlebanlur . ciux vitain venlnrain
signiiicibal , ul rercrl Uuniiuis lib. 2. liistor.
cap. 21).
Arguinontuiu tcrliuin, ab inventionc crncis, cx
(]ua niniliplcx lcstiinoniuin sutnilur, (inoil vciicra-
tio ligiii crucis Deo placoal.
l*rinio, qnod non porniiscril Oeus lij:;iinm illiid
demorgi in marc, vel flainmis absumi. Qnod enim
lioslfS Christianornm conali sinl abolerc crnc(;in,
ojusiiue omnia vcsligia. palct ox oo, (piod allissime
crnccm sub terram abscondernnl. el in loco cru-
cis, A'oncris siinola(^rnin : in loco rcsnrreclionis,
Jovis : iii loco nalivilalis, Adonidis posuoriinl, nt
rcfort b. Ilieronymus in episl. ad l*au!iiiinn dc in-
stilnliono nionachi. Cur. quaeso, non croniarnnl
crucem.cum vcllent ot possenl, nisi (]nia Dens abs-
Inlit illis montcm, iit ad solalinm [^iorum lignum
preliosissimuin seivarelnr?
Secnndo. quod Deuis co lomporc criicom inve
niri volueril, quo Into i^olerat coli, niinirum ad
mitium imperii Conslontini: Nam si antea rescrala
fuissct, regnantibus porscqunloribns. magis Indi-
brio quam lionor(! excopla hiissot: Si aulcm diu
post tempora Conslanliiii fuissot invenla. frandala
fuissel sancta crux d(d)ilo boiiorc. Tuno igitnr pri-
nuun divina pi-ovidonlia crnccm manifeslavii, cum
l>rimum potnit coli.
Terlio, qnia per cvidenlia miracula demonslra-
Inm esl essc vcram criicem. ct pndnde crncis in-
venlioncm, rcvclalionem illani osso a Dco. i\am
cum Ires cruccs simnl inventae fuissent, ncc pos-
sel plane cnix Domini a crncibns lalronnm iiilor-
iiosci, admolac fucrnnt omnos tres ad niulierem
(luandam in cxlromis agenlcm, cL cnm duae prio-
rcs nihil cgisscnt, tertia admota mulicri, mox il-
lam rcddiclil sanam. Scribit hoc Rufrinus lib. 10.
liisl. c. S. Socralos lib. 1. cnp. 13. Theodorelus
lib. 1. cap. 18. Sozomenus lib. 2. cap. 1, et Nice-
pliorns lib.8. cap.2!). INoc soknn mnlicrem aogram
sanavil, scd eliain mortnnm virum excitavit eodcm
lcmporc. ut scribunt Panlinus epist. 11. ad Seve-
rnm, Severus lib. 2. hisloriae sacrac et Sozomc-
nus lib. 2. c. 1. qui et viri mortui et mulicris ac-
grotae mcminit.
Ncque obslal, quod Ambrosins orat. in Theodo-
sium. ct Chrysostomus hom. 8i. in Joan. diciint,
crucem Doinini ex tilulo cognilam, qno carebant
aliae duae. Nam Unfriiius indical, ex titulo quidem
luisse cognilam cruccm Doinini, siid non omnino
evidenler, ((uia lilulus noii eral affixus cruci. sed
jacebat propi! eam; ideoqne, ut nuUa r^nnaneret
ambiguilas. ad iniracnlum confngorunt. Necsolum
crux miracnlo illo clarnit. sed etiam clavus quem
llolona ad Conslantinum inisil. De eo si(]ui(lom (nt
Ambrosius lestatnr loco citato ) Judaei dicebant:
Ecce eA clavus in hnnovc esl, el qnem ad movktm
imprcsshnus. rcmediuin snlulis esl. nlque invisi'
bili puleslale daemones lorquel.
Onarlo. qnia llclena non ex sc incilala ost ad
crncem Domini (|nnerondam. sod divinis admoniUi
rcvolali()Mibns.Siconiinl(>si;,inrKiisebinsin cliron.
qno.l Uicronymus lalinnin fccil: Iklena Comlan-
tini maler. inquil. dirbm moniUi visiovibusMa-
lissiinnin erucis lignuvi in quo mundi salus pe-
pendil, apud Hicrosolymam reperil. VA idcm di-
cnnl Arnhrosius. Unninns, Paulinus, Snlpilius ct
alii. Kx quo apparol impndons blasphomi;i Magde-
durgensinm. (]ni Cenlnr. i. cap. G. col. 4:;8. Hcle-
nam snporsliliosani vocanl. quia lliorosolymam pe-
lil. nt lignnm cincis invenirel, qnam lamon sancli
Palros oiniios niirilice laudani. et Spiritn sancto
inspirantc dicnnt, oain cnicis ligniim quaesivisse.
