Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. Since the Christian Religion professes that Christ the Lord consists of a twofold nature, and teaches that each single nature, divine namely and human, retains what is proper and innate to itself without all change or confusion, no Catholic doubts that Christ as God, in the proper person of the Word subsisting in human nature, is to be adored with the worship of latria; since indeed he, as such, properly and essentially has uncreated excellence, nor only his nature but even his very person be something uncreated supremely and infinitely excellent, and motive of latria, there is no doubt but that Christ, inasmuch as God and divine Word, is to be venerated with adoration of latria. But the difficulty is whether Christ entire and whole, namely inasmuch as God-Man, is at the same time to be venerated with that genus of adoration. Likewise whether his humanity regarded in itself, inasmuch as either it bears order to the supposit of the Word by which it subsists, or with such order set aside, is to be adored with adoration of latria. Concerning the resolution of which question very many heretics have erred variously; for the Apollinarists denying that in Christ there was a perfect man like to us, and holding that only flesh was received by the Word, and that fallen from Heaven and consubstantial with the Father, as St. Athanasius relates book De Incarnatione Verbi, also taught that with one adoration of latria the flesh was to be venerated together with the Word, because they believed both to be of the substance of God. Wherefore they called Catholics hominicolas, because they asserted that the true substance of man in Christ was to be venerated: but in turn Catholics purged themselves of this reproach by calling them carnicolas. But the Nestorians likewise thought both natures were to be venerated with one adoration, but insidiously, because they said they were joined by moral union only. Gaufredus also relates, disciple of St. Bernard, in an Epistle to Cardinal Albanensis, that Gilbertus Porretanus explaining these words of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, said that the flesh and humanity of Christ were not to be adored with adoration of latria, but with a certain lower adoration: Not that, he was saying, which is called adoration which Latria is, which is owed to the Creator alone: but that which is called dulia: for dulia is adoration, which is exhibited even to a creature: which has two species: one which is shown indifferently to men, another which is shown to the sole humanity of Christ. But in a Manuscript written on parchment of that commentary of Gilbert upon the Psalms, which is preserved in the Library of the monastery of St. Victor near Paris, one may read the contrary entirely to those things which Gaufredus relates.

NOTE 2. That equally it is without controversy that Christ as man can be adored with latria through communication of idioms; because since human nature and divine are predicated of each other mutually in the concrete, whence it comes about that God is called man and Man-God is predicated, and truly is, so through the same communication of idioms Christ, as man, is worthy to be venerated with the same adoration of latria which is proper to God and the divine Word. But the difficulty seems to be whether the worship of latria can be rendered to Christ as man, so that it terminate at him, as at man and according to humanity, and thus not only that man be denominated adorable with latria, but also that he be thus adored as man. That this may be perceived more evidently, and the difficulty to be solved appear more clearly, it must be observed that the humanity of Christ can be considered with respect to adoration in three modes: First, inasmuch as it is conceived as hypostatically united to the divine Word, and as thus conceived is adored. Secondly, as it is apprehended separated and abandoned by the Word: since the Word can dismiss it absolutely, in which case it is asked whether as thus it be to be adored with latria on account of the union which it had with the Word: or also whether, with all order to the supposit of the Word set aside and cut off, it can be adored with latria, inasmuch as we have attained through it very many benefits of grace and redemption. Finally, the humanity of Christ can be regarded according to its own proper excellence, namely eminent sanctity, and all divine charisms with which it is illustrated. It is asked therefore whether the humanity of Christ considered in this threefold mode is worthy to be adored with worship of latria.

NOTE 3. A twofold object of adoration is distinguished by Theologians, one indeed motivating, another truly terminative. The first is that which moves us and morally excites to exhibiting adoration of the thing which we venerate. The second truly is that which terminates that adoration. Thus in a man whom we venerate on account of virtue, virtue is the motivating object of honor and of the cult shown him: but the man illustrated by virtue is the terminative object of it. Now it can happen that one and the same thing be motivating and terminative object simultaneously, when namely it moves us to exhibiting adoration, and moreover at the same time is also adored. Thus when the divine nature is adored, it simultaneously is motivating and terminative object of that adoration. Whence when it is asked whether Christ as man can be adored, the sense of the difficulty can be whether humanity can be the motivating object of adoration of latria, or truly whether it is only the terminative object of it, inasmuch as that which consists of(?) the divine Word and humanity is adored with latria, so that the humanity included in that whole subsistent be also a terminative object, if not total, at least partial, at which that adoration of latria terminates, although it not be the motivating object of that adoration.

These things prenoted, it must be resolved first whether Christ, as God-Man, be to be adored with one adoration of latria, so that his humanity, as united hypostatically to the divine Word, ought to be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity and subsistence of the Word are adored. Secondly, whether the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word would be to be venerated with the same adoration of latria. Thirdly, whether that humanity, although united to the Word, yet not thus apprehended, but only regarded according to its own proper excellence, be also thus to be adored.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST INASMUCH AS GOD-MAN OUGHT TO BE ADORED WITH ONE ADORATION, SO THAT HIS HUMANITY, INASMUCH AS HYPOSTATICALLY UNITED TO THE DIVINE WORD, IS TO BE ADORED WITH THE SAME ADORATION OF LATRIAE WHEREBY HIS DIVINITY AND DIVINE SUBSISTENCE ARE ADORED.

This is common among Theologians, and the Subtle Doctor teaches it in 3 d. 9. num. 8. where he says:

When it is asked whether adoration be due to Christ only according to the divine nature, I say that ly only can be taken twofoldly, namely categorically, or syncategorematically tice. In the first mode I concede that so, because sufficient reason of highest adorability is in Christ considered according to the sole divine nature. But if it be held syncategorematically, then it notes exclusion from one extreme with respect to the other extreme. Also in like manner I distinguish, because only can exclude something either from the term of adoration, or from the reason of adoring. In the first mode I say that not only according to the divine nature is Christ thus to be adored, because human nature ought not be excluded from the term of adoration, as though by including it the whole could not be adored. This Damascenus says book 3. c. 8. Christ perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with the Father and Holy Spirit with one adoration with his uncontaminated flesh, saying his flesh not unadorable; for they are adored in the one hypostasis of the Word, which became his hypostasis. And shortly after: One person of the Word of God, those two natures being reduced.

He exemplifies afterward: Yet to touch wood on account of fire mixed with wood. In that authority of Damascenus ly cum is taken associatively, not however copulatively, so that the sense be: we adore the Word with flesh, that is, having flesh united to himself: but not with flesh, that is, we adore flesh, as though it be a copulative proposition: and this considering the flesh, as it is flesh, and not as united to divinity: thus therefore flesh ought not be excluded from the term of adoration, although it itself not be the reason of adoring. » So this Doctor.

But the Conclusion is proved, first indeed from Sacred Scripture, namely those testimonies by which it is signified that worship of latria is rendered to Christ as man-God. Thus Matth. 2. Of the Magi venerators of Christ it is said: they bend their knees, etc. Apocalypse 5. The four and twenty ancients fell down(?) their, and adored him living forever and ever. And again: Blessing, and honor, and glory to him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb. All which although they rightly can be understood re(?) of Christ as God, nevertheless they can also be taken of himself as man; since every knee ought to bow to Christ, and all honor be paid, because he is Jesus, and because Lamb: but he is Jesus and Lamb not only on the side of Divinity but chiefly on the side of humanity, whose life was offered and immolated for the price of our redemption: therefore those testimonies can be understood also of Christ as man. — But more clearly does this truth appear from Matth. 28. where concerning the women approaching the sepulcher of Christ it is said: And behold Jesus met them saying, hail: but they approached, and held his feet, and adored him. But since that act of detention, or kiss of feet, is external adoration significative of interior adoration, and that is exercised about the body and feet of Christ, it is certain that they thus holding Christ adored also his humanity. The Apostle St. Thomas performed the same, John 20. when he said to Christ: My Lord, and my God; by which words he confessed Christ to be God and man, and professed that he was truly raised from the dead; and immediately he adored him as God and man: for that profession was an act of signal faith, which consequently had the act of adoration as its companion, especially since Christ was present. Therefore holy Thomas must be judged to have adored not only the divinity of Christ but also the humanity.

It is proved secondly by authority of the Council of Alexandria with St. Cyril presiding, whose Synodal epistle to Nestorius prefixed this eighth among other chapters to be subscribed under intermination of anathema and excommunication:

If anyone dare to say that the assumed man ought to be joined with God the Word, and conglorified, as though one with another (for the particle cum added cogitates this to be understood) and Emmanuel be not rather venerated with one reverence, and render him one glorification, according to that the Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.

Which decree certainly of the Alexandrian Synod, together with that Synodic epistle, the Synod of Chalcedon approved Action 5. and likewise the V. Synod: and likewise the Lateran Synod under Martin first, which reports and approves the ninth Canon of the V. Synod thus:

If anyone say that Christ is adored in two natures, whence they introduce two adorations, of God the Word separately, and of man separately: or if anyone bringing forward(?) one nature or essence of those concurring unto the destruction of the flesh, or unto confusion of Divinity and humanity saying, thus adore Christ, but shall not have adored with one adoration God the Word incarnate together with his flesh, according to that has been handed down to the holy Church of God from the beginning: let such a one be anathema.

By which it stands that not only is Christ as God-man adored in solidum, but also that that adoration terminates at his humanity subsisting in the person of the Word. Which certainly is confirmed from the Council of Trent Session 13. chapter 5. and Can. 6. where defining the worship of latria, which truly befits God, to be owed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, he gives the reason in these words:

For neither on that account is it less to be adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be taken: for we believe that same God present to be present in it, whom the eternal Father introducing into the world says, and let all the Angels of God adore him, etc.

But the sacrament of the Eucharist comprehends not only the Divinity by concomitance, but truly also the body and blood of Christ by force of words and signification of the sacrament: therefore if the Sacrament of the Eucharist be worthy of adoration of latria, the body and blood of Christ are venerated with the same worship.

It is proved thirdly by authority of the holy Fathers, above all truly St. Athanasius in the epistle to Adelphius Bishop: where he expounds an abundant discourse on this argument: denying that the adoration of flesh should be separated from that of the Word: but commanding both natures to be venerated with one veneration.

We do not adore a creature, he says, far be it; for of such men and Arians is that kind of error. But we adore the Lord incarnate of the creature, God the Word. For although the flesh itself of itself is a part of creatures, nevertheless it has become the body of God. And neither severing such a body of itself, do we adore through the Word; nor wishing to adore the Word do we disjoin it far from the flesh. But knowing these things, as we already said, the Word was made flesh, this very thing also placed in flesh we acknowledge God. Who then is so foolish as to say to the Lord: spare(?) from the body, that I may adore you?

Here Athanasius brought forward the true and certain reason of his saying when he said that one adoration was to be exercised toward both, Because the flesh is proper to the Word: for it was his own body, and in it the Word was present, as he immediately says:

But where indeed (the same proceeds) altogether will these impious find separately through themselves the flesh which the Savior received, that they may dare to say: We adore the Lord with flesh, but we sever the body, and serve him alone with worship of latria?

Wherefore in the same place he calls Gentiles and Ethnics, and by no means Christians, those who think the Word ought to be separated from flesh, that they may adore it. — Signal also is the doctrine of St. Epiphanius in Anchorato for confirming the same truth, where against the Arians he proves the Son of God uncreated and God because he is adored. Then he brings forward the calumny of heretics reproaching Catholics that they adored a creature, because they adored the body begotten from a creature. Hence he presses them thus: Do you adore the incarnate Savior, or do you not adore? How indeed shall I not adore? For if I shall not adore, I have no life. Behold therefore you adore a creature, the body itself. Immense however is their madness(?) who say such things: for the King clothed in purple is adored by all. Is then the purple adored, or the king? It is manifest, that the king: but together with him even the purple which he wears is co-adored; but where the king has stripped off this and put it in its place, no longer is the garment purple adored. — St. Ambrose also demonstrates most splendidly that passage book 3. De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 11. explaining that of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, which he so takes, that he takes scabellum for the flesh of Christ.

Therefore he says, by the footstool earth is understood, but by earth the flesh of Christ, which even today we adore in the mysteries: and which the Apostles in the Lord Jesus, as we said above, adored: for neither is Christ said, but one: nor was it denied that he was adored as Son of God born of the Virgin. Since therefore the sacrament of incarnation is to be adored, but incarnation be a work of the Spirit, as it is written: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, etc. without doubt the Holy Spirit also is to be adored when he is adored who according to the flesh is born of the Spirit.

— St. Augustine expounding the same words of the Psalmist luculently confirms the same truth in these words:

I was made man: I fear to adore earth, lest I hem in me who made heaven and earth. Again I fear not to adore the footstool of my Lord's feet; the Psalm seeks me, he says, adore the footstool of his feet. I ask what be the footstool of his feet, and Scripture says to me: Earth is the footstool of my feet. Wavering I turn myself to Christ, because I seek himself there, and I find how without impiety the footstool of his feet may be adored. For he took of earth Earth, because flesh is of earth, and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh: and because he walked here in that flesh, and gave that flesh to us to be eaten unto salvation: but no one eats that flesh unless first he adore. There has been found how such a footstool of the Lord's feet may be adored, and not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring.

— Moreover John Damascenus first in book 3. De Fide, chapter 8. confirms the same thing admirably:

Therefore Christ is one, he says, perfect God, and perfect man, whom we adore with the Father and Spirit with one adoration, with his immaculate flesh, by no means denying adoration to his flesh. For he is adored in the hypostasis of the Word, which hypostasis was made his, nor yet doing this do we serve a creature; for we adore not as naked flesh, but as joined to divinity, and inasmuch as into one person and one hypostasis of the Word of God those two natures of his are reduced. I fear to touch wood on account of the fire which is conjoined with wood. Therefore both things which are Christ's on account of Divinity copulated to flesh.

It is proved also by reason: That some whole be held worthy of adoration it suffices that in such a whole, as adored, there be some motivating reason of exhibiting its adoration; nor is it necessary that that motive exist in each single part of it: since since honor, v. g., is paid to a man on account of wisdom, that whole man is venerated, and according to itself whole is the terminative object of such honor: nevertheless wisdom, which is the motive reason of honor exhibited, resides formally in the intellect alone; yet because that wisdom is in the whole man, there is sufficient motive reason why the whole man be honored: but Christ, as man, or as subsistent in humanity, is some whole consisting of divine nature, subsistence of the Word, and humanity: in which whole the divine nature and person of the Word, on account of their infinite and uncreated excellence, are motive reasons that adoration of latria be paid to Christ: therefore Christ, as man or subsistent in humanity, ought also to be adored with latria, and consequently the humanity, as subsisting in the subsistence of the Word, and as hypostatically united to God, ought to be adored with the same adoration whereby the divinity of Christ is adored.

You will object 1. St. Damascenus Oratione 1. De imaginibus, who speaking concerning the humanity of Christ says:

Not matter, but the Author of matter I adore, who on my account became matter, and willed to dwell in matter, that through matter he might afford me salvation: but the matter through which salvation has been procured for me I cease not to venerate, not however as God, far be it.

Therefore St. Damascenus does not hold that the flesh and humanity of Christ, which there he calls matter, is to be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity and person of the Word.

I answer. St. Damascenus does not deny that the humanity of Christ is to be adored with worship of latria inasmuch as it is joined to Divinity: since indeed he himself teaches this most expressly, as we saw above; but only he wills that it not be adored as God, that is, that there be rendered to it first and by reason of its own excellence worship of adoration latria, nor be the affection of servitude borne toward it, but toward divinity, which on account of its infinite excellence is the reason moving us toward that adoration to be paid to Christ. St. Epiphanius praised above signifies this same thing when he says the King is adored, not his purple, but the purple only co-adored, namely because it is not adored as King, but co-adored with the King, as something of his by reason of dignity, not of the purple itself, but of the King.

You will object 2. The ordinary Gloss on these words of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, where it says: The flesh assumed by the Word without impiety is adored by us, but not with that adoration which latria is, and which is owed to the Creator alone: therefore it is false that the humanity of Christ can be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity. — The Seraphic Doctor answers that gloss to be so understood, that it wills the humanity of the Word as in itself, and considered according to its own proper excellence, is not to be adored with adoration of latria, but does not deny that united to Word it is thus to be adored. I answer secondly that that gloss was taken from St. Augustine on the same words of the Psalm, who, as we saw above, does not deny, nay affirms, that the humanity of Christ, which there he wills to be designated by the footstool of feet, is religiously adored with the same adoration whereby Divinity: not indeed on account of its own excellence, but on account of its union with the Word. Add that the words of the gloss were not faithfully excerpted from St. Augustine, since in him the said words are not found, but not that adoration which latria is, etc.: therefore that authority of the gloss is not to be greatly regarded.

You will object 3. God alone is to be adored with adoration of latriae: but the humanity of Christ as united to Word is not God: therefore neither to be adored with adoration of latriae. — I answer distinguishing the major: God alone is to be adored with latria as object moving toward that adoration, I concede: as sole terminative object of it, I deny: since indeed the humanity of Christ and Divinity concur into one person, hence they also constitute one terminative object of that adoration.

You will object 4. To the lesser lesser reverence is to be shown, and to the greater greater: but Christ according as man is less than the Father, and his humanity inferior to Divinity: therefore this is not to be venerated with supreme adoration, such as latria is. Finally, it is not of that one's part to be adored with adoration of latriae whose part it is to adore: but of humanity's part it is to adore the supreme Divinity and Trinity: which is proved, because to adore belongs to whose part it is to pray: but Christ as man prayed God many times: therefore, etc. Finally, worship of latriae is not rightly paid to him to whom that worship cannot be rendered through that which he has in himself more excellent: but Christ cannot be venerated as man through sacrifice, which is the more excellent sign of worship of latriae; because sacrifice ought not be offered to Christ, for as St. Augustine teaches, lib. 20. De Civitate Dei, Christ preferred to be the sacrifice than to take it: therefore worship of latriae cannot be paid to the humanity of Christ. — The Seraphic Doctor answers to the first, that the major is true in those who are susceptible of diverse honors, namely when those honors to be paid are ordered to diverse persons distant in grade and dignity: false truly when there is only one person: therefore since in Christ there is one person, to whom supreme reverence is due, just as honor is due to the King whatever garment he be clothed in; for honor, he says, respects the more worthy nature, and consequently that which is annexed to it: thus the flesh of a holy Man ought to be honored according to the dignity of the soul, not according to the ignobility of its own nature. To the second he says that although it belong to the humanity of Christ to adore, still it does not follow from that that it should not equally be adored with adoration of latria: for it adores according to the operations and state of humanity, whereby it is less than the Father; but it is adored according to the dignity of divinity and person, according to which it is equal to the Father; but we, who adore him, ought not attend to his inferiority of humanity, but to the dignity and majesty of person and divinity. To the third he answers that although sacrifice cannot be offered to the humanity of Christ inasmuch as it is considered according to itself, nevertheless truly it can have sacrifice made to it, as it is joined to divinity, because sacrifice can be made to whole Christ, since he is truly God. He says this of St. Augustine, as denying not that sacrifice ought to be made to Christ; but that it was not practically to be done, that occasion of error may be avoided, and lest perhaps anyone think honor owed to the supreme Numen is paid to a creature.

You will object 5. If an Angel adoring the Word before Incarnation would continue the same adoration after Incarnation accomplished, either he adores Christ as God and man, or not. If the first: therefore the adoration antecedently to Incarnation also terminated at humanity, which is absurd. If the second: therefore the adoration of Christ qua God does not tend into him qua man, and consequently his humanity with the same adoration whereby divinity is not venerated. — I answer first that in that hypothesis the Angel can be judged to adore the Word as man with the same adoration whereby before he adored the Word only: for by that very fact that he tends into the person of the Word, with the same adoration without any physical mutation he tends into all that which is joined to that person, and is proposed through intellect as joined; nor from that does it follow that antecedently it was terminated at humanity; since antecedently the angelic intellect did not represent to him humanity conjoined with the Word. I answer secondly that if the Angel should adore Christ as man in such wise that he wished to subject himself not only to him inasmuch as he is God, but also inasmuch as he is man, and wished to pay his servitude according to both considerations, in that case the adoration would be distinct after Incarnation from that whereby before he adored the Word: namely because with another affection and cult he would prostrate himself before Christ than before.

You will object 6. Finally: the humanity of Christ even as united to divine Word cannot be loved with the same love wherewith God: for neither Christ as man, nor his humanity ought to be loved above all things: therefore neither ought it be adored with the same adoration. — I deny the antecedent: for Christ considered according to himself whole can truly be loved above all things, because he has goodness and infinite excellence conjoined to himself, by reason of which he can be loved above all objects which have not infinite goodness and excellence of that kind. — The Doctor approves the same solution n. 14, where having proposed various modes by which it could be conceded or denied that Christ be to be loved above all things, he says:

If love can tend equally confusedly into the object as adoration, it can be conceded that Christ having human nature is to be loved supremely, although human nature not be the reason of supreme lovableness, nor even union of human nature to the Word however it be: just as we adore the Trinity with one adoration and love it with one love, not excluding personal properties from essence: which properties nevertheless are not formally infinite; so also it is safe in adoration not to distinguish too much that created nature from the Word, but to adore the Word subsisting in two natures: and thus the Word having human nature can be loved supremely, although that nature itself be not supremely loved, nor even be supremely loved the union of nature to the Word, which is a creature.

Second Conclusion. — If the humanity of Christ were dismissed by the Word, it would not be to be adored with adoration of latriae, even respective. This is against Wicleffus who, as Thomas Waldensis relates, lib. 1. Doctrinalis fidei, art. 3. cap. 99. n. 1. asserted that the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word in its own person was to be adored with adoration of latriae, and loved as Redeemer.

It is proved first from St. Augustine, who Sermon 58. De Verbis Domini, says:

I adore the flesh of the Lord, or rather the perfect humanity in Christ on this account, because it was received from Divinity and has been united to Deity. Finally, if you separate man from God, as Photinus or Paul of Samosata, I never believe them nor serve them: just as if any one of you should love purple, or royal diadem lying in the storehouse: for what would he attempt to adore? But when the King shall have been clothed in it, he incurs peril of death if anyone despise it together with the law. By which words St. Augustine openly signifies that the humanity of Christ apart from the Word is not to be venerated with supreme worship.

The Doctor proves this same thing d. 1. n. 9, since supreme worship is owed to none except on account of supreme and uncreated excellence: but the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word would by no means have that supreme excellence in itself: since it would have neither formally nor through hypostatic union infinite perfections: therefore, etc. Then, if this worship the humanity thus dismissed ought to vindicate to itself, especially either absolutely or relatively: but neither can be affirmed. Not the first, because, as soon said, the humanity in that case would not have infinite excellence. Not even the second, because that relation which it would have to God cannot be sufficient reason whereby it moves toward that supreme adoration to be paid it; since it would regard God only either by reason of sanctifying grace, whereby it would be illustrated above other creatures, or by reason of grace of head, in which it would be constituted, or by reason of ministry of redemption, because namely it had contributed to our salvation: but none of these three relations of that humanity to God can be sufficient motive that supreme worship of latriae be paid it. Not indeed the two first, because they are founded in created good and created excellence: since grace of head and sanctifying grace are something created and finite; and therefore insufficient for founding worship of latriae. Nor even the third, because, says the Doctor n. 12, although it may have been congruous that the Redeemer of human kind ought to have been God, that the same might be Reparator who had been Creator, and thus to the same person we render our supreme obedience and honor: nevertheless it was not absolutely necessary that the person redeeming be God; since pure creature, God so ordaining, was sufficient, according to extraordinary power, to work our salvation and redemption, of which matter the Doctor brings this splendid example: that just as although it appear more congruous that he who begot the son himself nourish him, inasmuch as reverence and honor of genitor and nutrimentor be due and paid to the same person; nevertheless notwithstanding this, another than father could nourish the son begotten, and thus that son would owe reverence and honor to two distinct persons, namely genitor and nutrimentor. So also although it have been congruous that the person creating be also redeeming, yet it could come about that the person redeeming not be the same that had been creating, and thus supreme worship, which is owed to God alone, would not be due to the redeemer. Add that, if by hypothesis God in creating man had used some Angel, as instrumental cause, latria adoration would not be owed to such an Angel on account of benefit of creation, but to God alone, as principal independent cause, on whom then the Angel would depend in creating: therefore since the humanity in repairing man was only instrument of the Word, it follows that if itself were separated from the Word, it would not be to be venerated with adoration of latriae.

You will say. To Christ, inasmuch as he is Redeemer, and head of human kind, greater worship is owed than considering him only on the side of eminent sanctifying grace wherewith he was illustrated, and other supernatural gifts with which he was endowed and enriched: but by reason both of his eminent sanctity and also of those heavenly gifts there would be owed to his humanity worship of hyperduliae, because with these gifts he not only equals but also exceeds the excellence of blessed Virgin, who is venerated with hyperdulia: therefore Christ as head, or Redeemer of human kind, is to be venerated with greater worship than sole worship of hyperduliae: but worship greater than hyperdulia is worship of latriae: therefore the humanity of Christ, inasmuch as it would have character of head and redemptress, ought to be venerated with latria. — I distinguish the major: greater worship is owed within the same grade, and order, I pass over; greater worship of another order is owed, I deny: and similarly the minor being distinguished, the consequence is to be denied. Since indeed worship is paid anyone on account of his excellence, and since that excellence can be diverse according to greater or lesser grade, on whose side one is more or less illustrated with divine gifts: hence it is that within the same order of adoration duliae v. g. one Saint is celebrated with ampler honor than another even by the Church herself, which proposes the solemnities of Saints to be celebrated under diverse rite of simple or semidouble, etc.: therefore by equal right within the order of hyperduliae someone could appear worthy of greater worship than another: and thus by this reason the humanity of Christ, if it were dismissed by the Word, would have to be venerated with ampler honor of hyperduliae than most blessed Virgin: then because it would be gifted with grace and dignity of head, which does not befit blessed Virgin: then finally because more efficaciously than blessed Virgin it had contributed to our redemption. Yet from that it is not consequent that that humanity in that state would be to be venerated with adoration of latriae: since on account of those relations to God it would not be held to have excellence and perfection infinite, nor consequently would it have foundation and motive why it should be venerated with supreme worship.

Third Conclusion. — The humanity of Christ united to the Word, considered precisely neither according to its peculiar excellence and supernatural gifts with which it is illustrated, can be adored with adoration of hyperduliae. This seems the more probable opinion against Suarez, who judges it as thus to be adored with adoration which is latria, not indeed perfect, because this, he says, regards only God, but imperfect, which tends into that which is really terminated at the Word. And likewise against Vazquez, disp. 99. chapter 1. denying that the humanity of Christ as conceived without Divinity can be adored with any adoration.

Therefore it is proved first that it can be adored inasmuch as thus conceived precisely according to itself: honor is owed to excellence: but the humanity united to the Word regarded according to itself obtains every created excellence: therefore it as thus truly can be honored and adored. The major stands. The minor is proved: the humanity considered according to itself precisely has excellence among created things maximal, because among created things nothing is greater: therefore as thus it is worthy of some adoration: but it is not worthy of adoration of latriae: because in it thus apprehended nothing is apprehended except something created: nor even common dulia with Saints, because there is an excellence superior to singular humanity: therefore some interior cult is owed to it beyond latria and above dulia, and accordingly hyperdulia is due to it. — It is confirmed, because the humanity, as having union with the Word, is the extreme of that union really distinct from the Word, and from divine nature, and having in itself intrinsically goodness and perfection really distinct from the perfection of the Word and Deity: therefore as thus it can be adored by reason of that perfection.

You will say. The humanity of Christ cannot be apprehended with created excellence of such kind unless the Word be equally apprehended: therefore it cannot be adored on account of that excellence unless the Word equally be adored. The antecedent is clear: that humanity cannot be conceived unless it be conceived as humanity of Christ: but as it is humanity of Christ it is necessarily conceived as united to the Word: therefore as having from him all manner its excellence: therefore it cannot be adored unless the Word equally be adored. — I deny the antecedent, and to its proof I say that although the humanity of Christ cannot be completely and perfectly understood unless it be conceived as subsisting in subsistence of the Word, nevertheless by precissive concept it can be apprehended according to itself, namely inasmuch as that humanity is illustrated with all graces and divine charisms; but thus apprehended and proposed through intellect it truly can be adored: for if that humanity with those supernatural gifts, which do not say necessary order to hypostatic union, were conserved by God without any supposit, whether proper or alien, thus by reason of those supernatural gifts it would be adorable: therefore since this humanity and its supernatural gifts lose nothing of their perfection and dignity from their union with the Word, truly the humanity thus apprehended can be adored. — This response is confirmed as also the preceding proof: because if that humanity could not be adored apart from the Word, chiefly on account of the strict union of it with the Word itself: but this reason does not stand in the way. It is proved, because the conjunction and union of divine persons in divine essence is greater than that of divinity and humanity in the person of the Word, because personal properties are identified really with divine essence, but human nature is not so identified with the person of the Word nor with divinity to which it is united: but notwithstanding that identification personal properties are adorable according to themselves, and one person can be adored apart from another, just as prayed to, as is clear from the practice of the Church, which in her prayers and collects sometimes directs her prayers to one only of the divine persons: therefore much more could the humanity of Christ be adored, as apprehended apart from the Word. Add that we can praise and love the humanity thus apprehended on account of created gifts; why therefore could we not also adore it thus? Nay even experience establishes that we sometimes venerate the humanity of Christ, or his most holy soul, without thinking about the Divinity and about God, without adoring the divinity.

They object. All those authorities both of Councils and holy Fathers, whereby it was proved in the first Conclusion that Christ is to be adored with one adoration: therefore his humanity cannot be adored apart from Divinity. — I answer first that Councils and holy Fathers instituted discourse concerning adoration of latriae, whereby namely humanity is adored on account of Divinity; for thus it is necessary that it be adored with the same adoration whereby Divinity, because humanity according to itself is not worthy of adoration of latriae. I say secondly that Councils and holy Fathers teach these things in order to signify publicly and ordinarily that Christ only is to be adored with one adoration on account of himself, his divine supposit, and divine nature, lest namely by adoring the humanity of Christ apart on account of created gifts, and with lower worship owed to those gifts, we seem to depress Christ to the state of pure man, while he inasmuch as man as God is capable of greater adoration on account of the greater excellence of divinity. Finally I say, two adorations total and partial are to be excluded from Christ, as though there were double person, as Nestorius judged Christ was to be venerated with double adoration.

Note 1. That the Question is moved not only of the true cross, on which our salvation hung, and Christ the Lord was affixed to be adored, but also of its image so persevering, such as crosses of piety, or fabricated from any material whatever; and, passing over, so to speak, namely of the sign of the cross, and the form which each Christian designates for himself with hands upon forehead, or rest of body; concerning which we ask severally whether they are to be worshipped with any cult. Of which question indeed the resolution has been already most fully weighed, and most efficaciously established through the learned treatises of more celebrated Doctors, who generously defended the cult owed to sacred images, especially to the cross, against Iconoclasts old and modern, among whom of Recent writers especially to be celebrated are Haldensis tom. 3 from chapter 158, our Aphonsus a Castro Contra haereses, word adoratio, Pamelius in annotations to the Apologeticum of Tertullian from n. 238, Gretserus in three volumes On the cross published, Petavius book 15; all whom, that I may omit very many more recent ones, have so copiously comprehended all those things which pertain to veneration of the cross, that it is only needful for us briefly to relate those things which illustrate and establish this cult.

Note 2. From Petavius book 15 c. 7, that although the assailants of the cult of the cross flowed wholly from the heresy of the Iconomachi, nevertheless they did not at the same beginning of time declare war upon the venerable cross as upon sacred images: since Leo Isauricus Emperor, and his successors, who raged against the cultivators of sacred images with every savagery and cruelty they could, abstained sacrilegious hands and tongues from injury of the cross, and persevered with the Catholics in paying it due cult and honor. Hence Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus Bishop, who lived under Leo Armenus reigning, by whom he was also driven into exile on account of cult of sacred images, where he died gloriously, and whose body incorrupt and breathing sweet odor, exhumed 18 years after death, was solemnly buried in Constantinople borne on shoulders of Patricians into temple of St. Sophia with the very Emperor then present; he, I say, in his Breviary of history narrates that Constantine Copronymus wished by oath to compel peoples subjected to himself never thereafter to adore images of Saints; and then the Patriarch of Constantinople, he says, with the salutary woods (of the holy cross) lifted up on high, swore that he was not among their number who adored sacred images. The same S. John Damascenus observes, book 2 On Images; where he censures as absurd the reason of those who profess not to worship images because they would hold venerating a created thing and one consisting of matter impious; nevertheless they adored the cross and many other things, as holy places, sacred Gospels, altars, and vessels. Is not matter, he says, that thrice fortunate and blessed wood of the cross? is not matter august that holy hill which is called place of Calvary? Is not matter salutary that Rock, namely the sepulchre of the Lord, fountain of our resurrection? Is not matter ink and skins, in which Gospels are described? Is not matter precious table, which furnishes us bread of life? Likewise is not matter gold and silver, from which crosses and sacred disks and chalices are fabricated? And before all these, is not matter body and blood of the Lord? Therefore take away cult and adoration of all these: or permit to Ecclesiastical tradition also adoration of images. Theodore Studita also reproached this to Leo Armenus favorer of Iconoclasts, of whom Michael Studita, who handed down to memory the deeds done by him, narrates among other things him thus to have spoken to the Emperor: but since to you, O Emperor, honor indeed of images is odious: but the cross is held worthy of reverence: first I cannot grasp that, since now honor of each has been conjoined. For together image and together Cross: seeing the glory of the advent of the Lord brought to both. Now one from the other is separated by you, so that to the one better lot falls out, the other is repudiated and contemned. Then I shall seek, o interpreter of other Scripture! how when the law calls the cross worthy of execration: cursed, he says, is everyone that hangeth on it, you who worship the cross may seem not to vilify the law! etc.

Note 3. The first assailant of worshipping the cross seems Claudius Turinensis Bishop, disciple of Felix Urgelitanus damned together with Elipandus in Council of Frankfort, who when he observed certain other Bishops opposing themselves to cult of sacred images, and notwithstanding adoring the cross, being pressed with this argument: Why indeed is the cross adored, which is effigy of that salutiferous cross on which our salvation hung, by same reason effigies and images of Saints must be adored: but he holds crosses to be adored and worshipped, and that Church always taught and held from times of the Apostles themselves: therefore also sacred images must be adored. This craftiest and most savage heretic began with contrary argument to assail sacramental veneration of the cross, saying: If images of Saints ought not be worshipped, by equal reason cross of the Lord must not be worshipped: but images of saints are to be worshipped by no comparison: therefore neither cross of Lord. Thence he declared public war upon crosses and general destruction throughout his whole diocese, and willed them to be eliminated from all Churches and cast forth. Whom afterward imitated the Pauliciani, a certain progeny of Manichaeans, to which Paulus and Ioannes sons of Callinicus gave origin, of an impure and lost woman, who when she had imbued her sons with pernicious dogmas of Manichaeans, sent them forth into various places to propagate the same heresy; but they vomiting their poison chiefly in Armenia had so many sectators that, as the Greek Annalists relate, especially Photius and Peter Siculus, who asserts he set out as Legate to those heretics, they were formidable to Constantinopolitan Emperors, and undertook greatest wars with them. These, I say, heretics, under

Basilius Macedo with his sons Constantine and Leo reigning, among six of their impious dogmas this was the fourth, that they receive not figure and efficacy and force of precious vivifying cross, but afflict it with infinite contumelies, as Peter Siculus relates. But since every heresy always rages, and always has something of delirium, Photius relates something discordant and ludicrous concerning those heretics in Euthymii Panopl. tit. 22. When, he says, they fall into some more violent sickness, they impose on themselves precious and vivifying cross made of wood: then recovered health they break it, trample it, and cast it away. And a little after: They do not doubt to adore our Gospel: but not in that part in which image of precious cross is written down, truly in another part of the same codex, where there is no figure of cross. To these enemies of the cross and assailants of its cult must be joined the Bogomili, a certain portent of men concreted from colluvion of Manichaeans and of all other heresies: for those, as the same Euthymius recounts tit. 23, hold Divine cross in contempt as slayer of Savior: which rather they ought to honor, as she cast down the devil.

From these Masters of impiety, (says Petavius) later heretics learned to reject and damn the cult of Christ, as the Petrobrusiani disciples of a certain Peter de Bruis, concerning whom Peter Cluniacensis relates these things in epistle 2. To an unheard-of, (he says addressing them) contumely of divinity, a great heap of crosses having been prepared, you cast fire, you made pyre, cooked flesh; and on that day of the Lord's passion itself, the Sunday proceeding, with peoples invited, publicly you ate heresy of feasting. Wicleffists followed these knaves and sacrilegious men, whose insanity against Holy Cross Thomas Waldensis eruditely convicts: who had for successors of their impiety and dementia Lutherans and Calvinists, who declared most bitter war upon holy cross, images of Saints, and all sacred things. Against all which errors be

First Conclusion. — The True Cross, on which the Author of Salvation hung, and its single particles, are to be adored with adoration of latria respective. This Conclusion consists of two parts, of which First, namely, that the cross is to be adored, is of faith, as is gathered from the 7th Synod Oecumenical Action 7, where this conclusion is supposed as certain of faith, since there it is defined that honor and adoration are to be paid to type of venerable and vivifying cross of Christ: for if to type honor and adoration are paid, much better must be attributed to true cross itself; for each sign is of Christ crucified.

It is proved second from sacred Scripture, which indicates various causes and illustrious motives, on account of which true cross of Christ D. should be celebrated with special cult. First indeed: Christ by his cross as by arms conquered the devil, that he who had conquered by wood, might also by wood be conquered. Which the Apostle admirably explains Coloss. 2, where he says Christ on cross granted us remission of all offenses, blotting out the handwriting of decree that was against us, which was contrary to us, and taking it away he fastened it to the cross; and despoiling principalities and powers, he confidently translated them triumphing over them in himself. By which he signifies especially two things: First, that Christ on the cross washing all our sins with his own blood, whereby we were addicted to eternal torments as bound by debt contracted by our will, and signed as it were with handwriting by our hand, made us free of such debt, and freed from tyranny of daemon: Second, that cross was for Christ as triumphal chariot, in which he thus vanquished enemy of human race, as openly to show to all how unwarlike daemons are, and with how easy business by followers of Christ they can be disarmed and assailed. Both this benefit performed on cross by Christ St. Leo weighs most elegantly. First indeed serm. 10 On Passion, where he says:

Exalted Christ Jesus on wood, he turned death back upon author of death, and all principalities and adverse powers through objection of passible flesh he crushed, admitting into himself audacity of ancient enemy, who in nature subject to him wise, even there exactor dared to be of debt, where no vestige of sin could be found. Therefore general handwriting of our sale and lethal, and pact of captivity passed into right of Redeemer. Those nails which transfixed hands and feet of Lord fixed daemon with perpetual wounds, and penalty of limbs of Saints was killing of powers of enemies: so Christ consummating victory his own, that in him and with him all, who believed in him, triumphed.

But the second he explains serm. 8 cap. 1:

When the Lord, he says, bore wood of cross, which he converted into scepter of power for himself; this indeed was great mockery before eyes of impious, but to faithful great mystery was manifested, because most glorious victor of devil, and mightiest subduer of hostile powers, with beautiful species carried trophy of triumph his own, and upon shoulders of unconquered patience sign of salvation, adorable, was present to all kingdoms.

Similar things St. Ambrose brings forward book 10 on c. 23 Luke, where he says:

But we, since we already saw trophy, and that conqueror ascended chariot his own; let us consider that not from trunks of trees, not from spoils of four-wheeled wagon sought from mortal wood, but from triumphal gibbet he suspended spoils captive from age. Here we do not behold Gentiles with arms bound behind back, nor images of cut-down cities, simulacra of captured towns, nor do we marvel at submitted necks of captive Kings, such as species of triumphs of men usually is, nor boundaries of victory defined to itself region, but exultant peoples of nations, sought not for punishment but for reward, Kings adoring with filial affections, cities devoted with voluntary studies and reformed into better, images of towns which no fucus expressed, but devotion colored: arms of faith and laws of victories running through whole world, captive prince of world, and spiritual wickednesses which are in celestials obedientia to empire of human voice; subtleties of dominations and species of various virtues shining not in sacred rites but in morals: chastity shines, faith gleams, and devotion clothed in spoils of death now rises again fortitude. One triumph of God made almost all men now conquerors. Also pomp usually precedes victors: but before triumphal chariot of Lord good pompa of rising dead preceded. Finally title usually designates number of subjugated Gentiles. But title is written even to these. Let there be in those triumph in a certain order di> gesta miserabili of conquered nations the prize contemptible captivity: here vernat grace of redeemed Gentiles. Worthy of so great triumph iugales, that heaven, earth, seas, hells, corruption change into grace.

Second, Christ on the cross reconciled us to the eternal Father, who had been set against us in enmity, as the Apostle explains to the Colossians 1: In him it pleased all fullness to dwell: and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to those that are on earth, and those that are in heaven: and you, whereas you were sometime alienated and enemies in mind in evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, etc. Whence Saint Leo, Sermon 13, chapter 3: What else did the cross of Christ accomplish than that, the enmities being destroyed, the world should be reconciled to God, and through the sacrifice of the immaculate Lamb all things be recalled into true peace? etc. Third, the Cross was as it were a sacred altar, upon which Christ our Lord, consummating all the sacrifices of the old law, offered himself as a bloody sacrifice, as Saint Paul teaches most excellently in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10; and Saint Leo declares this supremely well, Sermon 4 On the Passion, chapter 3.

The cross of Christ therefore holds the place of a true altar, foretold of old, where through a saving host the oblation for human nature was celebrated. There the blood of the immaculate Lamb blotted out the ancient covenants of transgression: there all the adversity of devilish dominion was crushed, and humility, victorious over the elation of pride, triumphed; and Sermon 8, chapter 5: Our Pasch, as the Apostle says, Christ is immolated, who, offering himself to the Father as a new and true sacrifice of reconciliation, was crucified not in the temple whose reverence had already come to an end, nor within the walls of the city, doomed to destruction on account of its crime; but outside and beyond the camp: so that, the mystery of the ancient victims ceasing, the new victim might be laid upon a new altar, and the cross of Christ might be not the altar of the temple, but of the world.

Fourth, the Cross was for Christ as it were a way and a ladder by which he might advance to the throne of eternal beatitude and glory, as the Apostle teaches 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 hath given him a name which is above every name. Whence Apocalypse 5: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and Divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. Hence the Savior himself, adorable indeed, said most excellently in John 12: Now is the judgment of the world: 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. And Saint Leo, Sermon 8 On the Passion, chapter 7, elucidates this divine oracle in a wondrous manner.

