Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book III: On Churches, Vows, Pilgrimages and Feasts
Chapter 7: On the Blessings of Water, Salt, Branches, Candles and the Like
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).
The first who began to find fault with such blessings were the Waldenses, as is plain from a fragment of the work of Reinerius which is found at the end of the book of Claude de Seyssel against the Waldenses. And the Waldenses arose, on the witness of the same Reinerius, in the year of the Lord 1170. After them the Flagellants arose about the year of the Lord [1349?], on the witness of Bernard of Luxemburg in his Catalogue; who, because they set all piety in a baptism of blood poured out of their own will by scourging, at the same time asserted that the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, penance and all the rest had now come to an end, and with them all the blessings of water, of candles, of salt and so on. Hence too they called the instrument with which we sprinkle the holy water the club of death, and said that the drops of sprinkled water were sparks of hell. After them the Wycliffites (on the witness of Thomas Waldensis, volume 3, the last title, chapter [98?]) asserted that the blessings of water, salt, wine, bread, oil, candles and the like are the true practice of necromancy. Aeneas Sylvius writes the same of the heretics raging in Bohemia, in the book On the Origin of the Bohemians, chapter 35.
Martin Luther, in the book on the vision of Daniel against Ambrose Catharinus, condemns all these blessings too. The Magdeburgers, Century 2, chapter 6, column 121, say that the consecration of water is attributed by the Catholics to Alexander, pope and martyr, as its inventor; but that it could more rightly be attributed to some heathen pontiff, since the sprinkling of lustral water is a heathen rite.
Calvin, book 4, chapter [10?], section 20, of the Institutes, says three things against holy water. First, that the Catholics lie foolishly when they say that this blessing is an apostolic tradition, and yet give as the author of its institution Pope Alexander, who was the fifth from Peter. Second, he says that that institution is more recent than that it could be referred to the time of Alexander. For Augustine, letter 119, chapter 18, says that some Christians refused the ceremony of washing the feet on the day of the Lord's Supper, lest it should seem to belong to the sacrament of baptism. Wherefore it is plain that at that time there was no lotion of religion in the Church except baptism. Third, he says that the institution of lustral water could in no way come from the apostolic spirit, since it is nothing else than a certain profaning of baptism, and as it were a repeating of it.
Brenz, in his Confession, the last chapter, finds fault with these ceremonies because the mysteries of the faith ought not to be shadowed forth, since the Gospel itself has now shone out in the whole world.
Lastly Tilemann Heshusius, in the book On Six Hundred Errors of the Papists, place 27, puts among the errors that lustral water avails for blotting out venial sins and for putting to flight demons and diseases; and he proves it, first, from that of 1 John 1, “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin”; therefore also from venial sin. Second, he proves it because it is nowhere written that water is consecrated to put demons to flight. Likewise because it is written, Exodus 20, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”; and Deuteronomy 18, “Neither let there be found among you any wizard, nor charmer.” And it is manifest magic, apart from the word of God, to use creatures to put demons to flight. So they.
These notwithstanding, let the first proposition be: Water, oil, bread, candles, ashes, branches and the like are rightly blessed. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, which contain an example and a teaching. The example is the Lord's, Matthew 14 and Luke 9, who, about to multiply the loaves, looked up to heaven and blessed them, and by that blessing multiplied them. Surely what the Lord did cannot be found fault with. The teaching is Paul's, who says, 1 Timothy 4: “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” On which place Chrysostom and Theophylact write that the Apostle speaks on a supposition; that is, every creature indeed is good and clean, yet even if it were unclean, you could easily sanctify it by using the sign of the cross and prayer. If then even unclean things are sanctified by the sign of the cross and prayer, how much more will things otherwise good become better and holier by the sign of the cross and prayer.