Ipsam voro historiam licet celcberrimam conanliir
Magdcbiirgonsos dubiam r^^ddcre Cent. 4. cap.i;{.
col. 1W8. ol 1i:W. duabus conjectnris. Prima osl.
quia Aiiibrosins ost anliquissiinus omniuin. qni
enm hisloriam rorornnl: sed illius orationom in
Theodosium, ubi lioc haboiur, Erasmns non reci-
pil, nt gormanam. Sccunda, quia Eusobius lib. 3.
de vila Constanlini de llelcna mnlia narrat ct de
repnrgalionc nionlis Calvariae, et tnmen non inc-
niinit invcnlionis crucis.
Ad prinmm dico primo: IVon exslnre fab^u Eras-
nii consnram. iinmo ipsi Magdcbnrgenses Conlur.
i. cap. \?i. in vila Ambrosii, ex judicio Erasmi
hanc oralionom Ambrosio Irihuunt. Ex qno porspi-
core polcs oorum conslanliam.
Dico socundo: Si oxsliiret.non esse Erasmnm di-
vinnm oraciilum . cui necessario credi dcbeat ,
qnando niillam affert rationem.
Dico lorlio: Falsum esso,quo(l Ambrosins sil an-
tiipiissimiis eorum, qui hanc historiam refernnt ;
uani Snlpilius, Pauhnus, Huffinus, Hieronymus,
Chrysoslomus, qui eandem recitanl, aequales Am-
brosii dici Dossunt, cnm eodem tempore vixerint,
licot Ambrosius ossel forlasse panlo senior. Deindc
candom recihit Cyrillns hierosolymitanns, Ambro-
sio anliqnior, in epist. ad Conslanlinm Angnslum:
ilom Constanlinus ipse, Ambrosio simililer anli-
qnior, (.'jusdcm meminit in cpist. ad Macharinm,
qnain relVrt Ensebins lib. .3. de vila Conslanlini,
ubi sic hahct: Tanla est Dei noslri beniqnilas, ut
nulla verhorum ofjlcia praescnti miraculo digna
esse qneanL Iloc enini admiralionem om.nem,
sluporemque %mieleril. indicivm lormenti sacra-
lissimi, tot a.nnis humo sepullum. usque dnmin-
terfecio communi hoste, liherae fam.iliae appa-
ruM.. iqnnrari elc. Ibidem nddil, novis miraculis
lidcm ess(! doclaralam.
Ad sccundam objectionom dicimns. Enscbium
in clironico hujus rei mominisse: in libris anlem
de vila Constanlini non fecisse dc bac rc menlio-
nem. quia res erat nolissima omnibns, etsalis pu-
labal essc, quod cam nltigisset in lileris Conslanti-
iii. Iluic invenlioni sanclae crucis addi potesl in-
vcnlio sacrac lanccae, quae divinn revclalione re-
porla cst Anliochiae . anno Domini 1008. et in-
miraciilo nobililala. Vide Gulielmum Tyrium lib.
(). de bello sacro , Panlnin Aemilium lib. i. dc
rcsignibus gcslis Francorum , ol Dodechinum
iiUKii sLt.i .^i»i:s
«7
Aliriiiiii Scoli roiiliiiiiiitiirciii in rliiiHil<!o iwiiil
\m.
Ai'i:;iiiiii'ii(iiiii tjiiiiiiiiiii, ii lo^liiiifiiiii*< vrlrniiii,
(]tii |i.is>iiii irriMiiiit. i|ii.iiili) ilcMiirrtn Inicrfiiliir
li*Ji'lt's liiiliriitli, iiiil nirlo viildtuli |iiir(iiMilii<t vrriin
niiris, i|iii)il iMl iii;i'.'iiiiiu rniriH liiiiii)ri'iii |ii'i'|ini'-
10 iiciiin i^iiur.il. In iiiiiiii>> 1». (lynllns liiciiisiilyini-
tiiiKis uiitrclicsi 10. rl l!l.ilii'il,c\ li^iin rriicis llic-
rnsnlyniis iiucnli) tulnni niniiiliiin ri'|)li'tiiiir, pliiri-
iiiisiiiilc |iiirliciil>is|ii'lciilitiii.s clinipcli.iniilMis C.un-
sliinliiui.-> piirlictil.nn crncis sliiliiiio siiiin iiisnrnil,
(|il!iiii<'.niisliiiiliiiu|)nlicnlluciivit.i'\lstiiiiiiiisprr ruiii
rriiris pinliciilain lulinit iirlirin rnsluilirniliiiii, nt
rrrrrnnl .^urralrs lih. I. r.ip.iii. «'l K.ntrnpitis.sivr
Piiiiliis iliiirniiiis.ipii innllii luldiilil Knlrnpin lili.l I.
rrriini ruiuiiiiiinini. (!rr;,Mirins nysscnns in vitii M;i
rriiiiic sororis, scrilnl, riiiii ni^sliin! sulilinn inl cul-
Itiiii rnicoiu lu },'(.' uiriiiii, riii insrrla cral parliriila
vuiiir rniris.