O admirable power of the cross! O ineffable glory of the passion! In which there is both the tribunal of the Lord, and the judgment of the world, and the power of the Crucified. For thou hast drawn all things to thyself, O Lord, and when thou didst spread forth thy hands all the day to a people unbelieving and contradicting thee, the whole world received an awareness of confessing thy majesty. Thou hast drawn all things to thyself, O Lord, when in execration of the Jewish crime all the elements at once pronounced sentence, when the lights of the sun were darkened and day turned into night, the earth also was shaken with unwonted convulsions, and every creature denied itself to the service of the impious. Thou hast drawn all things to thyself, O Lord, because with the veil of the temple rent, the Holy of Holies withdrew from unworthy Pontiffs: that figure might pass into truth, prophecy into manifestation, and the Law into the Gospel. Thou hast drawn all things to thyself, O Lord, that what was covered in one Jewish temple beneath veiled significations might now be celebrated in the full and open sacrament by the devotion of all nations everywhere. For now both the order of Levites is more illustrious, and the dignity of elders ampler, and the anointing of Priests more sacred: because thy cross is the fount of all blessings and the cause of all graces, whereby to believers is given strength out of weakness, glory out of reproach, life out of death.

Fifth, the Cross of Christ was the sacred instrument of his martyrdom, for on the cross Christ underwent the noblest of all martyrdoms, and such that he alone was equal to enduring it. Hence in Apocalypse 5 he is called by pre-eminence μάρτυς, and in Isaiah 50:4 God pronounces concerning him: Behold, I have given him for a witness (or martyr) to the peoples, a leader and a teacher to the Gentiles. And in Psalm 19, 38, Christ is called a faithful witness in heaven, not only because he testifies concerning the Father and reveals to us the mysteries which before lay hidden; but also because he testifies to and confirms with his blood the truth of the dogmas which while living he had taught clearly and distinctly. Therefore the place of his death and resurrection was also called Martyrium by the sons of the nascent Church, under which name too the temple erected in that same sacred place was honored, as Eusebius relates, book 4 Of the Life of Constantine, chapter 15: When the Emperor, he says, dedicated to God, the bestower of good things, the Martyrium, as a certain votive offering of peace, upon the very monument of the Savior: and Sozomen, book 2 of History, chapter 26, speaking of that same temple, says meanwhile truly, about the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine, the church already completed in Jerusalem at the place of Calvary, which is called the great Martyrium, a certain Varius endowed with no modest dignity, notary of the Emperor, entered Tyre, and to the bishops gathered in council handed over the letter of the Emperor, whereby he exhorted them to set out straightway to Jerusalem and dedicate the church.

Saint Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, confirms the same, who in Catechesis 12, which occurs in the edition of Prevot, where we read these words:

Then according to the same series of scripture Sophonias 3:8 says: Therefore wait thou for me, saith the Lord, in the day of my resurrection, in the martyrium. You see how the prophet designates the place of resurrection, calling it Martyrium; for by which reasoning not only here Golgotha, and the place of resurrection, is called the church, but also the martyrium. Again perhaps on account of the prophet saying: in the day of my resurrection, in the martyrium.

To these is added Eucherius of Lyons, in his letter to Faustus of Rheims, concerning the situation of the city of Jerusalem, where he writes:

First, concerning the holy places must be said, according to the arrangement of the streets, of the basilica which is called Martyrium, built by Constantine with great magnificence. Next, contiguous toward the west are Golgotha and the Anastasis. But the Anastasis is in the place of the resurrection; Golgotha truly, midway between the Anastasis and the Martyrium, is the place of the Lord's passion, in which also appears the rock which once bore the cross when the body of the Lord was fastened to it.

By these words Eucherius seems to differ from other historians in two chief points: first, because he called the place of the cross the Martyrium, and asserted that a basilica was built there, which indeed seems foreign to the opinion of many who relate that the Martyrium was built in the place of the resurrection, as Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, the author of the Itinerary to Jerusalem, and others. Yet Sozomen says a basilica was founded by Constantine in the place of Calvary, book 2, chapter 26, as was said above. Second, because he said that basilica was built by Constantine, whereas very many authors relate that Helena built that basilica and others consecrated by the peculiar presence of Christ the Lord in those places. Thus especially Rufinus, book 1 of Ecclesiastical History, chapter 3, where having recounted the miracle by which Helena recognized and distinguished the cross of Christ from among the crosses of the thieves, he adds:

And the third cross was brought near to a woman languishing and almost lifeless; suddenly opening her eyes the woman rose up, and recovering firmness of strength, much livelier than when she had been well, she began to run through the whole house and magnify the omnipotence of God. Thus the Queen, assured by this evident miracle, built a marvelous temple in royal splendor in the place where she had found the cross.

And Sulpicius Severus, book 2:

In this stretch of time, wondrous is how greatly the Christian religion prevailed. Then indeed Jerusalem, horrid with ruins, was adorned with most frequent and most magnificent churches. For Helena, mother of the Prince Constantine — who reigned together as Augusta with her son — when she desired to visit Jerusalem, having found idols and temples there she prostrated them, and presently availing herself of the resources of the kingdom, she established a basilica in the place of the Lord's passion and resurrection and ascension.

But that these differing opinions of authors concerning the temple and Martyrium of Jerusalem may be recalled to truth, I judge it must be said: to the first, that that temple is said to have been built by Helena together with Constantine, because she undertook this work only by his concession, resources, and will. To the second truly I say that although Helena took care that more temples be built, especially on the Mount of Olives whence Christ ascended into heaven, in the city of Bethlehem where he was born, and on Mount Golgotha where he was crucified and buried and rose again, nevertheless this last, since it was more magnificent than the others, is commended and remembered by the authors before the others. And although this basilica was one alone, yet since it had on either side two chapels, namely the chapel of the Cross, and the chapel of the Anastasis or resurrection, therefore that temple, receiving its denomination from these its parts and chapels, was called now the Martyrium of the cross, now the Martyrium of the resurrection. But because the triumph of the resurrection was sweeter and more glorious, therefore it was more frequently called Anastasis and Martyrium of the resurrection than of the cross. Thus in the Constantinopolitan council under Mennas in the year 536 Sabinus is called deacon of the Anastasis of the resurrection, that is, of the Jerusalem temple which was called Anastasis. Thus in Theophanes, Eudoxia, wife of Huneric the Arian, fled to Jerusalem and there laid aside humanity, leaving all that she had to the Anastasis, that is, to the temple of the Anastasis. And Justinian the Emperor in Novella 40 calls the Anastasis the most holy of all churches, doubtless meaning the temple. Thus in the menologia of the Greeks there is commemorated in the month of September the dedication of the temple of our Lord Christ our God of the resurrection. From this temple indeed I think arose the custom of calling the temples of the Church Martyria; for before the building of this basilica I do not see temples constructed and consecrated in honor of any martyr called by the name of Martyrium. But from that time the word Martyrium is used very frequently. So in the Council of Laodicea, Canon 9, it is not fitting for those who are of the Church to go forth into cemeteries, or into those places which are called Martyria of heretics, for the sake of prayer or recovering healing; and in the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451¹ Canons 6, 8, and 10, that word Martyrium is taken in the same sense, and often elsewhere; whence Saint Isidore, book 15, chapter 9: Martyrium, the place of martyrs, by Greek derivation, from the fact that it was built in memory of the martyrs. But so that the discourse may return whither it deflects, namely to the encomia of the cross of Christ, it must be observed Sixthly that

The cross of Christ therefore must be venerated above all by us, because it was consecrated by the touch of the flesh and blood of Christ; which Saint Damascene declares most learnedly, book 4, chapter 12. This cross — supply here: — is shield, and armor, and trophy against the devil. It is the seal, that the exterminating Angel touch us not, as has been handed down in the monuments of sacred Scripture. It is the rousing of them that lie prostrate, the prop of them that stand, the staff of the infirm, the rod of the sheep, the support of those who recover, the perfection of those who advance, the salvation of soul and body, the repelling of all evils, the cause of all goods, the extinguishing of sin, the plant of resurrection, the tree of eternal life.

And then he subjoins what serves this matter, saying:

This wood therefore of immense price indeed, and worthy of veneration, upon which Christ offered himself for our sakes as a victim, ought by the best right to be adored as sanctified by the contact of his holy body and blood: and likewise the nails, and the lance, and the garments, and the sacred tabernacles themselves, that is, the manger, the cave, Golgotha, the cross, the life-giving sepulchre, Sion the citadel of churches, and other things of this kind: just as his father David says: We shall go into his tabernacles; we shall adore in the place where his feet stood. That he understands the cross by these words is shown by what follows: Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place. For the companion of the cross is the resurrection. For if the house, and the bed, and the garment of those whose love we cherish are dear to us, how much more those things which belong to God and the Savior, whereby salvation has been wrought for us?

Hence Saint Jerome, Letter 17 to Marcella, takes ill that Jerusalem should be named an accursed land because it drank in the blood of the Lord, and maintains rather that it ought from that day to be called blessed; why not much more concerning the cross?

And how do they consider blessed places in which Peter and Paul, leaders of the Christian army, poured out their blood for Christ? If the concession of servants and of men is glorious, why should not the confession of the Lord and God be glorious? And everywhere we venerate the sepulchres of the Martyrs, and applying our eyes to their sacred ash, we touch it even with our mouth if we are permitted: and do some think the monument in which the Lord was buried is to be neglected? If we believe not ourselves, let us at least believe the devil and his angels, who as often as they are expelled from obsessed bodies before it, standing as it were in sight of the tribunal of Christ tremble, roar, and grieve that they crucified him whom they fear: if after the passion of Christ (as the accursed voice cries out) this place is detestable, what did Paul mean by hastening to Jerusalem, that he might keep Pentecost there? who spoke to them that restrained him, saying: What do you, weeping and afflicting my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. What of the other Saints, illustrious men, whose vows and oblations after the preaching of Christ were borne to the brethren who were in Jerusalem?

And long afterward he yearns for that day when he might kiss the wood of the cross, in these words:

Will there ever be that day, when it may be granted us to enter the cave of the Savior? To weep in the sepulchre of the Lord with the sister? Then to kiss the wood of the cross?

Saint Chrysostom also seeks and expresses the reason why there is such devotion to the cross among all.

Whence, he says, you will say to me, is such study and care among all for that which is thus desired by all, and dearer than all things desirable? Why does not the whole world strive over this wood itself, in which was placed the holy body of the Lord crucified, so that they who possess some little portion of it enclose it in gold, both men and women, and fit it about their necks, hence being greatly honored, magnificent, fortified, and protected, although it was the wood of condemnation?

And he answers:

But he who works and prepares all things, who transfers the whole world from so great sin, and makes earth heaven, raised also this thing, though despised and more shameful than all deaths, to the heavens.

Such are the words of Saint Chrysostom.

It is proved thirdly from the constant and perpetual tradition of the Church, which, from the usage and institution of more ancient times, held in honor and veneration among the faithful the saving cross upon which the Savior was fastened. Its most evident argument is the miraculous discovery of that same cross, hidden under the earth for so many years, sought and found by Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, instructed by a heavenly admonition — as not only the universal Catholic Church testifies, which celebrates the feast day of its Invention, but also the foremost Fathers and writers of ecclesiastical history. For Saint Ambrose in the funeral Oration for the Emperor Theodosius described the series of events most abundantly; likewise Paulinus of Nola, Bishop, in Letter 11 to Severus Sulpicius; this same Severus in book two of his history; Rufinus book 1 of History, chapter 8; Socrates book 1, chapter 13; Theodoret book 1, chapter 18; Sozomen book 2, chapter 3. All these expound at greater length the narrative of the cross found by Helena. And although in a few circumstances surrounding the matter they differ somewhat among themselves, nevertheless in what is the head of it they agree: that the sacred wood of the Lord's cross was found near Jerusalem by the care and industry of Helena — indeed rather by the peculiar guidance and admonition of the Divine Majesty. Witnesses of the same fact, though without mention of Helena, are two very ancient writers: Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem. The former, in book 3 Of the Life of Constantine, chapter 29, recognizes something singular in this discovery and plainly divine, a miracle, and proclaims it in these words:

So great is the grace of our Savior that no form of prayer could attain the dignity of the present miracle. For truly it surpasses all admiration that the monument of his most holy passion, long since hidden beneath the earth and concealed for so great an interval of years, should have lain hid until that time when, the common enemy of all being removed, and his servants restored to liberty, it ought to shine forth.

Therefore it is beyond controversy that the cross of the Lord was sought and found at Jerusalem in the time of Constantine, whatever Salmasius may mutter after the manner of heretics, Letter 1 On the Cross, where he laughs at this narrative as a fable. But unless the cross of Christ had been worthy of veneration and honor, neither would Helena be said to have been moved by divine inspiration to seek it, nor would she be said by the peculiar providence of God to have discovered it, nor would God have wrought miracles in its illustrious discovery, whereby it might be distinguished from the crosses of thieves. For that Ambrose praised above and Chrysostom, Homily 81 on John chapter 19, affirm the cross of Christ was known from the title is no argument that that knowledge needed no miracle; for, as Rufinus relates, book 12 of History, chapter 7, the title indeed was present, yet neither did it itself sufficiently clearly disclose the signs of the gibbet. Here already the uncertainty of human ambiguity demands divine testimony; which indeed seems to be understood for this reason: either because the title, even if it had been laid beside the cross of the Lord, perhaps was not affixed; or because although affixed, there could still be doubt whether it had been maliciously altered by the Jews, lest Christians be thereby deceived if ever they should seek out and find the twisted crosses.

The same truth the holy Fathers confirm with their oracles, above all Saint Ambrose, who, having said many things most elegantly in that funeral oration for the Emperor Theodosius, describing the history of the found cross and extolling in wondrous manner the piety of its discoverer, afterward speaks thus concerning the adoration of that cross: Wise Helena, who erected the cross at the head of kings, that the cross of Christ might be adored in the kingdoms…. And presently introduces the Jews complaining thus: We crucified him whom kings adore. Nor does it stand in the way that he says there that Helena adored the king, not the wood: for it only signifies that Helena did not adore the true cross in the manner of the Gentiles, who, as is understood from the same Saint Ambrose, book 3 of Letters, Letter 32, thought the wood to be God, and so worshipped it: but Helena did not so, rather she adored Christ hung upon that cross, or that cross because of its contact with Christ, or inasmuch as it had been the instrument of our salvation. The same truth Saint Chrysostom commends marvelously in many places, but especially Homily 61, where among the other excellent and marvelous things he brought forth in commendation of the cross he recounts these concerning the wood of the true cross: The wood itself, he says, upon which the holy body was stretched and crucified, with what zeal of all men is it sought! And so many, having obtained a small fragment of it, enclosing it in gold of wondrous beauty, hang it about their necks with gems, and hold it in place of an ornament. — Jerome in the epitaph of Paula: Prostrate before the cross, she adored it as if she beheld the Lord hanging there. And Letter 17, which he writes to Marcella to induce her to migrate to Bethlehem: Will there then be that day when it will be granted us to enter the cave of the Savior, to weep in the sepulchre of the Lord with the sister, almost with the Mother, and then with them to kiss the wood? By which he signifies the affection of soul testifying with the wood that some supreme excellence is in that wood, and therefore adoration is owed to it, insofar as it denotes that some singular fruit is received from such an action exercised toward the true cross anointed with the blood of Christ the Lord. The same is signified also…

The second part of the same conclusion, namely that the true cross of Christ is to be adored with respective latria, will be established from what must be said, where we shall prove that images of Christ and the Saints are to be adored with that same relative cult by which their prototypes: for either the wood of the true cross, on which the Savior hung, retains the form of a cross, or it does not possess that figure. If the first, it is certain that when it is apprehended by one adoring as an image of Christ suffering therein for us, it is to be adored with the adoration of respective latria, on account of the relation it has to Christ. If the second, since it is thus apprehended by the adorant as possessing a special excellence founded in this, that it touched Christ and was the instrument of our redemption by him, and since this excellence looks back to Christ as to its fountain, from which it emanates, just as we adore Christ with absolute latria, so we adore that saving wood with respective latria.

You will object, first heretics: That whatsoever is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle says to the Romans 14: but the adoration of the cross is done without faith, since of that adoration we read no example or precept in the Scriptures: therefore, etc. — I answer first, that the mind of the Apostle is not, as heretics suppose, that that work is sin which does not proceed from that faith whereby we are Christians and believe those things divinely revealed to us: but there the Apostle takes faith for confidence, or persuasion, whereby one thinks something permitted to him: whence the sense of the Apostle is that he sins who acts against the dictate of conscience, as we shall say more fully when treating of faith and sanctifying grace. — I answer second, by denying the minor: for that the cross is to be adored is of faith determined in the Seventh General Synod, and by perpetual tradition propagated from the times of the Apostles themselves down to us.

You will insist: If the adoration of the cross were propagated by the Apostles down to us, they themselves, the Apostles, or the faithful of the nascent Church, would have paid that adoration; but never do we read that the cross was adored by them or held in honor — nay rather in contempt, seeing that until the year 300 it lay buried underground: therefore that tradition seems not to have flowed from the Apostles themselves down to us. — I answer first, that this argument is vicious and sophistic, being from negation, which, though most familiar to heretics, must be useless and empty, as Dialecticians commonly teach. Second, I say that not all the good works which the Apostles performed are recorded in sacred Letters. Third, the supposition is gratuitous and fabricated, namely that the cross was openly presented to men in the very times of the Apostles: nay, far more probable is it that on the very day of the deposition of Christ from the cross, or not long after, those crosses both of Christ and of the two thieves were buried in the earth by the Jews. Finally, how much honor the Apostles judged should be paid to the cross may be gathered not only from the history of the passion of Saint Andrew, who saluted the cross prepared for him with supreme affection, and with mighty soul in exultation and veneration, but also from the fact that everywhere the Apostle speaks honorably of the cross; likewise from the fact that in those first centuries in which heretics do not deny the Church flourished in purity of doctrine, the true cross was held in supreme honor among the faithful, as appears especially from those things which are related concerning the search for and discovery of the most holy cross by Helena.

They press: the Centuriators, Century 1, chapter 10, and with them impious Salmasius and very many other heretics, assert that history of the invention of the cross to be an empty fable. And they strive to prove it especially by this argument: that Eusebius, the most clear-sighted and expert writer of history and of the life of Constantine, made no mention of that discovery, which nevertheless would have been most celebrated to Constantine himself and to his mother; but that Eusebius either ignored this or passed it over through carelessness or oblivion is hardly credible. — Alanus Copus answers in dialogue 4. First, that this kind of argumentation from negation concludes nothing. Second, that even Eusebius mentions that invention of the cross; for after he related in book 3 Of the Life of Constantine, chapter 20, how the impious Gentiles and Jews strove to profane it, that they might obliterate the memory of the sepulchre of Christ by heaping filth upon it and erecting and placing there a shrine of Venus and her statue where the cross had been fixed, in chapter 26 he relates how all these things were removed by Constantine. And in chapter 22 that the sacred sepulchre of Christ the Lord appeared, and finally in chapter 20 he reported the Letter of Constantine to Macarius, which begins in these words: So great has been declared the benignity of our Savior toward us that no method and power of speech however accurate can explain the present miracle. For surely it far surpasses all admiration of men that that illustrious monument of his most holy passion, hidden from earth and ages, having now lain through so many and such numerous revolutions of years, should then shine forth to the servants of God, when they, the enemy conquered, had been vindicated into freedom. These words of Constantine, although he mentions only the sepulchre, yet the other relics of the Passion of Christ concealed there are easily to be understood. Add to these that Eusebius in his Chronicle under the year of the Lord 325 made particular mention of the Invention of the Cross of Christ, which the Centuriators assert, without any foundation whatsoever, and with only heretical liberty of denying or affirming everything at pleasure, was added to that Chronicle by later hands.

They object secondly: If the true cross of Christ the Lord is to be adored with respective latria, chiefly or even on account of the contact it had with Christ, as we proved in the prior argument it is to be adored with respective latria; but the contact of that Virgin with Christ was natural and of longer duration; whereas the contact of the cross was violent and lasted a brief time: yet Catholic Doctors deny that this cult is to be rendered to the Virgin Mother of God. Nor even the second, otherwise the hands of the lictors and crucifiers would by equal reason be to be adored, because they poured out the blood of Christ as the price of our salvation. They confirm: if contact with the humanity of Christ sufficed that anything be deemed worthy of adoration, it would follow that the water of the Jordan with which Christ was baptized, likewise the earth which he trod with his feet, the ass upon which he sat entering Jerusalem in triumphal array, similarly chairs, beds, tables, and other countless things of this kind ennobled by the touch of Christ the Lord, would be to be adored with the same respective latria: nay even the most impure mouth of Judas the traitor, wherewith he kissed Christ, and the hand of Malchus, wherewith he struck him with blows, and the hands of the impious executioners who lacerated him in the passion with so many dire torments, would by the same reason be to be adored with latria, which is absurd: therefore neither is the cross of Christ the Lord to be adored with such cult. — I answer to the argument: that the cross is to be adored with respective latria on account of both reasons placed in the objection. But to that inconvenience deduced on the part of the Virgin I say that if the matter be weighed equally, I would not refuse that she is capable of adoration of respective latria, on account of that long contact of hers with Christ, and the ministry she rendered him for our redemption. Nay, this agrees with her by a greater title (says Isambertus, disputation 5, to question 25, article 2, following Clichtovaeus in his commentaries on chapter 12 of book 4 On the Orthodox Faith of Saint Damascene) than the true cross, since she conferred both these in a nobler manner; for she concurred thereto in a vital mode both in the order of nature and in the order of morals; for the body of Christ was formed from her most pure blood, and she had to offer her own consent, whereby God might accomplish in her the mystery of the Incarnation: whereas the wood of the cross concurred to our Redemption only as something dead, and in the manner of an altar, upon which Christ offered himself as victim to the eternal Father. Why however the most blessed Virgin is not commonly adored with the cult of latria we shall say in Article three. — To the confirmation I answer point by point. First, as regards the water of the Jordan: if that same water numerically, with which Christ washed and touched himself, had been preserved, and certainly known as such, truly it could on account of such contact be adored; otherwise concerning the other parts of the water of the Jordan, which since they did not touch the humanity of Christ are not deemed worthy of such adoration. — As regards the foal of the ass upon which Christ sat, I answer that even if it still subsisted it would not be to be adored: then because since it had no proper lord it was assigned to the common use of men; but it is certain that those things which after contact with the body of Christ the Lord pass into common uses cease thenceforth to be sacred, nor do they preserve from that contact an excellence borrowed; seeing that according to the moral estimation of men they no longer have a peculiar order to Christ, which singular relation alone would be in them the foundation of respective adoration of it. The same must be said of all those things which Christ the Lord touched and afterwards left assigned to common uses. Add that the adoration of the foal of the ass ought to be guarded against, even if it had served no uses of others after the touch of Christ, on account of the scandal to arise, and the mockery of the unlearned and ignorant; for it is not enough for a work instituted by man that it make a good, but it is required besides that it execute it well and decently. — It pleases here to append what Jonas of Orleans sets forth in the preface of the second book On the Cult of Images against Claudius of Turin belching forth the same objection, where, having said and recounted various encomia with which the Apostle celebrates the cross of Christ the Lord, he subjoins:

By which words how absurd is the comparison of thy ass and of the life-giving cross of ours is plainly proven, and is manifest to all who truly worship Christ. For neither does the same Apostle say that Christ by thy ass overcame the principalities and powers of these darknesses, which are the spirits of wickedness in heavenly places, but triumphing upon the cross he subdued them. Thy ass therefore, Claudius, brays driven by hunger or terrified by the wolf; the Cross of Christ glows red with his purple and precious blood, upon which the true Vine hung, from whose cluster the stock of the gleaming cross shines ruddy, embraces with its four consecrated horns the four-square globe, and fixed upon the foreheads of the faithful drives far from them the illusions of demons. For if Isaac bore not an ass, being himself to be the future victim for slaughter, but the woods; neither surely did our true Isaac bear thy ass, but carried the cross, being to be the saving victim of the Father.

— As regards however the mouth of Judas the traitor, the hand of Malchus, and of the executioners, I answer that since those members belonged to most iniquitous men, treating Christ with savagery and insults, they rather contracted a stain than holiness from that contact with the body of Christ the Lord; seeing that that contact, as being insulting or bloody, was a great sin. Whence so far is it that on account of that contact those members of impious men borrowed any dignity and were esteemed worthy of some veneration, that rather as sacrilegious and profane they were to be execrated.

They object finally: A son aflame with love and veneration toward his father would not judge the gibbet honorable upon which his father had been put to death with contumely: but the Cross was the gibbet upon which Christ, the parent of our salvation, died contumeliously and bloodily: therefore so far is it from being judged venerable by Christian Faithful, that rather it ought to appear execrable. — I distinguish the major: That a son does not cult nor honor the gibbet upon which his father was put to death contumeliously on account of his own fault — I concede; that he ought not to honor it if his father had voluntarily chosen and assumed that gibbet as a fitting instrument, both for conciliating to himself honor and glory, then for liberating his Fatherland from the yoke of captivity, and finally for endowing his very sons with perpetual felicity and every abundance of goods — I deny. But all these things came to pass through the cross; since Christ himself was to be exalted through the cross, as he attested John 12, where speaking of his death he said: Now is the judgment of the world: 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: and this he said, signifying what death he was to die. Whence Luke 24 (Douay) he says to two disciples on the way: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? Similarly through the cross he freed us from the yoke of demons and reconciled us to the eternal Father, as the Apostle signifies to the Colossians 1: In him it pleased all fullness to dwell: and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his Cross, both as to those that are on earth, and those that are in heaven. Hence Saint Augustine exclaims most excellently in the sermon On the Praise of the Cross:

O Cross, which didst join man to God, and magnificently didst sever him from the dominion of the devil our captor! O Cross, which dost ever represent unharmed to humankind the passion of the Savior of the world, and the redemption of human captivity, with true faith accompanying! O Cross, which daily dividest to the Faithful the praises of the immaculate Lamb among the Apostles, and drivest off the dire venoms of the serpent with a saving draught, and without ceasing restrainest for believers the flaming sword of paradise! O Cross, which workest daily peace between earthly things and heavenly, and renewest to the eternal Father, who rose from the dead and now dies no more, diligently caring for the sons of the Church, the death of the Mediator, and by a most felicitous embassy renewest and reformest the great and profound mystery of the Cross, and the ineffable and inseparable bond of charity! Through the cross God drew all things to himself. For this is the tree of life, whereby the empire of death was destroyed.

Such are the words of Saint Augustine.

Second conclusion. — THE IMAGE OF THE CROSS, WHETHER PAINTED OR FASHIONED FROM ANY MATERIAL WHATEVER, IS WORTHY OF SOME ADORATION. This is of faith determined in the 7th Synod, action 7.

It is proved from the constant and perpetual tradition and practice whereby it plainly appears that the image of the Holy Cross, whether painted or fabricated from any material whatever, has been honored, as Tertullian testifies in many places, especially in the Apologeticum chapter 16, where he says: Whoever thinks us religious in regard to the Cross will be a consecrated one of ours, etc., signifying that Christians in his time venerated the cross: whence when the Gentiles objected to Christians that they adored wood, he does not deny it, but there shows that if that cult of the cross seems absurd, the Gentiles are to be accused of equal absurdity, who adored several simulacra fashioned after the manner of a cross. The same is confirmed by the testimony of Saint Martial, disciple of the Apostles, letter to the Burdigalenses, chapter 8, wherein he would have the Faithful always hold the Cross of the Lord not only in mind and on lips, but also in sign. Justin Martyr teaches the same against Trypho, and likewise in Apology 2 in defense of the Christians. — Hence that calumny fabricated by the Gentiles against Christians, that they adore all crosses. In Minucius Felix, Caecilius, a Gentile, inveighing against the Christians upbraids them with this, that they fabulate about a man punished with the supreme penalty for a crime, and the wood of the cross as an object of fatal superstitions. To him Octavius, patron of the Christians, thus replies: Crosses we neither worship nor desire. Namely promiscuous ones, and those which do not properly look to representing the figure of the principal cross: therefore among the Gentiles that rumor had spread abroad that crosses even of criminals were held by Christians in custom and cult; which certainly they would not have objected unless they had perceived Christians venerating some crosses. — I pass over what Eusebius relates concerning the image of the cross embroidered upon the standard to which the name labarum was given, in the life of Constantine, book 1 chapter 32: By which saving sign, he says, the Emperor used continually, as it were a rampart against all hostile and aggressive forces: and he commanded its express figures to go before his armies thereafter. Nor content with this, the same Emperor willed the sign of the cross be carved upon the shields of soldiers, and commanded its image to be depicted as well upon coins as elsewhere. Likewise, says Sozomen, book 1 chapter 8, he paid much veneration to the divine cross, both on account of the succors offered to him by its virtue in waging war against enemies, and on account of the divine vision shown to him concerning it. Indeed it suffices for proving that this cult was wont to be rendered by Christians to the image of the saving cross: that accusation of Julian the Apostate would suffice, who in that work which he published against the Christians gravely assailed them because, falling away from the ancestral religion of the Pagans, they had ceased to worship the Ancile, that is the Shield fallen from heaven, and instead adored the sign of the cross; for he said: O wretched mortals, who adore the wood of the cross, painting its image on your foreheads and before your houses! To whom Cyril of Jerusalem, book 1 against him, does not deny this adoration as an alleged crime; but confesses the image of the cross to be painted for the instruction of the human race and for the remembrance of all virtue. — Thenceforth the cross was forbidden profane uses, and Constantine forbade that henceforth it be assumed in the punishments of condemned men, as Eusebius relates. Whence Saint Augustine, sermon 2 on Psalm 36: The cross has now been taken away from mere human shame. For whereas under it of old wicked men were crucified, now no one is crucified. It has been honored, and the penalty ended; it abides in glory: it made passage from places of punishments to the forehead of Emperors. And on Psalm 41: Attend to the glory of the Cross of Christ: now upon the forehead of kings is fixed that cross at which enemies scoffed. Effect proves power: it subdued the world not by iron, but by wood. Nay, by imperial law it was provided by Theodosius in the Code, title 8, book 1, chapter 1: That no one may presume to carve or paint that sign of Christ the Savior either on the ground, or on flint, or on marbles laid upon the earth: but wherever it is found, let it be taken up. Which very thing the Trullan Synod decreed under pain of excommunication, Canon 3, in these words: Since the life-giving cross has shown itself to us salutary, we must apply all diligence that we render to it, through which we have been saved from the ancient fall, the honor that is fitting: whence paying it adoration both in mind and speech and sense, we command that figures of the cross which certain persons make upon the ground and pavement be utterly erased, lest the trophy of victory won for us be injured by the trampling of them that walk. Those therefore who hereafter construct the figure of the cross we decree to be excommunicated.

Third conclusion. — THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, WHICH IS FORMED BY THE CONSIGNATION OF THE HAND, HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED BY CHRISTIANS AND HELD IN VENERATION.

It is proved 1. from Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, book Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he expressly recounts many times the usage of the seal in baptism and in the consecration of chrism. The same you have proven by the testimony of Saints Ignatius and Martial in Eusebius, book 6 chapter 13. Hence Tertullian, book Of the Crown of the Soldier, chapter 3, demonstrating that many things in the Church are employed by tradition alone, proves this chiefly from the custom of consignation with the sign of the cross: At every coming forward and going forth, at every entrance and exit, at dress and shoes, at baths, at tables, at lights, at couches, at seats, whatsoever conversation of ours occupies, we trace upon the forehead the seal of the cross. Whence he subjoins: If you demand a law for these and other disciplines of such kind, you will find none in the Scriptures: tradition will present itself to you as author, custom as confirmer, and faith as observer. Hence this seal was accustomed to be prescribed to catechumens from the very rudiments of Christianity, as Saint Augustine testifies, Tractate 11 on John: If we say to a catechumen, Do you believe in Christ? he answers, I believe: and signs himself with the cross, bears the cross of Christ on his forehead; and does not blush at the cross of his Lord. The same, sermon 181 De Tempore, among the various causes which he brought forth why the Lord chose rather to die by the punishment of the cross than another kind of punishment, subjoins this:

That he might hand over to us the sign of the cross as a bulwark and consecration. Why did the Lord choose such a kind of death? he says. Why would he not be hurled down, or stoned, or even slain by the sword? Surely he did this for the cause of our salvation. For the death of Christ is the sign of our salvation. He willed therefore not to be stoned, or even struck by the sword, because evidently we cannot always bear stones or iron wherewith we may be defended. But he chose the cross, which is expressed by a light motion of the hand, wherewith also we are fortified against the cunning devices of the enemy. For by this sign of the cross the body of the Lord is consecrated, the font of Baptism is sanctified, priests also and the other ecclesiastical grades are initiated, and all things whatsoever are sanctified are consecrated by this sign of the lordly cross together with the invocation of the name of Christ.

So Saint Augustine. — How great efficacy and power this sacred seal possesses against the assaults and ambushes of demons Origen taught most excellently, Homily 6 on Exodus: Why do you fear, O demons? Why do you tremble? They doubtless tremble at the cross of Christ, in which they were triumphed over; in which their principalities and powers were despoiled. Therefore fear and trembling shall fall upon them, when they see the sign of the cross faithfully fixed upon us; and the magnitude of that arm which the Lord stretched forth upon the cross. That terrific force against demons inheres in this seal Saint Athanasius confirms excellently in the book On the Incarnation of the Word of God, and uses it as an argument for proving the Divinity and power of Christ especially against demons; to the experience of which he challenges anyone of the Gentiles: *Let him be crucified with the sign of the cross, who is wont to mock at Christ alone named: and he will see how by it demons indeed flee, oracles cease, and further all magical and poisonous power is rendered void. Whence, as he relates in the Life of Saint Antony, that holy parent of monks with the safeguard of the sign of the cross broke all the onsets of demons and overcame their threats. Whence he was accustomed to say: The sign of the cross and faith in the Lord are to us an impregnable wall. Armed with the same shield Hilarion too struggled assiduously with demons, of whom Jerome writes thus in his Life: Falling upon his knees, he signed the cross of Christ on his forehead: armed with such a helmet, and girt with the breastplate of faith, lying prostrate he fought more bravely. — Most excellently therefore said Saint Cyril of Alexandria, book 2 on Isaiah, that the sign of the cross is that wherewith the faithful are wont to be protected: For with this thing we always act, he says, when we abolish every diabolical invocation and repel the onsets of demons: for it is a firm and impenetrable wall: and truly to glory in it is salutary: but for me far be it to glory save in the cross of Christ. — Nor indeed must it be thought, as the heretics of this time criminate, that we hold or assert that any force inheres in the seal of the cross, or in the cross itself fabricated from any material whatever, per se, or inasmuch as they are considered physically: for who would so absurdly and ineptly rave as to persuade himself of this? Every Catholic therefore confesses that the image or sign of the cross exhibits no power from its own nature; but that they are instruments of divine power, which per se can do nothing nor act, just as in the sacrament of baptism water by its own proper force has no efficacy of grace nor of sanctity, as neither has the hammer in building a house: but that same One works those marvelous operations through these signs, who instituted and employed them for the salvation of men.

You ask: whether, as images of the true cross, so also images of the nails, of the lance, and of the other instruments of the passion of Christ the Lord can be adored. — I answer first, with Saint Thomas, question 25, article 3, ad 3, that the reason is not the same concerning the nails and other instruments of the passion of Christ as concerning the cross, since crosses recall Christ and represent him as it were stretched upon the cross: but the nails, the lance, and other instruments of this kind of the Lord's passion, since they do not represent Christ thus suffering for us, but only touched his most sacred body, obtain on account of that contact a certain excellence, and thus can be adored with the adoration of respective latria; whereas images of the nail and of the lance neither recall Christ suffering for us nor touched his body, therefore they seem worthy of no adoration. I answer second, that nails, lances, and other things of this kind according to common usage of the Church are not assumed to represent the nails, lances, and other instruments of the passion of Christ; and therefore since they lack this representation and signification, religious cult cannot be paid them; otherwise indeed must be said when those instruments are painted together with the cross, for then they are apprehended as possessing some special relation to Christ suffering, thus considered they can be adored with the adoration of respective latria.

Although these three words, imago, idolum, and simulacrum, by their first institution and common usage of the Grammarians may seem to signify the same thing; nevertheless it long ago came about among Christians that they obtained a distinct signification. For imago extends more widely than simulacrum, and simulacrum more widely than idolum; since every idolum is a simulacrum, and every simulacrum an imago; but not conversely is every image a simulacrum, nor every simulacrum an idolum, at least according to the Latin signification; although, as Saint Augustine observes on Psalm 135, simulacra are called in Greek idola, and everywhere where the Seventy Interpreters have ⟦greek: εἴδωλον⟧, the Latin edition translates simulacrum. Whence image only sounds forth a likeness of a thing truly expressed or made for representing. But a simulacrum either is the likeness and conformity of the image with the thing which it expresses, if that simulacrum be true; or it is only a representation of a fictitious thing; for, as

Saint Isidore observes, book 8 of Etymologies: Simulacra are so called, either because they are like, or because they are simulated and fabricated, whence they are also false. Wherefore simulacrum is said from simulating, as the commentary upon chapter one of First Thessalonians falsely ascribed to Saint Jerome has it: whence simulacra properly signify false images, that is, such as either represent nothing, or shadow it only with a feigned figure, according to that of Habacuc chapter 3: The graver hath carved it, a molten thing, and a false image: he shall trust in his own fiction who made them, to make dumb simulacra. An idolum truly is a simulacrum which has been made in human figure and consecrated, says Isidore there; wherefore every idolum is an effigy ordained to represent some divinity as present and inherent in the simulacrum, to which religious cult is therefore paid.

Hence the Apostle 1 to the Corinthians 8 says excellently: We know that an idol is nothing in the world: which can be expounded in three ways, says Saint Thomas there in his Commentary. First thus:

An idol is nothing, that is, among the creatures of the world, as regards the form of the idol: for although the matter of the idol be something, namely gold, or silver, or the like; yet it is nothing as to form, namely that which is believed to be therein by idolaters, who believe the idol to be God. Second thus: An idol is nothing else, namely a subsisting person out of a simulacrum and a spirit presiding over it: for from those two nothing is made, as idolaters think. Third thus: An idol is nothing in the world, that is, it has no likeness of anything that is made in the world; for there is a difference between an idol and a simulacrum, because a simulacrum is said to be after the likeness of some natural thing, but an idol is made after the likeness of no thing, as if to a human body there were added the head of a horse. Isaiah 10 : To whom have you likened God?

It is certain therefore that among Ecclesiastical writers (as Henry Stephanus also himself notes in his Thesaurus of the Greek language) εἴδωλα are also called in Latin idola with a peculiar signification, simulacra representing some sort of divinity, which they deign to honor with cult.

It stands therefore that the name image is generic, namely toward true and false or fictitious representation, as is also gathered from sacred Scripture, wherein sometimes it uses the name of image to signify false and feigned effigies, as Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Habacuc 2; but sometimes to express true and real ones: thus man is said to be created to the image of God, Genesis 1; likewise Christ the image of the Father, 2 Corinthians. But if this name were not generic toward true and false image, but were plainly synonymous, we could as rightly assert Christ to be the idolum of the Father, and man to have been created to the idolum of God, as we religiously say Christ is the image of God: and it would sound ill even among heretics, whoever asserted Christ to be the idolum of the Father and not touched by the idolum of God, because thus would be signified a certain false representation of a vain thing: therefore image is distinguished from idolum in such wise that idolum adds above image vanity and falsity: wherefore an idolum is not distinguished from image solely with respect to the religious cult rendered to the thing, as heretics will, because something is first understood to be an idolum inasmuch as it is representative of a vain and false thing, before any cult be judged rendered to it.

Note secondly. The Gentiles truly judged the simulacra and idola which they worshipped not only to be representations of their gods, but even to be held for gods, as is gathered from Psalm 95 : All the gods of the Gentiles are devils; 4 Kings chapter 19: They cast their gods into the fire: for they were not gods, but the works of the hands of men of wood and stone; Isaiah 44: He hath made a god and carved it for himself: he boweth down before it and adoreth it, and prayeth unto it, saying: Deliver me, for thou art my god. And Wisdom 15: They esteemed all the idols of the nations for gods. And Acts 19: Demetrius the silversmith making silver shrines of Diana complains of Paul before the people of the Ephesians: This Paul persuadeth and draweth away many people, saying: That they are not gods which are made with hands. From which it plainly appears that the Gentiles truly judged some Divinity to inhere in their idols. Which indeed is confirmed from the holy Fathers, for Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 6, against what was said to Moses: Thou shalt not make to thyself any similitude into God, whatsoever things are in heaven above, and whatsoever things are in the earth beneath. Similarly Tertullian in the Apologeticum speaking against the Gentiles of the gods of the Gentiles, and of the persecution wherewith the Gentiles raged against Christians: With fires we are burned, he says, and these things too: (your gods) from their first mass are condemned into metals: thence your Gods are reckoned, etc. If by these any divinity stands, then they who are punished are consecrated, and punishments must be called divinities. A little later: If the Capitolium is sought, or the vegetable market, under the same voice of the auctioneer, under the same spear, under the same annotation of the quaestor, divinity adjudged is let out to hire. Similarly Minucius Felix in Octavius: Behold, it is poured, fashioned, chiseled — not yet is it a god: Behold, it is leaded, built up, erected — nor yet is it a god: Behold, it is adorned, consecrated, prayed to — then finally it is a god. Lastly Arnobius against the Gentiles, book 1: Those very gods whom I had persuaded myself to be, I was proving with grave insults, when I believed them to be woods, stones, and bones, or to dwell in material of things of this kind. And the same, book 6, anticipating the objection of the Gentiles:

But you err (he says) and slip: for neither do we decree bronzes, nor materials of gold and of silver, nor others out of which statues are made, to be per se Gods and religious Divinities: but we worship in these, and venerate, those whom sacred dedication brings in and makes to dwell together in the wrought simulacra. Not a wicked reason, nor one to be spurned, whereby anyone however slow, nay even most prudent, might believe that the Gods, having left their proper abodes (that is heaven), do not refuse nor flee to enter earthly habitations; nay rather impelled by the right of dedication coalesce into the induction of simulacra. Do your gods then dwell in gypsum and in potsherds? Nay rather, are the minds, spirits, and souls of potsherds and gypsum gods? And that vilest things may become august, do they suffer themselves to be shut up, and to lie hid in the confinement of an obscure seat?