Second, it is proved from the tradition of the ancients. And first, of water, that it was wont to be blessed from the very time of the apostles there are countless testimonies. Clement, book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter [29?], sets down the order of the consecration of water. Dionysius, in the Church Hierarchy, the chapter on baptism, says that water is consecrated with sacred invocations. Alexander I, letter 1, likewise commands water to be blessed. Cyril, catechesis 3, says: “As clean foods become unclean by the invocation of the devil, so simple water becomes holy by the invocation of God.” Cyprian, book 1, letter 12: “The water,” he says, “must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest,” and so on. Ambrose, book 1 On the Sacraments, chapter 5, teaches that water ought to be consecrated; and in the book On Those Who Are Initiated in the Mysteries, chapter 4, he says that water, unless it is first consecrated with the sign of the cross, has no use in the Church. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, says that the consecration of water is an apostolic tradition. Epiphanius, heresy 30, and Theodoret, book 5, chapter 21, of the History, mention blessed water. Augustine, homily 27 from the book of Fifty Homilies, and sermon 19 on the saints, and book 6 against Julian, chapter 8, says that water is consecrated in the Church with the sign of the cross. Add the Council of Nantes, canon 4, where the priest, when he visits the sick, is ordered first to sprinkle the sick man and his room with holy water.
Nor are Calvin's objections worth anything. To the first I say that the institution of lustral water is not attributed to Alexander, but to the apostles; and to Alexander is attributed the precept that this ceremony be frequently used.
To the second I say that Augustine does not condemn the ceremony of washing the feet, but only reviews various opinions. Nor does Augustine say that there were any to whom the ceremony of washing the feet simply displeased, but only that there were some whom it displeased that the feet of catechumens should be washed on the day of the Lord's Supper, lest that washing should seem necessary for baptism. Hence in the same place he says that it pleased many to put off the washing to the octave day of Easter; and Ambrose, book 3 On the Sacraments, chapter 1, defends the ceremony of washing the feet.
To the third I say that baptism is not repeated by blessed water. For baptism differs from the sprinkling of holy water in form, minister, intention and effect, as is plain. Although I would not deny that by blessed water the memory of baptism is renewed, and Christians are warned to think that they were once cleansed by water and made a covenant with God against the devil.
Of the blessing of oil we have the testimonies of Clement, Dionysius and Basil in the places above, and of Augustine, tractate 118 on John.
Of the blessing of bread outside the Eucharist we have the testimony of Augustine, book 2 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 26, and of Paulinus in the letters to Alypius and Romanianus, which are 33 and 36 among the letters of Augustine.
Of the blessing of the Easter candle we have the testimony of Strabo, chapter 30, and of the fourth Council of Toledo, canon 8, and of Pope Zosimus, as is plain from the Pontifical, that is, from the book On the Roman Pontiffs which is had in the volumes of the councils. Prudentius too wrote a notable poem on the Easter candle.
Of the blessing of palms and ashes we have the testimony of blessed Maximus, whose homilies are extant entitled for Ash Wednesday and for Palm Sunday.
The second proposition: We rightly use water, oil and other things consecrated by blessing for producing and signifying supernatural effects. Note that all those things which we have spoken of are blessed in the Church for three ends. First, to signify spiritual effects. For the sprinkling of ashes signifies penance; the palm, victory; the Easter candle, the glory of the resurrection. Nor does Brenz's reason about shadowing forth stand in the way; for these meanings are not properly foreshadowings of things to come, but outward representations of present invisible and spiritual things, or even of past things, which are most useful for stirring up feeling. Otherwise we shall take away baptism too, which according to the Apostle in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 6, contains a representation of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of ours too through Christ. Hence too Augustine, letter 119, says that Christians were wont to pray standing on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, to signify by that ceremony the resurrection of Christ.
Second, for blotting out venial sins. On which matter see St. Thomas, third part, question 87, article 3, and Domingo de Soto on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 15, question 2, and Gratian, the canon Aquam, distinction 3, On Consecration. Nor does the argument of Heshusius conclude. For the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, but if it is applied to us in some way. And as it is applied through baptism and the sacrament of penance for blotting out all sins, so it is applied also through the sacramentals and the Lord's Prayer for blotting out venial sins in one who is in grace.