1'iiuliiins r|)isl. I2.iiil Srvcniiu scriliil. sr uiiltr-
ru, tiiui(|Uiiiu siiuunuin (Inntini, piirticnlinu rriicis
vcrae, aurn iiiclusaiu. Idriu rliiiiii iiiiliili dr.-iiuo s.
Krliris, srriiiil.sr rrslin\issr iiirrndinin ina\iiniiMi
ostrnsa parlirulii rruris, (piud iiullii artr (;\tiu^;iii
])ulcr<it.
/p.vr, iiuitiil, rfi)minii miirdii.'»", tiioi/ici/wi, scd (jnnulc
salHlis.
fh' cnivis iictryuac ainnptiim mihi fraiiminc /(r/iiiim
7'rii»i(), frariisi/iiti luanit advciais prorii/ iiKjevo pam-
mi.s <;/('.
Ohrysoslonuis hom.quod Chrislus sil Drus.sorihil.
eos (lui pnlueraul poliri parlirula rniris. aiiru in-
clusain scrvaro.ar iiide so Viddr ornari rl riisludirr
uicrilo rrcdftro. Kviijjjriiis lih. i.liisl.rap.2().rt l'ro>
oopius hh. 2. dc hollo pcrsico, u;irriiul. .\piinioi)o
fuissc parliruhun sanclao crucis.iiuaiu silii oslondi
IMipulus voluil.ruin rivilas diu ohsossii j;iin jam ra-
piriula vidcrclur. ul nlminiii) ronsprrlii rrure Du-
miui , alacrius morcrcnlur. Sed cum ah cpisco-
po oriix illa oslondorolnr somol ct ilonim , rl tor-
tio elTulsisso soinol el ilonim, el toriio spleiidi-
dum igncm , non comhurenlom , sod liicontcm ,
ipio torriti hosles , ol)sidioiioin solvoriiit. Grccfo-
rius lih. 7. cpist. 120. ad liochiirodum rogiMU Vi-
sigolhorum , millil orucis parlicnlam , ul cximium
munus.
Amhrosius ovnliono in Tiioodosiiim. Inqucns dc
cliivo iiiscrlo ah Holrna g;doiic imporaloris:Snpjc/i-
ter. inquit, ilvlcna egU.quae crucem (particulavi
vidcUcet crucis.nimirum clarum vnum)in capitc
regum levavit, vt crux Christi iih regibus ado-
relur.
nieronymus in psal. 98. cxponil do cruoo, illud:
Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. El in epist.!7.ad
Marcellam. dicil: Ergone eril illa dies. quando
nobis Uceal speUincam SaU-aloris inlrarc.crucis
lambere Ugnvm. etc.
Aucruslinus lih. 22. dc Civilale Dei Ciip.S.scrihit:
Ad lorrnm sanclam. cx monle Calvariae allaliim in
Alriiam. rniracula lleri solila, cl se cum alio cpi-
scopo rara inrodisse. cl oralionis locum supor cam
consliluisse.Quu honore Angustiiius prosetTucrclur
rrucrm, (|uiiiidii hlc lioiioravil Irrraiii, ulii fucfnl
rrnv?
lliH iiijih! Syhilhir Piiriucii . «juod liahcliir lih. (».
rariiiliium Ayhilliiioriitii, prnpc lliiciii:
(I tninuin ffh • iri ;(/'• /Am/h <;»•/• pr|»rn<//f.
Artjiitiienlniii (|iiiiilntti . nh ciiilliitionn rriirli,
(!()lisliil rniiii r\ P.iiilo di.icuiio. Zoti.ini rl (j-dri*-
III) iii viiii lliM-.ichi. Ilcriichuiti iii icriipcralKtiK*
rriiris, (piaiii l»crsiM! cx Iln;roHolyiiiiM iilolnlrrinil.
diviiiiltis iidjntum, lla U( rtiiini dc roido |l(;iis l.ipi-
dihiis t^riiiidiiiJs pii^-narcl rontra l'crs;is. iil oliiii
fiMMiriil riim Jnsiiclii ips:i ctiam rrsliliitiotic rrurlK
iii Ktium loniiti. miriirula (piiird;itti i (iiitii^rriinl, ul
rrfnl Si;;i licrliis in chrunicu ;inni (till.l.iide c(i:iiu
h'sliiiii inslitulniii lisl.iiitiir Otlio hisiiit;ciisis lih.
.'». r. \K lti'il;i <d Adu iii ni:irlyrolo(;io.
Ar;,'iimrutuni srvliim, si Innis, iii (|iii» atiifchis
strlil. trrr;i siiiiclii esl, Jnsiir. Ciip. .*>. Kxod. '.\. rur
iioii uiii^jis rrii.v, tihi slrlil Christus? Si sudiiria v.l
scmiciiicli.iPiiiili honuriihanttir pniplrr conlarlnin.
nir iiun uiii;;is rrii\ Chrisli siiu^iuim; rcsp(;rsa? Si
sarrainnilii hunuriinliir, (|Uia inslnimrntii jjriiliiic .
cur uou cru\,(iuii«) inslriimentum csl rcdcmpliotiis?