But the Gentiles held this false estimation because truly demons mostly existed in simulacris and idolis, and in them resounded prophecies and oracles, as Tertullian testifies, On Idolatry: Demons confer themselves upon bodies. Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols: These spirits lurk beneath statues and consecrated images. Saint Jerome on Habacuc chapter 2: To all simulacra unclean spirits attend. Saint Augustine on Psalm 135: That rather the demons which are in the simulacra might be signified. Arnobius Junior on Psalm 95: It has been proven that all the gods of the Gentiles, which had been placed in temples, had demons dwelling in them.

It does not escape me that the most polished and learned among the Gentiles were not so fatuous and dull as to hold empty simulacra for Gods, which Julian the Apostate signified in part 1 of his works in these words:

Simulacra, and altars, and also the keeping of eternal fire, and, to say it in one word, everything else of that kind our ancestors established as signs of the presence of the gods, not that we should believe these things to be Gods, but that through them we might venerate the gods themselves. For indeed since we dwelling in body ought to render to the gods a cult conformable to body, while they further are without experience of body: first our ancestors showed us simulacra: that is the second kind of Gods, which is honored around the whole heaven in its orb. But since even to these a bodily cult cannot be attributed, for by their own nature they need nothing: a third kind of simulacra was found on earth, upon which bestowing our cult, God will be rendered propitious to us.

Presently he goes on to dispute that those very simulacra are not Gods but effigies of Gods, just as images of kings are not kings but effigies of them. Further, they who love and venerate kings hold their images in love and cult. So the lovers and worshippers of Gods are borne with equal affection toward their simulacra. Such are the words of Julian. Truly, says Petavius, it is not doubtful that, although the more prudent and erudite among the Gentiles easily noted that effigies fabricated of wood, or bronze, or costlier metal are not Gods; nevertheless many, and indeed the greater number, held them for gods and adored them. Concerning which no Christian can make controversy: nor should anyone judge divine Letters of both Testaments to deserve faith rather than the execrable Apostate, summoning the aid of lying and shamelessness to the defense of a worst cause. Certainly that very thing, which suffices for our design, was believed by the heretical Iconoclasts, who burdened the Catholic Church as a worshipper of sacred images with that same infamy which they knew to reside among the Ethnic worshippers of simulacra, that is, of idola.

Note thirdly. That a threefold opinion concerning images has existed generally; the first indeed was that of heretics, not only attacking the cult of images, but also casting them down from Basilicas and other places as idola, who on that account were called Iconoclasts or Iconomachs, because they dared to overturn images utterly, to demolish and dissolve them. Whose sect again is divided two ways, for some disapproved only those effigies expressed in human form, but retained the cross and its figure, and accompanied both with honor; wherefore Paul the pseudo-Patriarch of Constantinople, that he might flatter Copronymus, while he held a public sermon to the people, the saving woods being lifted aloft, swore himself not to be among those who adored sacred images, as Nicephorus relates in his Breviary under year 766. Hence Michael Balbus the Iconoclast Emperor complains in a letter to Louis the Pious Emperor that images were held in such honor as the honorable and vivifying wood upon which Christ our true God deigned to be crucified for our salvation. Others truly, as Claudius of Turin, removed all crosses even from churches, whose impiety in these last centuries the sectaries of the Calvinists emulated — nay surpassed — and many other knaves of the same flour, who declared general war against sacred Images and crosses. The second opinion was of those who thought images indeed ought to be had, nor wholly abolished, or removed from churches and temples, but so that no honor, no veneration be paid them: but only kept and exposed to view, that is, for conserving the memory of divine benefits, or for recalling and representing the eminent virtue and illustrious deeds of Saints. Which opinion many formerly embraced, judged by no means then heretics. Such seem the Gallican Prelates who in the Synod of Frankfurt condemned the second Nicene Council: such was above all others Jonas of Orleans, as appears from those three books published by him against Claudius of Turin; such also existed whoever is author and writer of those four books which are said to have been written in the name of the Emperor Charles the Great and sent to Adrian the Roman Pontiff; such finally were those Prelates who by command of the Emperor Louis the Pious convening at Paris directed their opinion concerning sacred images in an epistle, or little book, to Eugenius the supreme Pontiff. For all these judged that images of Saints are by no means to be venerated and adored, yet not to be excluded from Basilicas and sacred places. The third finally is the opinion of all Catholics teaching, first, that from the very beginning of the Church down to us they were employed by the faithful; second, that they were wont also to be placed in temples; third, finally, that they are worthy of cult and veneration, as will appear in the three following Conclusions.

First conclusion. — That there are images and cult thereof from the very beginnings of the nascent Church was frequently practiced by the faithful.

It is proved first from those most celebrated images of Christ, formed and wrought either by his own miraculous virtue, or by the industry of disciples and earlier faithful. For first the sacred Annalists relate that two images of his divine countenance were impressed by Christ himself: the first indeed, which he impressed by placing a sudarium over his face, he sent to Abgarus King of the city of Edessa, who when he had besought him through Legates that, leaving behind the perfidious Jews assailing him unceasingly, he would betake himself into the city of Edessa together with his Disciples, that he might show to him and his people the reports of miracles heard, Eusebius relates book 1 chapter 13 that Christ answered by letter: If you desire to see my face bodily, behold I send you the species of my cult transformed upon linen, whereby both you may cool the heat of your desire, and judge nothing impossible of what you have heard of me. But after I shall have completed those things which are written of me, I will send you one of my disciples, who may impart healths to you and your people, and lead them to the sublimity of faith, etc. Moreover mention of this image is made not only by Evagrius book 1 of History chapter 26, Nicephorus book 2 chapter 7, Damascene Oration 1 On Images, Stephen supreme Pontiff in the Roman Council; but furthermore Leo Lector of Constantinople attested in the seventh Synod Act 5 that he saw that effigy of the divine countenance of Christ in the city of Edessa, whence carried to Rome it is even today religiously preserved and exposed to the veneration of the faithful in the church of the Monastery of the Nuns of Saint Sylvester. The second effigy of his divine countenance divinely expressed by Christ the Lord is that which at the time of the passion he impressed upon linen and handed to Veronica the pious woman; which is still preserved in the church of Saint Peter at Rome, and in the Vatican Library exists a manuscript history wherein is related how at the time of Tiberius this effigy of the divine countenance of Christ was carried to Rome.

There is celebrated also among the holy Fathers and writers of ecclesiastical history that bronze statue famous for very many miracles, which at Paneas a woman freed from the flux of blood by touching the hem of the garment of Christ erected out of gratitude toward Christ the Lord himself: which statue it is credible was seen by Christ himself and by his Apostles, and affirms that she herself also saw it not only Antipater Bishop of Bostrensis in the sermon on the miracle of that healed woman, but also Eusebius book 7 of History chapter 14, who moreover relates that a certain herb of unwonted form sprouted at the feet of the statue, which wherever it grew up to the hem of the pallium of the same statue drew forth virtue of curing all kinds of diseases. Sozomen adds book 5 chapter 20 that when Julian the Apostate removed the statue thence and commanded his own to be placed there, straightway by wood sent down from heaven the head of the impious statue was cut off. He subjoins chapter 21 that when the Gentiles had broken that statue of Christ ignominiously treated, the Christians gathered its fragments and laid them away in a church; where, says Sozomen, they are preserved to this day.

From WHICH IT MAY BE GATHERED that the fabrication, veneration, and cult of images was neither forbidden by God in the New Testament, nor reproved by the faithful of the nascent Church; seeing that Christ the Lord himself was himself the maker of images, and the faithful held them in price and fashioned them. For, as Tertullian observes in the book On Modesty, chapter 10, where bewitched by the foolish ravings of Montanus and of witch-women he declaims against Catholics — whereas they, convicted adulterers having performed penance, relaxed forgiveness and communion, and for persuading this made use of the example of the good shepherd bearing the lost sheep found upon his shoulders back to the fold, whose image they painted on chalices — he says against it: If perhaps that shepherd will patronize, he says, whom you paint on the chalice, the pimp, and the very merit of the Christian sacrament, and the trick of drunkenness, and the asylum of the harlot following after the chalice; of which you may drink nothing more gladly than the sheep of a second penance. But I draw from Scripture that shepherd's word who cannot be broken. By which words Tertullian, although with heretical mind, nevertheless truly reports the image of the Savior to have been wont to be depicted by the faithful of the nascent Church. To these it would help to add what Nicephorus Calixtus relates in book 6 chapter 15, namely that the frequent use of images of the Apostles existed among Christians at the time of Constantine the first Emperor, as appears from the history of his conversion itself to the Christian religion. Which Saint Ambrose confirms likewise, Letter 51, where speaking of Saints Gervasius and Protasius offered to himself in vision, he says: When there appeared to me a certain third person, who seemed to be like blessed Paul the Apostle, whose countenance a picture had taught me. Which passage holy Damascene also cited, Oration 2 On Images. Saint Ambrose therefore had seen the effigy of Paul expressed in colors. The same Augustine indicates, book 1 Of the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter 10, where treating of certain Gentiles who preferred certain books written by Christ together with the Apostles: That in many places, he says, they saw them pictured together with him. Similarly Saint Jerome on Jonah chapter 4 testifies that images of the Apostles were wont to be depicted by the faithful, in these words: And truly on those gourds themselves, he says, which are commonly called Saucomariae, images of the Apostles are wont to be sketched. It does not help here to append all the opinions of the holy Fathers, who institute the celebrated usage handed down concerning sacred images. Since indeed you have all those authorities collected abundantly and commended by the Fathers of the 7th Synod, who at the conclusion of the last action, after the cult of sacred images was defined, cry out with one voice in these words: This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox: this faith confirmed the whole world. We stand upon the Legislation of the ancient Church, we keep the decrees of the Fathers. The same Adrian Pope confirms by many things, Letter to the Emperor Charles against the pseudo-Caroline book, wherein he relates all his predecessors, and likewise the Ecumenical Councils, by which sacred images were held in veneration, as will appear within.

You will object heretically. Minucius Felix, who relates the Gentile thus upbraiding Christians: Why have they no altars, no temples, no known simulacra? To whom Octavius answering says: Do you think us to hide what we worship, if we have no shrines and altars? For what simulacrum of God shall I fashion, since, if you judge rightly, man himself is the simulacrum of God? What temple shall I build to him, since this whole world, fabricated by his workmanship, cannot contain him? And since man, I, who contain so great a majesty, dwell more widely within one little shrine? Is he not better dedicated in our mind, consecrated in our very breast? Therefore at the time of Minucius Felix, just as Christians had no temples, so neither images,

I deny the consequence. For although in the first times of the Christian religion, while yet the fury of the Gentiles blazed against it and the superstition of idols still clung in the minds of men, the use of sacred images was not so frequent, as neither of temples and altars: thence it is not consequent that among them there were no images, nor altars; for it stands from Tertullian and other more ancient writers that the faithful of that time had certain sacred places, and likewise altars, in which they were wont to gather before daylight assemblies, then to pour forth prayers, then to offer the unbloody sacrifice, then to make the sacramental synaxis. Equally it stands from the same, as we said above, that the use of images was frequent among the faithful. But with peace and liberty restored to the Church, just as the faithful did not hesitate to build Basilicas, and Temples, and Altars in honor and cult of God, so the Church began to employ images of Christ and of the Saints, whose public and solemn use had not yet grown common, for propagating the faith of Christ and of Martyrs and of the other Saints, animating and instructing the faithful unto constancy of piety. For, says Nilus Abba, disciple of Saint Chrysostom, letter to Olympiodorus the Praetect: They who know not letters, nor can read sacred letters, recall by contemplation of pictures the illustrious deeds of those who truly served God. But this public use of images, as Petavius observes most excellently, book 15 chapter 13, was by no means frequented by the faithful in all places with the same institution and time; but elsewhere sooner, elsewhere later, according as the capacity and disposition of nations was, and those who presided over them judged it expedient, lest the veneration of images be a danger of idolatry. Which certainly must diligently be observed for unraveling many difficulties and explaining the remaining examples and testimonies wherewith the Iconomachs are accustomed to abuse for attacking the cult of images, contending that images were sometimes repudiated and condemned by the orthodox, as we shall relate in the following Conclusion. Which thing indeed I would not deny was done prudently on account of the reason of times and places.

Second conclusion. — Sacred images are lawfully and religiously placed in the temples of Christians.

This is against the Iconomachs, especially however against Calvin, who although he admits some images employed by the faithful of the primitive Church, nevertheless asserts book 1 of Institutions, chapter 11, that for five hundred first years from the founding of the Church there were no images in the temples of Christians, and that therefore now they are wrongly placed therein.

It is proved first from Canon 8 of the Apostles in the Antiochene Synod, where thus it is enacted: Let the fallen from idols be scraped off: but let them paint opposite the divine, human, and hand-made unmixed effigy of God the true, and our Savior Jesus Christ: and of his servants against idols and the Jews. Let them neither wander among idols, nor become like the Jews. In which words three things occur to be noted: First, that images of Christ our Lord and of his servants must be formed: Second, that idolatry is strictly prohibited: Third, that images of Christ and of the Saints are to be opposed both to idolomania and to the superstition of the Jews. From which one may infer that the scope of that Canon and Council is that images be placed in temples. For this opposition of images against idols indicates that images are there ordained to be constituted in temples. For there, for the most part, the Ethnic had their idols, as also the Jews who had deflected to the idolatry of the Gentiles. It is confirmed from Theodoret, who relates book 8 against the Greeks that relics of Saints were introduced into temples in place of idols. Truly let it avail to reply that the faith of that Apostolic constitution is doubtful; for, says Fevardentius ours, book 2 chapter 2, in his annotations to the book of Saint Irenaeus number 15, that this Apostolic Canon is genuine, not recently one and another affirm in a corner; but nearly innumerable, who convened in the public theater of the whole world eight hundred years ago, the Fathers of the latter Synod of Nicaea. Leaning upon this Canon also Basil the Great asserted 1270 years ago that the use of images emanated from the Apostles: and at the same time Eusebius, yet more ancient, confirming that it had been handed down from their ancestors: and Pamphilus Martyr superior to both attests he found this constitution of the Apostles, together with many others, in the Origenean Library. But what touches the Synod of Nicaea, this I transcribe from the same, namely from Act 1, where Gregory Nyssenus Bishop brings forward this Canon in confirmation of the use of images, in these words: In the Antiochene Synod of the holy Apostles it was said, that those fallen should no longer wander to idols, but strive before the pillar of God, and of the man Jesus Christ our Lord. To which the other Fathers assented. Truly note that the Canon of the Apostles could not everywhere take effect straightway in the primitive Church, according to their decree, because on account of the persecutions of the ten Caesars of the Ethnic, very few churches had been built until the time of Constantine the Emperor. And therefore it is no wonder that until then little is found consigned in writing concerning the use of images in temples. From the time truly of Constantine himself and thereafter frequent is read the use itself; witness of this matter is Damascene in the Pontifical concerning Sylvester Pontiff, where he says Constantine gave in the Constantinian Basilica these gifts: a silver pediment having in front the Savior sitting in a chair, and the twelve Apostles with crowns; likewise behind in the apse looking back the Savior sitting on a throne, and four Angels of purest gold; finally candelabra of aurichalcum seven in number interclosed with seals of the Prophets with ornament of silver. And again upon the rim of the font where he was baptized, a lamb of purest gold, and in the washing of the lamb John the Baptist of silver holding a written inscription: Behold the Lamb of God, behold who takes away the sins of the world.

It is proved from the perpetual practice of the Church itself, for Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200, book On Modesty, chapters 1 and 10, as said in the prior Conclusion, notes that in his time the image of Christ the Lord carrying upon his shoulders the found sheep had been depicted on sacred chalices. Similarly Saint Gregory of Nyssa in the Oration on Saint Theodore Martyr relates that a Basilica built in honor of that Martyr had been decorated with paintings, wherein his combats seemed expressed in colors with equal elegance and fruit. For painting, he says, silent on a wall is wont to speak, and to profit greatly. Likewise Saint Basil, in the discourse on Barlaam Martyr, says the victories of Martyrs were depicted in the church: and in a fragment of his epistle to Julian, speaking of Apostles, Martyrs, and Prophets, says: I honor and adore the characters of their images, especially since this has been handed down from the holy Apostles, nor prohibited, nay rather shown depicted in all our churches. This truth Prudentius explains luculently in the hymn of Saint Cassianus, where he says he beheld his image in the Basilica of that Martyr, in these words:

Cast upon the ground, I rolled myself upon the tomb which the holy Martyr Cassianus adorns with his dedicated body. While weeping I reckon with myself my wounds, and all the labors of life, and the acuteness of sorrows: I turned my face to heaven; there stood over against my face the pictured image in colors of the Martyr, Bearing a thousand stripes, lacerated through all his limbs, showing his skin torn with minute punctures.

And Saint Paulinus, book 1, Letter 4, describing the baptistery of Saint Severus, has these words:

The venerable image of the man attests Martin; Another figure represents humble Paulinus.

And in the description of three chapels of the temple of Saint Felix, which he calls Basilicas, he says:

To Martyrs with painted names they mark the middle pious, Whom an equal glory of varied sex redeemed: but the two that open right and left Faithful painting adorns with twin histories. One the sacred deeds of holy men fill. Job tried with wounds, Tobias with light. But another holds the lesser sex, illustrious Judith: Who together with powerful Queen Esther is painted.

All these however, and many others whom it would be tedious to commemorate, lived before the first five hundred years: Calvin therefore lies when he affirms that for the first five hundred years from the founding of the Church there were no images in the temples of Christians. Which truth indeed the supreme Pontiff Adrian explains and confirms no less learnedly than elegantly in the Letter to the Emperor Charles; for chapter 19 answering the pseudo-Caroline book thus objecting: Let those knowing make it where in the Old or New Testament, or in six Synodal Councils, it is commanded to make images or adore those made, thus says:

We truly below, those knowing, make it, as we already have done, because both in the Old and in the New Testament, or even in the six Synodal Councils, sacred images have ever been to be venerated, and when made were titled among the Holy of Holies. For those were wont to say to us, in which of those six Synodal Councils sacred images were reprehended. Truly in the first holy Council it was often shown that Sylvester Pope, and Constantine most Christian Emperor venerated sacred images, and with the name of Christianity openly before all faithfully, and marvelously showed them, and from then until now the Churches of the holy Pontiffs, namely of Sylvester, Mark, and Julius, of marvelous magnitude are depicted among us, as well in mosaic as in the other histories, adorned with sacred images. — Likewise in the holy second Council Damasus the most elegant Pope made his own Church, of which Saint Gregory makes mention in the Dialogues, which is called from the name of its founder Damasus: similarly from then until now we hold it painted with sacred histories and images. — Again, and concerning the holy third Council, Saint Coelestine Pope decorated his own cemetery with paintings. But more his successor blessed Sixtus Pope made the Basilica of Mary the holy Mother of God surnamed Major, which is called at the Manger. In like manner he himself also decorated it both in golden metals and in diverse histories with sacred images. And at his request Valentinian Augustus made a golden image with twelve gates, and of the Savior, adorned with precious gems, which by vow of grace he placed above the confession of blessed Peter the Apostle, and from then until now it is venerated among us by all the faithful. — Likewise of the holy fourth Council Saint Leo Pope, excellent and marvelous preacher, himself also made Churches, which painting in mosaic and diverse histories or images he decorated. But more in the basilica of blessed Paul the Apostle, making there the greater arch, and painting in mosaic the Savior our Lord Jesus Christ, and the twenty-four Elders, he decorated it with verses in his own name, and from then until now it is faithfully venerated by us. — And concerning the holy fifth Council Vigilius most holy Pope making a basilica in the Lateran Patriarchium decorated it most beautifully with paintings, as well in histories as in sacred images. Far more indeed his most holy successors Lord Pelagius and Lord John building from the foundation the Church of the Apostles of marvelous magnitude, painting diverse histories as well in mosaic as in various colors together with sacred images, and from then until now they are venerated by us. And Saint Gregory also, book 3 of Dialogues, chapter 33, made a beautiful oratory in his Monastery, and had it painted with diverse histories and sacred images there; the monks entering were alike heard in prayer. And that holy man Eleutherius, whom they say raised even a dead man, prostrating himself before those very sacred images to implore divine clemency did not doubt with Saint Gregory: but bearing perfect faith they were alike heard, and until now they are venerated among us. But also the Church of the Arians of which Saint Gregory himself makes mention in his Dialogues, it pleased the same Saint Gregory that, introduced into the Catholic faith, it ought there to be dedicated with the relics of blessed Sebastian and of Saint Agatha Martyrs, which was done. And after the miracle which was worked in that same Church, blessed Gregory himself had it painted with diverse histories, as well in mosaic as in colors, and erected venerable images therein: and from then until now they are venerated. For if we wished to narrate in order how many Churches our predecessor Pontiffs made up to today erecting images, and painting diverse histories, and likewise venerating them, we dare apostolically say, the time would fail us for enumerating, and for explaining their buildings with sacred images and histories. — In the sixth truly holy Canon ⟦lacuna?⟧ they did not dare to contemn, but even venerating the same sacred images, they enacted that the Lamb Christ our God according to human figure should henceforth be retitled in images for the old lamb. Wherefore Saint Ambrose Bishop of Milan in book 3 On Faith, chapter 7, taught among other things for this sort: Let us therefore observe the prescriptions of our ancestors, nor with daring rashness violate hereditary seals, etc.

They object, heretics first: God forbade that any images be placed in the temple of Solomon and in synagogues of the Jews: but the reason is the same, nay far stronger, concerning temples of Christians: therefore all images are to be banished from them. The antecedent is proved first from that Exodus 20: Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, and that is in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. And Leviticus 26: You shall not make to yourselves an idol and graven thing, neither shall you erect titles, nor put a stone in your land to adore it. Hence Tertullian, book 4 Against Marcion, chapter 22, having said Moses and Elias were known by Peter in the transfiguration, not because Peter had before seen their effigy, but through divine revelation, says: For neither had the people had their images or statues, likeness being forbidden by law. Whence Origen, book 4 Against Celsus, speaking of the Jews, says: Among whom no other Divinity was received than God, whose power over the universality of things all makers of simulacra being far banished; for in their city no painter was admitted, no statuary, laws barring this whole genus, lest occasion be given to gross men, lest their minds be called away from the cult of God. I answer first, denying the antecedent; and to its proof I say that only so far were images forbidden by divine law as they were only adored as gods and paid that cult due to God alone; hence in the precepts prohibiting fabrication of a sculptile, straightway is subjoined, thou shalt adore it, whereby is signified that only on that account were those images forbidden to the Jews which according to the common rite of Gentiles were called Divinities and were truly idola.

But that absolutely images and sculptilia were not to be eliminated from temples and synagogues of the Jews by divine law plainly appears from this, that Exodus 25 at the command of the Lord two figures of Cherubim of molten gold were placed; and in the very oracle of the temple Solomon placed also 3 Kings chapter 6 two other statues of Cherubim of olive wood of ten cubits height, each of whose wings was five cubits. Finally as written 3 Kings 7 the same Solomon placed in the temple figures of oxen, Lions, and Cherubim; therefore not every simulacrum was barred from the temples of the Jews. This same solution Leontius Bishop of Neapolis expends most excellently, cited by Damascene, Oration 3 On Images:

Come, he says, let us next undertake now the defense of the expression of holy images, that the mouths of the unjust speaking iniquities be stopped. For neither is this our invention, but an institution of law. For hear God himself commanding Moses to construct gem images of Cherubim, sculptile and conflatile, which might overshadow the propitiatory. Besides, God showed Ezekiel the temple which indeed from pavement to summit of rafters, he says, had sculptile faces of lions, and palms, and men, and Cherubim. What then, O Leontius? Truly terrible is the word, he says. God who commanded Israel to make no similitude to themselves of anything which is in heaven or in earth commands Moses to make sculptured animate Cherubim; nay further Solomon taking the form from the law filled the temple of bronze with simulacra of oxen, palms, and men. Nor yet for this was he reprehended by God.

And immediately after, inferring that the making of images in the Church is not to be blackened, he subjoins: wherefore if you wish to reprehend me, first reprehend God commanding these things to be done, that his admonition may be an example to us.

To these add that from that Matthew 22: Whose image and superscription is this? it stands that not every kind of image was prohibited to the Jewish people; since the image of Caesar was received among all, nor consequently were arts of painting and sculpting forbidden to the Jews by any divine law: although perhaps in course of time that people banished every such craftsman from their cities, that thus the precept of law might more securely be observed, lest any occasion of idolatry whatever be to the unskilled populace.

They object: Sacred Scripture in many places prohibits the cult of any simulacrum whatsoever figured by the works of hands of men: therefore also of images.

I deny absolutely; for, as Stephen of Bostrensis says most excellently, book Against the Jews, chapter 4: If those things which are made are works of men, and effected by hand, what does it mean that they be done away in the earth, which the hands of men made — or the propitiatory, or the Cherubim, or that golden urn in which the manna was contained, or the inner tabernacle, and all things which by God are called Holy of Holies? Were not the Cherubim, which recall the image of Angels, made by the labor and hand of men? What sayest thou, if thou callest these idola, since thou wouldst impose the name upon what Moses and Israel adored?

They object secondly: Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira thus defining: It pleased that pictures ought not to be in the church, nor that what is worshipped or adored be painted on walls.

I answer. 1. The Council plainly militates against heretics, since it signifies that in the primitive Church images were received in use by the faithful and held in veneration. I say secondly that the Council does not proscribe the cult of images and their placement in churches, but only forbids that they be painted on walls, or other subjects of this kind, which could not easily be moved from place and carried elsewhere. But that this was the genuine mind of the Council appears both from the reason which it there subjoins and from the condition of those times. From reason indeed, for it subjoins it lest what is worshipped or adored be painted on walls, by which words it signifies itself by such edict to prohibit only images being painted on walls, but rather that they ought with greater reverence to be placed on panel or other material per se; for images depicted on walls not only lose splendor and beauty and are easily defaced, nor do they move to veneration as much as if placed on panels: but also they cannot be carried elsewhere. From the condition truly of the times, because this Council is believed celebrated about the year of Christ 305, that is twenty years before the first Nicene Council, at which time, while persecution still raged against Christians and the exercise of the Christian religion was not free to them, it could easily happen that their temples yield to profane uses, and the images of Saints remaining there not only be defrauded of the honor due them but also come into contempt and mockery. Hence it is, as Vazquez observes, disputation 105, chapter 2, that very rarely in temples of the Spaniards do images depicted on walls appear from antiquity, except the effigy of Saint Christopher; although you will find very many temples adorned either with painted panels or wooden statues gilded and varied with colors. Which certainly is an indication that the definition of that Council prevailed in Spain by long custom, although in these new times the Spaniards, like the other nations, have begun to adorn the walls of their temples with pious images. Origen, book 7…

This calumny Origen repels there. Christians on another account do not worship statues and idola than that whereby Scythians, Numidians, Seres and Persae are moved. Item concerning the Persians Herodotus relates: This, he says, is the ritual of the Persians: they themselves dedicate neither statues, nor altars, nor temples; and they hold as fools those who do so: because, I think, they do not believe that Gods arose from men, which is the opinion of the Greeks. And Heraclitus passes this judgment upon them: Thus they offer prayers to those images, For none of these Gentiles, he says, is alien from these things, because he fears a divinity and detracts from those ceremonies which revolve around altars and materials figured with various images: nor because he understands demons fixed to adhere to certain places and statues, whether enchanted with certain magical songs, or otherwise brooding over places once preoccupied, where after the manner of Turcans they delight themselves in vapors of victims, seizing a nefarious and eternal pleasure against divine laws and those of nature. Moreover Christian men and Jews abstain from these on account of that word of the law: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, him alone shalt thou serve… But we therefore also do not honor simulacra because as much as we can we guard lest we somehow fall into that credulity, so as to attribute to these something also of divinity.

They object thirdly: Saint Irenaeus, book 1 Against Heresies, chapters 23 and 24, relating among the heresies of the Gnostics and Carpocratians, that they had certain images painted, others indeed fabricated from other material, saying the form of Christ was made by Pilate at the time when he was among men: therefore Saint Irenaeus imputes as heresy that images be had by Christians: and presently much more that they be placed in their temples. I answer: Saint Irenaeus blames not those heretics that they had an image of Christ and venerated it; but that they adored it in the Gentile manner so as even to offer sacrifice to it, as Saint Epiphanius observes of them, heresy 27. Which Saint Irenaeus also signifies; for there is speech there of Valentine, which sect, as Saint Augustine notes, chapter 7 On Heresies, was ⟦lacuna?⟧, as Theodoret has it, book 1 of Heretical Fables. Hence Saint Irenaeus closes the cited chapter 24 in these words: And likewise the remaining observance around them, as the Gentiles do. It is a sign therefore that the heretics attacked by him worshipped images with Gentile rite.

He objects fourthly: Adrian the Emperor, as Aelius Lampridius relates in the life of Alexander Severus, founded temples in favor of Christians without images, that they might pray therein. Alanus Copus answers, dialogue 1, chapter 2: those temples were not built by decree without images, but without simulacra and divinities of the Gentiles: for since Christians were unwilling to pray in temples of Gentiles, because they were full of idols, the Emperor commanded other temples to be built, in which there should be no simulacra, which the Gentiles were wont to worship as gods and divinities; but it is not consequent that there were no images there. Add that perhaps at the beginning of the founding of the temple

Christians of that time were unwilling to place images therein, lest perchance the Emperor and the Gentiles have occasion of complaints against them, that refusing to worship simulacra of the Gentiles they worshipped others.

They object fifthly: Saint Epiphanius, Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem, which Saint Jerome rendered Latin, and which is numbered among his letters in order 60, wherein he thus writes: Moreover because I heard some murmuring against me, why when together I went my way to the holy Place which was called Bethel, that I might make care there of a collection with thee according to Ecclesiastical custom, and had returned to the villa which is called Inablatha, and passing by saw there a lamp burning… I found a veil hanging at the doors of that same church, dyed and painted, and having an image as it were of Christ or of some Saint; for I remember not whose image it was: therefore when I saw in the church of Christ contrary to the authority of Scriptures an image of a man hanging, I cut it, and rather gave counsel to the keepers of the same place that they wrap a poor dead man in it.

Catholic Doctors answer with Alanus Copus, dialogue chapter 22, that that part of the letter wherein he relates this history is supposititious and added by heretics. Which indeed appears, first, because at the time of Saint Jerome very many Greek exemplars of that letter existed, as he himself testifies Letter 101; yet the Iconomachs in the pseudo-Synod of Constantinople, who strove to collect and relate all testimonies of the holy Fathers in any species attacking the cult of images, made no mention whatsoever of this testimony, whom they would not have omitted if at that very time it had been in the Greek codex of Epiphanius and in the Latin of Jerome. Second, it is not likely that Saint Epiphanius, skilled in the sacred Canons (in which it is provided that one Bishop exercise the Episcopal office in another diocese without its own permission), dared attempt that in the diocese of the Prelate of Jerusalem: or if less John of Jerusalem had complained than he complained, that in his diocese without his knowledge he had ordained a Presbyter, as appears from the same letter; yet in no way did he institute complaint concerning this fact, as appears from Letter 61 of Saint Jerome answering all things which John objected to Epiphanius. Third, because Saint Damascene, Oration 2 On Images, near the end, answering a certain testimony of Saint Epiphanius objected by Iconomachs, says that discourse to be fabricated by someone who abused the name of Saint Epiphanius. Which indeed he confirms from this, that his Church of Cyprus was always adorned with images until the times of the Iconomachs. Fourth, since Saint Epiphanius embraced all the heresies which unto his time had ravaged the Church, if he had judged worshippers of images truly to act against Scripture, doubtless he would have numbered them among heretics, whose heresy nevertheless he mentions nowhere. Finally, that appendix repugns to the prior part of the letter; for in the whole second part he marks John of Jerusalem to be an Origenean and complains concerning himself, that he had said he ought not praise Originem the father of Arius and root of other heresies…

They object sixthly: Saint Augustine, book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter 9, where he says they err who sought Christ and the Apostles on painted walls. And Letter 19, question 3, On simulacra which are placed in an illustrious place, that they may be adored; likewise sermon 2 on Psalm 113 expounding those words, They have mouths and speak not, where he says: In temples of Christians there are indeed houses of gold and silver, but not such as have a mouth and speak not, and to which supplication is made. I answer: nothing can be elicited from the cited testimonies of Saint Augustine that patronizes the error of Iconomachs. Not indeed from the first authority; since there Saint Augustine damns neither paintings and representations of images, but blames the gross ignorance of those who from seeing the effigy of Saint Paul depicted together with the image of Christ and of Saint Peter gathered also that Paul had been a disciple of Christ the Lord while living mortal on earth: whence arguing that ignorance he subjoins that they deserved to be deceived, that having omitted the sacred codes in which they would have known the falsity of their error, they sought its proof in pictures. From which against the Iconomachs it is inferred that at the time of Saint Augustine among Christians it was received in use that images of Christ and of the Apostles be painted. Nor does the second authority from Letter 19 support them; since there he only says Christians have what they blame in the sacrilegious rites of Pagans, not that they build temples, institute priesthoods, and make sacrifices, but that they exhibit these things to idols and demons: and that idols are placed in these seats with honorable sublimity, that they be attended by those praying and immolating, in such wise that by the similitude itself of animated members and senses, although they lack sense and soul, they affect weak minds so as to seem to live and breathe. By which words he plainly signifies himself to speak of simulacra and idola in which Gentiles thought some Divinity to inhere: but it is certain that Christians so venerate images that they think nothing of dignity and excellence to inhere in them except by reason of the prototype which they shadow and represent. — Finally nothing whatever supports them even the last authority of Saint Augustine; for there he speaks only of idola and simulacra to which the Gentiles made supplication; but he does not deny there to be images in temples of Christians, just as neither golden and silver vessels, to which we do not supplicate, but to God alone; for Catholics direct not their prayers to images, but only to the Saints which they represent.

Finally they object: Every occasion of idolatry must be removed from temples of Christians: but images are such: therefore, etc. The major stands by similar case; for Ezechias, 4 Kings chapter 18, is praised because he cast down the brazen serpent, because it was an occasion of idolatry to the Jews. — I deny the minor, since, says Isambertus to question 25, distinction 3, article 9, the Church carefully guards lest images be placed in temples of Christians which either be of false dogma or offer the people occasion of error, and commands Pastors diligently to apply themselves to instructing peoples concerning the cult to be paid sacred images. Whence the reason is not equal concerning our images and the brazen serpent, because this then was worshipped by the Jews as something possessing divinity in itself, as Saint Augustine notes lib. 10. De Civit. Dei, c. 8. That serpent, he says, reserved on account of memory of the deed, when afterward the erring people began to worship it as an idol, Eschias King serving with religious power broke it with great praise of piety.

From these appears how wrongly heretics of this time assail Catholics with calumnies, namely that like idolaters they not only place images in temples but also carry them publicly about in processions. Truly we do nothing else than the Israelites, who by institution of God carried about for many years the Ark with Cherubim to the honor of God. Add that God approved this usage even by miracles. I shall record one and another. It is known that Gregory the Great, when a most savage pestilence raged at Rome, and many other calamities at the same time accrued, instituted a religious supplication on the day of Resurrection, and caused the image of the Mother of God depicted by Saint Luke to be brought forth into public, and God confirmed the pious circumgestation by miracle. For whithersoever the image was borne, the heaviness of the pestilential sky driven off, and desired salubrity followed in the city. Where all giving thanks to God, behold an Angel who addressed the holy Virgin from heaven with these voices: Queen of heaven, rejoice, alleluia: For he whom thou didst merit to bear, alleluia: hath risen as he said, alleluia. Which prayer as soon as Gregory heard before him, straightway excited by divine Spirit he completed it in this mode: Pray for us to God, alleluia. Which Canticle thereafter remained solemn in the Church, and has been accustomed yearly to be either argument or confirmation of Paschal joy. Sigonius also confirms the same history accepted from the ancients.

Third conclusion. — Sacred images of Christ and of the Saints are worthily with some adoration and veneration. This is of faith, and Alan Copus proves it first, dialogue 3 chapter 8, from all those texts of Scripture whereby even inanimate things dedicated to divine cult and sacred are declared worthy of some veneration. Thus Exodus 3: Loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place wherein thou standest is holy ground. And Psalm 98: Adore his footstool, for it is holy, which is understood of the Ark of the Lord, which book 1 Paralipomenon chapter 28 is called the footstool of his feet: for the Hebrews thought God to sit as on a throne upon the wings of Cherubim which were above the Ark, according to that Psalm 79: Who sittest over the Cherubim, and his feet rest upon the Ark as upon a suppedaneum or footstool. Hence with supreme veneration that Ark was to be handled by Levites and Priests alone: wherefore Oza being struck died, 2 Kings chapter 6, because, as Lyranus judges, he had placed her in a cart, when she ought to be carried religiously upon shoulders by holy men, according to that Isaiah 52: Be clean, you that carry the vessels of the Lord; and therefore 1 Kings 6 several were slain at Bethsamites because they wished more curiously to gaze at her without due reverence. — Nor does it matter, as heretics object, that in the Hebrew text is read adore toward the footstool, not truly adore the footstool; for in Hebrew there is not the verb adore but prostrate ye yourselves: whence since prostrating oneself before the footstool is the same as adoring the footstool, it follows that in that place is expressed the veneration and adoration due to the Ark on account of the order and relation she had to God. Why not then by equal reason would cult be paid to sacred images on account of a like cause?

It is proved secondly from the definition of Councils, in which the use and cult of sacred images against the arising heresy of Iconoclasts was asserted and propagated: for, leaving aside the various Synods collected on this matter both in the East and in the West, it pleases to commemorate those which were gathered at Rome under various Supreme Pontiffs, whom Adrian Pope relates in his response to the pseudo-Caroline book in these words:

For we have found also our Predecessors, namely most blessed Pontiffs Gregory and Gregory, Zachary and Stephen, Paul, and again Stephen, fervent in the Holy Spirit concerning the erection of sacred images, having zeal of right faith. On whose behalf Gregory Pope second the younger, together with 79 most holy Bishops, presiding before the confession of blessed Peter prince of Apostles, strengthening themselves with testimonies of many holy Fathers, judged in their Council that sacred images be venerated and adored. Further also our predecessor of holy memory once Lord Stephen Pope likewise presiding with Bishops of parts of France and Italy in the Basilica of our Lord Jesus Christ Savior, which is called Constantinian, confirming and embracing the venerable Council of his predecessor, and himself more and more together with all Bishops presiding, adhering to the testimonies of the holy Fathers, enacted that sacred images be adored and venerated. Whence blessed Paul the Apostle teaching, says: Hold the traditions which you have learned. And again: But though we, or an Angel from heaven evangelize to you besides that which we have evangelized to you, ana> thema sit. Truly most openly this Catholic and faithful dogma was handed over and defined in the VI general Synod Nicaea II, Act 7, in the profession of faith, in these words: We decree with all exact care and diligence, similarly to the figure of the holy and vivifying cross, venerable and holy images to be openly set forth, which consist in colors, or tesserae, or other material whatever suitable, in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, and also walls and panels, houses and ways: namely both images of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, then of the immaculate Lady our holy Mother of God, and also of honorable Angels and of all Saints and pious men: for the more frequently they are seen through imaginative representation, so much the more are those who behold them excited to remembrance and desire of the prototypes: and that to them they give kiss and honorable adoration, not however true, according to our faith, cult of latria, which belongs to the divine nature alone, but let us venerate in the same manner in which we do the figure of the precious and vivifying cross, and the holy Gospels, and the other sacred monuments: then that incense and lights be applied to them for honoring them: which was the religious custom of the ancients. — By which words the Council touches and damns a threefold error. First indeed that of Iconoclasts demolishing sacred images. Second of those who had stripped them of honor and veneration. Third finally it proscribes the superstition of certain men, opposed in extremes to Iconoclasts, who willed sacred images to be adored with that same cult of latria which is owed to God, as Saint Damascene relates in the book On Heretics near the end, where he calls those superstitious accusers of Christians, because they gave occasion to Saracens for accusing Christians of idolatry. Therefore against this threefold error the Council pronounces holily and religiously: First, that sacred images are not to be broken: secondly, that they are to be accompanied with honor and veneration: Third finally, that they are not to be worshipped with the cult of latria owed to God alone. — The same truth the Florentine Council defined Session ⟦num. deest⟧. But most clearly of all Trent Session 25 in these words: Moreover images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other Saints are especially to be had and retained in temples, and to them due honor and veneration is to be rendered, not because any divinity or virtue is believed to inhere in them for which they are to be worshipped, or because anything is to be asked of them, or because trust is to be fixed in images, as of old was done by Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear: which thing is sanctioned in the decrees of Councils, especially truly of the second Synod of Nicaea against attackers of images*: Subjoins the reason why they should be painted and figured, and honor paid them: That truly let Bishops diligently teach that the people be instructed and confirmed through histories of the mysteries of our Redemption expressed in paintings or other similitudes, in articles of faith to be commemorated and assiduously recalled: then truly from all sacred images great fruit to be received, not only because the people is admonished of the benefits and gifts which have been conferred on it by Christ, but also because the miracles of God through Saints, and salu> tary examples are subjected to the eyes of the faithful, that for them they may give thanks to God, may order their life and manners to the imitation of the Saints, and may be excited to adore and love God and cultivate piety. But if anyone shall teach or feel contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.