Third, for putting demons to flight and curing diseases, as is plain from the prayers with which they are consecrated. Yet it is true that they do not work infallibly as the sacraments work; and the reason is both that such things have their power not from an express covenant of God, as the sacraments do, but from the prayers of the Church and the devotion of those who use them; and also that sometimes it is not expedient for us to be freed either from disease or from the vexation of the demon.
The proposition is now proved as to this third effect by the examples of Scripture and of the saints. For in Numbers 5 the waters over which curses had been pronounced by the priest, if they had been drunk by an adulteress, at once made her belly swell and her thigh rot; and yet this could not be called necromancy. In Numbers 19 water mixed with ashes was called the water of expiation, and by it the Jews were cleansed, not indeed from sins, but from legal uncleanness, as the Apostle says, Hebrews 9. Nor can we say that it was an enchantment. Likewise in 4 Kings 2 Eliseus used salt to heal the waters by a miracle; and in 4 Kings 5 he used the water of the Jordan to cure the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian. In Mark 6 the apostles anointed the sick with oil, and they were cured. These examples show well enough that it is not necromancy to use water or oil for supernatural effects as signs of the divine power.
Second, it is proved by the examples of the Fathers. For in Epiphanius, heresy 30, Joseph undid enchantments with blessed water. Marcellus of Apamea did the same, in Theodoret, book 5, chapter 21; likewise Macarius, in Palladius, chapter 19. Further, Hilarion, in Jerome, cured very many with blessed bread or oil; as did St. Bernard too, as is written in his life, book 3, chapter 5. Gregory, book 1 of the Dialogues, chapter 10, writes that St. Fortunatus cured a man who, falling from his horse, had broken his thigh, by the sprinkling of blessed water alone. Bede, book 5 of the History, chapter 4, writes that a most noble woman, labouring most grievously, recovered at once with blessed water, so that she served at table, as the mother-in-law of Peter once did. Bernard, in the Life of Malachy, writes that a man suffering from phrenzy was cured by Malachy with blessed water.
To these and like things Heshusius answers thus: “The miracles which are told as done through lustral water are either to be counted plain lies; or, if the witnesses are not false, and it is certain that they are true, it is nothing of Christ's appointing; but false prophets will do signs and wonders, that they may lead into error, if it can be done, even the elect.” But it is easy to judge whether those things can be called lies which have the testimony of Epiphanius, Theodoret, Palladius, Jerome, Gregory and Bernard; and whether those most holy men were false prophets, Joseph, Marcellus, Macarius, Hilarion, Fortunatus, Malachy, who by the name of Christ undid the arts of the devil or cured the gravest diseases. Let Heshusius rather see that he himself be not rash and a blasphemer, so as to commit the sin against the Spirit of the Lord. For what more rash than to accuse of lying so many holy Fathers, without any witness, without any reason? And what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, if this is not, to count among the lying signs of false prophets the divine works performed by the most holy men with the invocation of Christ?
And to Tilemann's reasons it is easy to answer. To that, “It is not written that water is sanctified to drive away demons,” I answer: It is false. For it is written that every creature can be sanctified by the word of God and prayer. And again it is written, “Ask, and you shall receive.” The Church, then, following Christ and Paul, sanctifies water by the word of God and prayer, and asks that it may avail against demons and diseases; and God testifies by miracles that he hears such prayers. Besides, even if it were not written, what then? Where was it written that waters should be healed with salt, and leprosy cured with the water of the Jordan? And yet Eliseus did both.
To the second, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and, “There shall not be among you a wizard,” I answer that to take the name of God in vain properly is nothing else than to swear falsely, as the eighth Council of Toledo rightly explains, chapter 2. And wizards and charmers are those who work something wonderful by the power of the devil. But those who bless water neither swear falsely nor invoke the devil, but only pray religiously to God. For the whole power of lustral water rests on the word of God and prayer, as we have shown from the Apostle.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
o.vpnT VII.
hc boncilicfiouibns uqutic. salis. t:inoruin.
ccrci t'/c.