Finally it is proved by reason: Honor which is paid to the prototype ought also to overflow onto its effigy: but God, Christ, and all Saints merit honor and veneration: therefore also their images. The minor stands as regards God and Christ. It stands equally as regards Saints; for whoever excels in excellence and dignity is worthy of honor: but the Saints by many titles are to be celebrated, both on account of eminent grace, then on account of eminent virtues, and finally on account of their illustrious deeds, and consequently honored. But the major is proved: the excellence of the prototype accompanies itself wheresoever it is, and its excellence is communicated to that to which its being is communicated: but the prototype is in its own image, nay is the image itself, inasmuch as formally considered according to the reason of the represented; and an image is a certain participation of that prototype, for it is derived from it, made after its likeness, and represents it, nay is the prototype itself not in being but in representing: therefore it is capable of represented and relative honor. — It is confirmed by authority of Saint Athanasius, Oration 1 Against Arians, where speaking of the image of a King, having said it could address its beholder thus: I and the King are one, for I am in him and he in me, and what you notice in me notice also in him, and what you see in him see also in me: presently signifies the image to be not only King as regards expression of lineaments of body, but also as regards dignity and excellence of the King, which morally overflows into the image itself; for he says: He therefore who adores the image adores the King himself therein, seeing the image itself is nothing else than form and species of King. Saint Basil teaches the same, book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 18: The King is called, he says, image of the law, not however two kings; for neither is power divided nor glory destroyed. By which words he signifies that the dignity and excellence which is in the King overflows into his image and inheres in it, according to moral estimation of men. Hence Saint Ambrose on Psalm 118, Sermon 10, says excellently: He who crowns the image of the Emperor certainly honors him whose image he crowned, namely because the honor of the image overflows into the honor of the prototype, just as the honor of the prototype overflows into its effigy. — Next, whatsoever is capable of injury is also capable of some honor and cult: but images of illustrious persons are capable of injury and insult, such that injury inflicted on them overflows onto the very persons they represent, as Methodius teaches, Oration 2 On Resurrection, in these words: As we honor images of Kings, though of wax or stone, and whoever treats them contumeliously is damned not as if he despised mud or gold, but as if impious toward the King himself; so Angels, whose images we cast from gold, we fashion them unto the honor and glory of God. — Hence it stands from various histories of princes, even Christian ones, that they afflicted with punishment all who wrought injury and insult to their images; for Saint Ambrose relates concerning the death of Theodosius that he commanded many Antiochenes to be killed, because they treated the sta image of his wife ignominiously. Whence also God often exercised divine vengeance on those who broke or contumeliously treated images, as appears in Ecclesiastical Annalists, especially Eusebius book 1 chapter 19, and Richeomus in the books On Miracles and Images. — Third finally, God deigned to work many miracles at the presence of the holy images, both to reward the devotion of those who worshipped them, and to punish the impiety of those who ignominiously treated them: therefore it is a sign that he wills those images to be held in honor and reverence. The antecedent stands from the VII Synod, Act 1, where many miracles worked on occasion of sacred images are related. — To these add that images of Christ and the Saints bear many utilities, on account of which they seem not only to be preserved but also cultivated, which the VII Synod expends all. The first is, that after the manner of books they instruct idiots and teach them mysteries of faith and illustrious deeds of Saints; for painting silent on a wall is wont to speak, says Saint Gregory Nyss., Oration On St. Theodore. Hence Saint Gregory the Great teaches book 7 of Letters, Letter 111, to Serenus of Massilia, that painting is applied in churches precisely that they who know not letters at least reading by seeing on walls learn what they cannot read in codes. — Second, images sometimes move more efficaciously to virtue to be followed and vice to be avoided than books or sermons. Hence Gregory of Nyssa, whom the Fathers of the VII Synod relate, seeing the image of Abraham sacrificing his son wept; whence Theodore Bishop of Catana adds: How much more depicted the incarnate dispensation of Christ our Lord, who became man for us, seeing, will exhort to progress and effusion of tears? They relate thence from Gregory Nazianzen, Sermon On Virtue delivered among poems, that when a harlot summoned by a young man to a nefarious act, looking out beside his gate, saw the image of the Philosopher Polemon, she was suffused with such shame that reverencing the painted as if living, straightway withdrew and received herself into better fruit. Whence the Fathers relate that if the effigy of a Philosopher was so efficacious and powerful as to change a harlot, how great efficacy ought the images of Christ and the Saints possess, that they provoke us to follow their footsteps? — Third, images of Christ and Saints recall their virtues and examples and exhort us to follow them; for if Scipio Africanus said he was animated to virtue by nothing more than examples of ancestors, whose images he saw painted in the forum, as Plutarch relates in his Life, how much more ought the effigies of Christ and Saints provoke us to following their virtue? — Saint Bonaventure explains all these utilities excellently, distinction 3, dist. 9, article 1, q. 2, where he teaches that the introduction of images into the Church was not without reasonable cause.

For they were introduced on account of a triple cause: namely on account of the rudeness of simple ones, and on account of slowness of affections, and on account of frailty of memory. On account of the rudeness of simple ones they were invented, that simple ones, who cannot read, might more openly read in sculptures of this kind the sacraments of our faith. On account of slowness of affections similarly they were introduced, namely that men who are not excited to devotion in those things which Christ did for us while perceiving them by ear, may at least be excited while they discern the same things in sculptures > and paintings as present with corporeal eyes. For our affection is more excited by those things which it sees than by those it hears. Whence Horace, On Poetic Art, about the middle: More sluggishly do they irritate minds things sent down through the ear than those subjected to faithful eyes, etc. On account of frailty of memory, because things which are only heard are more easily handed over to oblivion than things which are seen. For frequently that is verified in many which has been accustomed to be said: a word enters by one ear and exits by another. Besides, he is not always at hand who by words recall benefits bestowed on us to memory: therefore by dispensation of God it came about that images be made chiefly in churches, that seeing them we call to mind benefits bestowed on us and virtuous works of Saints.*

They object first: Heretics, various texts of Scripture whereby cult is prohibited to be paid to any sculptile whatever; for Exodus 20: Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any likeness that is in heaven above, etc. Leviticus 26: You shall not make to yourselves an idol, nor graven thing, neither shall you erect titles, nor place an inscribed stone in your land, to adore it.

I answer, perhaps that in these and similar places cult of every image, whether of God, or Patriarchs, or other Saints, was forbidden to Hebrews lest it be to them a cause of committing idolatry; since they were of grosser genius, they were most prone to idolatry: therefore that every occasion of idolatry be removed it was congruous that cult of images whatsoever be prohibited to them. Yet thence it is not consequent that that also is prohibited to Christians: for as now, the old law abrogated, we are held no longer by legal precepts, and it is permitted us to eat many foods then forbidden: so now it is permitted to use images and worship them, although at that time they were prohibited.

I answer secondly, that in those places is not prohibited the cult of images but only of those which represented false divinities and were worshipped as gods, as was said in the second Notable. Whence Exodus 20 above cited, first false gods are prohibited, Thou shalt not have strange gods; then is provided against sculptile of vain gods; finally adoration of that sculptile, so that by one precept three things are prohibited, namely fabrication of image of a false god, its conservation and adoration. Hence God subjoins the reason of that prohibition: I am the Lord thy God, whereby he signifies he prohibits these three, lest namely those sculptilia be adored as Gods and held as idola of the Gentiles.

They object secondly: various authorities of holy Fathers. First indeed of Jerome on Daniel chapter 3, where he says: Worshippers of God ought not adore statue or image. Similarly of Saint Augustine, book Of the Manners of the Church, chapter 34: I wish not, he says, that there be many adorers of sepulchres and pictures. Finally of Gregory the Great, book 7 of Letters, Letter 11, who writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia gravely rebukes him because beholding certain adorers of images (he says) he broke and threw away the same images of the church. What he thinks of this Gregory sets forth in these words: And indeed that zeal, lest anything hand-made can be adored, we praise that you had: but we judge you ought not to have broken the same images. For therefore is painting applied to Churches, that they who know not letters at least reading by seeing on walls may learn what they cannot read in codes. Your fraternity therefore ought both to preserve them and prohibit the people from their cult: so that both the ignorant of letters might have whence they gather knowledge of history, and the people sin least in adoring the painting. To the same Serenus further he wrote there book 9 letter 1 another epistle, in which with many words he rebukes the same fact of his: And indeed that you had decreed they be not adored we praise altogether, but that you broke them we reprehend. But chiefly he was offended by that thing, that whereas he dwelt among Gentiles he ought to have attended lest while rashly kindled with right zeal he generate scandal to fierce minds. But truly he ought not to break, as if placed in churches not for adoring but solely for instructing minds of the ignorant. And because antiquity admitted histories of Saints to be painted in venerable places not without reason, if you had founded zeal in discretion, doubtless both you could healthfully obtain that which you intended, and not scatter the gathered flock, but rather gather the dispersed. Finally he exhorts him to restore the images and admonishes that they be not adored.

— Sixtus Senensis answers to Saint Jerome, book 1 of Sacred Library, annotation 217, that he speaks of images and statues which the nations fashioned to their Kings still living, or placed in public place, such as was that of Nabuchodonosor Daniel 13. To Saint Augustine answers Alanus Copus Dialogue 1 chapter ⟦?⟧ that he speaks of worshippers of sepulchres, not of Martyrs, but of dead men whatsoever, over whose sepulchres he says they drink and eat luxuriously and attribute their voracities to religion. In the same way he understands adorations of pictures not of God, Christ, or Saints, but of dead men whatsoever; and rightly he reprehends them because being Christians they indiscriminately worshipped whatever images placed at sepulchres, and in Gentile fashion, under pretext of a certain religion, defiled themselves with voracity over sepulchres.

— Finally, to Saint Gregory I answer he prohibits images to be adored with the cult of latria which is owed to God alone, namely with that cult wherewith Gentiles adored the empty simulacra of their Gods. That this was his mind plainly stands from his words praised in the objection, therefore namely he prohibits images to be adored, lest those recently received from Gentiles to faith and Church from the aspect of images render to them equal honor, such as not long before they paid to their own idols. But that Saint Gregory did not disapprove the cult of sacred images inferior to that cult which is rendered to divinity, the Fathers of the VII Synod proved, and likewise Adrian supreme Pontiff in the response to the pseudo-Caroline book, from the same Saint Gregory's Epistle to Secundinus Religious recluse, to whom sending the image of the Savior which he himself had asked, he declares how she ought to be cultivated, book 7 of Letters, Letter 51: I know indeed, he says, that thou askest the image of our Savior not that as it were God thou worship it, but for recollection of the Son of God thou grow warm in his love, whose image thou desirest to see. And we indeed not as before divinity prostrate ourselves before it, but we adore him whom through the image we call to mind either born or suffering, but also sitting on a throne. By which words Saint Gregory signifies it to have been posited in use among Catholic faithful that they venerate images and prostrate themselves before them, regarding the prototype, so that with exterior cult exhibited before the image they direct the interior affection of will toward the prototype of that image.

They object thirdly: Certain Councils in which the cult of images was proscribed, especially the Constantinopolitan Council under Leo Isaurian, and another there under Copronymus, and likewise the third Ephesine.

I answer, that the two aforementioned Councils of Constantinople are of no authority or weight. The first indeed, inasmuch as no Patriarch was present at it, and as many Catholic Prelates as were there cried out against the heretical definition of that Council. The second truly, because its convocation and celebration were illegitimate; whence it falsely claims for itself the name of the holy, great, and universal Seventh Synod; for as John the Chancellor said at Act 6 of the Seventh Synod: how is it holy, when it received nothing that is holy in its very conception? Especially since it is defiled and execrable. For those who were gathered in it, as we must confess prophetically, did not distinguish between the holy and the profane, nor did they discern between the clean and the unclean, calling the icon of the incarnate Word of God, namely our Lord Jesus Christ, by the same name of idol as the icon of Satan. And how was it great and universal, when the prelates of the other Churches neither received it nor agreed with it, but delivered it over to anathema? For it had not for its helper the Pope of the Romans of that time, or the priests about him, nor even his Vicars, nor an encyclical letter, in the manner the law of Councils dictates. Nor had it the consenting Patriarchs of the East, namely of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city, or their fellow ministers and high Priests who exist with them. The same judgment must be passed on the third Council of Ephesus, since from Act 6 of the Seventh Synod it appears that the aforesaid Council of Constantinople was called Ephesine, taking occasion from the error of Theodosius, Bishop of Ephesus, who had been present among the Presidents of that Pseudo-Synod of Constantinople.

They object 4. Canon 2 of the Council of Frankfort, by which the Seventh Synod is condemned because it established the cult of images, as we said in the prelude of this section.

I answer, that the opinion of authors concerning this Canon is varied and manifold. For some will have it first, with Alanus Copus, Dialogue 1, chapter 11, that not the second Synod of Nicaea but only the heretical one of Constantinople was condemned. But all the Frankish Annalists cry out against this, asserting that that Synod, by which the adoration and cult of images had been defined, was condemned at Frankfort. Thus above all the most ancient Annals relate, which Andreas Quercetanus inserted in Tome 2, where these things are found: Pascha celebratum est in Francofurt, ibique congregata est Synodus magna Episcoporum Galliarum, Germanorum, Italorum: in praesentia iam Principis (Caroli) et Missorum Domini Apostolici Adriani, quorum nomina haec sunt, Theophilactus, et Stephanus Episcopi. Tum Pseudo-Synodus Graecorum, quum falso septimam vocabant, et pro adorandis imaginibus fecerunt, reiecta est a Pontificibus. But in another Chronicle: Pseudo-Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus facta, quam falso septimam vocabant, reiecta est a Pontificibus. The same is related by the Annals of Bertiniani. Similarly the Annals of Eginhard: Synodus etiam, inquit, quae ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli sub Irene, et Constantino filio eius congregata, et ab ipsis non solum septima, verum etiam universalis erat appellata, ut nec septima, nec universalis haberetur, and would be called as it were superfluous, was altogether rejected by all. Ammonius relates the same in the Annals of the Franks under the year 791, where he writes thus: Sic etiam scilicet Francofurti synodus, quae ante paucos annos Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene, et Constantino filio eius septima, et universalis ab ipsis appellata est, ut nec septima, nec aliqua diceretur, quasi supervacanea ab omnibus abdicata. The Liber Urspergensis took these same words from him in its Chronicle under the year ⟦?⟧. Regino moreover, book 2, under the year 791, has thus: Pseudo-Synodus Graecorum, quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerant, a Pontificibus (scilicet Episcopis Francofordiensis Concilii) reiecta est. Ado in his Chronicle, in the year 792, says: Sed Pseudo-Synodus, quum septimam Graeci appellant, pro adorandis imaginibus abdicata penitus est. Johannes Aventinus in his History of the Boians says thus: Item acta Graecorum de imaginibus adorandis reprobata sunt. Therefore from all these it is established that some Synod of the Greeks, in which the cult of images had been determined, was condemned in the Council of Frankfort. Now it is certain that that cult was not defended, but rather assailed, in the Pseudo-Synods of Constantinople: therefore those were not the subject in the Council of Frankfort. Nor does it matter that most of them assert that Synod to have been celebrated at Constantinople. For they add that it was gathered under Irene and Constantine her son, by which they signify that the Synod condemned in the Council of Frankfort was the one celebrated under Irene: but that is the second of Nicaea, which perhaps they call Constantinopolitan because it had first been gathered and begun at Constantinople, as was said in the prelude of the Section.

— Second, very many contend that the Fathers of the Council of Frankfort did truly condemn the definition of the second Synod of Nicaea, but deceived through complete ignorance of what had taken place, inasmuch as they thought that there it had been defined that the same cult was to be paid to sacred images which ought to be rendered to God; for they say in that second Canon: Allata est in medium quaestio de nova Graecorum Synodo, quam de adorandis imaginibus Constantinopoli fecerunt, in qua scriptum habebatur: ut qui imaginibus Sanctorum, ita ut divinae Trinitati servitium, aut adorationem non impenderent, anathema iudicarentur: whereas the contrary had been defined by that Synod, since at Act 1 Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, formerly an Iconomach, was received into the Council on no other condition than professing that sacred images are to be venerated with that adoration only which pertains to honor, as may be read in his confession of faith written out there. Likewise the other Bishops who took part in the Pseudo-Synod of Constantinople were admitted on no other condition than confessing that honor inferior to that which is rendered to God ought to be paid to sacred images.

Nor does it matter that at Act 3 of the Seventh Synod Constantine, Bishop of Cyprus, seems to have said, as the Pseudo-Caroline book has it: Suscipio et amplector honorabiliter sanctas et venerandas imagines, et quae secundum servitium adorationis substantiali et vivificatrici Trinitati emitto. For it is certain that the confession of Constantine is reported corruptedly and vitiated in the Pseudo-Caroline book: for Constantine himself, in the aforesaid Act 3, approving the definition of faith of Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem, speaks thus: His consentio, et concors efficior, suscipiens et amplectens honorabiliter sanctas et venerabiles imagines, atque adorationem, quae per latriam, idest Deo debitam servitutem efficitur, soli supersubstantiali et vivificae Trinitati impendo. Which certainly directly opposes that pretended confession of his, as it lies written out in the Caroline book. From these things it may be understood that those Acts of the Seventh Synod, which were made Latin from the Greek and sent to Adrian the supreme Pontiff, and by him into Gaul, were depraved: since the Greek signifies something far different from the Latin, such as is read in Adrian's Apologeticum, and in the Pseudo-Caroline book; for the Acts written in Greek contain the Catholic sense, namely that images are to be adored; yet not with that kind of adoration which is owed to God: but the Latin signifies that images are to be pursued with the same cult of latria with which we venerate the most holy Trinity. That moreover it may be conjectured that Adrian the supreme Pontiff also did not have the Acts of the Seventh Synod faithfully translated, while replying to Charlemagne he answers certain objections expressed in the Pseudo-Caroline book, is gathered clearly enough from this, that, passing over in silence the confession of that Constantine, Bishop of Cyprus, by which the Pseudo-Caroline book contends that he wished to worship the divine Trinity with the same cult, the Pontiff replies nothing else than that those returning from a perverse heresy strive to satisfy the Church most abundantly; whereas without any trouble, and far more learnedly and better, he would have solved and dissolved that objection by replying that the confession of that Constantine had been depraved in what was set forth in the objection, if he himself had faithfully possessed the Greek exemplar of the Acts of the Seventh Synod, as we now possess them, written out and translated in Tome 1 of the Councils by the labor and industry of Philip Labbe.

Nor should you say that the supreme Pontiff, when he transmitted the Acts of that Synod into Gaul, had already approved it, and wished it to be reckoned among the Oecumenical Synods: and consequently that he must then have had the integral Acts of that Synod. For I answer, that the supreme Pontiff at that time approved the Council only so far as he had heard from his Legates returned to Rome by word of mouth that the Synod of Nicaea had restored sacred images (as he himself says near the end of his letter to Charlemagne) to their pristine state, and that a kiss and honorable salutation were to be rendered to them, but not the true cult of the adoration of latria, which is to be paid to God alone, and moreover he had condemned the Pseudo-Synod of Constantinople under the heretic Constantine: Et ideo, inquit, ipsam suscepimus Synodum: nam si eam minime recepissemus, et ad suum pristinum errorem fuissent reversi, quis pro tot millium animarum Christianarum interitu, haberet reddere rationem ante terribile et tremendum divini iudicis examen, nisi nos solummodo? Et intra: Nos vero adhuc pro eadem Symodo nullum responsum hactenus eidem Imperatori Constantinopolitano reddidimus, metuentes ne ad eosdem reverterentur errorem, etc. By which words he indicates that he had not yet fully, and with public and authentic testimony (which later ages called a bull), approved that Synod, and had received it only on this condition, because his Legates had borne witness by word of mouth that nothing had been defined in that Synod which did not accord with Catholic and Apostolic doctrine.

— Third, Baronius at the year 794 frankly confesses indeed that the Synod of Nicaea was condemned in the Council of Frankfort, not indeed by the whole Synod, but only by certain Bishops infected with the error of the Iconoclasts, who had excerpted certain chapters from the Acts of the Synod of Nicaea, and had offered them to Charles the Great the Emperor for this end, namely that he should not permit the decrees of that Synod to be published and received in his kingdom; which excerpts, having been gathered into a bundle and divided into four books, Charles sent to Adrian the supreme Pontiff, that he might disclose what was to be thought of them. Bellarmine indeed, book 2 De Romano Pontifice, chapter 8, judges that the Synod of Frankfort truly disapproved the Synod of Nicaea, but in error and materially, deceived by the author of the Caroline books, who lied twice over: first, in that he feigned that it had been decreed at Nicaea that images be adored with the cult of latria; then, in that he asserted that the Greeks had done this without the consent of the Roman Pope.

— Fourth, it seems to me more probable that one must say with Vazquez, disputation 107, chapter 5; Kellison, question 2, article 3; Bernard Puiol, book De Sacro Adorationis Cultu, dist. 3, who at section 6 judge that the Council of Frankfort decreed nothing whatsoever against the Seventh Synod, nor was anything done in it concerning images, whatever the Annalists named above may say, and likewise Hincmar of Reims in the little work of 85 Chapters, chapter 20; who were deceived in this, that they held the Pseudo-Caroline book to be the synodal Acts of the Council of Frankfort. The foundations of whose opinion are, that the Council of Frankfort had the Legates of Pope Adrian, as the above-named writers of the history of the Franks assert, from whom the assembled Fathers could learn that the Seventh Synod had not decreed that images be worshipped with the same cult as the holy Trinity; and thus, made more certain of this truth, they would willingly have abstained from their own definition against the Seventh Synod. The greatest argument of whose observance is that in the sacrosyllabic book written in the name of that Synod by St. Paulinus of Aquileia, after they had passed sentence of excommunication upon those who should think contrarily concerning the servitude and adoption of Christ, the Fathers add, Servato per omnia iuris privilegio summi Pontificis Domini, et Patris nostri Adriani, primae sedis beatissimi Papae. Therefore it is not likely that the Fathers of that Synod resisted the Legates of the supreme Pontiff, whose supreme authority in all things they acknowledged.

— Then, Claudius of Turin, an Iconomach, although he spread his Iconomachy a little after this Council, did not allege this Council in his own defense; nor does Jonas of Orleans, who wrote against him in favor of images, nor Peter the Deacon, who flourished in the time of Charlemagne, make mention of this decree against the Synod, and against or in favor of images. Finally, it is not likely that before Charlemagne, an Emperor most devout, who was present at the Council, the error of Iconomachy was defined; for Charles was elected Emperor in the West by Leo III almost seven years after the Council of Frankfort, for the reason that the Easterners were Iconomachs, since at the time of the Council he was only King of the Franks. Who therefore would think that the supreme Pontiffs, who had departed from the Eastern Emperors on account of their impiety against sacred images, would have elected Charles Emperor, if he himself in the Council had felt the same as the Easterners? More probable therefore is it, that the authors of the Caroline book, being as they were Iconomachs, when they understood that the Seventh true general Synod had defined that images were to be adored and worshipped, ascribed more to it than was due, in heretical fashion, and said that it had defined images to be adored with the cult of latria; just as because Catholics say that images and the Saints are to be honored, modern heretics say that we worship images and Saints as Gods. Nor does it stand in the way that many authors and writers of the history of the Franks praised above assert that the Synod of Nicaea was proscribed at Frankfort.

For, says Vazquez, chapter 8, all these German and Italian writers composed their works long after the Seventh Synod and the Council of Frankfort. For Ammonius is older than the rest, weaving his history down to the year 828 (for he is not that Ammonius the Monk, in Trithemius, who was after Regino and Ado), whence he wrote nearly a hundred years after the Seventh Synod and the Council of Frankfort: but the rest after him. Now whence could this author know that in the Council of Frankfort anything was done against the Seventh Synod, or have any other knowledge of this, unless either from Paul the Deacon, who was most familiar with Charlemagne, or from Eginhard the Secretary of Charles, or from Jonas of Orleans, who lived at about the same time, or from the preface of that Caroline book, or finally from Hincmar? But Jonas, in those books so often cited concerning the cult of images, and Paul the Deacon, and Eginhard in the Life of Charles, make no mention of this condemnation: there remains therefore that he either fabricated it out of his own head, or drew it from Hincmar and the Caroline book. But we have shown these plainly to have been deceived: the Caroline book indeed, maliciously; Hincmar however, out of ignorance, inasmuch as he reports that he heard these things when he was younger; for he says in the little work of 55 Chapters addressed to Hincmar of Laon, chapter 20. Septima vocata universalis Pseudo-Synodus de imaginibus: quas quidam confringendae, quidam autem adorandae dicebant: neutra vero pars intellectu sano definiens, sine auctoritate Apostolicae sedis, non longe ante nostra tempora Constantinopoli est a quam pluribus Episcopis habita, et firmissimam missam quam etiam Papa Romanus in Franciam direxit. Inde tempore Caroli Magni Imperatoris, iussione Apostolica sedis, generalis est Synodus in Francia, concocente praefato Imperatore, celebrata, et secundum Scripturarum tramitem, traditionemque maiorum, ipsa Graecorum Pseudo-Synodus destructa, et penitus abdicata. De cuius destructione non modicum documentum, quod in palatio adolescentulus legi, ab codem Imperatore Romam est per quosdam Episcopos missum.

By which words he signifies that he received this from the Caroline book while still young. But an adolescent and a youth badly instructed in matters could easily be deceived, taking the Caroline book for the definition of the Council of Frankfort, since perhaps at that time that book had been published together with the Acts of the Council of Frankfort. Further, when he says, neutra vero pars intellectu sano defining, etc., he is not to be said to have condemned the cult of sacred images, since otherwise he was a Catholic man, but only to have denied that the cult of latria was to be paid to images, the contrary of which he judged had been defined in the Seventh Synod, since he did not yet possess the accurate Acts of that Synod. From these things Vazquez gathers that Ammonius had no ancient writer from whom he could certainly learn what had been decreed concerning images in the Council of Frankfort. Yet he stumbles regarding Eginhard, when he says that he made no mention of the condemnation of images: for the contrary appears from the testimony of the same praised above.

— Finally, some judge with Petavius, book 15, chapter 12, number 10, that the Fathers of Frankfort condemned the Seventh Synod not so much as knowing it not yet to be Oecumenical and approved by Adrian, inasmuch as the Pontiff had sent its Acts to them, to be surely considered and known, as Hincmar testifies. Although however these objections (which are false and nonexistent, unless you except no one ⟦line destroyed⟧) do not lack foundation, and seem probable: nevertheless (as I said) I should judge it more probable that no canon concerning sacred images was published in the Council of Frankfort; of whose assertion no light argument is this, that all the ancient writers of history make no mention of such a Canon, which, unknown before along with the rest, Sirmondus not long ago brought to light; nor indeed is any mention made of that controversy, whether in the sacrosyllabic book, or in the Letter of Charles to the Bishops of Spain, or in the other Acts of this Council, which seems to have been assembled only against the Felician heresy. Nor does it stand in the way that the Caroline book in its preface heaps up this Canon, for very many suspect that preface to the Caroline book, in which this Canon is cited, to have been published by some heretic of our time, who, concealing his name and expressing it only in these syllables, Eli, fili, brought that work to light in the year 1549; although Cardinal Perron asserts in his collections that D. du Tillet committed it to the press out of a zeal for harming, since he himself had been a disciple of Calvin, and consequently had in him no other than the impious heretical opinion of his master concerning images.

They object fifthly: That pseudo-Caroline book which they will to have been published in the name of Charles the Great against the definition of the VII Synod concerning images to be worshipped, which four-parted book is said sent by Charles the Great to Adrian supreme Pontiff, whom the supreme Pontiff answered, retelling all objects. And that seems to be that volume which he testifies he read as a youth in the Palace and was sent by Charles the Great to Rome through certain Bishops, Hincmarus with words praised above. It is a sign therefore (say Calvin book 1 of Institutions, c. 11, and the Centuriators century eight) that Charles the Great and the Gallican Church reprobated veneration of images.

I answer first, that those books were not truly by Charles the Great, nor composed in his name or by his command, whatever the preface prefixed to them bears and asserts; which indeed is urged first because Charles seems to have directed those books themselves to Adrian supreme Pontiff, that by his own authority he might respond and consider, and define what ought to be believed around this controversy, as appears near the end of the apology or epistle of Adrian, likewise of the chapters directed to Adrian himself. For the last chapter bears there ought to be followed the sense of the Epistle of Saint Gregory writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia: We permit, he says, images of Saints, whosoever shall wish to form them, both in church as outside church, for love of God and of the Saints: but we compel no one unwilling to adore them: to break or destroy them, even if anyone should wish it, we permit not, and because following the sense of most holy Gregory in this epistle we freely profess without doubt the universal Catholic Church pleasing to God. Thirdly, Paulus Aemilius testifies in book 1 of the History of the Franks, that Charles himself at the beginning of his reign sent to the Lateran Council under Pope Stephen twelve chosen Bishops, whose work especially condemned the Pseudo-seventh Synod under Copronymus. It does not therefore seem likely that King Charles wished to reject the doctrine of the Church defined in the Nicene Synod in all things consonant with the definition of the Lateran Council: otherwise all those Bishops who were present at the Lateran, and also others of the same faith and confession, would doubtless have resisted: and thence there would have arisen in Gaul no lesser contention and sedition of minds concerning the cult of images than in the East, of which no ancient Writer makes mention; Which last chapter indeed the Pontiff recognizes as sacred and venerable, and much differing from the other heads. And therefore, he says, therein we have recognized it proper to your royal excellence preserved by God and orthodox, that where right faith is wholly confessed it follows the sense of most holy Gregory. But this sense is altogether Catholic and far alien, as the Pontiff rightly said, from the sense of the author of the pseudo-Caroline book: therefore Charles the Great is not to be judged author or promoter of that book; since if the book had been published by his authority or genius, neither would he have transmitted it to the Pontiff whom he knew had approved the seventh Synod, nor added that last chapter to the others. Whence one may infer that book was published by certain Iconoclast leaders among the Gauls, and since contentions and disputations arose in Gaul on its occasion, Charles perhaps directed it to Adrian, that what he felt concerning it he might disclose with Pontifical authority: wherefore Charles himself…

I answer secondly, that book was published by unskilled men and utterly ignorant, as Perronius observes learnedly in his collectanea under title Of Image, and Charles the Great, and gathers the ignorance and childish genius of its authors from this, that they contend the first Nicene Synod to be far more excellent than the second, because in it were Bishops 312, in this truly only 306; but the duodenal number, say they, is far superior to the ternary, which indeed they prove because there are twelve Apostles, twelve months, twelve signs, etc. Which certainly is a fallacious and puerile reason. Next, the author of those books mostly usurps sayings of Iconoclasts as definitions of a Council, and thence pours out his virulent and bitter hatred upon the Synod. He adds also, attacking the history of the image of the Philosopher Polemon mentioned in Council, that he knows not what sort of Saint Polemon that may be, whom sought with long labor in the roll and Kalendar of Saints he found not. Finally he asks who be Saint Gregory Nyssenus, whom he marvels commemorated and praised among holy Fathers and Doctors by the Synod. Other countless examples and testimonies of such mocking ignorance and childish genius you will find in the work itself, whence appears it to be of no authority.

— Nor say that Adrian Pontiff, who noted and disapproved all blemishes and errors of that book, made no mention of the things aforesaid. Hence indeed I have no light argument that the aforesaid book is not that which was directed by Charles the Great to Adrian, but only some selected titles of chapters of the same book, written in inverted order. Which moreover is confirmed, because the Pontiff responds to titles alone prefixed at the heads of the Caroline books: not truly to the proofs of those titles, which with sharp and vehement reprehension note and damn various opinions pronounced in the seventh Synod: but who would judge the Pontiff, writing to the King who had transmitted chapters that he might answer them, willed to refute only titles of the work, leaving their reasons and proofs untouched? Next, in four Caroline books are found 120 chapters, or lemmata, and objects proposed against the Synod: but the Pontiff commemorates and refutes not more than ⟦num. illegible⟧. Finally, the Pontiff does not repeat and refute those objects in the same order in which they were written in the Caroline books: since the first chapter to which the Pontiff responds is prefixed to the third chapter of the third Caroline book. The second chapter in the apology of the Pontiff for the Synodus is the title of the fourth chapter of the third Caroline book. And so frequently in the others you will find no concordant order between the titles of the Caroline books and those to which in his apology the Pontiff responds. Which certainly is no light argument for me that those books were not directed whole to the Pontiff, but that from them certain titles of chapters were excerpted, which perchance at that time collected into a little book and compacted by Iconoclasts were spread abroad through the Gauls, that they might the more easily allure men less cautious and learned into their erroneous opinion.

— Nor does it matter that Hincmarus above praised asserts that not small volume written against the seventh Synod, which as a youth he read in the palace, was sent by Charles to Rome through certain Bishops. Thence indeed also there is argument for me that those books are not those which Adrian received and answered, but perhaps only certain chapters of those books; for himself at the beginning of the apology and Epistle to King Charles writes he received a certain capitulary against the Synod, which was directed by your most clement illustrious royal power for erection of sacred images, through Engilbertus Abbot and minister of the chapel, who almost from the rudiments of infancy was nourished in your palace and received in all your Councils. Therefore the work to which the Pontiff responds is not that great volume which Hincmarus commemorates as sent to Rome through Bishops. Thence however it is not permitted to infer that volume compacted of the four Caroline books was also transmitted through Bishops, with distinct legation and deputation, and separately from that office which Engilbertus exercised: since of the legation of these Bishops you find not even a light indication either with Adrian nor with Gallic writers, except perchance among those deceived by the relation of Hincmarus; who being yet an adolescentulus could easily slip into error, judging the whole volume transmitted to Rome through Bishops, when only some Synopsis of it had been transmitted through Engilbertus Abbot, who in the royal court possessed supreme authority.

Heretics urge: Not more efficaciously can be gathered what was the mind of Charles the Great than from things done after his death: but after his death the Gallican Church admitted not yet veneration of images, neither in Synod; for reigning Louis the Pious son of Charles the Great, when Michael Balbus and Theophilus the Greek Emperors sent legates into Gaul to Louis the Pious with imperial letters, wherein they expounded the dissension of the Eastern Church on account of veneration of images, and commissioned their legates that having accepted commendatory Letters of Emperor Louis they go to Rome to the Pontiff, and effect with him that by his work through Orient and West the sentence concerning sacred images become concordant among Christians. But the Legates heard, he commanded a Synodus gather at Paris in his palace year 825, in which veneration and adoration of images was proscribed, likewise the second Nicaene Synodus, and two Epistles of Adrian damned, in which the Pontiff defended cult of sacred images. — I answer first, that Parisian convention, should anyone defend it, was not a Synod, although a libellus year 1596 issued forth at Frankfort struck with types under this title, Parisian Synodus concerning images year 825 described from a most ancient codex, now first published to light, wherein mention is nowhere made of the place whence that most ancient codex was accepted. For the libellus itself rebukes the vanity of its own title; thus we read page 126 in the pretended Epistle of Louis the Pious to Eugenius Pontiff:

We, not gathering a Synod, but as we demanded of you, and perceived license of acting, together with our familiars, your sons, as much as impeded by manifold divers occupations of the kingdom, at intervals we strove to consider what of so great necessity we could signify to your commodity.

Therefore from the assertion of the libellus itself, that Parisian Convention, if any it was, held not the name nor authority of a Synod, but only of a certain congregation into which convene not only some Bishops but also Doctors and lettered men, who excerpt and collect sentences of the holy Fathers concerning images, whereby for deciding this controversy and conciliating peace between the Latin Church and Greek the Pontiff could be helped. I answer secondly, that it seems more probable that libellus is spurious and illegitimate, and fabricated from the brain of some recent heretic, as Bellarmine demonstrates most excellently in his refutation of the same libellus divided into six chapters, which he appended as appendix to the treatise On the Cult of Images. This libellus truly, says Bellarmine, contains chiefly five:

First namely in it is read an epistola in the name of Michaël and Theophilus to Louis the Pious son. Second, collected testimonies from old Fathers whereby it is proved images are neither to be broken, as wished Iconomachs, nor worshipped, as second Nicaena Synodus had enacted. Third, an epistola written in the name of the supreme Pontiff by Gallic Doctors to Michaël Emperor, teaching images neither to be afflicted with injury nor even adored. Fourth, an epistola of Louis Emperor to Eugenius Pontiff of that same second name, exhorting him to send legation into Greece and pacify the Church. Fifth, an epistola of the same Louis to Jeremias and Jonas Bishops, whom he sends to Rome to the supreme Pontiff and instructs how prudently before the Pontiff they ought bear themselves, that they draw him over to their opinion.

Truly all these things are either false and erroneous, or feigned supposititious. For, in fewer words to embrace what more ample style Bellarmine hands over and explains, it is certain first that the epistola of Michael Balbus is stuffed with lies; for above all he deplores the simultaneous slaughter of Leo Emperor his predecessor, whom he says was miserably slain by a conspiracy of certain wicked men: but it stands from the annals of Zonaras, Cedrenus, etc. that Michael himself was chief of the conspiracy and killing. Moreover he seems piously to complain that the Church on account of cult of images is divided by dissension, while himself was the chief artisan of that dissension, since he rejected the Nicaena Synodus which had removed dissensions and restored Iconomachy almost buried. What truly in the extreme part of the epistola he reprehends in Catholics — that they despise the cross, that they adore images as Gods, that they offer sacrifices to them, that from them by I know not what artifice they wish to be received from the sacred font and to perceive sacramental communion, etc. — are mere calumnies and impostures. Therefore either those who are supposed to have convened in the Parisian convention gave faith to such epistolae or not. If the first, doubtless they were deceived: if the second, they wished to deceive, abusing those letters, to persuade Louis the Pious and likewise Eugenius Pontiff that Nicaena Synodus ought be disapproved and cult of images attacked. Secondly their error or crass ignorance appears from the collected sentences of SS. Patrum, most of which prove nothing else than God alone is to be worshipped with latria cult proper to him alone, and images not to be adored so that sacrifices also be offered to them, which neither do Catholics deny nor had Nicaena Synodus decreed: some truly they twist into a contrary sense; other very many they congregate which directly militate against their nefarious dogma. One I shall relate whom they praise, Saint Basilium Epistola to Emperor Julianum, whence these were excerpted among the rest:

But I receive also the holy Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, and their intercession to God, whereby through them he has made God most merciful propitious to me; for whom therefore I honor and adore the figures of their images; this especially has been handed down from the holy Apostles, nor prohibited, but I will that their histories be depicted in all our churches, etc.

There are not lacking other similar testimonies in the same libellus of Athanasius, Germanus, Leontius, and others, which imprudently the adversaries bring forth against their own erroneous dogma, whence appears with what great forces truth is strong, for its very attackers also not rarely defend it though unwilling. Thirdly, utterly ridiculous, and altogether unworthy of a Pontiff, is that epistola which those pretended Doctors write in the name of the Pontiff to Michaël Emperor, and pretend to be subscribed by the Pontiff, as Bellarmine demonstrates in many ways; chiefly because this epistola makes the Pontiff an imprudent flatterer of the Emperor, while they will write thus to him: O venerable Princes of the world! together with the whole holy Church of God, which ye govern by the disposing and committing Lord. But who would bear that the Pontiff thus address a most criminal man who was addicted to magical arts, denied resurrection of flesh, said fornication lawful, and had mulcted so many most holy men, holders-back of Catholic truth, either with exile, prison, or slaughter? Secondly in that epistola Constantinus and his Mother Irene are reprehended because by their edict he commanded sacred images according to decree of general Council to be held with veneration. Which reprehension truly could not be written by supreme Pontiff unless plainly out of mind. Whence neither Eugenius subscribed this epistola nor did any of his successors fall into that lapse. Hence Anastasius Bibliothecarius writing to John eighth of same name Pontiff, who had been substituted for Adrian second successor of Eugenius second, in preface seventh Synod says:

Which things the present Synod teaches concerning the adoration of venerable images, these also your Apostolic see, as certain writings intimate, held of old, and the universal Church has ever venerated, and is venerated hitherto, excepting only certain of the Gauls, to whom indeed the truth of these things has not yet been revealed.

Finally as regards the rest, namely as to the epistle of Louis the Pious to Eugenius Pontiff, and to Jeremias of Sens and Jonas of Orleans Bishops, there are many things which breathe frauds of recent heretics, as will appear to the reader; whence Bellarmine chiefly suspects that whole libellus either to be fabricated, or — which is more credible — depraved and augmented, for conciliating odium against the Roman Church.

Heretics insist: Such was the opinion of the Gallican Church concerning images at the time of Louis the Pious, such as writers of that age relate: but they judge no veneration ought to be paid to images. It is betrayed chiefly by Jonas of Orleans, who in his books on the adoration of images, answering Claudius of Turin arguing from the Old Testament that God prohibited adoration of sculptilia, writes thus:

I cannot deny but that similitudes of heavenly and earthly creatures existed: although those were made not by God unto adoration, but to prefigure types of things future. Let images of Saints be permitted thee, not that they be worshipped, but rather that they render a certain beauty, and impress upon the senses of the unskilled in churches painted the memory of past things: but that a creature be adored, and anything of divine servitude paid it, we say is impious.

Similarly Hincmarus forty years later writing in the Opuscule of 55 chapters chapter 20 to Hincmarus of Laon says among other things that at that very time the Roman Pontiffs more vehemently promoted the cult of their own puppets, as the Centuriators relate, century 8 chapter 9. — I answer to the first: Jonas willed images to be kept in churches not only for ornament and recollection but also for cult, namely that we kiss them, incline our head to them, and exhibit other signs of veneration and honor; for he teaches this often in those books, but denies only that adoration ought to be paid them which consists in the affection of divine servitude, and is latria internal and mental, as appears in his second book, where to Claudius contemning the relics of Saints and prohibiting that veneration be exhibited them because they are works of hands of men, he says:

In the sense of this opinion thou art soberly wise with us. True, I say, because neither are works of hands of men to be adored and worshipped with that cult and adoration namely which belongs to Divinity alone. For works of hands of God the bodies of Saints preceding thy little work betray thee to have said: which are not to be adored with the adoration due to Divinity, but with pious love are to be embraced and honored, seeing they are sacred temples of the Holy Spirit.

Yet I deny not that the opinion of Jonas concerning images seems involved, little self-consistent and coherent; for sometimes he denies all cult and veneration to works of hands of man, and professes some adoration not to be paid a creature, nevertheless he wholly strives to prove against Claudius that the cross is laudably worshipped and adored from tradition of SS. Patrum; yet that it is a creature and work of hands of men no one doubts. Secondly I say those aforesaid words are not Hincmarus's but the Centuriators'; although Baronius to year 791 n. 41 judging these written by Hincmarus sharply accuses him, that less catholically, nor with that gravity and piety wherewith became an Archbishop, he felt concerning sacred images. Truly those words are not Hincmarus's, since neither in his books struck by the press nor in any manuscript works of the same are they found; therefore those words belong to the Centuriators, which perhaps the amanuensis of Baronius, copying from them the sentence of Hincmarus which was not written out in a different character, described together with Hincmarus's own words.

You ask. 1. Whether lawfully certain images representing God and divine persons can be formed, and adored?

I affirm, with all Catholics; and it is gathered from the seventh Synod, Act 5, where among the impious dogmata of a certain Nenaia is also recounted this, that she would say it to be an act of a childish mind to fashion in a dove an idol of the Spirit most adorably holy. And shortly after in the same place it is condemned because she thought it inconvenient that pious men outline the Holy Spirit as having a body.