Priini. qu\ ojusDiodi honedicliones iniderc coc-
pcruiit. \Viild(>iist>s siiiil. ulpalel ex IVagincnio o-
pcris ll(>ytKM'ii . iiuod exsliil in llnc lihri CliiiKlii
CuiilVurd contra \Vahionsos.K\orli siinl Waldonscs,
(Midc!)) Koynorio teste aiino Doinini 1170. Post oos
l'"la^'ollaiitos o.xorti suiil oirca annuin Doniini \MiiK
toslo IJcriiardo Lnlzoinhurgonsi in suo oaliiloi^Mi ,
tjui (]uod oinnoin piolatein oonslitnorent iu haptis-
ino sanguinis per llagellationcm sponlc effusi, si-
miil assorol)anl liiioin jiMu acoepisse saci"amenla ha-
lUisnii. conlinnationis, poeiiilonliae. el caeiei'a o-
innia, elcuin eis oinnes henedictiones a{]uae.oine-
ruin. salis etc. Unde eliam insirumenlum, quo as-
porj^Minus acjnam lusiralein, vocahanl clavain raor-
tis: ipsas vero pulias aspersao aquae sciniilkis iii-
IVrnalos dicchanl. Posl eos Wiclofislae (lesle Tho-
ma Waldonsi lom. .3. lil. ull. cap. 08.) asserehanl
honediciionos aquae, salis. vini, panis.olei. corco-
rum, elsimilium.esse veram praciicam necroman-
tiao. Idom (k Jiaeroliois in Boomia grassaniihus
scnhit Aeneas Sylvius lih. de orig.' DiJemorum
cap. .35.
Marlinus Luthcrus in libro de visione Danielis
conira Amhrasium Caiharinum. damnat oliam has
onines henodicliones. Magdoburgenses Ceiiiur. 2.
cap. G. column. 121. dicunUaquae consecrationem
Irihui a catliolicis Alcxandropapae el marlyri lam-
qnam inventori:sed reoiiusposse Iribui alicuigen-
tilium pontifici, cum cllinicus sit ritus, aquae lu-
sir.ilis aspersio,
Oalviiius lih. i. cap. 1(). § 20. Insiil. Iria ..licil
cdttlni iKpiiiin hoiioilirliiiii. Priiiio, Cnlliujicus pii>
^MIiirt! si ritllt, dlllll illillllt , iiiphM! tliMl):dli:lioiir|ll
(VH.sc iipdsliilKMitii inidilKHiiMii; i!l lanicii rcfcriiiil (!•
jiiK iii.sltdilKiitctii iii Al('\uiiilriiiii p<ii).iiii iiiiclorciii,
(pii riiil M. II Pclri). SiK'iiitild (liril , iiiHiiiulidtnMii
liititc ('ss(! riM;oiilidr(!iii iiiiilld . (piam iil ' !:{
vc| Alcx.inilrii liiliiii |ii>iMt. .Niitii Au^Mr^tiii . i.
11!) ciip. 1H, t|i«ii, (.lirihliiiitoH uiiiimhm; cucroniu*
ni.iin |,i\,iiidi pcijcs III tlic cticiiin! Iliiiiitiii, iic vitld-
ri!liii ci lolK) uii siicr.iiiK-iitiiitt hiiplisttii pcrliiicn*.
Hiiarc iitjiiiili-slitiii i!!«l,niilliiiii cd lciitpdi«! fiiiiiso iii
Mcclosia lotidiiriit rclii^MdHiiiii , i>\tM>p|t> hiiplisind.
Tciiid «Itctt.iiipiiK! Iiistriilis iitsliltilitincin iiiillti ind'
dd ii spintii iipdsldlicd piollcisci pdliiissc, ipiiiinld-
(piidcit) iiihil csl uIiikI. (|Uiiiii (luacd.iiii hapliMiii
prid'.iii:iliii, ot iptiisi rcpciilid.
Ilicniius III sii.i Ciinli'ssidti(!ca|). tilt. reprchi-ndil
oasili iti i-.i(!r(!ii)onias , (piia iKiit dchciil a(liiitihr.irt
mystcri.i lid(!i, ipso ev'iitg(!lid jiiiti Idlw orhc cdni-
SC.IIllO.
DciiifpK! Tihiianniis ll(!sltusius iit lihro dc .scx-
c(!ittis crronhus piipisliinitn. loco 27. pdtiii itilfr
crroros, atpinm luslrilom v.dtirt! ad (hilcndii vciiiii-
lia, cl ad rii;(iiitdos tliK!iiioiics (!t iiidrho^: cl pid-
hat priinuin cx illo 1. Jdan 2. Sanijuis ('.kri$li n-
mundal iitis ah oinni tlflitlo-.f.v-^^o (•tiiini a vciii.ili.
Secundo jirohiil tpiiii nustpiiiin scripluin csl, nl ii-
qua consccretur ad fugandos diicmdncs. Itom (juia
scri|)ium osl Kxud. 20. }tjn (issuincs nonic.n Dni
tui in raniini. lU Dcutor. IH. i\on sil inalcjicus ,
nec incanlalor ujYor ros.Kst aulom manircsla inii-
gia, practer Dei V(M'huin uii crcatuiis ad fugiindos
daoiDonos. Ilaoc illi.
llis iioii oiislaniihns sil fuiiiiii proposilio; Itccle
bencdicanlur aqua, oleuni.panis, cerei. cineres,
raini cl similia- Prohiilur jirimo o\ Scrijiiiiris .
quiU! conliocnt cxomplum ol documcniuin Kxoin-
plum est Domini .Miitih. 14. el Luc. !). (jui pancs
imilii^l^liciilurus aspcxit in coeluin.et hcncdixil cos:
ct ca honodiotione muUi[)licavil. Ccrtc qiiod Do-
miniis rocii. argui non poicsl. Docuinenlum csl
Paiili. qui dicit i. Timoth. 4. Oninis crealura Dct
houa cst. ci nihil ahjiciendum , quod cuni (jra-
tiaruin actionepcrcipilur.Sanctijicatur enini pcr
verbuni Dei el orationein. In quem locum Chry-
soslomus ct Tlieophylaclus scrihunt.apostoliun lo-
qui ox hypolhcsi, idest. omnis quidom creaiura
hona ct inundii est, liimen eliamsi essel immuiida.
facile posses eam sanclificare adhihilo signo cru-
cis el oralione. Si crgo eliam res iramundae san-
ctificanlur por crucis signuni el oralionem, quanlo
inagis res alioqui honae fient mcliores et sancliores
por siguum crucis el orationom.
Secundo prohalur ex Iradilione velerum. Ac pri-
raum de aqua, quod sohU honedici ab ipso tempo-
re aposlolorum . sunl innumerabilia leslimonla.
Clemens lih. 8. Aposlol. consliiul. cap. 35. ponit
ordinem consecraiionis aquac. Dionysius dc ecclo-
siaslica hierarch. cap. de baplismo , dicit. aquam
sacris invocationibus conseci'ari.Aloxander I.episl.
1. similiter praecipit aquam henedici. Cyrillusca-
lochesi 3. dicii: Sicul niundi cibi fiuiil inimundi
invocationc diaboli. ilaaquain siinpliccm fier-
st.inclam invocationc Det. Cyprianus lih. l.episl.
S36
DE CULTU 3A.>C10HU>1
12. Oporlet, inquil, mundari cl sancUficari 'prius
aq^ias a i'accrdole elc Ainbrosius lib. \. dcsacni-
inenlis cap. o. (iocel. nqiiain deborc consecrari, cl
lib dc bis ([ui inysleriis inilianlur oap- i. dicil, a-
quara nisi crucis signo prius sucrelur, nulluiu lia-
bcre nsum in Ecclesia. Dasilius lib. dc SpiriUi san-
ctocap. 27. aposlolicam IradiUoncm cssc dicit .
aquac consecralionctn. Ei)i[)hanius liacres. 30. et
Tbcodoretus lib. 5,cap. 21. bisloriae, aquac bene-
dictac memincrunl. Auguslinus bomil. 27. ex lib.