It is confirmed from the most frequent and most ancient usage of the Church, which of old willed divine persons to be expressed and outlined in figures in temples; for in the Constantinopolitan Synod under Mennas Act 5 is related the suppliant libellus of Clerics and Monks of Antiochia to John Patriarch against Severus, wherein among the crimes of this man it is related that he appropriated golden and silver doves in form of Holy Spirit hung above sacred lararia and altars, saying it behooves not to name the Holy Spirit in the species of a dove. Hence the Council of Trent, Session 25, approves this usage of the Church when it prescribes:

So that, if at any time it shall be expedient for the unlearned people that histories and narratives of sacred Scripture be expressed and figured, let the people be taught that Divinity is not therefore figured, as if it could be beheld by bodily eyes, or expressed by colors and figures.

But that every difficulty which might be objected may be tacitly cleared away, it must be observed from Cajetan to question 25 that images of God can be made in three ways: First indeed, so that through them it be intended to paint and figure God according to the truth of his own nature: and thus the fashioning of images of God is prohibited Isaiah chapter 10, and by the Church is damned as the heresy of Anthropomorphites: for we must not deem the Divinity to be like unto gold or silver, says the Apostle Acts 17. Secondly, so that through an image God be represented, not indeed as he is in himself, but as he sometimes appeared to men in some visible form, either through himself immediately, or through Angels. And thus even heretics do not deny images of God can be fashioned, especially Chemnitius concerning the above-cited definition of the Council of Trent; and Peter Martyr in his commonplaces chapter 5. Thus we paint God the Father in the form of an old man, because he seems to have appeared in that form to Daniel chapter 7; God the Son in human form, because he assumed humanity; God truly the Holy Spirit in the species of a dove, because he appeared in it Matthew 3. For although that dove was formed indivisim from three persons, nevertheless because it was touched to represent the Holy Spirit, he alone is said to have appeared in it. Thirdly, so that through an image God or some divine person be represented inasmuch as it has analogy with some perfection of God: and in this mode also it appears God and divine persons can be represented. Nor stands in the way Canon 82 of the sixth Synod, in which is prohibited the image of Christ to be figured in form of lamb. For I say first, that these Canons appear to many not to be of the true and genuine sixth Synod, but of certain Bishops who several years after the sixth Synod had been dissolved and finished gathered in Trullo published those Canons, which universal Church approved not, as Turrianus teaches at length in his book On the false acts of the sixth Synod, and Baronius to the year of Christ 692. I say secondly, that the Canon does not prohibit Christ being thus figured absolutely, but only comparatively, namely that to those figures of the lamb should be preferred images representing Christ in human figure. — Many testimonies both of Scripture and of the Fathers heretics heap together whereby they strive to prove no image of God is to be made. Truly all those you will easily dissolve by replying that they are to be understood of the image of God employed in the first mode, by which namely it would wish to signify that God has a figure of this kind.

You will object: If any image of God is to be adored, especially a living one, such as man: but man is not to be adored: therefore neither is any image to be worshipped. — I answer first, that man is said not so much to be the image of God as made to the image of God. Second, that religious adoration is founded in some excellence which signifies an order to a supernatural end, just as civil cult is founded on the perfection of the natural order: whence, since man is the image of God only according to his natural things, for this reason he does not seem to be worshipped with religious cult. Third, that man, insofar as he is the image of God, can also be received with some veneration; hence we often see in the Sacred Scriptures men prostrating themselves before others and adoring them.

You ask. 2. Whether images can be adored either per se, so that the adoration itself be rendered to the thing, as to a thing that terminates it and is the terminus of that adoration: or only by reason of the prototype, so that the image is only called the terminus quo of that adoration?

I answer, that it seems more probable that images are to be adored only as the terminus quo of that adoration, so that he who adores the image venerates through it the exemplar as terminus and proximate matter of that adoration. So all the princes of Theology teach; for thus Alensis teaches, part 3, question 30, member 3, article 3, § 1. St. Bonaventure, book 3, dist. 9, art. 1, qu. 2. Albertus in the same place, article 1. St. Thomas in the same place, question 1, article 2. and many other followers of theirs whom Vazquez cites, dist. 104, cap. 3.

This opinion is preferred first indeed by the authority of Councils: but chiefly from the definition of the Seventh Synod which we expressed above: for after it decreed that images are to be honorably retained in temples, namely that through the inspection of these painted images all who see may fly to the memory, remembrance, and desire of the prototypes, and exhibit to them salutation and honorable adoration, etc., it adds the reason in these words: for the honor of the image redounds to the prototype, and he who adores the image adores in it also the subject depicted. By which words it signifies that images are adored precisely because the same honor of the image redounds to the exemplar. Similarly the Synod of Sens, decree 11: Images of Christ, it says, are adored not because any divinity inheres in them, but on account of the veneration of the exemplar. By which words it refers the whole adoration of the image back to the very prototype. Then, Trent teaches that images are to be adored,

non quod, inquit, credatur inesse aliqua in his Divinitas, vel virtus propter quam sint colenda: sed quoniam honos, qui his exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant, ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus, et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illae similitudines sunt.

Therefore the Council does not judge images to be adored per se on account of their peculiar excellence, but only by reason of the prototype which they represent.

Vazquez proves secondly by the authority of the holy Fathers teaching that the honor paid to sacred images does not rest in them, but rebounds to the prototype. Thus St. Dionysius, chapter 2 De Coelesti Hierarchia: Those who studiously behold sacred simulacra do not linger in such lineaments as in wax, but honor is rendered to divine things and through the negations of things and their diverse likenesses with extremes. By which he signifies that when sacred images are beheld and adored and worshipped, one must not linger and rest in them, but honor must be rendered to their exemplars. St. Damascenus luminously proves the same truth, Orat. 1 De Imag., by the testimony of St. Basil from the book De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 18, where it stands thus:

Quia lex etiam dicitur Regis imago, et non dumtaxat reges: neque enim imperium scinditur, neque gloria dividitur, quemadmodum principatus, et potestas una est, quae nobis dominatur: sic etiam et glorificatio a nobis una est, et non multa, propterea quod imaginis honor ad exemplar transit.

And he comments upon this opinion thus:

Quemadmodum purpura, et sericum, et quicquid ex his vestimentum conficitur, per se nihil aliud sunt, nisi tenue quoddam operimentum; quod tamen si rex induerit, honoris quo praestat Rex, ipsum quoque particeps fit: ita res ex materia constantes per se quidem adorandae non sunt, at si gratia plenus sit is, quem illae referunt, pro fidei proportione, ipsae quoque participes fiunt.

He confirms it by Oration 3, with the testimony of Leontius in Dialogue 4 against the Jews, where it is said thus:

Quemadmodum etiam Iacob accipiens a filiis suis tunicam sanguine conspersam Ioseph, cum lacrymis osculatus est, suisque oculis circumposuit, non ipsam tunicam diligendo, aut honorando hoc fecit, sed per eam arbitratus est, se Ioseph osculari, et in manibus habere: sic etiam Christi omnes imagines Christiani, aut Apostoli, aut Martyris tenentes, nostraque carne osculantes, animo videmur nobis ipsum Christum, aut Martyrem amplecti.

But he brings forward as example him who kisses the garment of his dead son. The same concerning sons who, while their Father is far away and journeying abroad, embrace with tears whatever they see in his house, whether staff or cloak; yet these are not worthy of reprehension. He gives the reason in these words: non enim, ut Deum, tunicas adorasti, sed ipsum amorem erga eum, qui his amiciebatur, tuum per oscula declarasti. Finally he concludes the argument saying:

Therefore, as I have often said, in every salutation and adoration the very intention is required and weighed, that is, it must be considered and examined. Passing over the testimonies of other holy Fathers touched upon, whereby Vazquez proves the same truth in the same place.

But that this grave controversy stirred up among Recent Theologians on this matter, although, as it seems to me, of little use to Catholic truth, may be composed with a fairer judgment, I should judge it must be said that sacred images indeed are to be venerated with a peculiar and primary cult only on account of their prototype, so that by that reason they are judged worthy of religious cult because they recall to memory the excellence of the prototype: nevertheless, since, as we said above, a certain moral diffusion and attribution of the excellence of the very prototype into its image takes place, thence I should judge also that images, by reason of that excellence morally promanating and poured forth over them, are judged worthy per se also of some veneration, not indeed according to their material being, from which they are formed, namely insofar as they are wood, bronze, silver, gold, or colors, nor even according to their formal being simply, that is, according to the outlines and disposition of parts skillfully and artfully joined together, for this is merely artificial, but insofar as they are ordered to signifying and representing the thing which of itself and in itself embraces an excellence worthy of veneration.

Note 1. That various heretics held the sacred spoils and relics of the Saints departed this life not only in no honor, but even despised them and condemned their cult. For, that I may pass over all the Iconoclasts, who just as they were most bitter assailants of images, so also of sacred relics, above all that nefarious Copronymus, there are very many who specifically abolished the veneration of relics. First appears Eustathius of Sebaste, who, as Alphonsus de Castro and Prateolus relate under the word Eustathius, was condemned in the Council of Gangra: for although in that Council no Canon is prescribed against those despising sacred relics; nevertheless in the preface of that Council the error is attributed to Eustathius that he contemns the places of the holy Martyrs and reprehends those who gather there. The same error is attributed to this Eustathius by Jonas of Orleans, book 1 De Cultu Imaginum. But the followers of Eunomius and Vigilantius persisted in his error; the latter of whom, as St. Jerome relates, Epist. 51, called Catholics cinerarii and idolaters because they worshipped the ashes of the Saints and their sacred spoils. Faustus the Manichee was a propagator of the same error; for, as St. Augustine relates, book 20 Contra Faustum, chapter 22, he accused Christians because they honored the memorials of the Martyrs and had converted idols into Martyrs, appeasing the shades of the dead with wine and meats. Wycliffites long ago re-excited the nefarious opinion of mind of all these errors long buried, as Waldensis relates, Tome 3, title 11, chapter 131; likewise Lutherans, whose standard-bearer, in the Sermon De Cruce, calls relics seductions of the faithful, and wishes them to be buried most deep beneath the earth.

Calvinists, who especially in this age drinking down all the virulent dregs of those ancient heretics, have labored not only to abolish the invocation of the Saints and images from among men, but also raging with the madness of the demon against everything sacred, have raged furiously against all the venerable relics of the Saints; the impious dogmas and foundations of all whom are to be set forth and uprooted.

Note 2. That among Catholics there is not one concordant opinion concerning the manner of worshipping sacred relics. For although all agree against the heretics that the sacred spoils of the Saints are to be held in price and honor, nevertheless they dissent among themselves concerning the manner of worshipping them. For certain ones with the Seraphic Doctor, book 3, dist. 9, art. 1, question 1, teach that although sacred images are not to be worshipped with the special cult which is owed to the prototype, because we venerate them only by reason of representation, and they always lead us into veneration and estimation of the exemplar which they represent; nevertheless relics of the Saints claim for themselves secundum se some excellence, namely either on account of the contact or on account of the affinity which they had and still keep with the blessed soul, by which in the general resurrection of the dead they must again be revivified, and accordingly merit secundum se some cult and veneration. But others judge that cult and adoration are not owed to relics secundum se, but only together with him whose relics they are: so that these are not the terminus qui of that whole adoration, but only partial; nor can they be said simply to be adored with absolute cult, but only respective: but what is to be judged truer will be disclosed below.

Note 3. By sacred relics we understand here not only the sacred spoils of the Saints departed this life, and their whole bodies, or parts of them, but also their garments and other similar things which served either their necessary use or the ministry of penance and mortification. Concerning all which two things occur here to be determined: First, whether these sacred relics are to be worshipped and adored. Second, whether they claim for themselves absolute, or only respective cult.

First Conclusion. — The relics of the Saints are worthy of veneration.

It is proved first from the Old Testament, namely by all those testimonies whereby God willed the bodies of holy men departed this life to be held in veneration, which gift indeed the pious man illustrious observed as religious and sanctioned by divine precept. Hence Genesis 50: Joseph commanded that his father Jacob, departed this life, be embalmed with spices, and he asked license of Pharaoh to bury him in the land of Chanaan, in that double sepulchre which Abraham had bought, as Jacob himself had requested, Genesis 23. Similarly Joseph, Genesis 50, being near death, commands his brethren: Asportate ossa mea vobiscum de loco isto.... and embalmed with spices he was laid in a coffin in Egypt. Hence Ecclesiasticus 49 says of the bones of Joseph: Ossa ipsius visitata sunt, because doubtless Joseph had said in Genesis 50: Visitabit vos Deus, asportate ossa mea vobiscum, and the bones of Joseph are said in the same place to have prophesied after death, either because the prophecy of Joseph concerning them was fulfilled when they were carried away according to his prediction; for in Exodus 13 Tulit Moyses ossa Ioseph secum, because he had adjured the children of Israel saying: Visitabit vos Deus, afferte ossa mea vobiscum: or because after death they worked miracles, which bore witness that he was a great Prophet of God. Similarly Ecclesiasticus 49 also says of the twelve Prophets: Et duodecim Prophetarum ossa pullulant de loco suo. But the bones of those are said to sprout because after death they live in memory and honor, on account of the same miracles, prophecies, and sanctity of life. We read similarly 4 Kings, chapter 13, that God at the contact of the buried body of Eliseus raised up a corpse cast into his sepulchre, lest surely a profane corpse should rest in the sepulchre of the most holy Prophet: by which miracle God signified that the relics of Prophets and Saints are to be held in veneration and honor. Hence in the same place, chapter 23, Josias the King, wishing to overturn every idolatry and superstition, having ordered all the bones of the Pseudo-Prophets to be exhumed and the altar dedicated over idols to be burned, willed the sepulchre of Eliseus and of the other true Prophet to remain untouched. Hence St. Jerome observes on chapter 1 of Osee, that the sepulchre of the same Osee, Jonas, and Abdias is held in veneration to this day together with that of Eliseus the Prophet, and of John the Baptist in Sebaste.

Similarly the same truth is gathered from the New Testament; for above all the sepulchre of Christ the Lord has always stood in such honor among all the faithful, according to that prophecy of Isaias, chapter 11: Et erit sepulcrum illius gloriosum, that St. Jerome, Epistle 17, writes that in his time the faithful of the whole Christian world ran together to it for devotion and veneration. Quicumque, inquit, in Gallia primus huc properat, dictus ab orbe Britannus, si in religione processerit, medio sole dimissa, quaerit locum forma sibi tantum per scriptorum relationem cognitum. We read likewise Matthew 9 that the woman suffering from an issue of blood, devoutly touching the hem of the garment of Christ, was healed of her infirmity. And Acts 5 records that the people vied in bringing the sick and laying them on beds and couches, that at least when Peter came, his shadow at least might overshadow someone, and they might be delivered from their infirmities. Which St. Augustine weighing in Sermon 29 de Sanctis, and celebrating the chains with which Peter had been bound, says:

Si tam medicabilis fuit obumbratio visitantis, quanto magis catena cingentis? Si inanis quaedam species caecae imaginis habere potuit in se vim salutis, quanto plus de corpore meruerunt attrahere salutis, ferreo pondere sacris impressa membris vincula passionis?

The same is related, chapter 19, concerning the handkerchiefs and aprons of St. Paul: Supra languidos deferabantur a corpore eius sudaria, et semicinctia, et recedebant ab eis languores, et spiritus nequam egrediebantur.

This truth is proved thirdly from the Councils; for it was defined in the Council of Gangra, in the last Canon, if compared with what is said in the preface of that Council. Similarly in the Seventh Synod, Act 6, in the definition of faith expressed in the preceding Question. Likewise in the Fifth Council of Carthage, Can. 14, where it is defined that altars are not to be consecrated without the relics of Saints; in the Third Council of Braga, Can. 5; of Mainz in the time of Charlemagne, Can. 51; of the Lateran under Innocent III, chapter 62; but chiefly that of Trent, Session 21, where it prescribes the manner of exposing and worshipping sacred relics, so that none may be received anew and exposed to the veneration of the faithful without the Bishop examining and approving.

The holy Fathers and sacred ecclesiastical writers bear witness to the same truth, who assert that Christians of old held in veneration the bodies, ashes, bones, and other relics of the Saints, especially Martyrs. This the Church of Smyrna proves above all in the encyclical Letter which she wrote concerning the Acts and death of St. Polycarp her Bishop, a disciple of the Apostles, around the year of Christ 117, which also Eusebius of Caesarea wove into book 4 of his History, chapter 15. There, after the passion has been set forth, the narrative relates that his enemies among the Christians acted at last before the Proconsul, that they should not grant them power over his body, lest, leaving the Crucified, they said, they would begin to worship this man. When the Jews pressed this above all, he says that the Centurion consumed the sacred body with fire. Thus say the Smyrnaeans,

sublatis postea ossibus illius, quae quibusvis pretiosiora lapillis, et auro probatiora erant, ibi eum, uti par erat, reposuimus, quo in loco, pro eo ac poterimus, in exsultatione ac laetitia dabit nobis Dominus congregatis natalem Martyrii illius celebrare diem: tum ad eorum memoriam, qui ante certamine functi sunt: tum ad illorum, qui postea sunt passuri exercitationem et praeparationem.

— Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 18, disputing concerning the Resurrection, treating of Elias and Eliseus and those raised by each, says that the latter raised the dead twice, in life and after death. For living, he says, he effected a resurrection through his soul: but that not only the souls of the just be honored, but also that it be believed some power inheres in the bodies of the just, the dead man cast into the sepulchre of Eliseus, when he touched the body of the dead Prophet, was vivified. Which he proves thus, and whence; for if the handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul, which were outside his body, being applied to the sick healed them, how much more is it fitting to believe this of the bodies of Saints, which draw power from the souls to which they long afforded a dwelling? — St. Basil, on Psalm 115, expounding these words, Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors Sanctorum eius, observes that in the old Law the bodies of the dead were held as unclean; but in the new Law the matter stands otherwise. Now truly whoever, he says, touched the bone of a Martyr receives some communication of sanctification from that grace which inheres in his body. — St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 18, on St. Cyprian, testifies that his relics and sacred ashes expel demons, heal diseases, and work miracles. All which things, he says, the very dust of Cyprian can do, if faith be present, as those know by experience who have handed down the deed even to our memory, and will transmit it to subsequent times. — St. Ambrose, in Epistle 53, relating how he found the bodies of SS. Gervase and Protase, then narrates what great miracles were there touched:

Cognovistis, inquit, imo vidistis ipsi multos a daemoniis purgatos, plurimos etiam, ubi vestem Sanctorum manibus contigerunt, iis quibus laborabant debilitatibus absolutos, reparata restituti corporis miracula, quo se per adventum Domini Iesu gratia terris maior infuderat: umbra quorum Sanctorum corporum plerosque sanatos cernitis. Quanta sudaria iactantur? Quanta indumenta super reliquias sacratissimas, et tactu ipso medicabilia reposcuntur? Gaudent omnes extrema linea contingere, et qui contigerit, salus erit.

Finally he says he laid the Martyrs beneath the altar: Conferamus ergo reliquias sacrosanctas, et dignis aedibus inducamus, totumque diem fida devotione celebremus. And in Sermon 14, which is concerning SS. Nazarius and Celsus, treating of the relics of the holy Bodies: Hoc est, inquit, sanctorum Martyrum gloria: quorum etsi per universum mundum seminetur in cineribus portio, manet tamen integra in virtutibus plenitudo. And at the end:

Honoro ergo, inquit, in carne Martyris exceptas pro Christi nomine cicatrices: honoro viventis memoriam perennitate virtutis: honoro per confessionem Domini sacratos cineres: honoro in cineribus semina aeternitatis: honoro corpus, quod mihi Dominum meum ostendit diligere: quod me propter Dominum mortem docuit non timere: cur autem non honorent corpus illud fideles, quod reverentur et daemones, quod et afflixerunt in supplicio, sed glorificatur in sepulcro? Honoro itaque corpus, quod Christus honoravit in gladio: quod cum Christo regnarit in caelo.

— St. Jerome thus addresses Vigilantius, Epist. 53:

Dolet, inquit, Martyrum reliquias pretioso operiri velamine, et non vel pannis, vel ciliciis colligari, vel proiici in sterculinum, ut solus Vigilantius ebrius et dormiens adoretur. Ergo sacrilegi sumus, quando Apostolorum basilicas ingredimur, sacrilegus fuit Constantinus Imperator, qui sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae, et Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim, apud quas daemones rugiunt, et inhabitatores Vigilantii illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur? Sacrilegus et nunc dicendus est Augustus Arcadius, qui ossa beati Samuelis longo post tempore de Iudaea transtulit in Thraciam? Omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi, sed et fatui iudicandi, qui rem vilissimam, et cineres dissolutos in serico, et vase aureo portaverunt? Stulti omnium Ecclesiarum populi, qui occurrerunt sanctis reliquiis, et tanta laetitia, quasi praesentem, viventemque Prophetam cernerent, susceperunt, ut de Palestina usque Chalcedonem iungerentur populorum examina, et Christi laudem una voce resonarent!

He adds shortly after:

Male fecit ergo Romanus episcopus, qui super mortuorum hominum Petri et Pauli, secundum nos ossa veneranda, secundum te vilem pulvisculum, offert Domino sacrificia, et eorum tumulos Christi arbitratur altaria, etc.

— St. Chrysostom in almost innumerable places, and especially Homily 65, de SS. Berenice, Prosdoce, et Domnica: Forte, inquit, ingens in vobis concitatum est desiderium Martyrum istorum. Cum hoc igitur ardore accedamus ad reliquias ipsorum; amplectamur eorum loculos. Possunt enim vel ipsa Martyrum conditoria magna valere, quemadmodum eorundem ossa Martyrum plurimum possunt. Thus in Hom. 65 on St. Pelagia:

Illustrius, ait, esse palatiis regiis omnium iudicio sepulcrum illud, in quo situm est corpus eiusmodi, quod cum virtute, pietateque vixit. Atque huius rei testes vos estis, qui divitum sepulcra, quamvis aureis ornata palliis, tamquam speluncas praeteritis; ad hanc vero Sanctam cum ingenti alacritate concurristis; quoniam martyrio, et confessione, ac virginitate, pro aureis vestibus, semetipsam velut ad funebrem apparatum componens, inclyta Martyr excessit.

Thus at the end of Homily 76 on SS. Juventinus and Maximinus, whose relics he says were placed in one reliquary; he calls them columns, rocks, towers, and luminaries of the Church, because they sustain and protect it. Then he exhorts the people thus: Assidue itaque ad illos veniamus, et loculum contingamus, et cum fide reliquias eorum circumplectamur, ut benedictionem aliquam inde attrahamus. For as soldiers showing wounds received from enemies address the King boldly, so also these carrying their severed heads in their hands and holding them forth, will easily be able to effect everything they shall have asked with the heavenly King. — If you desire more testimonies of the holy Fathers on this matter, you may consult Coccieus, book 5 De Sanctis Ecclesiae, chapter 16; Alanus Copus, Dialogue 3, chapter 12; Bellarmine, book 2 De Imaginibus; Petavius, book 14 De Incarnatione, chapter 15; Perron in his refutation of the false dissertation and mendacious discourse of du Tillet; and many other moderns who have written most abundantly against the heretics of this time concerning this controversy.

Therefore deservedly against the heretics of this time we can renew the complaint which Dungalus framed in the year of Christ the Lord 825, in exactly the same controversy, in his book against Claudius of Turin:

Qualis, inquit, et quanta est insana elatio, et vana temeritas, ut quod a primaevo tempore Christianitatis per annos ferme 825. (dicamus nos 1675.) a sanctis ac beatissimis Patribus, ac religiosissimis postmodum principibus, in gloriam et laudem Dei, in Ecclesiis, et in quibuslibet Christianorum dominibus fieri concessum, constitutum, et iussum est, unus homo (scilicet Claudius Taurinensis) blasphemare, reprehendere, contestari, proiicere, ac sufflare praesumat? Quasi in tanto iam dicto spatio nullus sanctus, vel sapiens in Ecclesia Dei extitisset auctor, qui tam ardentissimum in corde suo zelum, vel subtilissimum potuerit habere intellectum, sicut iste, qui audet oppugnare, quod caeteri quasi formidolosi ausi non sunt; vel vituperare, quod alii esse vituperandum, quasi stulti non intellexerunt.

The heretics object: That oracle of Christ the Lord, Luke 11: Vae vobis, qui aedificatis monumenta Prophetarum: Patres autem vestri occiderunt illos; profecto testificamini, quod consentitis operibus Patrum vestrorum, quoniam ipsi quidem occiderunt, vos autem aedificatis eorum sepulchra: but Christ in these words does not accuse the Jews of any other crime except that they were building monuments to the Prophets and venerating their relics, in which they consented to the works of their fathers: therefore it is a crime to venerate the relics of Saints. — I deny the minor, for there is none among the holy Fathers or Interpreters of Scripture who says that the adorning of monuments of just Men is there disapproved; for their sepulchres were always held in honor among the Jews, nor anywhere marked with any superstition, as Waldensis observes excellently, Tome 3, chapter 131. It must be said therefore that Christ the Lord there especially accuses the Pharisees of hypocrisy, which he explains clearly in Matthew 23, where, instituting the same complaint, he says:

Vae vobis Scribae, et Pharisaei hypocritae: quia aedificatis sepulchra Prophetarum, et ornatis monumenta iustorum, et dicitis: si fuissemus in diebus Patrum nostrorum, non essemus socii eorum in sanguine Prophetarum: itaque testimonio estis vobismetipsis, quia filii estis eorum, qui Prophetas occiderunt.

By which words Christ the Lord signifies that they were guilty of the same crime, as regards the mind, as their parents; because just as they killed the Prophets, so they ought to kill the greatest of the Prophets, even meditating in mind his death and persecution. Whence he reprehends them not because they built monuments to the Prophets, but because under this show of piety toward the Prophets they concealed a malevolent mind toward Him who was Prince of the Prophets: just as in the same place he reprehends them because they tithe mint and anise and cummin, not that he condemns tithing, which was commanded by the law: but because under the pretext and veil of these lighter works they concealed impiety, and omitted the weightier precepts of the law.

You will object 2. That passage of Deuteronomy, last chapter, where it is said that Moses, departed this life, was buried on Mount Nebo in the vale of Moab, and afterward it is added: et non cognovit homo sepulcrum eius usque in praesentem diem: but (says Calvin in the admonition de reliquiis) his body and sepulchre was hidden for no other cause than lest it be worshipped by the Jews: therefore the cult of the bodies of Saints is prohibited by God. They confirm it from the Epistle of St. Jude, where it says: Cum Michael Archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercaretur de Moysis corpore, etc.: but this dispute between Michael and the devil was nothing else than that Michael wished the body of Moses always to remain hidden, lest the Jews venerating it should rush into idolatry, but the devil wished the sepulchre and body of Moses revealed, so that under pretext of piety occasion of idolatry might be given to the Jews: therefore since the same danger exists in the veneration of relics, by equal reason this is to be guarded against. — I answer first, that the aforesaid text rather stands against Calvin than pleads for him: since when God willed the body of Moses to be entombed by the ministry of Angels, it is a sign that He Himself wishes relics and the bodies of Saints to be held in honor. I say second, that indeed with the best right God did not wish the body of Moses to be revealed, lest the Jews, prone to idolatry, worship him as a divinity, especially since they had had him living as leader, lawgiver, and savior, and had beheld him working so many and such stupendous miracles. But a danger of this kind is not to be guarded against in Christians, chiefly since they are better instructed concerning the cult to be paid to sacred relics; for there is no one who does not know that he honors Saints not as divinities, but as pious ministers of God on account of the eminent virtue of the Saints and the patronage which can be obtained through their intercession.

They object 3. That passage of St. Paul to the Colossians 2: Nemo vos seducat volens in humilitate, et religione Angelorum, quae non vidit, ambulans frustra, inflatus sensu carnis suae: but he calls this religion of Angels ἐθελοθρησκείαν, that is, voluntary cult, that is, not prescribed by God: but the cult of relics is voluntary and by no means prescribed by God: therefore it is voluntary and superstitious cult. — To this objection Catholic Doctors respond that the Apostle reproaches two things in the Jews in that chapter: namely the cult of Angels, because they worshipped them as lesser Gods, and because they extolled them above Christ; and the observance of certain foods and other legal observances, and this cult of Angels he calls religion of Angels; and that observance of things legal at the end of the chapter he calls superstition. Wherefore nothing against Catholics can be gathered from this place, because they do not honor Angels, or Saints, or their relics above Christ; nor observe legal observances, nor use certain foods in the manner of the Jews, nor as if what was prescribed were retained by law, since they acknowledge that the old law, as regards ceremonies and judicial precepts, was abrogated through Christ: nor can the cult of Saints, or images, and relics be called ⟦ethelothreskeia?⟧ which signifies feigned and merely voluntary cult, for which there is no sufficient authority, no reason: but for the cult of Saints, images, and relics we have the authority of Scripture, Tradition, Councils, and Fathers, indeed also reason militating for this cult, and thus this cult is not merely voluntary and feigned, as was that cult of Angels and superstition in foods.

They object 4. The Council of Elvira, can. 34, where candles are prohibited to be lit by day, lest the spirits of the dead be disturbed: Cereos, inquit, placuit in coemeterio non accendi: inquietandi enim Spiritus sanctorum non sunt. Similarly also St. Jerome against Vigilantius, where, when Vigilantius had objected that it is idolatry to light such candles by day in temples or before the relics of Saints, St. Jerome responds:

Cereos clara luce non accendimus, sicut frustra calumniaris: sed ut noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus, et vigilemus ad lumen, nec caeci dormiamus in tenebris. Qualiter si aliqui ex imperitia et simplicitate saecularium hominum, vel etiam religiosarum personarum, de quibus vere possamus dicere, confiteor, colunt Deum sed non secundum scientiam, hoc pro honore Martyrum faciunt, quid inde perdis?

St. Jerome therefore judged that the cult paid to the relics of Saints was superstitious. — I answer, that the Council of Elvira prohibited the use of candles before the sepulchres of Saints for this reason, that the faithful living among pagans might not participate in their superstition: for the Ethnic peoples were persuaded that the souls of the dead dwell in sepulchres and that their buried bodies still have some sense and consequently need foods and lamps, wherewith they would likewise dispel darkness; and therefore they offered feasts, and milk, and wine at funerals, as Plutarch relates at the beginning of the life of Romulus. Hence Virgil, book 6 of the Aeneid, at the exequies of Misenus, says: Aversi tenuere facem, congesta cremantur / Thurea dona, dapes, fuso crateras olivo. Tertullian also observes that the Ethnics performed funeral rites thus to the dead, setting before them eatables which they might eat. Nay, they even placed lit lamps in the tombs, such as are even now found when their urns are dug out; indeed it frequently happened that with lights placed at sepulchres spirits were evoked through magical impiety and necromancy, as Pliny relates, book 30 of his History, chapter 2, and thus they seemed to disturb the souls departed mortal life; which word Samuel's spirit also used, evoked by the Pythoness at the request of King Saul, saying, 1 Kings, chapter 28: Quare inquietasti me, ut suscitarer? But lest the faithful should seem to conform to the custom of the Gentiles and follow their nefarious rites, therefore he prohibits a lamp to be lit in cemeteries by day, adding however the reason saying: Inquietandi enim spiritus Sanctorum non sunt; not because he judges that the souls of the dead are moved from their place by magical incantations, even if they appear in phantasm when evoked by Magi: but because he knew that cult to be superstitious, and consequently displeasing to the Saints, and their spirits thence said to be disturbed; just as in Ephesians 4 the Holy Spirit is said to be saddened by our wicked works. Or, as Garsias Loaysa expounds, expounding the aforesaid Canon, the spirits of the Saints are understood not of the dead but of the living; for the faithful are called Saints in Scripture: but they would be said to be disturbed by that rite because that rite seemed to breathe superstition and imitation of the Gentiles. But after, with Gentility detested, the religion of Christ prevailed, then at last the faithful, with fear or suspicion of approving or imitating the profane rites of the Gentiles banished far away, followed the exequies of Christians with lighted candles. For St. Jerome writes, ad funus S. Paulae, that there was an immense concourse of Clerics and Monks carrying burning candles. Gregory of Nyssa also, in the life of Macrina his Sister, commemorates the Clerics who accompanied the funeral performing her rites as having held lit candles before them. — To St. Jerome I say, that by the aforesaid words the rite of lighting candles in the temples of Christians is not disapproved, but only Vigilantius is shown that he imposes false things on Catholics, and that if certain persons on account of ignorance light candles in cemeteries or before the sacred relics of Martyrs by day, they are not therefore to be blamed, since they do this for the honor of the Martyrs, and consequently lose nothing and are about to receive the reward of their work. But when Vigilantius added that this rite is superstitious and received from idolaters, St. Jerome responds:

Non diffiteor omnes nos qui in Christo credimus de idololatria errore caenisse. Non enim nascimur, sed renascimur christiani. Et quia quondam colebamus idola, nunc Deum colere debemus, nec similes videamur cum idolis honore venerari. Illud fiebat idolis, et ideo detestandum est: hoc fit martyribus, et ideo recipiendum est. Nam absque martyrum reliquiis per totas Orientis Ecclesias, quando legendum est Evangelium, accenduntur luminaria, iam sole rutilante: non utique ad fugandas tenebras, sed ad signum laetitiae demonstrandum. Unde et virgines illa evangelicae semper habent accensas lampades suas. Et ad Apostolos dicitur: sint lumbi vestri praecincti, et lucernae ardentes in manibus vestris.

Therefore he judges that lamps can be lit by day over the sepulchres of Martyrs as a sign of joy, and to signify the eternal lamp which after this fleeting life shines upon the souls of the pious.

You will object 5. That is not to be exposed to the veneration of the faithful which can lead into superstition: but such are the relics of Saints, because as true ones they may be supposititious, and so he who venerated them would exhibit undue and superstitious cult. — I answer first, that very many relics of Saints, as we said, are illustrious by miracles and daily grow bright with prodigies, whereby their truth and power has been plainly known. I say second, that the Council of Trent, Session 25, sufficiently provided for impeding this abuse, while it commands those relics not to be exposed to the veneration of the faithful unless first approved as legitimate by the judgment of Bishops. I say third, that although notwithstanding these things it might happen that some relics be supposititious, yet the veneration of the faithful concerning them would not thence be to be condemned, which in this case would be only material superstition, not formal, since the faithful would have the intention of venerating the relics of some Saint and would direct their veneration to that.

Second Conclusion. — The relics of the Saints are to be venerated with respective cult, namely that with which their images are to be worshipped.

Thus St. Damascenus, book 1 De Fide, chapter 12, where speaking universally concerning all sacred things to be venerated he says: Omnia quae Deo dedicata atque consecrata sunt, ita adoramus, ut cultum et venerationem eidem cum referamus. The same teaches the Auctor Epist. II among the works of St. Hieron., who, speaking of the veneration which holy Paula exhibited to places and things consecrated by the contact and presence of the humanity of Christ, says: Inde speluncam Salvatoris ingressa, postquam vidit sacrum Virginis diversorium, et stabulum, in quo agnovit bos possessorem suum, et asinus praesepe Domini sui, ut impleretur, quod in eodem Propheta scriptum est, me audire iurabat, se cernere fidei oculis infantem pannis involutum, vagientem in praesepio, Magos adorantes Dominum, &c. Hence Paula herself used to say: Ego misera, atque perculsa indigna sum osculari praesepe, in quo Dominus parvulus vagiit.

Reason also lends its support to these, because inanimate things, such as relics are, are per se not capable of honor or contumely, except insofar as they signify order and connection with things endowed with reason: therefore the relics of Saints are to be venerated insofar as they signify respect to the Saints themselves, or to their souls illustrious with pre-eminent virtue, grace, and disposition. Therefore the same judgment must be passed upon relics as upon sacred images; although I judge sacred relics worthy of ampler cult and veneration than the images of Saints, partly because God more often works miracles at the presence of relics than of images; partly because the bodies of Saints served most especially for the exercise of virtue; and consequently, says Tertullian in the book De Resurrectione carnis, Non possunt separari in mercede, quas opera coniungit; finally because those venerable spoils were not only living temples of the Holy Spirit anointed with various sacred unctions, consecrated repeatedly by the frequentation of the sacraments, and illustrated by special and intimate communion not only with the most holy soul but also by its motions, operations, and illustrious actions. For by all these and other similar titles of glory they vindicate for themselves ampler honor and veneration than images, which represent only the likeness of the prototype.

NOTE 1. That the assistance and mediation of the Saints is assailed by those same heretics who persecute their veneration: for Vigilantius, in St. Jerome's libellus 1 Contra eundem, impiously said: Dum vivimus, nobis mutuo pro nobis orare possumus, postquam mortui fuerimus, nullius pro alio exaudienda est oratio. With no less impiety Copronymus prohibited by public edict the intercession of Saints, as Suidas testifies in Copronymo, and Glicas, book 4 of the Annals. The Waldenses followed the same heresy according to Guido, heresy 16; the Lollards according to Trithemius in his Chronicle at the year 1315; the Wycliffites; for, as Waldensis relates, Wyclif in part 3 of the Trialogus used to say that it is foolish to leave Christ the readier fountain and withdraw to turbulent and remote men (thus he calls the Saints). The Lutherans raised this heresy, like almost all the other ancient heresies long buried, even from hell; for Luther in his Postilla maior on the seventh Sunday after Trinity says: the merits of St. Peter could not redeem even themselves: how then will they help me, since they have not even brought aid to themselves? And to this impiety Calvin subscribed, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, where he says that God alone is to be prayed to, and he calls the invocation of Angels Platonic philosophy.

NOTE 2. That the Saints are deservedly called our mediators with God; for intercession, that is, deprecation and conciliation, whereby someone is reduced into the favor of a more powerful one, especially when alienated and offended, is a proper mark of whatever sort of mediator: although Christ exercises this function primarily with the Father, and this office befits Him most excellently and in a certain peculiar manner, as was demonstrated in disputation 2; yet nothing in that matter stands in the way that after Him, and by His authority and power, others be advocates and mediators, through whom access to the principal one lies open. For toward perfect mediation a twofold office is desired: one which is seen in meriting well and assisting with deeds themselves: the other which consists in prayers and orations, which the patron pours forth to God as mediator for clients received into his protection, that he may elicit His aid and beneficence. From these things mutual love of the clients toward the patron and confidence are born; wherein they use it, so that both in arduous and difficult matters they may recur to his protection, and encompass him with supplications and vows, and in turn may testify toward him a grateful and benevolent mind by whatever services, honor, and cult they can. But all these things the Saints fulfill toward us, as will be clear in the course of this disputation.

NOTE 3. That from the Seraphic Doctor, book 1, dist. 45, art. 3, question 2, the Saints assist us and conciliate divine beneficence by a twofold means; namely merit and affection.

Merito quidem praecedenti, inquit, quo Deo facillime servierunt, et tantum locum suis meritis sunt adepti, ut non solum sibi beatitudinem et gloriam meruerint, sed etiam aliis suffragari. Multa etiam supererogaverunt affectu, quin amici Dei sunt facti, et amicitia est idem velle, et nolle: hinc cum Sancti aliquem speciali amore prosequuntur, illum stimulant, ac impellunt, ut Deum diligat, et ei impense in omnibus obsequatur.

These things thus premised, the Catholic dogma must be established, namely that by the constant and perpetual tradition of the Church the invocation and interpellation of the Saints has been used by the faithful in every age; which truth indeed

Only Conclusion. — THE INVOCATION AND INTERPELLATION OF THE SAINTS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREQUENTLY USED AND PRACTICED RELIGIOUSLY BY THE FAITHFUL.

It is proved first from Sacred Scripture, especially those places in which Angels are interpellated and besought by Patriarchs and most holy men. Thus Genesis 48 Jacob prays the Angel to bless the sons of Joseph, and moreover admonishes that after his death his name be invoked over them with the name of his fathers Isaac and Abraham: Angelus, ait, qui eruit me de cunctis malis, benedicat pueris istis, et invocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina quoque patrum meorum Abraham, et Isaac. He judges therefore that the assistance and interpellation of holy Angels, and also of men departed this life, profits the living. The same is signified Job 5, where Eliphaz admonishes Job: Voca ergo si est, qui tibi respondeat, et turn to some one of the saints.* He supposes therefore that the interpellation of the Saints will not be fruitless. The same is signified Job 33, where Eliu, speaking of the sinner whose soul has drawn near to corruption, says: Si fuerit pro eo angelus loquens, unus de millibus, ut annuntiet hominis aequitatem, miserebitur eius, et dicet: libera eum, ut non descendat in corruptionem: inventa est enim ei propitiatio. By which words he plainly signifies that holy Angels sometimes assist men and pour forth prayers to God for them and elicit aid whereby sins may be declined. It is confirmed by that passage of Jeremias 15, where God addressing the Prophet says: Si steterit Moyses, et Samuel coram me, non est anima mea ad populum: he supposes therefore that Moses and Samuel, although then departed this life, could have prayed for the people.

NOR DOES IT AVAIL TO REPLY WITH CALVIN, book 3, chapter 20, that thence is gathered the contrary of our Conclusion; for, he says, when God says: si steterit Moyses et Samuel, he supposes that they did not stand nor pray for the Israelitic people: therefore much less are the other Saints to be judged to intercede for the living, and if God did not hear Moses and Samuel praying, neither would He hear others. For I answer that Calvin seeks absurdities or evasions; for although Moses and Samuel then did not pray, it does not follow that they could not have deprecated for that people: nor do we assert that the Saints act immediately with prayers to God for discharging our sins or necessities: and certainly, if there were no prayers of the Saints departed this life for the living, God would mock, saying that even if Moses and Samuel poured forth prayers for the transgressing Israelitic people, He nevertheless was not going to hear them in this respect. To what end indeed this protestation, except to signify that He was accustomed to hear their prayers? Hence deservedly St. Chrysostom, Homily 1 on 1 Thess. (whom Plessaeus Mornaeus had translated mutilated and truncated with certain words suppressed, as is familiar to heretics), from those words of Jeremias infers that the prayers of the Saints are not to be despised; yet not that in them alone the security and certainty of our salvation is to be established. This is proved chiefly from 2 Machabees 15, where Judas Machabeus relates that he saw Onias and Jeremias departed this life in dreams and heard them praying for the Israelitic people: but that this book is Canonical stands established from the Second Council of Carthage, Can. 22; Augustine, book 18 De Civitate, chapter 36; and Jerome against Vigilantius.

It is confirmed also from the New Testament; for St. Peter, Epistle 2, chapter 1, pledges to the faithful that after death he will act with his prayers with God, that they might fulfill the works which he had taught, with divine grace favoring and spurring: for he says: Dabo autem operam, et frequenter habere vos post obitum meum, ut horum memoriam faciatis. Add that there is greater reason, indeed weightier, for interpellating the Saints departed this life joined far more intimately to God triumphing in the celestial fatherland, than those who exile and militate in this mortal life: but the Apostle teaches that the intercession of just men dwelling here profits us, and he himself often beseeches it: for he urges them to pour forth prayers to God for him. Thus 1 Thess. 5: Fratres, orate pro nobis. And in the same place Paul prays for them. And the Epistle to Philemon: Spero per orationes vestras donari me vobis. Hebrews, last chapter: Orate pro nobis.