50. bomiliarum. et serm. 11). dc sanctis, ct !ib. G.
in Julianura cap. 8. dicit , aquam signo crucis in
Ecclosia consccrari. Adde concilium nannelense
canon 4. ubi jubelur prcsbylcr cum aegrolos vi
sitat, primo aspergerc aqua sancla acgrolum, et
ipsum ouliiculum.
!\'ec Cnlvini objecliones aliquid valeant. Ad pri-
mam dico, aquae luslralis inslilulionem non iri-
bui Alexandro , sed apostolis. Alexandro autera
tribui praeceptum, ut liacc caeremonia IVequen-
tetur.
Ad secundam dico : Auguslinum noii damnare
caeremoniam lavandorum pcdum.sed solum recen-
sere varias opiniones. Nec dicil Augustinus ullos
fuisse quibus simpliciler displiceret ca(iremonia
lolionis pedum. sed soluin luisse aliqnos, quibus
displiceret lavari pedcs calechumenis in die coe-
nae Domini, ne viderelur illa loUo ad baptismum
necessoria. l'ndc ibidem dicil,mulUs placuisse dif-
ferendam lolionem in oclavum diem pasohae; et
Ambrosius lib. .3. de sacramenlis cap. 1. defendit
caeremoniam loUonis pedum.
Ad terliam dico: l'cr aquam benediclam non re-
pcti baplismum. Diirertcnim baptismus ab asper-
sione aquac sanctac, forma, minislro, intcntione ,
et effcclu, nl palet. Quamquam non iiegarim, per
aquam bencdiclam relricari mcmoriam baplismi ,
et admoneri Chrislianos ut cogilent , se aliquando
per aquam purgatos fuisse , et paclura cum Dco
conlra diabolum iniisse.
Dc bcnedictione olei babcmus testimonia GIc-
menlis, Dionysii ct Basilii, ubi supra, el Augusll-
ni Iract. 118. in Joan.
De bencdicUone panis extra cucliaristiam,babc-
mus tesUmonium Auguslini lib. 2. de peccat. rae-
rit. cap, 2G. el Paulini in episl. ad Alipium el Ro-
manianum, quae sunl 33. et 3G.intcr epistolas Au-
gusUni.
Dc bencdiclionc ccre; paschalis, babemus testi-
monium Slrabonis cap. ,30. et concilii IV. toIeUmi
canon 8. et papac Zozimi, ut ex ponlilicali palel,
idest, cx libro de romanis ponUficibus^qui habetur
in tomis conciliorum. Scripsit eliam dc cereo pa-
schali cannen insigne Prudenlius.
De bcnedictione palmarum ct cinerum, babc-
mus leslimonium b. Maximi,cujus exslanl homiliae
inscriplae in diecincrum, et in dominica palma-
rum.
Secunda propositio: Rccle adcfpiclus superna-
luralcs efjicicndos et sifjnilicandos ullmur aqua,
oleo, aliisquc rehus henedictionc consecratis.
iXola, bcncdici illa omnia, quac diximus, in Ec-
clesia proptcr Ires fiucs. Prinio, ad significandos
spirilualcs eIl'ecIus.iA'am cincris aspcrsio significat
pocnitcnllam; palmac, victoriam; cerei paschalis ,
gloriam rcsurrectionis Neque obstat ralio Brenlii
de adumbrationo; lunn islae significaliones non
sunt proi)riac adumbraliones futurorum , sed rc-
praesenlationes cxternae rerum praesenlium invi-
sibilium el spirilualium, vel eliam rerum praelc-
ritarum, quae utilissimae sunt ad affeclum exci-
landum. Aliofjui etiam tollemus baptismum.qui se-
cundum aposlolum in cpist. ad Rom. c.G. continet
repraestmtalioiiem mortis et resurrectionis Cbristi,
et noslrae eliam per Chrislum, Unde eliam Augu-
stinus cpist. 119. dicil: Cbristianos diebus domi-
nicis, ct a pascha usque ad pentccosten,stando o-
rare solilos, ad significandam ea caeremonia Chri-
sti resurrcctionem.
Secundo,ad delectionem venialium peccatorum.
De qua re vidc s. Thomam 3- part. qu. 87. art. 3.
ctDomiinoum a Soto in 4. sent. dist. 15. q. 2. et
Graliannm can. Aquam dist- 3. de consecrat.Neque
argumonlum Hcshusii concludil;nam sanguis Cbri-
sli cmundat ab omni pcocato, sed si aliquo modo
nobis applicetur. Et quemadmodum applicalur per
baptismum et pocnitenliae sacramentum,ad delen-
da omnia peocala: ila etiam applicalur per sacra-
mentalia et oralionem doniinioam, ad dclenda ve-
nialia in eoqui est in gralia.
Tcrlio, ad fugnndos daemones,elcurandos mor-
bos, ut ex precibus palet, quibus consecranlur.
Verum est lamen. quod non operanlur infallibili-
ter, sicut operantur sacramenta; et ratio est, tum
quia vim habent ejusmodi res non cx pacto Dei
expresso, quomodo sacramenta, sed ex prccibus
Ecclesiae, et devotionc ulentium; lum etiam, quia
aliquando non expedit nobis ut liberemur vcl a
morbo, vcl a daemonis vexatione.
Probalur nunc propositio, quond islum tertium
en'ectum, excmplis Scriplurae ct sanctorum. Nam
Numer. 5. aquae, super quas maledicliones a sa-
ccrdote pronunciatae fuerant,si ab adullera epolae
fuissent.mox ventrem ejus inflari, et fcmur pulre-
fncerc facicbant; nec tamen isla necromanlia dici
potcrat. Num. 19. aqua cineribus mixla dicebalur
aqua expiationis, eaque mundnbanlur Judaei non
quidem a peccalis, sed a legnlibus sordibus, ui a-
poslolus dicit llebr. 0. Nec diccre possumus cam
fuisse incantationcm. Similitcr 4. Regura. 2. Eli-
saeus nd sanandns aquas mirnculo adhibuit salem.
Et 4. Ilegum 5, ad curandnm leprnm Nanman Syri
adhibuilaquam Jordanis. Marc. 6. ungebant apo-
stoli acgros oleo,et curabantur. llaec exempla sn-
tis ostendunl, non esse necromanUam,adhibcre a-
quam vel oleura, ad effcctus supernaturales, lam-
qunm signa divinac virtutis.
Secundo, probatur cxcmplis Patrum. Nam apud
Epiphanium baeres. 30. Joscph aqua benedicla
solvit incantalioncs. Similitcr fccit MarccIIus Apa-
mcensis apud Theodorclum lib. 5. oap. 21. Ilem
Macharius apud Palladium cap. 19. Porro Hilnrion
apud llieronymum pane vel oleo benediclo pluri-
mos curavit. Sicut cUam s. Bcrnardus, ul in vila
ejus scribitur lib. 3. cnp. 5. Gregoriiis lib. 1. dia-
log. cap. 10. scribit,s. Forluuatum curasse qucjn-
dnui, qui cadeus e\ cquo , femur confregernl, so-
lius aquae bcuediolao aspcrsionc. Beda lib. 5. hi'
I iiii II ii:inii s
SST
sl. ('a|). i. scrihil, iKiliilissiiniiiu rtiiMiiiniiiii ^i.ivis-
siinc. liiboniiidMii ii(|iiii iKMiiMlicla iiuix llii r.iHivii-
liiissi', iil iiiini^^lraicl niriis;ic, i|iii>in;ii|iiiiHliiiii :ili
i|n:inil(i IVcciiil siirnis l'clii. licinardns m \il>i M.i
lii(lii;in scriliil a M;ila(:liia, pcr a(|n;nii liciicilicl.nn,
liiiinincni plnacnclicnni rsso (Miraliiin.