Second, the same truth was defined in Councils, but chiefly in the Seventh Synod; for in its Action 1 there is approved the letter of Tarasius to John the Priest and Anchoret, in which among other things it has this: Poscimus intercessionem intemeratae Dominae nostrae sanctae Deiparae, sanctorum item Angelorum, omniumque Divorum. And at the end of the same letter: Salvos facias intercessione, et precibus Dominae nostrae sanctae Deiparae, and the confession of the same faith, in which it has this: Obsecrans intercessionem sanctissimae, intemerataeque Virginis Mariae, sanctorumque Angelorum, Prophetarum, et Martyrum, Confessorum, et Doctorum. And again at the end: Sanctamque suam Ecclesiam custodiat, quaeque huic imminent scandala, intercedente immaculata Deipara Virgine Maria, omnibusque Sanctis, avertat. Similarly the Council of Chalcedon, Act 11, past the middle, confirms this truth; for in it the Fathers cried out: Flavianus post mortem vixit, Martyr pro nobis oret. And the Council of Trent, Session 25, in the decree concerning the invocation, veneration, and relics of Saints, and sacred images, defines it to be good and useful to invoke the Saints, &c., and condemns those asserting the contrary.

It is proved thirdly by the authority of the holy Fathers and ancient Theologians: above all Origen, book 8 Contra Celsum, shows that the Saints pray for us and placate God:

Habent enim, inquit, sensum eorum, qui Dei benevolentia digni sunt: nec solum erga eos, qui digni sunt, sic sunt affecti: sed et omnibus opitulantur, qui summum colere Deum cupiunt, quem et propitium reddunt, et cum iis communiter precantur, ac simul postulant.

Wherefore, book 2 on Job, he says: O beate Iob, ora pro nobis miseris, &c. and in the lamentation: O Sancti Dei, vos lacrymis, fletu, dolore pleno deprecor, ut procidatis misericordiae eius pro me misero. And afterward: Haec mihi Pater Abraham deprecare pro me.

St. Basil subscribes, Homily 20 on the forty Martyrs, where he says:

Quantum laborares, ut vel unum invenires, qui pro te Dominum rogaret? Ecce quadraginta sunt eandem effundentes orationem. Ubi duo, vel tres congregati sunt in nomine Domini, ibi in medio ipsorum est. Ubi ergo quadraginta sunt, quis de illius praesentia dubitabit? Qui affligitur, ad quadraginta confugit: qui laetatur, ad ipsos occurrit. Hic, ut malorum exitum inveniat: ille, ut in secundis rebus conservetur. Hic religiosa femina pro illis orans invenitur: ac peregre agenti viro reditum postulans: aut aegrotanti sanitatem. Tum Martyribus postulata nostra iunguntur.

Then, certain things being interposed: O communes, inquit, custodes humani generis, boni curarum participes, orationis adiutores, legati potentissimi!

St. Gregory Nazianzen concurs, in the funereal Oration on St. Basil, where near the end he thus beseeches him:

Tu vero, divinum, et sacratum caput e coelo nos aspice; et carnis stimulum a Deo nobis ad disciplinam datum, vel precibus tuis siste, vel persuade fortiter ferre: ac totum vitae nostrae curriculum ad id, quod maxime conducibile est, dirige. Postquam autem excesserimus e vita, illic nos etiam in tua tabernacula suscipe; ut simul viventes, et sanctam ac beatam Trinitatem intuentes, &c.

The same formula of praying addresses St. Athanasius at the end of Oration 21. And in Oration 21, speaking of Athanasius concerning the same: Here, he says, our affairs are to behold from heaven, and to stretch forth the hand to those laboring for the sake of virtue, and that the more because he is freed from the bonds of the body. St. Gregory Nyssenus accords,

in the Oration on St. Theodore, whose aid he thus most splendidly requests in these words: Intercede pro patria apud communem regem... Timemus vexationes, expectamus pericula. Non longe absunt nefandi Scythae, qui bellum contra nos meditantur. Tamquam miles pro nobis pugna: tamquam Martyr pro consortibus utere libertate. Quum e vita excesseris, qui nosti perpessas et necessitates humanae naturae: Parem postula. Then he proceeds thus:

Nos enim dum incolumes sumus servati, tibi acceptum referimus. Postulamus autem, et futuri securitatem temporis. Quod si maiori adrocatione et intercessione opus est, fratrum tuorum Martyrum chorum congrega; et cum omnibus deprecare. Multorum iustorum orationes populorum ac multitudinum peccata dissolvunt. Admone Petrum, excita Paulum, necnon Ioannem Theologum et dilectum Discipulum, ut pro fundatis a se Ecclesiis solliciti sint, pro quibus catenas gestarunt.

St. Ambrose commends the same truth in many places, chiefly Epist. 63, where he relates how he found the bodies of Saints Gervase and Protase, God revealing it to him, in whose sepulchre a libellus was also found, in which their origin and end were written, of which this was the closing sentence: Ego servus Christi Philippus sustuli cum filio meo furtim nocte sancta corpora: et in domo mea, Deo solo teste, in ista arca saxea sepelivi: credens me orationibus eorum consequi misericordiam Domini nostri Iesu Christi. But he explains this truth most clearly in the book De Viduis, where he demonstrates that the Saints dead, just as living, intercede for us: for when he had related the miracle of the mother-in-law of Simon healed by Christ at the intercession of Peter and Andrew, he adds: Ergo rogaverunt pro ea Petrus et Andreas. Exsistat aliquis, qui tam cito possit rogare pro nobis, vel certe isti, qui pro socru rogant, Petrus et Andreas frater eius. Tune enim pro affinitate poterant: nunc iam possunt pro nobis, et pro omnibus impetrare. He then continues:

Observandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ut praesidium dati sunt: Martyres observandi, quorum videmus nobis quodam corporis pignore patrocinium vindicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, qui proprio sanguine, etiam si qua habuerint peccata, laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae, actuumque nostrorum. Non erubescimus eos intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere: qui et ipsi infirmitatem corporis, etiam cum viverent, cognoscebunt.

St. Chrysostom commends this very thing in various places, but chiefly in the panegyrical Homily on the Egyptian Martyrs. And on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 1, 12; and in the Homily on the Saints Berenice, &c., where he says:

Not on this feast day alone, but also on other days let us cling to them, let us beseech them; let us pray that they be our patrons, for they obtain great confidence with God, not only while living, but also dead: nay rather, dead far more. For now they bear the stigmata of Christ; and pointing out these stigmata they can persuade the King of nothing whatever, &c.

S. Jerome most clearly preaches this truth everywhere, especially in Epistles

1. 25. and 27, but at greatest length in the book Contra Vigilantium, where among other things he has this:

You say in your little book that, while we live, we can pray for one another mutually; but after we have died, the prayer of no one is to be heard for another, especially since the Martyrs, beseeching vengeance for their blood, did not cease until they obtained it. If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still constituted in the body, can > pray for others, when they ought now to be solicitous for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs? One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for seventy thousand souls: and Stephen, the imitator of his Lord and the first Martyr in Christ, beseeches life for his persecutors: and after they have begun to be with Christ, will they avail less, &c. Finally, the Saints are not called dead, but living.

By this same argument we Catholics are accustomed to use it against the followers of Vigilantius, the haters of the saints, to dispel these same calumnies.

S. Augustine commends the invocation and succour of the Saints best of all by almost countless testimonies; but most splendidly in Sermon 51 De diversis, ch. on S. Stephen, whose relics had recently been discovered:

He triumphed, he says, he was crowned; his body lay hidden for so long a time; it came forth as God willed, it illumined the earth, it wrought such great miracles, and died — died again mightily, because not even dead. Therefore I commend this to your charity, that you may know that his prayers obtain much, yet not all things. For you will find even in the little books which are given out, that there were difficulties in obtaining, yet afterwards he received a benefit, the faith of the suppliant not being refused. There was no ceasing, prayer was made: and afterwards God gave through Stephen. These are the words of Stephen praying: and the answer was made to him: For whom you pray is not worthy, he did this and that. And light pressed upon him, he asked, he received.

He has similar things in Sermons 91, 96, and 99, and also in the book De cura pro mortuis gerenda, ch. 16, where he asks how the Martyrs can be present to those who invoke them; and he judges this done either by the ministry of Angels or by a special grace of God. God Almighty, he says, who is present everywhere, neither conjoined to us nor remote from us, hearing the prayers of the Martyrs diffused everywhere through angelic ministries, grants men these consolations. But also in book 1 De baptismo contra Donatistas, near the beginning, speaking of S. Cyprian, he says: Let him bind us, then, in prayers amid the mortality of this flesh, as labouring in a darkened cloud, that with the Lord granting we may imitate his good works as much as we can.

I dismiss all the other celebrated later assertors of the same truth, who handed down to us the rite of invoking the Saints received from the Fathers by constant tradition; for it suffices to have shown those most holy Doctors of the Church, in whose time the heretics do not deny that the faith still flourished unspotted and the doctrine of the Gospel pure, that hence it may be evident that those others are held by a wicked error, while they esteem the invocation of the Saints a great impiety.

Proof moreover by this reasoning: If imploring the aid of the Saints were not superstitious or illicit, especially either because this would redound to the injury of Christ, or because they themselves cannot hear us praying and interceding, or because they cannot bring aid and succour, or because they will not: but none of these is true: therefore to intercede with and invoke the Saints is not illicit. The heretics admit the major, for it is chiefly on these four heads that they impugn the intercession of the Saints. The minor is proved as to each part: First, it is certain that the invocation of the Saints is not injurious to Christ, both because without injury to Christ we ask the Saints and just men living that they beseech Christ for us; why then shall it not be permitted even without injury to Christ to intercede with those who have departed this life? seeing that we would invoke them in no other way than as living among us, that is, not as Gods, nor as Christs, but as friends of God and Christ. Then because we do not invoke the Saints that they may bestow grace, or confer remission of sins, or impart other benefits, but that by their prayers with God they may act so that He Himself, the author and bestower of all goods, may deign to grant what we ask and seek. Then because we intercede with them not as mediators of redemption — for Christ alone is the one mediator of redemption — but as mediators of intercession, indeed not primary and principal (for Christ alone claims this dignity for Himself), but as secondary and less principal intercessors, whose prayers derive all their force and efficacy from the merits of Christ: therefore since the intercession of holy men detracts nothing from the dignity of the glory and ministry of Christ, their invocation must not be judged to derogate either, from those who although they have departed this corporeal life nevertheless live with God, with whom is the fountain of life. Nor would the invocation of the Saints be illicit and vain because they could not hear our prayers, as Calvin belched forth with fetid mouth against this religious observance, lib. 3 Institutionum, ch. 20, n. 21: Who will grant them ears so long as reach to our ears: eyes also so keen as to attend to our necessities? For I say that although the Saints in heaven, their bodies laid aside, have not ears and eyes (except the blessed Virgin, and those who rose again with Christ), yet they have spiritual eyes and ears, such as are in the Angels, who rejoice at Luke 16 over the conversion of a sinner; such as Samuel had, who in 1 Kings 9 told Saul that the asses he sought had been found; such as Eliseus had, while in 1 Kings 6 he penetrated the secret counsels of the king of the Assyrians and announced them to the king of Israel. For since the Saints are illumined by the clear vision of God, they behold and hear all things that pertain to their state. Hence S. Ambrose, in the book De Viduis, calls the Martyrs spectators of our life and acts. Whence S. Gregory the Great, lib. 1 Dialog., ch. 8: Because, he says, in that eternal felicity all behold with the common clarity of God, what is it that they know not there, where they know Him who knows all things?

S. Augustine proves the same thing, lib. 2 De Civitat. Dei, ch. 29, adducing the example of Eliseus.

Nor does it matter that the same Augustine, in the book De cura pro mortuis gerenda, seems to assert that the Saints do not know what is being done, but can hear it from the Angels, or by the revelation of the Spirit of God; for in ch. 16, after saying that the Martyrs themselves are sometimes present to suppliants, that they may bestow their aid, by the example of S. Felix, who appeared visibly to the citizens of Nola that he might deliver them from the siege of the barbarians: presently doubting he proposes whether the Martyrs are present of themselves at one time in places so diverse, and aid those whom it is certain they are invoked for, or whether God, hearing the prayers of the Martyrs, provides men these solaces generally to those praying, through angelic ministries diffused everywhere, &c. This matter, he says, is higher than that I can attain it, and more abstruse than that I am able to search it out: and therefore whatever of these be true, or whether perhaps both be so, that sometimes these things come to pass through the very presence of the Martyrs, sometimes through Angels taking the person of the Martyrs, I dare not define; it must be much sought out by those who know.

But that very thing which Augustine brought forward hesitatingly, and thought probable, Jerome taught more assuredly: that the Saints are by no means fixed to certain abodes so that they cannot fly hither and thither to bring aid; and piercing Vigilantius arguing against this with keener speech, he rouses him from his torpor. You say, he says,

that the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs have settled either in the bosom of Abraham, or in the place of refreshment, or under the altar of God: nor can they be present at their tombs, and where they will; being, as it were, of senatorial dignity, that they be not held in foulest prison among murderers, but in free and honourable custody be confined in the Fortunate Isles and in the Elysian fields. You will impose laws upon God! You will put fetters upon the Apostles, that they be held in custody until the day of judgment and not be with their Lord, of whom it is written: They follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth? If the Lamb is everywhere, then those who are with the Lamb must also be believed to be everywhere. And while the devil and the demons wander through the whole world, and with exceeding swiftness are present everywhere: shall the Martyrs, after the shedding of their blood, be shut up in a chest, and not be able to go forth from it?

Nor yet the third, namely that they have not that power that by their prayers they obtain anything from God for us: for, as S. Augustine says in Sermon 1 on Saint Stephen:

Let us commend ourselves to his prayers; for far more will he now be heard for his venerators, who was so heard for his stoners.

The same thing holy Jerome urged above against Vigilantius. Wherefore S. Bernard in the Sermon for the Vigil of the Saints says: You ought to consider three things in the feasts of the Saints: the aid of the Saint, his example, our confusion. His aid, because powerful on earth, he is mightier in heaven before the face of the Lord his God, &c.

Finally, not because they will not: for indeed, while they lived as mortals they burned with such charity toward their neighbour that each of them could say with the Apostle: I desire to be anathema from Christ for my brethren; how much more fervent and constant will their love for their neighbour be, excited not only by sanctifying grace but perfected by glory? Whence S. Bernard in the place just praised:

If the saint, while he lived here, had pity on sinners and prayed for them: now much more, inasmuch as he more surely knows our miseries, does the brother pray for us, whom that blessed fatherland has not altered but augmented in charity: for he is not therefore made altogether impassible that he is also made incapable of compassion, but now rather has clothed himself with the bowels of mercy, since he stands before the fountain of mercy.

To these add what, as the Seraphic Doctor says in 1 dist. 15, last question,

God decreed and willed that we should ask the Saints for a threefold cause, namely on account of our poverty, the glory of the Saints, and the reverence of God. On account of poverty in meriting, that where our merits do not suffice, the merits of others may patronize us. On account of poverty in contemplating, that we who cannot behold the highest light in itself may behold it in the Saints. On account of poverty in loving, because wretched man feels himself more affected toward one Saint than even toward God. Therefore having compassion on our poverty He willed us to ask the Saints; and hereby the first is plain; because he who before was unworthy of himself becomes worthy by asking the Saints, through their patronage. The second cause is the glory of the Saints, because God wills to glorify His Saints, wills to work miracles through them in bodies and salvation in souls, that we may praise them: and this not only through the supreme Saints but also the lowest; whence as one is healed corporally by invoking Peter, another conversely, so also spiritually. And thus the second is plain, because God wills the honour of dulia to be given to all the Saints. The third cause is the reverence of God, that the sinner, because he has offended God, should as if not dare to approach God in his own person, but implore the patronage of friends. And thus the third observance is plain, because it is good sometimes to turn aside from God out of reverence.

They object 1. That heretics bring forward various texts of Scripture: first indeed that of Isaiah 63: Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us. Second, that of the Apostle to the Romans: How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Since therefore we believe not in the Saints but in God, we ought to invoke not them but God alone. Third, that of 1 Timothy 2: For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And 1 John 2: If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: therefore we ought to intercede with none other than Christ.

I answer to the first, that although at that time Abraham and Jacob did not know what was being done among the Israelites, it does not follow that the Saints now dwelling in heaven know not what is done among us; since those Patriarchs then were with the other just in limbo, where they were not illumined by the clear vision of God. I say second, that the Prophet by these words only signifies that those Patriarchs did not know the Israelites with a knowledge and acknowledgment of approbation, in that they did not hold them for legitimate sons, because the Jews, deviating through sins from the virtue of their Patriarchs, were degenerate and unworthy to be named sons by the virtue of the Prophets. To the second I say, that the Apostle does not assert that God alone is to be invoked with every kind whatsoever of invocation, otherwise it would not be permitted to intercede with just men living, nor with princes or other men for any grace whatever; but he speaks only of that supreme invocation which has the cult of latria annexed, and which tends to God, threefold in His being the most mighty and most abundant bestower and fountain of all goods. To the third I say, that the Apostle asserts Christ to be one mediator, yet does not say Him to be the only one, which two things are far distinct; for the word "one" includes the association of another, "only" excludes it. Next I say that the Apostle speaks of the mediator of redemption, for he adds: Who gave himself redemption for all. S. John means the same, for he adds: He is the propitiation for our sins. But of this kind of mediation we do not deny that Christ is the only mediator. But the Saints, as we said above, are called mediators not of redemption but of intercession. Yet this kind of mediation the Apostles do not deny can belong to another besides Christ, seeing that while they themselves lived they were entreated to pour forth prayers to God for others.

You will object 2. Canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea, by which, according to the interpretation of Theodoret, those are condemned in Colossians ch. 2 who taught that Angels are to be adored. This Canon has: It is not fitting that Christians, forsaking the Church of God, should go and make congregations of idolatrous admiration of Angels, &c.

I answer, that this Canon was an edict against the angelic heretics, so called, from this that, as Epiphanius testifies, Haer. 60, and Augustine, Haer. 39, they taught that Angels were to be adored with the cult of latria due to God alone; but that the Canon condemns no pious veneration whatsoever of Angels, nor even does Theodoret, is evident from this that in the preceding Canon 31 the religious cult of a true martyr is received, while the superstitious veneration of false Martyrs is prohibited. But who would believe that the holy synod in the immediately following Canon cut away the pious cult of Angels, who in the gifts of nature and grace excel almost all the Saints? Theodoret moreover not only venerates Angels, but constantly affirms them to be ministers of our salvation and our intercessors and patrons with God, as may be seen lib. Divin. Decret. 5, De Angelis, and on Daniel, ch. 1.

I answer secondly with Baronius, at the year of Christ 60, n. 20 and seq., that just as in the preceding Canon the cult of false Martyrs is prohibited, so here is prohibited the cult of false Angels. Now Baronius says that the false Angels, whom the gentiles and magi religiously venerated, were genii, in whose honor celebrating the birthday feast they summoned their relatives and friends; and this is what he notes in these words: to make gatherings for the Angels of abominable idolatry (that is, adored by idolaters). More probable, however, he judges that by false Angels should be understood demons, whom when they invoked to accomplish their magic arts, the Fathers of this council named idolaters. But since, to veil their impostures under an honorable name, they professed themselves to invoke Angels, as Tertullian says in the Apologeticus, cap. 28, they were called hidden idolaters. This response is confirmed by the following words of the same Canon: Whosoever shall be found secretly favoring this idolatry, let him be anathema: because abandoning the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, he has gone over to idols. But the honor we show to the Angels, since it is not latria, cannot be called idolatry, nor can the Angels themselves be called idols. Therefore the aforesaid council condemns a cult far other than ours.

They object 3. The various authorities of the holy Fathers of the first three centuries: especially of Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians; Irenaeus, book 2, cap. 27; Tertullian, in the Apologeticus, cap. 30; Clement of Alexandria, in the Stromata, cap. 8; Origen, Contra Celsum, book 8, by which the aforesaid Doctors signify that no one is to be invoked besides God.

Truly I answer from all those authorities, which Molinaeus collected and objected in cap. 7 of the book entitled The Novelty of Papism, that nothing against the Catholic dogma can legitimately be inferred, nor against the invocation of Saints. For first, as to the authority of Ignatius, which he sets forth conceived in these words: Virgins to have only Christ before their eyes, and his Father to be illuminated in your souls by the Holy Spirit: I say that this sentence does not occur in the genuine edition of those letters, lately set forth in print from the Florentine codex, just as not in the old Latin edition. Then, even if the aforesaid words are Ignatius's, thence no aid shines forth for the heretics; for Ignatius merely counsels, when praying, to hold God present: which certainly takes place also when through the intercessions of the Saints we direct ourselves to Him: nor does the particle "only" there have the force of exclusion, otherwise when praying it would not be fitting to think at all about the Holy Spirit; seeing that Ignatius counsels holding only Christ and his Father before our eyes. As to St. Irenaeus I say, that he there assails the Valentinian heretics, who invoked their Aeons and false Angels and devoted themselves to incantations, which the Church execrates: She, he says, who directs pure, and chaste, and manifest prayers to God, who makes all things, and invokes the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing similar, surely, does he admit who venerates and invokes the Saints or Angels. As to Tertullian, I say that he there rebukes the gentiles accusing Christians because they did not supplicate the Gods for the safety of the Emperors, and mocks them because they ask that safety from Gods who cannot give it. Then he subjoins this: I cannot pray for this from another than from him from whom I know I shall obtain it: since he himself is he who alone bestows it. Therefore Tertullian there opposes to the daemons, empty of all goods, the chief bestower of all honors; but he does not exclude the intercession of Saints, Angels, or men. To Origen, who says that supplication is to be made to the supreme God alone, I say that he excludes only supplication made to idols and daemons; for whereas Celsus had said: That we ought to believe not in one God alone, but also in daemons, precisely because they are Gods, so that we may sacrifice. Origen answers: Away with that counsel of Celsus, saying that supplication is to be made to daemons. For by no means is he to be listened to. Indeed the supreme God alone is to be prayed to: but also his Only-begotten is to be prayed to, and first-born of every creature, that is, the Word of God: him we must beseech that he himself, as Pontiff, may wish to carry our prayer, which has reached him, up to God his own, and our God. It is evident therefore that Origen asserted that the supreme honor, which Celsus wished to be shown to daemons, must be rendered to God alone. He does not exclude therefore the intercession of Saints, who exist as mediators inferior to Christ.

Finally, as to Clement of Alexandria, I say that he censures the gentiles, because they ask something from those who are not Gods as if from Gods. Extreme, he says, is the ignorance, to ask from those who are not Gods as if from Gods, or to ask those things which do not conduce: while under the appearance of goods we seek evils. Whence deservedly, since one alone is the good God, from him alone do we ask, both we and the angels, that some good things be given, others consecrated. He blames therefore only those who thought they could obtain something from another than from God, the bestower of all goods: but when we entreat the Saints, we await the effect of our petition from none other than from God himself, whom we approach and implore with the benefit of the Saints interceding: therefore it is not the case that heretics should boast that they have so open a patronage of their error in the aforesaid testimonies.

They object 4. Christ has merited for us not only by his death, but also by his prayers, all graces and all gifts to be conferred on us by God: and moreover he always lives to make intercession for us: therefore the prayers of the Saints are superfluous, and their intercession vain.

I deny the consequence, for just as Christ, although he merited every grace for us by his death, nonetheless willed it to be conferred on us chiefly through the sacraments, so likewise although by his prayers he merited all gifts necessary for us, yet he decreed to confer very many on us only at the instance and prayers of the Saints, both living and dead.

Add that if by this reasoning the prayers and invocations of the Saints were illicit, it would follow that even our petitions to God would be blameworthy, nor could we ask anything of God without injury inflicted upon the merit of Christ's prayer.

They object 5. From that invocation of the Saints it follows that we venerate them as Patrons and protectors: but that derogates from the glory of God, whom we are bound to invoke as our unique protector and helper: therefore, &c.

I distinguish the major: as Patrons and protectors, who guard us by their absolute authority and power, I deny: who by their prayers obtain for us the protection and help of God, I concede. And likewise, the minor thus distinguished, I deny the consequence. For no injury is thence inflicted on God, that we should have before him as intercessors those whom he has gifted with eternal felicity as most loving sons. Hence all the holy Fathers praised above do not hesitate to entreat the Saints as protectors and patrons. Thus especially St. Basil in Oration 10, On the Martyrs, says: O sacred choir! o holy order! o unassailable band! o common guardians of humankind! best companions of our cares, mutual advocates of prayers and vows, most powerful legates with God!

They object 6. The Saints cannot attend to so many prayers, which everywhere on earth are directed to them simultaneously: therefore very many of them are futile.

I distinguish the antecedent: if you regard only the natural force of their intellect, let it pass: if you attend to the divine illumination, which comes about through the light of glory advancing and exalting their intellect to the clear and intuitive vision of God, I deny it. For just as, notwithstanding that natural weakness of the human mind, the intellective faculty can be so strengthened that it rises to the intuitive vision of God, so will it be able with far greater facility to perceive all things whatsoever human that pertain to their state.

NOTE 1. A threefold Conception of the Virgin Mother of God can be distinguished: namely, corporeal, spiritual, and divine. The first is that by which her most holy Parents, coming together in the marital act, furnished those things which chiefly pertained to the formation, organization, and disposition of her body for receiving the rational soul to be infused by God, which conception the Doctors are wont to call active. The second is the very infusion of the soul and its union with the duly organized body, which is commonly called passive conception, whereby it takes place in that very instant in which the rational soul is united to the body consisting of all its members and organs. The third finally is that by which the Virgin herself, blessed, through a singular operation of the Holy Spirit in her supplied her most pure blood for forming and organizing the body of Christ the Lord. But we do not speak here of this latter conception, that it is most holy and altogether immaculate no Catholic doubts. And although the present controversy could be raised concerning corporeal conception, namely whether before the infusion of the rational soul the body of the Blessed Virgin was entirely free from every stain and was conspicuous for cleanness and purity, that it might become the more fittingly and more perfectly the sanctuary of her most holy soul; nevertheless the hinge of the present controversy turns chiefly on the spiritual Conception, or taken passively; namely whether in that instant in which the soul of the Blessed Virgin was united to the body she was wholly without that hereditary stain by which all men whatsoever, conceived and born of the marital act, are wont to be undermined through corrupted propagation and origin.

NOTE 2. Various and most weighty controversies were long ago agitated concerning the unviolated and altogether immaculate spiritual and passive Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, especially around the year 1112; for when the Church of Lyons had decreed that the festive day of the eighth of December should be celebrated in honor of the immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, St. Bernard hearing this took it ill, and wrote to the Canons of that same Church that celebrated letter (if indeed it be truly his genuine offspring) in which among other things he thus assails them: We marvel greatly what chance has wrought at this time for some of you, to change the best color, introducing a new solemnity, which the rites of the Church know not, reason does not approve, ancient tradition does not commend. Are we more learned or more devout than the Fathers? But when, notwithstanding this reproof of St. Bernard, the most ardent zeal toward the unviolated Conception of the Virgin Mother of God had grown strong, and men otherwise religious and celebrated for devotion to the Virgin Mother of God had begun to assail it anew, the Subtle Doctor took up its defense and patronage. For he in 3. d. 3. q. 1. n. 1., where he first treats of the Immaculate Conception, indeed defends it there not assertively, but merely dissolves all the arguments by which the unviolated Conception of the Virgin seemed to be assailed. For when he had said: That God could have done that the Blessed Virgin herself never would have been in original sin: it could also come about that for a time she were at some time in sin, and in the last instant of that time be purged. Finally with every submission, according to his customary modesty and humility, he puts forward his opinion not assertively but dubitatively, in these words: But which of these three things, which have been shown possible, has been done, God knows: if it does not conflict with the authority of the Church, or the authority of Scripture, it will be judged probable that what is more excellent be attributed to Mary: namely, that God preserved her unhurt from original sin. But afterward, having grown bolder, dist. 15. n. 18., he pronounces absolutely and openly that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God never was unclean actually, by reason of actual sin, nor by reason of original sin: yet she would have been, had she not been preserved. And this opinion he so happily defended in solemn disputations and constant contests that he drew to it all the more celebrated doctors, especially the Parisians.

For (as Cavellus relates in the Rosary of the 11th century, a solemn disputation held by command of the supreme Pontiff before the Parisian Faculty, the Legates of the Apostolic See present, on the Immaculate Conception, with such subtlety of genius, such facility and perspicuity of solutions did he break and repel all the adverse arguments, and relying on the help of Mary herself confirmed and fortified his own pious opinion on the Marian Conception with the weight of arguments, with so many and so urgent reasons, that he drew that most celebrated faculty, mother of Universities, to his pious opinion: which in gratitude honored him with the title of Subtle Doctor: and led on by his keenest disputations enacted that sacred and celebrated Marian decree, namely that hereafter no one should be admitted to the grade of magistry who did not bind himself by oath that he would defend throughout his whole life the Immaculate Conception. Afterward Scotus set out for Cologne and bore away the victory for the Immaculate Conception from the disciples of Albert the Great: and the name of Subtle Doctor was there again solemnly acclaimed. He is said also to have received from the Pontiff a reward.)

So far Cavellus. Bosius confirms the same thing, On the Signs of the Church, tom. 1. fig. 2. lib. 1. cap. 8, where he says: Moreover I perceived that that most illustrious feast was confirmed by the doctrine concerning Mary of the acutest Theologian, &c. Salazar, cap. 42, century 12: John Duns Scotus the principal and greatest champion of the pure Conception, who won for this doctrine by his authority as great a faith as no other before or after him. And cap. 13. n. 1: The most subtle Doctor, just as he established by his authority the first schools for defending the Immaculate Conception, so omitted nothing which could conduce in this matter to the greater glory of the Virgin. As to the Parisian disputation Bernardinus de Bustis writes thus in the Office of the Immaculate Conception approved by Sixtus IV, lesson 1: Our Lord Jesus Christ, to protect the dignity of his beloved Mother, straightway dispatched to that city an outstanding Doctor of the Order of Minors, who, the foundations and all the arguments of the adversaries confuted with irrefragable speech, so luminously proved the innocence of his Lady's Conception, that all those brothers admiring greatly its sublimity fell silent, failing in disputation. Whereupon the opinion of the Minors was forthwith approved by Parisian study. Nor ought it seem wonderful that they called the pious opinion on the Immaculate Conception the opinion of the Minors: for it was first circulated under this name, as is evident from Abbot Panormitanus, cap. perquestus de feris, and John Varson on 3. dist. 3, and Salazar, cap. 12. sect. 15. Whence Jerome Hormachea on the Canticle, Proleg. B, cap. 180: By most excellent right can we call the religious of the Seraphic Order the standard-bearer in this pious opinion on the Immaculate Conception, &c. Since after the Subtle Doctor the whole Seraphic Order conspired to defend that opinion, until, the authority of the whole sacred Faculty of Paris lending fire, by study and indefatigable labor it came about that this pious opinion was propagated through all the regions of the Christian world, and so prevailed that it seems to be now not the opinion of the Order of Minors alone, but of all the faithful of Christ. Here I do not recount other controversies afterward arisen on this matter, which we shall open in the course of this Question.

NOTE 3. Under the name Immaculate Conception nothing else ought to be understood (according to the opinion of all the Doctors who wrote since the controversy arisen about it in the schools) than the absence of the stain of original sin in the Blessed Virgin herself in that first instant in which her soul was united to the body, and when it could truly be affirmed, Mary is conceived: so that all these propositions, which you will everywhere find among Authors who have written on that Immaculate Conception, are altogether equivalent and obtain entirely the same signification, for instance, The Conception of the Blessed Virgin is immaculate: or The Blessed Virgin in the first instant of her animation was clean and immune from original sin: or The Blessed Virgin, divine grace preventing and operating, never actually lay under original sin: or The Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin: or The Blessed Virgin in the first instant of her being had sanctifying grace: or The Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin: and many other similar propositions, which are employed indiscriminately by the Doctors, with only the words varied but the same sense prevailing, to expound this pious opinion; so much so that whoever uttered any one of them would thereby openly enunciate the immaculate Conception, as if he used all the aforesaid propositions and modes of speaking at once. The reason of this is, that although the word "immaculate" has a wider extension than purity from original sin; nevertheless when it is added to "Conception," it is determined and restricted to signify only the absence of original guilt; for in the instant of Conception no other stain can either be contracted, nor formally be impeded and eliminated by preserving grace, than that which by hereditary propagation from the corrupted stock of humankind assails all men.

These things premised, let there be

One single Conclusion. — THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD WAS TRULY IMMUNE FROM ORIGINAL SIN, AND PRESERVED FROM IT BY SANCTIFYING GRACE DIVINELY INFUSED INTO HER IN THE FIRST INSTANT OF HER CONCEPTION AND ANIMATION. This Conclusion can be fortified by most weighty considerations, which, for greater clarity and methodical disputation, we shall propose and weigh in the following paragraphs.

§ I. — That the immaculate conception and animation of the Virgin Mother of God is gathered not obscurely from Sacred Scripture.

Rightly did Christ the Lord say, John 5: Search the scriptures… and the same are they that give testimony of me, obliquely to touch the ignorance and blindness of the Jews, because although they thought themselves most expert in the sacred letters, they did not discover him to be the true Messiah promised by so many oracles: for although the adorable Savior pronounced those words of himself only, nevertheless the Blessed Virgin may use the same by accommodated sense. For although, as St. Thomas teaches 3. part. q. 27. art. 1., On her sanctification in the womb, nothing is handed down in Canonical Scripture, nevertheless since St. Paul says 2. Timoth. 3: All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. And as the Subtle Doctor teaches excellently, quest. 2. of the Prologue, on the first principal argument:

No science (that is, in Scripture itself) will have expounded all things to be known; but those from which others can sufficiently be elicited: whence many necessary truths are not expressed in Sacred Scripture, and are contained there virtually: as conclusions in principles, for the investigation of which the labor of Expositors and Doctors was useful:

Hence if we search the divine oracles of the Scriptures, that is, ponder and consider them with deep attention of mind especially according to the interpretation of the holy Fathers and the more celebrated Doctors of the Church, we shall find many things which patronize the immaculate and most pure Conception of the Virgin Mother of God. Now out of the innumerable Oracles of this kind which bear witness to this truth, I shall propose certain choicer ones.

Let the first be that Genes. 3, where God addressing the serpent, the assailant of the woman, says v. 15: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. By which words he signified, Not that Eve, says our Lyranus, but another descending from her, namely the Virgin Mary, who is hostile to demons; whence Canticles 3: terrible as an army set in array. St. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the letter To a sick friend on the perfect man, gives a perspicuous reason of this thing: The Mother of the Lord, he says, was promised already in that woman: she is set opposed to the enmities of the serpent. And lest this seem to pertain to Eve, he did not say "I put" but "I will put," indicating that woman who should bring forth the Savior, not one who should generate a fratricide. St. Cyprian had shone forth before him, lib. 2. Testimonies against the Jews, cap. 9: It is a word of promise, he says, which is sent forward into futurity. He did not say "I put," lest it seem to pertain to Eve; but "I will put," that is, I will raise up against thee a woman. St. Epiphanius sets forth another reason of the same signification, lib. 3. against heresies, which he gathers from these words, between thy seed, and her seed: Nowhere, he says, is the seed of the woman alone found except in Mary: therefore the whole cannot be fulfilled in Eve. Rupertus subscribes to him lib. 3. De Trinitate, cap. 19, where he says: This is the seed, or son of the woman (Christ), so that he is not also the seed of the man, and therefore not without mystery he took his designation from her alone.

From this Oracle, moreover, a threefold argument can be drawn forth, by which the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God may be proved. First indeed, there was perpetual enmity, and that most bitter, between Mary and the daemon serpent: but if she had also been stained for any instant with original sin, for that instant she would not have been his enemy, but his friend, inasmuch as consenting and subject to him; and to God threatening, I will put enmities between thee, and Mary, the serpent could answer: but I will first join friendships with her through the bond of original guilt, I will enter into a closer relation with her, I will overcome her, cast her down, and number her among my captives; we shall be alike in iniquity, we shall stand against thee enraged and injured, etc.; all which things militate directly not only against the glory of God, but even against the truth of that divine oracle: therefore since Mary always held hostile enmities with the daemon serpent, no one of sound mind will judge that she entered into friendships and a covenant with him through original sin. It is confirmed: For as friendship either supposes or produces likeness and parity, so enmity produces unlikeness and contrariety: For this, (says Rupertus just praised) Friendships differ, that friends at peace extend the surface of anything of whatever speech: but enmities have a manifest intention of contrariety: therefore Mary is said to be the enemy of the serpent insofar as she is unlike him: but unless in the first instant of her conception she had been preserved by God from the stain of original guilt, she could not be said to be absolutely unlike the serpent: therefore that the truth of that divine Oracle may stand, nor let any vestige of likeness and love ever be thought to have intervened, it is necessary that even in the first instant of her conception she herself was unlike the serpent, and adversarial. — The second argument is sought from those words, She shall crush thy head; for, (says St. Augustine, or whoever is the author of the Commentary on Genesis) since the subjection of original sin is the head of the devil: such a head Mary crushed: for original sin is the head of all sins, and their beginning, which, after the manner of the serpentine head, derives its body and influx into all others, and little by little introduces them: but Mary crushed this serpentine head: therefore from his pestilential breath and bite she was altogether immune and free. — A third argument finally can be gathered from those words, Thou shalt lie in wait for her heel, that is, in vain shalt thou attempt to undermine and assail the beginning of her life; from which I argue thus: if the daemon had stolen and defiled by original sin the Conception of the blessed Virgin, and that first instant of her animation, by his wiles and frauds, her heel could be called defiled, nor would the Virgin Mother of God thence vindicate to herself any beauty and dignity: but she is commended above all on account of her shoes, for this is appropriated to her Cant. 7: How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter! as if he said: the beauty of thy steps, and the rectitude of thy ways, from when thou first movedst thy foot, is thence especially celebrated, because thou art always daughter of the Prince, first-born of his love, and elect mother. Eve indeed the handmaid of sin, the rest sons of vengeance, sons of gehenna, while they are being formed and make their first step toward life, rush into death: but thou in the passage of thy Conception makest thy step no less beautifully than confidently. — And this interpretation Rupertus so excellently expounds, when he says:

Of the shoes here therefore not of the body, but of the spirit, in which to go unshod is the highest ignobility, and more than servile poverty: therefore the serpent bit the heel of the handmaid, but thou, daughter of the Prince, well shod, hast crushed the head of the serpent. Thou especially, o Prince, and singular Lady beloved, etc.

The second Testimony demonstrating the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God is sought from those words Numer. 21 (24): There shall rise a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall spring up from Israel: and shall strike the princes of Moab, etc. From which words a threefold argument is gathered for evincing that purity of the Mother of God's Conception. First indeed, Mary is called a star, for, as St. Bernardine of Siena says most splendidly, Sermon on the glorious name of the Virgin art. 1. cap. 3: Before the advent of this Virgin, the fog of sin had darkened the whole world, so that there was none who could see the true light: for all the gentiles were fogs agitated by whirlwinds, as is said 2. Peter 2. Therefore they dwelt in darkness, whence concerning such it is written Nahum 1: darkness shall pursue his enemies. Yet the Blessed Virgin came forth like a shining star, so that of her may be said that Eccles. 50: As the morning star in the midst of a cloud, etc.; but a star is nowhere obscured by darkness and gloom: therefore it must be concluded with our Mayronis, Serm. on the Conception of B. Mary, that as the golden light at the rising of the sun glows red in the morning without clouds, so the soul of the Virgin ever resplended without clouds of sins. Indeed all the posterity of Adam, overshadowed by the original sacrifice, are conceived; Mary alone among all innocent and immaculate shone forth from afar. Concerning the rest Job says, cap. 3: Let the stars be darkened with the mist thereof. Let it look for light and not see it, neither the rising of the dawning day. Which words our Lyranus expounds thus, as Pelbartus relates lib. 4. part. 1. art. 3: There Job speaks of the guilt of original sin: and he says the same: let the stars be darkened, that is, the Saints, with its mist: let it look for light, that is, Christ: and not see him: because Christ conceived supernaturally of the Virgin could not contract original sin. It follows: neither the rising of the dawning Day, that is, the Conception of Mary, which is figured by the dawn. Canticle 6. To these add that the most Blessed Virgin is celebrated not only under the name of star, but also of moon and sun: for the Church is wont to attribute to her the words of Cant. 6: Who is this that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun: whereby it signifies that every splendor of innocence whatsoever, and light of purity and virtue, which God could confer on any creature, he abundantly derived into her. Wherefore we can not unreasonably hold that God inaugurated the same thing in the order of grace which he had previously wrought in the order of nature: for just as he formed three kinds of bodies, namely the sun, moon, and stars, glittering with splendor, so that in the first beginning of their formation they were surrounded and overlaid with light, so too he willed to bring forth Christ the Lord the true sun of justice, the Virgin his mother, that wonderful moon, and likewise the Angels as so many stars shining in the firmament of eternal beatitude, coruscating with the divine light of grace and illuminated, in the first instant of their formation.

From these therefore it stands that the most Blessed Virgin was never obscured by any shadows of sin, and consequently was wholly without experience of original stain. — The second argument is deduced from the following

words of the same Oracle: And a sceptre shall spring up from Israel; for Isaias had prophesied cap. 11: And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root: which words St. Jerome expounds thus in the same place: But let us understand the rod out of the root of Jesse to be the holy Virgin Mary, who had no shoot adhering to her: but if the Blessed Virgin had been stained by any sin, doubtless she would have had not only a shoot, but an adhering knottiness: therefore it must be concluded with St. Anselm lib. 2. On the Virginal Conception, cap. 9:

I believe and confess, most pious Lady, whatever little servant I am, that from the root of Jesse, most beautiful, and therefore alien from the wound of sin, everything that disfigures thee, remaining most whole, thou didst bring forth the most precious flower, not any sort whatever, but one upon which the sevenfold Spirit shall rest.