Ail liacc cl similia ila rcspomlcl llcslnisins; I//'m-
diiviii, impiil, (/»((((' liiiiiiinliir ilc ininiruliH liirliH
•/)('»' (K/KdKi litslnilrm, rrluiulriiilii siinl prnfrr-
litir. !S(>ii (/iCcs liilsiiin Irsliinitiiiiiin.ltinnl m cdji-
iriultinl vrra vssr, ni>lii rsl i.lirisli iiilinunilii),
/isci(.(/(»/)r(i/i/i('/(t(' ('(Iriil niirdcula rl itnnliijia, ut
indiiriinlitr iii rrrnrrni, si firri /to/cs/, rliinnrlr.-
rli. SimI lacilc csl jmliciirc. incml;ici;i nccnc dici
pnssinl (pian lcsliimininm lialiciil ;ili l'!pipli.iiii(i,
Tlicnilorclo, Pallailin, llicronyino, <irc^,'ori(), Mcr-
nanlo, i'l nnm sinl pscmlopropliclac s;mclis>imi il-
li viri, .loscplms, M;irccllns, .>l;icli;iriiis. lliLirmn,
Kortnnntiis, Alal;irliias, ipii C.liristi nomini': anl ilia-
lioli ;irlcs (lissolvcrimt.aiit imirlios ^;ravissiimis cn-
r;iV(M'nnt. Vidcat polins lU^shusins, nc sil ipsn lc-
incrariiis cl lilasplicmus, nl iii spiritum Domini
pccciitmn a(lmitt;il. <,)ni(l (Miiin liMmM'arinni in;i<;is,
(piam tol sanclos P;ilrcs miMuhicii rcpriilicmlcrc,
siiio tcste, sim^ ralionc nllii? On;ic csl aiitcin hla-
sphcinia in Spiritnin sanctum.si liaec non cst opc-
ra (livina, Ohrisli invocatiom^ ;i siinctissimis viris
l)crrcct;i,inlcr signii mciulacia pscuduprophctarum
rclurrc?
Ad ralioncs imtcin Tilmaniii facilc csl rcspondo-
rc. Ad illiim: ^'on rsl ^rriplnm, ut aqua sanclili-
cclur, ad pcllcndos dacnwncs: licspoiidcu: Fal-
sum csl; l\ain scriplum cst.omncm crciUnram pos-
sc sanclilicari pcr vcrhiim Pci, cl oriitioncin. Kt
rnrsus scriptum csl: Pctilc cl accipicUti. Kcclcsia
i^ijilur Christum, et Paulum sc(iucns Vcrbo Dci, cl
oratione sanclifical a^piiun, cl pctit. ut valcal con-
tra dacmoncs ct niorbos. ct Dcus uiiraculis tcsta-
lur se audirc ejusinodi prcces. Practorca ctiamsi
scriplum nou csscl, (]nid tum? Ubi nam scriptum
cral ul iKiuac sanarcntur salc, ct lopra curarclur
aiiua Jordanis? ct tamcn nlrum(]nc fccit Elisacus.
Ad sccundam: Non assumcs nomen Dei lui in
vauum:cl non crit intcrvos 7unr7KS,rcs|)ondco:As-
sumcrc nomcn Dci in vauum, propric nihil essc
aliud, quain pejerarc, ul recte cxplicat conciliuin
tolctanuin VIII. cap. 2. Malelki aulcra. cl incanlii-
lorcs sunl, (]ui diaboli polestate aliquid mirum o-
perantur. Al qui aqnam bcnedicnnt, nec pejerant,
nec diabolum invociint, scd soUim rcligiose Dcum
pn^cantur. Tota cniin virtns aquac luslralis nilitur
verbo Dei, cl oralionc, ul cx aposlolo dcmonslra-
vimus.