Or as St. Ambrose has it more clearly in the Sermon On the Gabaonites, expounding the same words of Isaias: This is the rod in which there was neither knot of original sin, nor bark of venial fault. Nor does it matter that this sermon is not found among the printed works of St. Ambrose; for very many whom our de Aula praises in the Trituration pag. 133, together with Michael de Carchano in the Sermon On Penance printed in the year 1496, give faith that they read that sermon among the works of St. Ambrose: whence also the aforesaid words were inserted into the Office of the Conception, which is recited by the Seraphic Order with Apostolic approval. — A third argument finally can be asked from those words of the same prophecy: And shall strike the princes of Moab: for it is known that daemons are not obscurely designated by the name Moab: for just as the Moabites were always hostile to the Israelites, so daemons denounce perpetual and harassing war against men, especially the faithful and endowed with virtue. But the Virgin Mother of God, that mystical rod, struck them all down not only during the time of her most whole life, dissolving their frauds and making their temptations void; but also broke their power at the beginning of her Conception and Nativity. Which Rupertus explains excellently lib. 1. On the Canticles, cap. 1, where comparing this mystical rod with the Rod of Moses, he says:

As that rod devoured the rods of the magicians and enchanters, and crushed all Egyptian pride, and then budded, flourished, leafed, and bore fruit, not planted, not animated by the sap of earth, but advanced by heavenly virtue beyond the use of nature: so thou, most beautiful of women, my beloved, hast slain all heretical depravity, cast down the pride of the devil, flowering in conception, fruitful in birth, etc.

St. Bernard illustrates the same truth most splendidly tom. 1. In the Deprecation to the glory of the Virgin, after he had said:

Thou terrible as an army set in array. What then? Did not the princes of darkness shudder, when they saw, contrary to custom, a woman strong and most learned for battles proceed against them, equipped with armor mightier than all, whose sword is upon her thigh because of night fears! Around her a strong line of spiritual virtues, guarding themselves mutually each in its order. etc.

Thus did Mary advance in her Conception. This sufficiently indicates what follows: namely, that they (the Angels namely) might guard the most pleasing couch of Solomon, and provide lest an alien guest invade the lodging prepared for the eternal King.

Very many oracles confirming the same truth the Psalmist King supplies to us: but lest I be longer, I bring forward only one or two. Let the first be Psal. 15: The Most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle: God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved: God will help it in the morning early. For no one can deny that the Virgin Mother of God is truly the tabernacle of the Most High, because him whom the heavens could not contain she embraced in her womb. The Most High sanctified this tabernacle in a manner utterly ineffable and far more excellent than any other souls preeminent in holiness, in which also he is said to dwell. For there are very many whom he sanctifies only in the evening of death, as the penitent thief: others whom in advanced age, and as it were in the meridian of life, he calls from vices to the state of holiness, as St. Paul, Magdalene, etc. There are also whom he prevents in the morning with the blessings of sweetness, namely those whom he sanctifies before they come forth into open light by nativity, as had been prophesied of Jeremias and John the Baptist Jeremiae 1: Before I formed thee in the bowels of the womb, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee. But the most Blessed Virgin God helped and protected in the morning early, that is, from the very first beginning of her life, namely preserving her from all inquination of sin whatsoever, inasmuch as he chose her for his tabernacle: for how would God have helped her in the morning early if he had first banished her into the tyranny of the daemon through original sin? — The same thing Psal. 86 intimates more exactly and openly, where he says: The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains: The Lord loveth the gates of Sion above all the tabernacles of Jacob… man is born in her, and the Highest himself hath founded her. By which words he signifies that the holiness of the most Blessed Virgin arising attained far that summit of loftiness and dignity which the perfected holiness of the rest could attain. Hence St. Gregory in Exposition 1. on the book of Kings says:

By the name of the mountain of Ephraim can be designated the most Blessed ever Virgin Mary Mother of God. For she was a mountain, who surpassed all the height of elect creature by the dignity of her election. Is not Mary a lofty Mountain, who that she might extend toward the conception of the eternal Word raised the summit of her merits above all the choirs of Angels even to the throne of the Deity? Of this mountain Isaias prophesying its most excellent dignity says: in the last days shall be prepared the mountain of the house of the Lord upon the top of mountains. For she was a mountain on the top of mountains, because the height of Mary shone forth above all Saints:

By no reason could it be said that at the beginning of her sanctity she had equaled, indeed surpassed, the dignity of any other of the Saints, unless she had truly been immune from every sin in the first instant of her life; for if only she had been sanctified before being born, she would have this in common with those who were sanctified in the womb, as we said just now. Therefore it must be concluded with St. Anselm Hom. on the Conception of the Virgin: If Jeremias, he says, who was to prophesy amid groans, was sanctified in the womb, and John the Precursor of the Lord was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, who would dare dispute that the propitiatory of the whole age was deprived of the illumination of the Holy Spirit at the very beginning of her Conception! — It is confirmed from the following words: A man is born in her, etc. By that man he signified Christ, of whom Isaias had prophesied writing: A woman shall encompass a man: but (says St. Anselm lib. On the Virginal Conception) it was fitting that the conception of Christ should come about of a Mother most pure: namely, it was becoming that that Virgin shine with that purity, than which a greater cannot be understood under God; to whom God the Father disposed to give his only Son, whom he loved as himself, having come equal to him from his heart, so that he might naturally be heir, and both common Son of God the Father and of the Virgin. Hence St. Peter Damian says most splendidly Serm. 2. On Virginity: The flesh of the Virgin conceived of Adam admitted no stains of Adam, but the purity of her singular continence was converted into the whiteness of eternal light, so that Christ, who is the brightness of eternal light, mirror without stain, and image of most pure paternal goodness, might assume for himself a body formed from most pure flesh: For it must not be believed (says St. Bernardine tom. 2. Serm. 19.) that the Son of God himself willed to be born of the Virgin, and to take her flesh which was stained by any original sin; rather it must be believed that he willed to take flesh from most pure flesh, and that his Mother was more than Eve, and Adam, who were created without original sin. — Which thing indeed will easily be brought to mind by whoever has heard Ecclesiasticus admonishing cap. 3: That the glory of man is from the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son. And in the same place: The mother's curse rooteth up the foundations. Whence if ever the Virgin Mother of God had received anything of disgrace and curse by reason of original sin, Christ her son certainly would not have been immune from this shameful ignominy, and if not blamed, yet he would have been disgraced by the disgrace of his parent: for as Tertullian said with sententiousness, Christ reckoned of the stock of Jesse, namely through Mary, and hence must be judged as though the honor of Christ God were reckoned from the Virgin; whence if the Mother of God had been guilty of most infamous transgression, and tributary to the tartarean tyrant, not so much glory as some disgrace of the Son would thence be reckoned: seeing that, as Arnoldus Carnotensis said most splendidly in the Treatise On the Praises of Mary: That Mary is preached full of grace, it is manifest that the glory of Mother and Son is indivisible, the proclamation of both is common: for, as he says in the same place, one is the flesh of Mary and Christ, one spirit, whence it was said to her: The Lord is with thee. Whereby let it be known that the glory of each is indivisible, and thus in a certain way the ignominy common, which would be derived from the disgrace of the Mother into the Son: for Christ is reckoned of the Virgin. I pass over various testimonies of this kind, which both in the books of Solomon, especially in the Canticle of Canticles, where the beauty of the extraordinary purity and sanctity of the Virgin Mother of God is splendidly celebrated and commended, and in the oracles of the Prophets, which aim at the assertion of the same most pure Conception of the Mother of God; so that I may bring forward some from the New Testament, in which this truth is delineated more perspicaciously.

It comes forth first of all that Angelic salutation, whereby namely the Angel, an Orator destined by God to the Virgin that he might announce the sacrament of the Incarnation, thus addressed her: Hail full of grace: significantly he said: Hail, that is, without "va," as the Angelic Doctor explains excellently in the elucidation of the Angelic salutation, (as may be seen in the first edition of the same works, and older manuscripts.) From sin, he says, followed a threefold va: va of guilt: va of punishment: va of ignorance. The va of guilt is threefold: original, actual, and venial. From all this threefold va the Blessed Virgin was free. — To her concurs the Seraphic Doctor in the Mirror of the Virgin, cap. 2, where he says: Hail Mary without va. Threefold is the va from which Mary was most immune: the va of actual guilt, the va of original misery, and the va of gehennal punishment. — The same St. Bernardine commends most splendidly Tom. 4. Sermon 1. On the Annunciation, art. 1. cap. 1: Hail, he says, Blessed Virgin, without the first va, that is, without sin, tyrant of original sin, nay without it thou wast conceived. But he used that formula of salutation that with the name of Eve inverted he might signify, says St. Jerome: That whatever malediction was inflicted through Eve, the blessing of Mary took away entirely. Whence also the Church sings most splendidly: Taking that Hail, from Gabriel's mouth, establish us in peace, changing the name of Eve. Nor did he happily change only the name, but also the lot; because as St. Augustine writes excellently Serm. 2. On the Annunciation, Eve the authoress of sin, Mary the authoress of merit; Eve by killing harmed, Mary by vivifying profited: that one struck, this one healed, etc. But how would all these things rightly fit the Virgin Mother of God, if she herself had lain under the curse of the miseries of original sin in the same way as the posterity of Eve? — The same truth the Angel confirms more fully, when he says: Full of grace. For truly by what reason would the most worthy Mother of God be called full of grace, if place for original sin had been left in her, and the grace of preservation, which was granted to the Angels lest they rush down with the enemies, had been wanting to herself? It must be said therefore with the Seraphic Doctor Sermon 2. On the Virgin, that our Lady was full of grace preventing in her sanctification: grace namely preservative, against the filthiness of the fault of original sin, which she would have contracted from the corruption of nature, unless by a special privilege of grace she had been preserved. This truth no one will deny, who with the sacred Doctors perceives that by those words, full of grace, is signified that the Virgin Mother of God was adorned with every plenitude and perfection of grace. Well is she called full, (says the author of the sermon under the name of St. Jerome to Eustochium) because to the rest it is supplied by parts. But into Mary the plenitude of grace poured itself whole at once. Whence Richard a S. Laurentio lib. 1. On the Praises of the Virgin, cap. 4, says thus: Every other creature has something of emptiness, because it could receive greater grace; but she herself was everywhere so full of grace, because she could not have greater grace: unless she were united to the Divinity, that is, unless she herself were God. This is that plenitude concerning which the Angel here specially says: Hail full of grace. — Such is the opinion of the Princes of Theology: since our Alensis 1. p. his Summa pronounces expressly: The Blessed Virgin had such grace that in fact she could not receive more, and as much as pure creature could receive. To him concurs B. Albert the Great in his Mariale, cap. 177: In the Blessed Virgin Mary, he says, with respect to all creatures not united to God, there was grace supreme, grace in the highest: therefore she approaches the first light in the highest; therefore purity in the highest: for purity follows the nature of light, and luminous. By which he signifies, that from the summit of her grace Mary not only had the culmination and excellence of all purity, but moreover more closely and more perspicuously was partaker of the light and vision of the eternal divine essence. Which truth our St. Bernardine of Siena expounds no less piously than elegantly, Tom. 4. Serm. 18. On the Exaltation of B. Mary, art. 1. cap. 10, where he says: According to Bernard the Virgin Mary penetrated beyond what can be believed the abyss of divine wisdom, so that as far as the condition of creature suffers without personal union, she seems immersed in that inaccessible light. And lest you think he speaks only of the wisdom of the Virgin, he adds: So great grace has been given by the Lord to the Virgin, as would be possible to be given to one pure creature. So great therefore an abundance and sublimity of grace ought to leave no place in the Virgin Mother of God for sin, and thence from this plenitude of her grace her immunity from the original stain is rightly gathered. — The Angel adds a new argument of the same truth to be confirmed, when he says: The Lord is with thee. For who will presume to limit the most singular presence, assistance, and protection of the Lord to the Virgin to that time only after she was conceived? Since the Angel pronounces absolutely: The Lord is with thee, whereby he signifies that she was not only at all time, but also from eternity chosen by the Lord not merely peculiarly, that she might become the Mother of his only-begotten Son, but also perpetually possessed by him; whence deservedly does the Church attribute to her this Oracle of the Wise Man Prov. 8: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. From eternity I was ordained, and of old before the earth was made: the abysses (of sin) were not yet, and I had already been conceived. — More evidently do the following words of the Angelic salutation indicate this: Blessed art thou amongst women. For that blessing not only among women (for Elisabeth said thus), but "in" or "amidst" women, indicates preceding times, in which all blessings conferred from Heaven on all women (nay even on men) slipped away through the intervention of Mary. Beautifully indeed Elisabeth says to the Virgin her kinswoman: Blessed art thou amongst women, as if he said: more blessed than all women; but Gabriel the Angel said cleverly and more sententiously: Blessed art thou amidst women, for he expresses that she herself was blessed in all women; nay, says Eusebius Emissenus: Through her blessing is given to women, and the world is freed from malediction: for as the most expert Idiota adds piously lib. Of Contemplation On the Virgin, cap. 1: Through thee, o super-blessed Mary, angelic life is recovered, innocence repaired, the devil conquered and crushed, etc. Therefore it must be concluded with St. Lawrence Justinian Serm. On the Annunciation, that the most Blessed Virgin from her very Conception was prevented with blessings of sweetness, and alien from the handwriting of damnation. Or as Richard a S. Laurentio explains more clearly cap. 106: It stands that she was immune from all original sin, through whom not only the malediction of mother Eve was dissolved, but even the blessing is bestowed on all. — The Angel confirms the same truth when he says: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God: for as the same most wise Idiota says cap. 6: Thou hast found grace with God singular, o sweetest Virgin, because there were preserved in thee from the original stain, the Angelic salutation, and the over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit. Andrew of Jerusalem had preceded him on these words, Fear not Mary, saying: For grace was found with God, whereas Eve had lost it. Hugo Cardinalis adds on 8. Canticles: Thou hast found peace, whereas the first parents had lost it: and consequently the most Blessed Virgin found that grace of integrity, and peace, enriched with which the first parents had lost by their warfare against God. — Finally the appendage and supreme strength of this proof the Angel supplies, when he says: Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, etc. For as we said above, pag. 775, so great and so close is the society of the Incarnate Word with his Mother of integrity and glory, that Christ himself, says Tertullian, is to be reckoned of the Virgin.

The second testimony from the New Testament, and that, as it seems to me, sufficiently openly signifying the truth of the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, can be sought from that Rom. 5 v. 15: Not as the offense, so also the gift: for if by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many. From which I am pleased to argue thus: The grace of Christ the Lord abounded unto more than the offense of Adam; and consequently it is necessary that the grace of Christ the Lord have been derived to some whom the offense of Adam had not stained: otherwise it appears not how the unshaken truth of the Apostolic Oracle would stand: but if this grace of Christ the Lord Mediator ought to be derived to anyone without experience of the Adamic offense, chiefly to his most beloved Genitrix, as the Doctor signifies most splendidly 3. dist. 3. qu. 1., where he says: The most perfect Mediator has the most perfect act of mediating with respect to some person for whom he mediates: but Christ is the most perfect Mediator: therefore Christ had the most perfect degree of mediating possible, with respect to some creature, or person, with respect to whom he was mediator: but with respect to no person did he have a more excellent degree than with respect to Mary: therefore, etc. — To this tends the argument which Franciscus Mayron draws from this same chapter 3. dist. 3., where after he had said: If the Mother of the Lord had contracted original sin for however little time, or for a single instant, it would have been worse for her than if she had been eternally damned, as to the pain of loss, and sense; he immediately adds: The privileges of the New Testament exceed the old ones, according to the doctrine of Paul Rom. 5. cap.: There however was one woman without sin in the state of innocence. Likewise, As Christ is compared to Adam according to humanity 1. Cor. 15, so the Mother of Christ to Eve in the character of one simply exceeding, as to all innocence. I pass over various divine Oracles of this kind, which could be elicited from the New Testament for confirming the most pure Conception of the unviolated Virgin, so that I may make enough against certain persons from the aforesaid objections.

You will object. 1. That Matthaei 19: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill: but the adversaries say Christ was a physician necessary to the Virgin: therefore she labored under the infirmity of sin, especially original. They confirm from Luke 19: The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost: but he came to seek the Blessed Virgin; far be it that he did not seek her: therefore she like the others whom he sought had perished through original sin. Moreover they add that 1. Timoth. 1: Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners: but he came to save the Virgin Mary: therefore she was stained with original stain, and held sinful. — I answer: that to expiate sin, and to establish salvation from sins, was indeed one of the principal motives of the Incarnation as it was made; although, as we said, Christ would have come no less even if no sin, whether actual or original, had existed; and consequently his advent was not only that he might save sinners, but also that he might endow and enrich the just with ampler holiness and abundance of graces: therefore although the Virgin Mother of God was immune from every original stain, nevertheless for that reason Christ is to be judged to have come into this world on account of her grace, just as of other men. To these add, that Christ could no less be called both seeker and physician with respect to the most Blessed Virgin, because he preserved her from fall and infirmity of sin by a more abundant and efficacious medicine of grace: nor indeed should only that skilled physician be accounted such who restores lost health, but also he who preserves health already acquired.

You will object. 2. All the oracles of Sacred Scripture by which it is asserted that all men are shaken by sin, and stand in need of the grace of Christ the Mediator for aid and cleansing. Thus that Psal. 13 and 52: All are gone aside, they are become unprofitable together, there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. Thus also 2. Cor. 5: If one died for all: then all were dead; and Christ died for all. Whence thus argue the adversaries: for whomever Christ underwent bodily death, he had incurred spiritual death: but Christ died bodily for the Blessed Virgin, otherwise he would not have died for all: therefore the Blessed Virgin was spiritually dead: and consequently she incurred at least original sin. Similarly that 1. Timoth. 2: One is the mediator of God and men, Christ, who gave himself redemption for all. From which they thus argue: Christ is Mediator only of those who at some time were divided from God by sin: but Christ is Mediator of all men: therefore all men (even the Blessed Virgin) are divided from God. Likewise that Rom. 5: As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. From which they thus infer: all men propagated from Adam in the seminal way sinned in him: but the Blessed Virgin was propagated from Adam in the seminal way: therefore she sinned in him. — I answer first, that universal propositions in Sacred Scripture do not embrace the generality of things so but that they mostly suffer limitation and exception; very many examples of this kind can be brought forward; for thus we read Genes. 6: For all flesh had corrupted its way: and yet of that universal dictum the exception is read there in these words: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations. Similarly Exodus 11, while every first-born of the Egyptian people was slain by the destroying Angel, Scripture says: For there was not any house wherein there lay not one dead; which proposition is equivalent to this general one: no house was, in which someone dead of the first-born did not lie: nevertheless as St. Augustine observes on this passage, there could be some house which had no first-born: therefore the truth of the universal proposition stands with due exception. The same St. Augustine observes on those words Judg. 9: And Abimelech slew his brethren the sons of Jerobaal, seventy men upon one stone: and there remained Joathan the youngest son of Jerobaal: the universal proposition is true, says St. Augustine, namely that he killed all the sons of Jerobaal, although two of them were not killed. — More celebrated than all is the passage from the book of Esther, cap. 15, where Assuerus addressing her says: What aileth thee Esther? I am thy brother, fear not, thou shalt not die: not for thee, but for all men was this law constituted. Where to the universal particle an exception is added. — The same can be confirmed by very many examples from the New Testament. Thus Ioan. 10: I am the door of the sheep: all as many as have come are thieves and robbers. Unless these words be limited by exception, it will follow that all Prophets were thieves and robbers: whence, as Maldonatus observes from Cyril and Leontius, those words are to be taken thus: all as many as have come, and entered not by the door, are thieves and robbers. For he concludes that the Prophets indeed came before him, but entered through him as through the door. And he hands on to us the rule that often propositions of this kind general in the sacred Scriptures must be restricted from the circumstances of place, time, and the things treated of. It stands therefore from these universal propositions, by which it is asserted that all men are held by sin, and sinned in Adam, that they are not so universally to be taken but that they suffer exception. For neither do I judge that from the fact that Jeremias says c. 15: All study avarice; and St. James cap. 3: In many things we offend all, anyone would rightly conclude that all absolutely signified by the name of man, none excepted, study avarice and offend in many things; otherwise Christ the Lord who is true man would have studied avarice and offended in many things. Therefore if from the fact that St. Paul said: All sinned in Adam, it were consequent that even the Blessed Virgin sinned in him and contracted original sin, equally while the truth of these general propositions stands: All are gone aside, together become unprofitable; and all study avarice: and in many things we offend all, it would have to be inferred that the Blessed Virgin went aside together with the rest, became useless, and did no good: similarly that she studied avarice, and offended God in many things: but Catholic ears do not bear this absurd, nay impious inference: therefore neither ought they to bear the aforesaid conclusion of the adversaries. If then the Blessed Virgin is to be excepted from those general propositions, why should she not likewise be judged free from that one, in whom all have sinned? is that sign, all, less canonical, less universal in one proposition than in another? Since therefore in those passages the particle, all, ought not distributively to be taken for all absolutely, but for most, much more are those testimonies of St. Paul to be tempered and limited with respect to the Virgin, insofar as they legislate not of her but of all the other posterity of Adam. — I answer second, that the oracles of the Scriptures ought not otherwise to be taken than the Church judged them to be used: but the universal Church congregated in the Council of Trent, after allegating all the aforesaid texts of Scripture from which it deduces the Catholic dogma, namely that all absolutely propagated from Adam are infected by his sin and made guilty, Session five, and definition on original sin, thus concludes:

Nevertheless this same holy Synod declares that it is not its intention to comprehend in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God: but that the constitutions of Sixtus Pope IV of happy memory are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.

From which it ought to seem wonderful that even some Catholic Doctors say so assertively that the doctrine of all the Fathers was that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in sin. For as James of Granada noted beautifully lib. On the Immaculate Conception, disp. 3. cap. 8. num. 6, if all the Fathers had so sensed, the Oecumenical Synod congregated in the Holy Spirit would certainly have perceived it; and if it had perceived it, it would have conformed itself to them, as in other decrees it conforms; for never do General Councils not approve what they see approved by the common opinion of the Fathers. Hardly therefore can I wonder enough that there should be someone among Catholics who detracts more, either by his own judgment or that of whatever other author, than from the authority of the most holy Council of Trent: so that what the Council is unwilling to assert, he himself fears not to affirm with full mouth (with what faculty or permission, I know not). — It is confirmed from the same Apostle: since when he said, in Adam all have sinned, that term "all" denotes entirely the same as "many," when he says there, by the offense of one many died. Either therefore the one term is to be restricted by the other, or the other amplified by the one. Since therefore Paul first used that term "all," and immediately that term "many," the first ought rather to be limited by the second than conversely: therefore the universal sign, all, is modified by the term "many," through which as it were deliberately the Apostle declares himself entirely in this opinion; so that it seems sufficiently to give place to the exception of the Blessed Virgin; for when again he said not "all" but "many," he designated that somehow someone out of all is to be excepted: which exception surely can fit in no title greater than in the Mother of God: deservedly therefore Turrianus in Epist. to the Bishop of Auxerre says: I ask therefore those men, why from the fact that Paul said, In whom all have sinned, they think rather that exception was given to none; than from the fact that the same afterward in the same chapter, at a small interval, said: By the offense of one many died, let us think it given to us.

§ II. — That the immaculate conception of the Mother of God is proved from Councils.

Councils declare and signify the unviolated Conception of B. Mary the Virgin quite openly, while they pronounce her altogether immaculate absolutely. But the sixth Synod celebrates her with this title of honor and glory, Action 11 and 13, while it approves the Letter of Sophronius, in which Mary the Virgin is called holy, and liberated from every contagion, both of body, and soul, and intellect. The seventh Synod illustrates her with the same appellation Act. 3, approving the Synodal Letter of Tarasius, in which these things are had: We venerate also, and adore the image of the Mother of God, and our Lady irreprehensible, immaculate, etc. And in the definition of faith of the same Council, among other things these are had: We confess two natures incarnate for us of the immaculate Virgin Mary. But that epithet excludes every stain whatsoever properly speaking, and that for any time whatsoever. Otherwise, considering the present state of beatitude, any Saint whatever could equally be called immaculate, which is foreign to the mind of the Councils, which establish that title as proper to the Mother of God. — The Council of Basle declares this truth most evidently Sess. 36, where after very much controversy on this matter, it thus decreed:

Hitherto indeed a difficult question has been made in diverse places, and before this holy Synod, concerning the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary Mother of God herself, and the beginning of her sanctification, some saying that the Virgin herself, and her soul for some time, or instant of time, lay actually under original guilt; others however saying conversely, that from the beginning of her creation God loving her conferred grace upon her, through which liberating and preserving that most blessed person from original stain, he redeemed her by a sublimer kind of sanctification, when the Most High himself founded her, and the Son of God the Father fashioned her, that she might be his Mother on earth. We truly, diligently inspecting the authorities, and reasons, which already for several years have been alleged on public relations on the part of either doctrine before this holy Synod > and also very many others seen on this matter, and weighed with mature consideration; define and declare that doctrine asserting that the glorious Virgin Mother of God Mary, by the preventing and operating grace of the divine Numen singular, never actually lay under original sin, but always was immune from all original and actual guilt, and holy and immaculate, as pious and consonant to Ecclesiastical cult, Catholic faith, right reason, and sacred Scripture, is to be approved by all Catholics, held, embraced; and that hereafter it be licit to none to preach or teach to the contrary. Renewing moreover the constitution on celebrating her holy Conception, which is celebrated by the Roman as well as by other Churches on the sixth of the ides of December by ancient and laudable custom, we statute and ordain that the same celebration on the aforesaid day in all Churches, Monasteries, and Convents of Christian religion under the name of Conception is to be honored with festive praises, and to all the faithful truly penitent and confessed, on that day the solemn celebrations of Masses, a hundred; at first vespers however, or second, as many; to the sermon truly of the divine Word on that feast... celebrated meanwhile on the 15th of the Kalends of October in the year of the nativity of the Lord 1439.

Which sanction indeed ought to be of so much the greater authority, that in that Synod the most holy Prelates were present, especially Louis Alemanus Cardinal and Archbishop of Arles president of that Synod, illustrious by very many miracles after death, as Aeneas Sylvius relates, who afterward was supreme Pontiff by the name Pius II, and who had sat very many years in the Basle assembly, and had keenly defended it against Eugene IV the supreme Pontiff opposing the Synod, and afterward having changed his opinion had assailed it with the greatest zeal. Thus however he speaks in the book Description of Europe, c. 42, which when he was Pontiff, to the sepulcher of Louis Cardinal Bishop of holy Caecilia of that city, he says: whom we saw presiding at Basle in the assembly of the Fathers, a great opinion of miracles arose, and frequent concourse of the infirm from everywhere was made in hope of health. Wherefore Clement Pope VII enrolled him in the album of Beati, as Spondanus relates to the year 1438. Add that not without mature counsel, and not without the judgment of the grave Theologians and Canonists of that time prehad, was that decree published; for we have very many tracts written at that time on this celebrated controversy, published by sanction of that Council, especially the immense volume of John of Segovia, then Canon of the Toletan Church, finally Bishop of Caesarina, and also (as some relate) Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, who, commanding the Fathers of the same Synod, especially Louis Aleman, as he testifies in his preface to the Fathers of the Council, wrote seven allegations, and as many advisements, for the information of the Fathers of the Council of Basle concerning the Immaculate Conception of the most sacred Virgin Mary, her preservation from original sin in the first instant of her animation; to all which responds the book published by Master John de Montenigro Provincial of the Order of Preachers of Lombardy, most famous Theologian of that time. But this especially is to be noted, that the Fathers of that Synod attest that the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the sixth ides of December through the Churches is celebrated by ancient and laudable custom; which surely they would not affirm with such certitude, especially since at that time still prevailed the grave controversy on this matter, and the opposite opinion had very many celebrated champions, unless that had been most constant and ascertained to all; from which it is to be gathered that the feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated in the Church not in these last times (as some wish), but from ancient and laudable custom, as the Synod affirms.

You will object. You will reply that Porsena with Cembello, therefore the Council decreed these things because it was embittered against the Dominican Fathers defending the assailed opinion, because their whole Order opposed that Council and was in no wise willing to take part in it or adhere to it. — Truly whoever has read Aeneas Sylvius will laugh at these fictions; who as eyewitness of almost all the deeds done in the Council of Basle relates among other things: And by these very remains also they approved, chiefly by the zeal and diligence of brother Virolai Gullici of the Order of Preachers, a man most outstanding both in genius and solicitude, to whom I attribute of course the dispatching of this matter. To him concurs St. Antoninus 3. part. of the History, tit. 22. cap. 10. fol. 525. col. 1, speaking of the Council of Basle and Felix the Antipope:

Amedeus (he says) they named Felix. Who enthroned not in the see of Peter, but of Lucifer, who placed his seat in the north, instituted some Cardinals, and among them Master John Professor of sacred Theology of the Order of Preachers, who had labored much in sermons and disputations for confirming the conciliabulum, but was quickly taken away by death, etc.

To these add the decree of the Provincial Council of Avignon held an. 1457¹ by D. Peter de Fluxu the elder, a Frenchman of the Order of Minors distinguished by Martin V with the Cardinalitial honor, who attended the Council of Constance. For among the other decrees of that Provincial Synod, it has this:

We statute that the decree made in the Council of Basle concerning the Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary be observed inviolably, strictly forbidding all under pain of excommunication lest anyone presume to preach or publicly dispute anything to the contrary: which if anyone do otherwise, we will that he incur the said sentence ipso facto, and in the first Synod to be celebrated by each one through the Dioceses, we statute that the aforesaid be preached, and enjoined on the Curates of Churches, that they manifest these things to the people. Given in the Cathedral Church of Avignon on day 7 of the Month of September of the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1457. In the Pontificate of D. V. Calixtus Pope III year 3.

There subscribed to this statute not only Peter himself, who presided over that Synod, but also Alanus Cotinus Cardinal of S. R. E., Robert Bishop of Aquae, Peter Bishop of Aptae, George of Cenecensis, Gavacherius of Vapiensis, Nicholas of Massiliensis, Peter of Digniensis, Peter of Glandavensis, Pontius of Vasionensis, John of Regiensis, Stephen of Tricastinensis, Michael of Carpenteroratensis, and John of Aurasiensis. But although the rest of the Councils should fail, for confirming the same truth there would suffice the decree of the Council of Trent Sess. 5, where after it had statuted in faith that all the posterity of Adam whatsoever come forth into light stained by his sin and original stain; at the end of the decrees and canons it declares that it is not its intention to comprehend the Blessed and

Immaculate Virgin under this decree: and moreover commands that the constitutions of Sixtus IV of happy memory be observed. This supreme Pontiff moreover gave three constitutions on this controversy, which we shall relate in what follows, in which although he left indefinite the principal controversy on the immunity of the Blessed Virgin from original sin, nevertheless he expressly condemned censure of the pious opinion, and celebration of the feast of the Conception. — But that the Council approved the three memoranda constitutions, and not only a single one, as some wish, is gathered quite openly from these words, "the constitutions of Sixtus Pope IV of happy memory are to be observed," where he says not constitution but constitutions, whereby he designates that he approves and renews not one but all the constitutions published on this controversy by the same Pontiff; because whenever the Council alleges or refers some Pontifical diploma containing more heads or parts, it always calls it in the singular number constitution, as is evident Sess. 21. on reformation, and Sess. 20. as well on reform. as on regulars, and in many other sessions where Reformation is treated; which passages, because they are obvious and the matter lacks difficulty, it has been enough to indicate; therefore the Council cannot be expounded of a single extravagante of Sixtus IV, since it names his constitutions in the plural.

The adversaries object various Councils, especially the African, in which it was determined against the Pelagians that absolutely all men are infected by the sin of Adam; nay they prove the very same thing from the Florentine under Eugene IV, in which among other things (they say) for the instruction and union of the Jacobites is decreed: Most firmly believes, professes, and teaches the sacrosanct Roman Church, that no one ever conceived from the womb of a woman was free from the dominion of the devil, except through the faith of the Mediator Jesus Christ our Lord, who without sin conceived, born, and dead, blotting out the sins of humankind, alone by his death prostrated, and reserved the entrance of the heavenly kingdom which the first man with all his posterity had lost by his own sin. Hence Caietanus cap. 5 speaking of the Council of Basle says thus: Then since to the said conciliabulum is opposed on the opposite side, that of those, for repairing the Council transferred from Ferrara into Florence, of Greeks, and Latins, under the aforesaid Eugene IV., where among dogmas of faith are handed down these words: Firmly believes, and professes, etc. — Truly I answer, that the same must be replied to the decreta of the African Councils as we replied to the authorities of Sacred Scripture, namely that universal enunciations and those general propositions do not so universally comprehend all men absolutely but that they suffer some exception: and consequently although the Councils statuted that all men whatsoever are stained by Adam's sin, it may tacitly be gathered that those Fathers had the same mind which the Tridentine Fathers had, who although they statuted absolutely that all men whatsoever are infected by Adam's sin, nevertheless declare that it is not their intention to comprehend in this decree the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary. Nor does it stand in the way that the African Fathers prescribed no similar modification and exception; for that ought not seem wonderful, since at that time no controversy was being raised about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God. As to the Council of Florence it could be said that that decree is altogether fictitious, First, because among the acts of that Council no mention of it is made, although we have three decrees inserted there, the first of which begins: Great indeed are they to us, given at Ferrara 9 April in the year 1438, and it is for the translation of the Council to Florence. The second begins: Consentiente ad infrascripta, or: Let the heavens rejoice, etc., given on the pridie of the Nones of July in the year 1439, and it is the concord with the Greeks on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The third begins Exult in God, etc. given on the 10th day before the Kalends of December in the same year 1439, and it treats of the sacraments of the Church, and testimonies to be observed by the Armenians: and it treats of the sacraments of the Church, and testimonies to be observed by the Armenians: but of the Jacobites neither does any word exist, nor is this decree in the Regestum Vaticanum, where there are 210 manuscript books of Bulls of this supreme Pontiff. Nor does it exist either in the collection of Bulls and decrees of the same Pontiff of the first impression of the year 1579, nor second, nor third Roman, although after two whole centuries Laertius Cherubinus inserted it in his Bullarium tom. 1. Constitution 23. of Eugene IV. — Second, that that decree is supposititious appears from its Conclusion; for it has: given at Florence in public Synodal session solemnly in the Church of the house of S. Maria Novella, near which we now reside, celebrated in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1441, pridie Nonas Februarii, of our Pontificate year VI. In which subscription the reader ought to note, that in that Council no session was held in the Church of the house of S. Maria Novella, which belongs to the Friars Preachers, but all in the greater Church, as appears from the acts themselves; likewise that clause, near which we now reside, was set down in no Bull, or decree of the supreme Pontiff from the days of St. Peter up to the present. Perhaps whatever he was, that Pseudo-Dataire desired that the whole world know the residence of the supreme Pontiff Eugene in the house of the Fathers Preachers. — Third, that: year of the Lord's Incarnation 1441, pridie Nonas Februarii, of our Pontificate year eleventh, do not cohere: for Eugene was created in the year 1431, fifth nones of March, with no Chronologer dissenting; but in the year 1441 up to 5. March was the tenth year of the Pontificate of Eugene: how therefore could pridie nonas Februarii be the eleventh year? In the eleventh year were expedited the bulls of year 1441 from day 5 of March onward: those truly expedited in the month of February were not of the eleventh year: and consequently that Dataire was neither a Courtier, nor an Arithmetician, says de Alva. — Fourth finally false is it that that decree was published by the Council of Florence: because the Council of Florence was finished in the year 1439, pridie nonas Julii, as appears from its acts; how therefore in year 1441 could that solemn Synodal session be held in S. Maria Novella, that it might publish that decree? — To these add, that even if that decree were true, nothing whatsoever would patronize the adversaries; for P. de Alva says mun. 292: The first determination is this: no one is freed from the domination of the devil, except through the merit of the Mediator: therefore, say the Adversaries, all men except Christ contracted original sin: but who will judge this consequence legitimate? Second determination: Christ is conceived without sin, born, and died: therefore, they say, all men except Christ contracted original sin. If this consequence were legitimate: then also this: therefore all men except Christ were born and died with sin. Third determination: the enemy of humankind Christ alone by his death prostrated: therefore, they say, all men except Christ contracted original sin: what kind of inference! Fourth is this: the first man by his own sin lost the entrance of the heavenly kingdom with all his succession: therefore all men except Christ contracted original sin. This indeed seems probable on account of that, with all his succession. Truly it can signify nothing else than that even if in the whole succession of Adam there were no original sin: nevertheless from that sole proper sin of the first man the entrance of the heavenly kingdom was closed, not only to Adam himself, but also to all his succession; for he who shuts the door shuts not only for himself, but also for all others wishing to enter, whether they belong to that house or another, friends or enemies. Therefore that determination, whosever it be, does not patronize the adversaries, nor is the inference legitimate which the adversaries draw: therefore all men except Christ contracted original sin. Nay rather they ought to infer: therefore although there were no other sin than the first and proper one of Adam, neither he himself, nor anyone of his posterity would enter the kingdom of heaven, unless it had previously been unsealed through the death of Christ the mediator.

§ III. — The third proof is sought from the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs of the Church. — First of all for Sixtus IV, who began to sit in the year 1471, on the 9th of August, perceiving that the controversy on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God excited the greatest tumults among the faithful and various commotions of minds, summoning to Rome most learned men out of every order secular and Regular, in the year 1475 proclaimed a most celebrated and public disputation, agitated through several days, which he himself often honored with his presence and Pontifical authority. In it excelled among all R. P. F. Franciscus Insuber Brixianus of our family of Minors, who also exercised its general prefecture: whom the Pontiff honorably calling him contending most vigorously for the preservation of the Virgin, and plainly victor, said: Thou art, he says, a true Samson: which surname thenceforth adhered to him, nor otherwise in the mouth and writings of men is he called than Franciscus Samson. The outcome of this contestation and disputation was the Bull which begins, Cum praexcelsa, etc. which the same supreme Pontiff published in the year of the Lord 1476, the Kalends of May, of his Pontificate year 6, in which he statuted:

that all and singular the faithful of Christ, of both sexes, who shall have devoutly celebrated and said the Mass and Office of the Conception of the same glorious Virgin, according to the pious, devout, and laudable ordinance of the beloved son Master Leonard de Nogarolis, Cleric of Verona, Notary of Ours, and that which emanated from you thereon, the Mass and institution of this office on the feast day of the Conception of the same Virgin Mary, and through its octaves, or have been present at those Canonical hours, as often as they have done it, let them obtain thence entirely the same indulgence and remission of sins which according to the approvals of Urban V of happy memory in the Council of Vienna, and the constitutions of Martin V and other Roman Pontiffs our predecessors obtain those who celebrate, or say, or are present at the Mass, and office, and Canonical hours on the feast of the Body of Christ, and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ from first Vespers and through its octaves, according to the institution of the Roman Church, valid for present and future times. Which Constititution and Bull is inserted in the Councils of the Surian edition, Cologne 1567, and in the last of Severinus Binius Tom. 4. p. 1. fol. 713, nay also in Canon law among the commons On relics and veneration of saints. — Truly when the adversaries of the Immaculate Conception did not rightly acquiesce in this most equitable judgment of the Apostolic see, nay very many of them condemned as heresy the assertors of that unviolated Conception, especially in Lombardy, another constitution published the same Pontiff in the year 1482, and of his Pontificate year 11, which begins, Grave nimis gerimus, in which under pain of excommunication reserved to the supreme Pontiff he statutes: that those who should presume to affirm that the holy Roman Church celebrates the feast of the same glorious Virgin only of spiritual Conception and sanctification, and that those who believe and hold the same ⟦illegible in OCR — raw garble: «оо ат riйт. pорen alcцus шсreis tahe рolluos pe, ирrое-»; likely further Latin words of the Bull, lost by OCR⟧ are false, and erroneous, and alien from truth, and the books published thereon containing these things, by Apostolic authority with the tenor of these presents we reprove and condemn, and by motion, and authority prodicted we statute and ordain, that Preachers of the Word of God, and whoever others of whatever grade, order, and condition they may be, shall henceforth with rash audacity presume in their predicationes to the people, or elsewhere in whatever way to affirm, that assertions and opinions such as reproved and condemned by Us thus are true, or read, hold, or have the said books as true, after they have had knowledge of these presents, may they incur the sentence of excommunication, and eternal penalty of malediction by that very fact, etc.

— But when notwithstanding this Apostolic constitution certain impugnators of the same Immaculate Conception, judging this Bull to touch only those dwelling in Lombardy, innovated accusations and declamations of that kind against the assertors of the Immaculate Conception in other kingdoms, the same Pontiff two years after publishing the aforesaid Constitution published the same, or another like it, which likewise begins, Grave nimis, etc., in which under the same intermination he generally prohibits accusations of this kind. This Constitution too is inserted in the aforesaid Councils, and Canon law, and with the two prior constitutions the Council of Trent approved it Session 5, as was said above. They approved equally Alexander VI by the Bull which begins, Illius qui, etc. and Pius V in the Bull Super specula, in which moreover this Pontiff prohibits with gravest penalties lest anyone in popular sermons, or wherever a promiscuous multitude of men and women is wont to convene, presume to dispute with reasons or the authority of Doctors either side of this controversy, asserting his own opinion and refuting or assailing the contrary, or under any pretext whatever of piety to write or dictate in the vulgar tongue on this question. Here understand the same clause, refuting or assailing the contrary opinion. Otherwise simply to persuade the truth, even writing in the vulgar tongue, was not prohibited. — Moreover Paul V in the year 1617, on the 31st of August, considering that on occasion of the affirmative assertion, namely that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with sin, grave scandals and dissensions arose in the Christian people, significantly in Spain, interdicted the same opinion under the same penalties from public sermons, lectures, conclusions, and other public acts whatsoever: willing nevertheless under the same penalties that those asserting the pious opinion in the aforesaid public acts not assail the other opinion, nor treat of it or handle it in any way. Although therefore (as the best custom teaches, interpreter of laws, letters consonant to the end) it not be illicit in books easily for arguments of the other opinion to occur, especially to propose them, that they may be solved: for this is not in public acts to impugn the contrary opinion, or treat of it; but rather outside similar acts to treat of the pious opinion, that its truth may shine more clearly with the contrary arguments solved. — Afterward Gregory XV in the year 1622, on the 24th of May, confirming the Constitutions of his Predecessors, and for the same causes of avoiding scandals and discords in the Christian people, which can arise by equal reason, and, as we have heard, already have arisen in some regions from private sermons, on occasion of the affirmative assertion extends the decree of Paul V even to colloquies and private writings, commanding all and singular that even in private sermons and writings they dare not assert that the same most Blessed Virgin was conceived with original sin, nor in any way treat of or handle this affirmative opinion. Except however those to whom it has been specially indulted by the Holy Apostolic See on this matter, and that under the intermination of the penalties contained in the constitutions of his Predecessors. — Further the same Pontiff in the same year on the 27th of July indulted to the Fathers Preachers that in private colloquies, among themselves only, they may dispute and treat of the affirmative opinion. Whether however it is granted to the same there also privately to assert the affirmative opinion among themselves is not sufficiently proven from those words: since it is one thing to discuss and treat, another to assert. For Paul V speaking

It is confirmed first from this, that the supreme Pontiffs approved and confirmed the religious order of Nuns under the title Immaculate Conception, which same order even to this day not only perseveres but is propagated through various regions of the world: and this Order above all Innocent VIII. (who was created in the year of the Lord 1484.) approved in year 5. of his Pontificate, pridie Kalends of May, by the Bull which begins: Inter innumera, etc. in which among other things he concedes:

That Abbesses existing for the time being, and professed Nuns, ought to wear white cloth with scapular also white, and over it mantle of celestial color, on which indeed mantle and scapular the image of the same blessed Mary is affixed, and to be girt with a girdle of hemp in the manner of the Friars Minor, and in saying the Canonical hours according to the manner of the Roman Church in this mode, namely that on Sundays, in which some history is begun, or the office of the Sunday must of necessity be said, and on which duplex, semiduplex, and solemn feasts are celebrated, on feria days also, on which the ferial office cannot be omitted, and at vespers of those feasts only, excepting all other days throughout the whole year, they should say the greater Canonical hours, and the divine office of that Conception; and on the aforesaid excepted days, in which > the greater hours of Sunday, or feria, or feast ought to be said, they should say the lesser hours, and little office of the same blessed Mary with Antiphons, versicles, chapters, and prayers of the same Conception, etc.

The original of this Bull is preserved in the Monastery of Nuns of Toledo; preserved I say, with so much the greater piety, because, as Franciscus Bibarius Cisterciensis narrates in the history of the Conception p. 1. ss. 1. Torres, cap. 11. Aegidius de praesentatione l. 4. q. 6. art. 3. etc., this Bull was preserved by a great miracle. For it happened that the ship in which these Apostolic letters were being carried from Rome to Toledo was submerged by the violence of a storm into the depths of the sea, together with all the other things that were in it, together with the Apostolic letters themselves, which nevertheless after two months were found unhurt, and were received by the venerable Lady Beatrice de Sylva, who had requested those letters. — Julius II., who was assumed to the Pontificate in the year 1503, approved the same order together with the rule by the Bull which begins, Ad statum prosperum, where cap. 2. of the same rule it is had: Whosoever illuminated and invoked by God shall wish to desert the vanity of the world, and assuming the habit of this rule shall wish to be espoused to Jesus Christ our redeemer, venerating the Immaculate Conception of his Genitrix, let them vow always to live without property, and in chastity, with perpetual enclosure. Then truly there is subjoined there the form of Profession which the Sisters ought to emit in these words: I sister N. for the love and service of our Lord, and the Immaculate Conception of the same Genitrix, vow and promise to God, and Blessed Mary Virgin, and blessed Francis, and all Saints, and thee Mother, through the whole time of my life to live in obedience, without property, and in chastity, and in perpetual enclosure under the rule granted and confirmed by the most holy Pope Julius II to our Order. — Leo X approved the same Order in year I. of his Pontificate by the Bull which begins, Quia nuper accepimus, etc. whereby he concedes to those Nuns the same spiritual as temporal graces conceded by the Apostolic See to all Orders of St. Francis. Which approval thereafter the rest of the supreme Pontiffs his successors confirmed, especially Alexander VII, who at the instance of the most Christian Queen Mary Theresa granted the faculty to the Nuns of holy Clare dwelling in the suburb commonly called Sancti Germani a Pratis, insofar as they would clothe themselves in and assume the rule and dress of the Order under the title Immaculate Conception of Blessed Mary.

It is confirmed again from this, that the supreme Pontiffs approved various confraternities erected in the Christian world under the title Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God; of which our most eminent and most pious Franciscus Ximenius Cardinal of S. R. E. erected one distinguished one in the Toletan Church; which institution Adrian VI approved under the same title by the Bull which begins, Sicut Salvatore nostro, etc. in which he grants plenary indulgence to all who should be enrolled in such confraternity, to be obtained on the days of the Conception, or Nativity, or Assumption of the same Virgin Mother of God.

It is confirmed thirdly from all the spiritual favors and indulgences which the supreme Pontiffs have granted on account of the devotion of the faithful toward the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: since indeed those spiritual graces are not granted except on account of acts of religion and devotion proven and received by the Church, it follows, says Valentia Tom. 4. dist. 2. q. 1. puncto 2, that the supreme Pontiffs in this very thing, that they invited all the faithful to the celebration of this Immaculate Conception, also judged re ipsa that this opinion on the Immaculate Conception be held. The same John Serrarius infers lib. 2. cap. 8, where having related the indulgences of Sixtus IV and other special ones granted by Julius II to those bearing the image of the Conception, he subjoins: Which they would by no means do, if they had doubted about the preservation of the Conception. For it would be a sacrilege to bestow indulgences or graces on a doubtful or not pious matter. And pag. 141, after commemorated indulgences of Leo X.: Surely such and so great concessions no Pontiff here would have made in any way, if he had had any doubt about the Immaculate Conception of the ever Virgin. These indulgences however conceded by all the supreme Pontiffs and spiritual favors you have collectively in the authentic Regestum for defending the title of the Immaculate Conception pag. 599 et seqq.

It is confirmed finally from this, that very many supreme Pontiffs approved the office composed by Leonardo Nogarolo Apostolic Protonotary, and Doctor of sacred Theology most celebrated, in honor of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: especially Sixtus IV, to whom that office was directed, who moreover granted plenary indulgences to those reciting that office, as appears from the aforesaid Bull, Cum praexcelsa, etc. Who also had commanded that office to be inserted in the Roman Breviary.

Nor does it stand in the way, that Pius V ordered this Office of Nogarolo to be erased from the Roman Breviary; for thence it does not follow that he disapproved the unviolated Conception of the Virgin, as the Adversaries contend. For truly the same supreme Pontiff willed that Office, deposited almost as proper, always be preserved in our family of Minors, and recited by all Religious of the Seraphic Order, as appears from all the editions of that Roman Breviary, at whose end are inserted the proper Offices of the saints of the Order of Minors, with this addition, which Pius V Pont. Max. granted viva voce both for brothers and Nuns of the same Order. These words are had in the Antwerp editions an. 1622. 1627. 1631. 16c6. 1611. 1613. Venice, ann. 1615 and 1636. Madrid editions, an. 1611. 1619. 1623. 1631. Parisian, an. 1630. Roman, ann. 1614. at the types of Bernardinus Tani, and very many others approved by the faculty and subscription of P. Vincentius Martinelli companion of R. P. F. Nicolaus Radulphi Sac. Palat. Apost. Master. — Gregory XIII also approved the offices of Masses of the Order of Minors by oracle of living voice. Similarly Sixtus V and Paul V approved the same offices and granted them to be recited, without any mention of the prohibition of Pius V. It is a sign therefore that Pius V did not prohibit, nay permitted to the Order of Minors the recitation of that Office, in which the Blessed Virgin many times is asserted altogether immaculate, and preserved from all original sin.

The Adversaries object the pretensed decree of the holy Roman and general Inquisition, by which the title Immaculate Conception is prohibited, emanated feria 7 on day 20 of January 1644 conceived in these words:

In the General congregation of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition, held in the Convent S. Mariae super Minervam, before the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals against heretical depravity Inquisitors general, deputed by the Holy See: The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals Inquisitors General aforesaid decreed, that when it is a question of conferring the title "Immaculate" on the Conception of B. Virgin, in no way may it be permitted: but only let it be said, "Conception immaculate of the Virgin," and they commanded it thus to be observed. In place of the seal. John Anthony Thomassinus Notary of the holy Roman Inquisition.

Truly that decree being fictitious, and elaborated by the Adversaries, appears First, because Pontifical decrees, and those of the H. Inquisition, as soon as they were published, are promulgated, as appears from practice; but this is supposed to have emanated an. 1644, 20. January, that is six whole months before the death of Urban VIII.; yet it became known to the world only two years after the election of Innocent X; but if it was true, and a legitimate decree on so grave a matter, concerning which it had excited such mobs and tumults because of opposing Adversaries, what necessity was there for it to be hidden so long? Nothing does truth blush at, except only to be hidden, says Tertull. lib. Against the Valentinians, cap. 3. — Second, if that decree had been true, why should it flee the presence of the supreme Pontiff, that it might be published in that place, namely in the Coenobium S. Maria super Minervam? Whence was so great an urgent necessity of intempestively elaborating that decree, that its founders could not await the time of celebrating the general Congregation of Cardinals in the Apostolic Palace, which is wont to be done each week before the supreme Pontiff? Certainly that business was of sufficient weight, that nothing whatsoever should be decided about it without consulting the supreme Pontiff; especially since by that decree not only so many Pontifical decrees ought to be proscribed, but even authentic Bulls, in which the title Immaculate Conception is declared and fortified expressly and perspicuously. — Third, there is no greater defect than of power: but that Congregation in which that decree is supposed to have been drawn up possessed utterly no authority for statuting and deciding matters of such weight; since indeed only this Congregation was instituted and deputed, for deciding Ecclesiastical and contentious causes, as appears from Constitution 3. of Paul III beginning Licet, 12. Kal. Augusti ann. 1542, and of Pius IV 79. beginning Cum nos, ann. 1564, not truly those which pertain to matters of religion and divine cult, and morals of the faithful to be informed properly and justly: certain it is however, that that title of the Immaculate Conception, which if it should hold that decree, it would be necessary that by it derogation be made specifically from all the Apostolic Constitutions by which that title Immaculate Conception is conferred and approved; for so long indeed do the Apostolic Constitutions stand until they be revoked expressly and by name: but that this happens by no means appears from the aforesaid decree, and consequently all those Apostolic Constitutions patronizing the Immaculate Conception still obtain full and entire force. — Therefore because Pontifical Constitutions are revoked only by other opposite Constitutions, for the same authority and solemnity is desired in the revocation of law which intervened in its constitution. But who should judge that most prudent and most clear-sighted Cardinals published a decree, of which they could easily conjecture it would be of no force, and of no efficacy, and which openly militated against so many Pontifical Constitutions? — Fifth, if the sacred Congregation constituted that decree motu proprio, and only for preventing or removing some abuse, what necessity was there for the adversaries to offer two public libelli supplices to the Most Eminent Cardinals of the holy Inquisition, for defending the aforesaid decree? For truly if it emanated from true and legitimate Ecclesiastical authority, it did not need the help of adversaries, that it might obtain effect and be committed to execution: these two libelli of theirs, one indeed briefer, the other truly longer, you have in the Seraphic Armamentarium pag. s. with the refutation most learned and erudite of all that they wrongly allege.

§ IV. — The fourth proof drawn from the feast of the Conception celebrated by the universal Church. — For truly the Church celebrates the feast of no one, except on account of his extraordinary sanctity and dignity: but now for many years and centuries the Church has celebrated the feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: therefore the Church judges that Conception to be holy and immaculate. The major stands, and is admitted by all the SS. Fathers and princes of Theology. For the Angelic Doctor 3. par. qu. 27. art. 1. gathers from this principle that the Nativity of B. Virgin shines with extraordinary sanctity; for after he had ventilated, on either side according to his usual custom, the proposed question, and proposed the arguments assailing the sanctification of the Virgin in the maternal womb, he objects this reason, which he thought most robust for establishing the truth on the contrary side: But on the contrary, he says, is that the Church celebrates the Nativity of B. Virgin: for no feast is celebrated in the Church except for some Saint: therefore the Blessed Virgin in her very Nativity was holy: therefore she was sanctified in the womb. St. Bernard had preceded him Epist. 171. where on the same argument he writes thus:

Holy Church errs not at all in reckoning the very day of his Nativity holy: and each year receiving it with the exultation of the whole earth with all celebration. I think that a more copious blessing of sanctification descended into her, which sanctified not only her origin, but guarded her life thenceforth immune from every sin, which is believed to have been given to none born of women.

Similarly concludes St. Augustine Serm. 113. on St. Cyprian saying: When he (Cyprian) was born we know not, and because today he suffered, today we celebrate his birth-day; but we would not celebrate that day even if we knew it: for on that day he drew original sin: but on this day he conquered every sin. And a little below he concludes: Thence we would celebrate his natalitia, unless precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of Saints. The same has Serm. 95. which is on St. Stephen. Since therefore the Church, as we shall prove presently, has celebrated the festal day of the Conception of B. Virgin already from many centuries, it follows that it confesses and acknowledges that Conception immaculate and preeminent in holiness. — Therefore the minor is proved, namely that the Church celebrated the feast of that Conception, not only from the time of Sixtus IV but also many centuries before: for above all, as

P. Oieda proves with many arguments in his Ecclesiastical Information, cap. 2.), in the Churches of Egypt the feast of the Conception has always been celebrated, which institution they received from St. Mark Evangelist. And in the Syriac New Testament handed down from St. Mark, as Burgensis proves tractatu 1. On the use of the Chaldaic Paraphrase, Salmeron prolog. 35. etc. ad caput 11. Lucae v. 27, is set the title On the Conception of the Mother of God Virgin; just as for the other five feasts of the same. For this peculiarity the Syriac New Testament has, that it be distributed into certain titles designating Gospels and Epistles, which are chanted on the individual feasts; which distribution indeed was made by the most ancient successors of St. Mark, as Fabricius Boderianus affirms in the proemial letter before the Syriac version. — The same Fabricius proves that festivity to be celebrated from antiquity in the Church of the Abyssinians, who relates them asserting that they received their testimonies from the Apostles. — It can be confirmed from St. Thesiphone disciple of St. James, who as is had in one of the books found on the Sacred Mount of Granada in year 1595, relates that the Apostles taught in Council that B. Virgin was conceived without original, in these words: O Virgin, that Mary, that holy one was preserved from original sin in the first instant of her Conception, and free from all guilt. In another book from the aforesaid St. Thesiphon says: Mary the first sin did not touch. And again: By no means full, if she had been conceived in original. Of these books and Granadan plates treats Doctor Luzerus discursu 2. On the Conception; James of Granada De Concept., d. 3. cap. 6.; Madera in the History on the same books; Aegid. De Praesentatione, lib. 3. De Concept., quaest. 3. art. 1. sect. 1. who satisfy the difficulties against the said books and plates, in which they were included; and the University of Complutum noted proposition 11 of Gaspar Ram. Doctor of sacred Theology, by which he asserted the said books to be of no authority, thus: This proposition is manifestly false, since there are many reasons fighting and urging, which affirm that which is said about the sacred Mount of Granata. Aegyd also reports sup. and others that book, plates, relics, and other things found on the sacred mount of Granata were approved by a Provincial Council. Hence our Galatinus lib. 1. cap. 5., when he had praised various Greek Fathers as assertors and champions of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, adds: As a sign of which thing, they celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin herself for nearly a thousand years: And in the Martyrology, which is read on the morrow of the feast itself, and which was published by St. John Damascene, among the other things which are pronounced about the most Blessed Virgin herself, it is said: The clean Conception of B. Anna of God, and our Lord, Grandmother. By which words is signified the active Conception, by which St. Anna conceived the most Blessed Virgin in her womb. In the edition truly of the Martyrology by the labor of Henry Canisius, it is had thus: Commemoration of St. Anna mother of the Virgin Mother of God. Some add, as Bivarius ad Chronicum dextri an. 308. comment. 1.: Clean Conception of B. Anna. Whence all experts in Greek history confess that the feast of the passive Conception of B. Virgin was celebrated by the Greeks more than 500 years ago, as Baronius observes in notes to Martyrol. Rom. day 8. December. Although among the Greeks it is celebrated on the following day, that is the ninth of the same month; which certainly openly stands from the constitution of Emperor Emmanuel inserted by Theodore Balsamon in commentary on the Nomocanon of Photius, tract. 1. cap. 1., where among days to be solemnly honored it reads thus: 9th of December, seeing that on it is performed the Conception of the most chaste Mother of our God. Emmanuel moreover began to reign in year 1143. Of the antiquity therefore of the feast of the Conception in the Greek Churches there is no controversy; nay rather it can be said most probably that about the year 900 already the feast of the Conception was celebrated among the Greeks, since the same Baronius testifies that in the Manuscript of the Stortian Library n. 65. is found a sermon of Emperor Leo on the Conception of B. Mary, who entirely is Leo VI surnamed the wise, whose other writings of the same kind Baron. Tom. 10. Annal. an. 911 recounts, into which the death of Leo fell; but the beginning of his reign into year 886. Thence it ought not seem wonderful that Bartholomaeus Bishop Brixiensis in his Repertory p. 2. in verbo feast, says the Church is wont to celebrate a solemn feast on the day of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And he narrates moreover that he himself on such a day solemnly celebrated in the chapel of the supreme Pontiff in his presence, and of several Cardinals, as Bernardinus de Bustis relates Serm. 2. On the Conception: but this Bartholomaeus lived around year 1227. Therefore two centuries before Sixtus IV the Roman Church already kept the festal day of the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God Virgin. To these add that in year 1263, day 20 May, on the feast of Pentecost were held at Pisa the General Comities of our Seraphic Order, approving and presiding St. Bonaventure then General Minister, where among the other things which were piously and religiously statuted and decreed, as Wadingus Tom. 2. in Chronicle IV. an. 2. n. 16. and Michael Angelus in Chronology of the 12. General Chapters relate, this decree is read: Then it was ordained, that this strophe Gloria tibi Domine, qui natus es de Virgine, etc. close all Hymns from nativity of Lord unto Epiphany, and similarly at Prime be said: Qui natus es de Maria Virgine. Likewise commanded, that these feasts be admitted in the order, namely of the Conception of B. Mary, of her Visitation, of B. Anna his Genitrix, and of Martha the Virgin, etc. Therefore long before Sixtus IV the feast of the Conception was sacred in the Church.

The Adversaries reply: if truly this feast had long since been celebrated in the Church, it would not have been hidden from St. Bernard: but he Epist. 174. to the Canons of Lyons keenly assails them because they celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception of B. Mary rashly and without consulting the Apostolic See, and there with very many reasons demonstrates that the Conception of B. Virgin was not immune from original sin: We marvel greatly what seemed good at this time to some of you, to wish to change the best color, introducing a new celebration, which the rite of the Church knows not, reason does not approve, ancient tradition does not commend.

Whence after certain reasons alleged by which he impugns the Immaculate Conception, he concludes:

Wherefore although to some few sons of men it is given to be born with holiness, not however also conceived: that surely for one alone might be reserved the prerogative of holy conception, who would sanctify all, and he alone coming without sin would make purification of sins. Therefore the Lord Jesus alone conceived of the Holy Spirit, because he alone, and before conception holy. This excepted, as to the rest it regards all born of Adam, which one humbly of himself confesses truthfully. Saying, In iniquities was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me.

Since these things so stand, > what now will be the festive reason of the Conception? In what way, I say, will either be asserted a conceptus who is not of the Holy Spirit, nay let me say of sin, or be held festal one who is not at all sanctus? Willingly will the Glorious One be without this honor, whereby either sin seems honored, or false sanctity introduced. Otherwise no reason will please her of novelty presumed against the rite of the Church, mother of temerity, sister of superstition, daughter of levity.

These things St. Bernard. — I answer first that it does not seem improbable to me the opinion of those who judge that letter of St. Bernard supposititious, and not the genuine whole of him; which indeed many not light reasons intimate. First, because St. Bernard expressly pronounces in several places that the Conception of B. Virgin was entirely immaculate. Thus Serm. 13. On the Nativity of the Lord: There is not among the sons of men greater, or lesser, who was not conceived in sins, except the Mother of the Immaculate, who does not make sin, but takes away the sin of the world: concerning whom when sins are treated, I wish to have no question whatsoever. And Ser. 1. super Salve regina: Thou wast innocent from original and actual sins, none thus except thee. And the authority of Aug. is brought in, when pure ones are treated, etc. Although it may be doubted whether these sermons are St. Bernard's, and Horstius even replaced them among the false supposititious ones of that mellifluous Doctor; nevertheless the Lyonnese edition of the works of St. Bernard at John Clein anno 1515 ranks them as genuine, in which it is related that edition was made after collation made of such works by the Religious of Clairvaux with the Archetypes of the same Monastery. Be that as it may, certain it is they were published by a man most learned of that time, who also praises St. Augustine as assertor of this opinion. The same P. Oieda in his information cap. 14., as Cavellus relates in the Rosary, who draws also no light argument that this letter is supposititious, from the fact that Bernard himself Epist. 281. to Eugene complains of falsification of his letters: We have been imperiled, he says, by false brothers, and many letters of ours falsified under our falsified seal went out into the hands of many: and Epistle 298. to the same he complains of Nicholas, who falsified his hand and seal, which previously he had been forced to change on account of preceding falsifications: Who can say (he says) to how many persons under my name, unknown to me, wrote what he wished? who will give me, that your Curia itself be purged clean of the filth of his lies? who will give me, that the innocence itself of those who are with me suffice to be excused before those circumvented by his most shameless lies? He too confessed himself several times to have written in the same falsity, and not once, partly convicted, partly confessing. This Nicholas was Monk and Secretary of St. Bernard from Epistle 351. added, and knew how to imitate his style to the life, as Baronius shows ad an. 1146. n. 22. from Epistle 31 lib. 6. of Letters of Peter of Cluny, which is in his own and Bernard's manner, almost wholly written with the words of Scripture. This foundation supposed, namely that innumerable letters were given falsely under the name of St. Bernard, it does not seem improbable that the said Letter to the Canons of Lyons is one of the falsified ones.

Second, because the Letter says the feast of the Conception was unheard of; but Bernard well knew that it was kept in the Martyrologies of Adon, Bede, and Usuard.

Third, it was then being celebrated in the Church of Narbonne, and other primary Churches of France, as P. Oieda shows cap. 11; why therefore does the Letter reprehend

the Lyonnese, and not others?

Fourth, in the life of St. Bernard by Guliel. Bernard, and Gaufrid, there is not even a word about that litigation with the Lyonnese, though they write far more minute matters which Bernard handled with other Churches, and Epistles given to them.

Fifth, nowhere is had the response of the Lyonnese: and certain it is they would have responded, if they had received such a letter from St. Bernard. If you say the response perished; how does no memory of it remain? And where St. Bernard's replica?

Sixth, flourished in that century in letters and holiness in France Algerius Cluniacensis Monk, Hildebertus Archbishop of Tours, Peter of Cluny, Hugo Victorinus (these three familiarly corresponding with St. Bernard), Petrus Blesensis, and others: none of whom even apparently assailed or reprehended the feast of the Conception. And if they had seen Bernard assailing it, either they would follow, or resist, or at least make some mention of this matter: but nothing of these happened. Many other reasons and conjectures P. Oieda brings forward above, by which the said Letter to the Canons of Lyons is rendered most suspect of falsification. From which it stands that the said letter is no less, perhaps more doubtful than the aforesaid sermons, which the Adversaries deny are Bernard's, because they declare the Virgin immune from original sin.

Nor does it stand in the way some diversity of style; because perhaps while he himself spoke, others took down from his mouth, but in their own style, which certainly mostly happened, as he notes himself Epist. 18.: Certain brothers, he says, of those hearing me speak to them, took down in their own style, and retain with themselves. — I answer second, that even if this letter be genuine St. Bernard's, yet in it he neither disapproves nor impugns the mystery and feast of the Immaculate Conception, in that sense in which both are now celebrated in the Church. For when he contends that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, there he does not take the word "Conception" for animation of the foetus, or union of soul with body, but for the active conception of the parents themselves. For refuting the reasons for celebrating the Conception, which the Canons of Lyons put forward; especially that the conceptus ought to be honored, who preceded the partus worthy of honor: since if that had not preceded, neither would that be which is honored, he says:

What has it of consequence: that since the sanctus preceded the birth, therefore the conceptus be reckoned, and this sanctus? Surely because it preceded him, did it also make him holy? Because if it preceded that he might be, yet not that he might be holy. Or that holiness itself would he transmit to one about to follow? Or not rather because he preceded conceived without holiness, it was needful doubtless that she be sanctified conceived, that already the partus following might be holy? Or perhaps has the prior borrowed holiness from the posterior? Indeed that which, already conceived in the womb, was made a sanctification could pass to the natalis which followed, but to return backward to the conceptus which had preceded it by no means could. Whence then the holiness of the Conception? Or is it said prevented by sanctification, insofar as she would already be conceived sancta, and thence both conceptus was sanctus who in the womb is said to be so that as sanctus also ortus would follow? But she had no strength to be sancta before being. Seeing that she was not before she was conceived. Or perhaps amid marital embraces holiness mixed itself with the Conception itself; so that at once both sanctified and conceived? Nor does reason admit even this. For how either > holiness without the Spirit sanctifying, or society of the holy Spirit with sin, or surely how did sin not flee where libido was not absent? Unless perhaps someone say that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not of man. But hitherto unheard of.

Thus St. Bernard. — By which it openly stands that he speaks only of active and corporeal Conception, whence deservedly concludes (as was said above) only Christ the Lord to have been conceived with holiness, because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and because he alone was before conception holy. — I answer third with Horstius in annotations on this letter, that although St. Bernard truly spoke of the passive Conception, whose feast he wished celebrated, nevertheless for this reason he did it, because it had not yet been prescribed by authentic decree of the Roman Church; whence he says: The authority of the Apostolic See ought first to be consulted. And he closes the letter in these words: But what I have said was said without prejudice to a saner old wise man, especially the authority and examination of the Roman Church; I reserve all this whole matter just as the rest which are of such kind: if I think otherwise than itself, ready to amend by its judgment. But now St. Bernard securely holds what he desired; for he sets no other condition for judging the feast of the Conception to be celebrated, except decree and authority of the Roman Church: but this condition has been fulfilled now since the time of Sixtus IV.: therefore from that time Bernard is secure about the sanctity of this festivity and mystery, and stands and subscribes for it; and consequently it is wrongly brought forward by the Adversaries in defense of their opinion.

Others reply that the Conception of B. Mary Virgin is celebrated, not indeed because she was holy, but because it was the beginning of our sanctification and redemption, so that that celebration is rather an act of thanksgiving, that God on that day granted us the Virgin from whom Christ would be born, than special commemoration of any sanctity wherewith the Conception of the Mother of God Virgin was gifted and illuminated. — Truly, says Vazquez disp. 197. n. 63, this response is easily refuted by the very decree of Sixtus IV, because the Pontiff decreed not only in it that the feast of the Conception of B. Virgin should be celebrated in the Church; but also approved the office of Leonard de Nogarolis Cleric of Verona and Apostolic Protonotary, for the celebration of the same feast; in which however the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin everywhere was called. Moreover the same Pontiff there exhorts the faithful to render thanks to God for the wonderful Conception of the same Immaculate Virgin: but he would not call that Conception wonderful unless the Virgin were conceived beyond the usual manner in grace and holiness; for her Conception would have nothing else wonderful, since she was conceived in the manner of other men as regards nature.

The rest reply with Caietano Opuscul. De Concept., cap. 2., that the feast of the Conception is celebrated, not indeed respectively to the instant of animation and passive Conception, but with respect to the sanctification in the womb, which followed animation a little after. — Truly this response is precluded in the bull of Sixtus IV which begins, Grave nimis, etc. in which he says: Certain Professors of diverse Orders, deputed to preach the Word of God in diverse cities, and places, and parts of Lombardy, have not blushed hitherto publicly to affirm, and cease not daily to preach, that the Roman Church celebrates only spiritual Conception- > "or sanctification of the Virgin Mary." And below: We therefore wishing to oppose these rash audacities, and perverse assertions, motu proprio, and from our mere deliberation, we reprove and condemn by Apostolic authority assertions such of whomsoever, who should presume to affirm that the same Roman Church celebrates the feast of the same glorious Virgin only of spiritual Conception, and sanctification, etc. seeing they are false, erroneous, and alien from truth. This Constitution Alexander VI confirmed in the bull which begins, Illius qua se, etc. in which when he had premised the aforesaid bull of Sixtus IV he subjoins: With the tenor of these presents we decree and declare the praeinserted letters, and all and singular things contained in them, ought to be observed inviolably for perpetual and future times, until otherwise decided and ordained by the Apostolic See.

Therefore under Apostolic intermination each of the faithful is bound to celebrate the feast of the natural Conception of B. Virgin, and consequently to venerate that Conception as holy and Immaculate.

Therefore it must be concluded with Peter Buro, who flourished around year 1500, in the Poem on B. Virgin:

Who now may doubt to celebrate Mary's conception? Who refuse yearly incense to give at feasts? This the see of Peter, head, and glory of city, and world, Both honors, and commands through pious temples to be honored. No religion is, no temple religious There where honor of the conception, let it now be silent. Equal to me a miracle it seems these feasts dedicated Among Christ-loving climes however many have. I doubt indeed nothing, this done by supreme Numen, That the Argive honors what Ausonian honors. And what Gaul honors, Dace honors, and Bohemia, And Germany, Iberia, England, and Illyria.

§ V. — The fifth proof is led from the authority of SS. Fathers, who by constant tradition propagated this truth down to us. — Innumerable are the oracles of SS. Fathers and Doctors of the Church existing in whatever age, which expressly pronounce the Virgin either absolutely altogether immaculate, or free from every sin, or potent above all creatures in purity. For although few before Augustine's times be (since not yet had the grave controversy about original sin broken forth) who distinctly put forward that she was not stained by original stain; nevertheless they sufficiently signify this openly, while they affirm her every sanctity, or purity, or cleansing and immunity from all sin. Out of those however so many and so great oracles, which our de Alva brings forth even to six thousand, and out of very many which our Cavellus collects and reviews in his Rosary, my mind is here to attach only choicer ones. — It comes forth first of all St. Andrew Apostle, who, as the Presbyters of Achaia relate in his life, used to say: As the first Adam was formed of earth before it was cursed; so the second Adam was formed of virginal earth never cursed. Surius gives this life of St. Andrew, and Bellarminus testifies lib. On Ecclesiastical Writers that it is not to be doubted; whence

The Roman Breviary too, recognized and approved by Pontifical authority, it was inserted, after concerning it dispute had been keenly had among learned men, and approved by consent of all. — St. James intimated the same in his liturgy, in which after consecration is had: Mind especially most holy, immaculate, blessed above all, our glorious Lady Mother of God ever Virgin Mary. And the Chorus responds: It is worthy that we call thee truly blessed, Mother of God, irreprehensible in all ways: but if she had been stained with original sin she could not be called immaculate, nor irreprehensible in all ways: therefore St. James judged her immune from original sin. Hence it is, that Flavius Dexter praeses Barcinonensis A Consiliis to Emperor Theodosius, in book of History Omnimodae, of which Marcus Castella writes broadly in preface to the History of St. James, which book he dedicated to St. Jerome, relates that by St. James aforesaid was celebrated in Spain the feast of the Immaculate and Unviolated Conception of the Genitrix of God. To these add what we said about celebration of the feast of the Conception in the Churches of Egypt, from ordination of St. Mark, that thence thou understandest the opinion defending the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God Virgin to have been derived from the Apostles down to us. — Whence also patronize this truth those who wrote in first, second, and third century: for St. Ignatius Epist. to St. John: In Mary human, he says, nature is joined to Angelic sanctity: but how would nature be joined to Angelic purity and sanctity, if Mary had been stained by original guilt? Hence Justin Martyr q. 136. ad Orthod., said Mary to be of pure soul, which wholly looks toward God. By what reason truly would she wholly look toward God, if previously through original sin she had been enslaved under the tyranny of the devil? Others very many subscribe to these, especially St. Hippolytus Martyr, prayer On the Consummation of the world: Christ, he says, came from a holy and immaculate Virgin. Similarly Origenes Homil. 1. ex variis making sermon on the Virgin, says: Neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected by his poisonous breath. But how would she not have been infected by the poisonous breath of the devil, if truly she had contracted original sin? The same also most excellently teaches the author of the Sermon On the Nativity of Christ, among the works of St. Cyprian, where treating of the Virgin Mother of God says: Nothing in her does he require further, nor does preceding pleasure ask any usury of punishments. The Holy Spirit overshadowing, original fire was extinguished, and therefore it was not fitting that she unharmed be afflicted: nor did justice sustain that vessel of election be injured with common injuries, since differing much from the rest, he communicated to nature, not guilt. By which words, says Vazquez disp. 117. num. 33, although he seems only therefore to assert Mary gave birth without pain, because she conceived without carnal pleasure, whence what we contend could by no means be proved; nevertheless if rightly weighed, he rather thinks Mary gave birth without pain because she contracted no original guilt, when he says: He communicated to nature, not guilt. For neither do women bear sons in pain because they conceive with pleasure; seeing that a woman who conceived without pleasure, in sleep or by art of daemon elsewhere human seed conveyed, would nevertheless bring forth in pain: but because through original sin they become partakers of Eve's malediction. For to Eve on account of sin it was said Genes. 3.: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children: which tradition of misery passed together with original sin to posterity.

The third and fourth century supplies more assertors of the same truth. Especially truly St. Ambrose, explicating Serm. 22. in Psal. 118. that I have gone astray like a sheep, writes thus:

Thou therefore, seek thy sheep, now not through servants, not through hirelings, but through thyself take me up in flesh, which fell in Adam: take me up not from Sara, but from Maria, that incorrupt be the Virgin, but Virgin through grace whole from every stain of sin.

He says whole from every stain of sin, and therefore from stain of original guilt. Add that in the Office of Immaculate Conception approved by Pius V from the same are inserted these words: In which there was neither knot of original, nor bark of actual fault. Which words are thought taken from Commentaries on Isaias, or from Serm. De Nabuthae. Similarly St. Ephrem, whose works by testimony of Hieron. De Script. Eccles., were wont to be read in Churches after sacred Scripture, Orat. on the Genetrix of God, tom. 5: Immaculate, undefiled, incorrupt, and most alien from every stain of sin.

— St. Jerome in Psalm. 77. explicating that: And he brought them out in the cloud of the day, says: Or certainly we ought to take the light cloud for holy Mary weighed down by no human seed. Wherefore however she is called cloud of day, he expounds with these words: For that cloud was not in darkness, but always in light. But if B. Virgin had contracted original sin, and had lacked justice and sanctity, doubtless she would have been in night rather than in day.

— In the same century flourished St. Augustine, who lib. On Nature and grace, cap. 36., when Pelagius contended that man could live not only without sin, but also justly, and had recalled examples of very many who are said to have lived justly and without sin in sacred Letters; after Augustine related his words in that chapter, subjoins:

Except therefore holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of honor of Lord, I wish to have no question whatsoever when sins are treated: whence, or rather thence we know that more grace was conferred upon her to conquer sin from every side, she who merited to conceive and bring forth him whom it is established had no sin? This Virgin excepted therefore, if we were able to gather together all those Saints both men and women while they lived here, and interrogate them, etc.

By which words although perhaps St. Augustine institutes discourse only of actual sins, nevertheless sufficiently signifies that he excludes original sin equally from the Virgin Mother of God. For indeed this general reason why he would not include B. Virgin under that universal proposition, namely on account of honor of the Lord, and because she merited to conceive and bring forth him whom it is established had no sin, equally concludes of exclusion of original as actual sin. Add that absence of actual sin in adult age is an infallible sign of immunity from original sin at the beginnings of life, according to doctrine of the same most holy Doctor: for lib. 5. Against Julian, c. 15., where proving it to be the same to have sin as to have done it, concludes concerning Christ: certainly sin even greater it would have been if the little one had had it.

— In sixth and seventh century come forth, especially Gregory lib. 1. cap. 1.: Lofty Mary, that she might extend toward conception of eternal Word, by contest of merits advanced above all choirs of Angels even to throne of Divinity. Therefore since good Angels never were polluted, the same must be said a fortiori of Mary, that she might be disposed worthily for conception of Word.

— Similarly Andreas Cretensis, Homil. 1. On Virg. Dormition: she since she was immaculate, unpolluted, etc. And below: The Seraph itself fleshly nature by miracle of divine generation, of first nature closely approaching God. And Homil. 2.: alone beyond nature was she elected, alone served Artificer of all nature. Therefore otherwise than others sanctified in womb was she elected.

— To the same S. Eligius, Homil. 2. On Purification: Never is judged unclean she who overshadowed by Holy Spirit is proved to have generated author of all cleanness.

— Sophronius in Epist. of which in 6th Synod tom. 3 p. 307 says: Virgin therefore called immaculate, because corrupted in nothing. And Orat. in Christi natalitia: Christ into most manifest judgment of omnipotent Divinity of himself preserved Virgin from whom he came forth whole, incorrupt.

— Ildephonsus Archbishop against those disputing virginity and parturition of Mary (is had the proposition concerning), for thus he says: When filled by Holy Spirit, was she not without original sin! And below: Nor did she sanctified in womb contract original sin. And in same book: It stands she was immune from original sin. And there: She sanctified in womb did not contract original sin. Likewise: Wholly foreign from curse of first damnation.

— In eighth century distinctly professed this truth St. Damascenus, Orat. 1. On Nativity of Mary, after beginning, where he says: Nature dared not at all to anticipate grace being made, but awaited so long until grace produced its fruit. Likewise: O blessed loins of Joachim, whence flowed immaculate seed! O precious couch of Anna, in which formed was fruit most holy of all incorrupt! Last words seem evident for immaculate Conception, because fruit is not formed most holy if it was formed enemy of God, infected by sin. And there: O most holy one, who deceived principalities and powers, extinguished with fiery darts the wicked one's both kinds, who turned in bridal chamber of spirit and preserved immaculate for bride of God! And Orat. 1. On Assumption: Grace found abyss, which had preserved safe ship of twofold virginity, and guarded innermost no less than virginal body. And there Orat. 2.: To this paradise serpent Mary had no access.

— Holy Germanus Constantinop., Serm. de Festis, conc. B. Virg., ex Suppl. 13. on same Psal. 86. Glorious things are spoken, etc. I judge manifestly, and without contradiction, that she who is above all, in magnitude and purity of divine and lofty virtues excelling all, Mary is bound to no guilt.

— In ninth and tenth century a man most learned and most holy, who on account of signal humility willed to be called Idiota, lib. On Contemplation of Virgin, cap. 2.: All fair, Virgin most glorious, not in part but in whole, and stain of sin whether mortal, venial, or original is not in thee, nor ever was. And cap. 6.: Thou wast preserved from original stain. And cap. 3.: O preblessed, conblessed, and postblessed Virgin Mary! Haymo disciple of Alcuin, Epist. De Assumpt.: In the very inheritance of Lord dies Mary, who by sinning departed not from possession of Lord. Fulbertus lib. 1. De Maria, cap. 7. Orat. on Salutation of Angel: Immaculate thou didst ever stand from beginning of thy creation, because thou wast about to bear Creator of all holiness. Related by Canisio lib. De Deipara, cap. 1. Coccino, and others.

— In the eleventh century flourished St. Anselm, and in the book

On the Virginal Conception, among other things he has: The beginnings of thy Conception deservedly ought to be venerated by the sons of holy Church, if they be believed to be set apart from the yoke of sin, since to believe otherwise is lawful to no one, etc. And cap. 18.: It was fitting that the conception of that man come about of a Mother most pure, it was too becoming that that Virgin shine with that purity, than which a greater cannot be understood under heaven, etc. The same Anselm in the Epistle to the Bishops of England relates three miracles, by which through holy apparitions and revelations the feast of the Conception was commanded to be celebrated. Of whose letter as authentic Gerson makes mention Serm. De Conceptione, and Bacconius English Doctor, who flourished almost 100 years before, 4. dist. 2. quaest. 3. art. 1., and several others whom Cavellus cites. Hence St. Anselm instituted that the feast of the Conception should be celebrated in England, as is had in the Council of Canterbury, witness Bacconius Quolibet 13. and several others.

Peter Damian, Serm. On the Assumption of the Virgin: The flesh of the Virgin taken from Adam admitted not his stains. And Serm. On the Nativity of the Virgin: Nothing of vice could vindicate for itself a place in her body or mind, she who merited to be the sacrarium of the whole Trinity: therefore as her body never was corrupted, so also her mind never was stained. St. Bruno on Psal. 101 on: The Lord looked down from heaven upon earth, says: This is that incorrupt earth which the Lord blessed, free therefore from all contagion of sin, through which we have known the way of life: which because it was worthy, the Lord looked upon from heaven upon earth. Those words are to be weighed, free from all contagion of sin, which are understood both of actual as of original sin; otherwise the Virgin could not be called incorrupt earth, upon which the Lord would look from heaven. And Serm. On the Nativity of the Virgin: Death was made by Eve, life restored through Mary: she was conquered by the devil, this one bound and conquered the devil. She conquered not as regards death of body: therefore as regards death of soul. Ivo Bishop of Chartres, Serm. On the Nativity of the Lord, ex Coccio in Thesauro tom. 1 lib. 3.: For one alone he blotted out both original and actual guilt in her: not by removing but by preserving; because in the same manner he blotted out both guilts in her, and certain it is that he blotted out actual guilt by preserving her from it.

— In the same and following century there openly militated for the Immaculate Conception not only the Canons of Lyons but also Peter Comestor in the book On the Immaculate Conception: In all things the Mother of God sought rest, and found it: in Conception did she rest, and did she not diminish? Trithemius and Possevinus mention this book. Nicolaus Monk of St. Alban in England, a most learned man and most versed in Scriptures, contemporary of St. Bernard, lib. 9. Letters of Peter Cellensis Epist. 9. (had tom. 2. Bibl. PP.), responding to a certain letter of the same Peter, which is Epist. 23. lib. 6., by which he keenly reprehends him because St. Bernard put off due veneration when he said: The soul of the Virgin herself a sword pierced, not only in the Passion of her Son; but also lately in the commendation of her own Conception — which Peter calls a stone of offense and rock of scandal — thus says:

Concerning the stone of scandal to be removed from your heart, somewhat longer must we linger, because the matter requires that I make manifest what I proposed to conceal. That holy Bernard whom you say once put off due veneration (inscribed in the catalog of SS.) lately was canonized in the Church, and exempted from human judgment. Exempted I say is he, lest we doubt his glory, but not that we dispute less concerning his sayings. Concerning the glory of B. Martyr Cyprian he did long ago not doubt: nevertheless that he erred in the gifts of the Holy Spirit is proved most truly; error deleted by martyrdom he writes, and thus taught the Church to venerate the glory of the Martyr, yet not imitate his error. I however although with not like science yet with like conscience thus venerate B. Confessor Bernard, that I praise and love his sanctity, yet neither praise nor love his presumption regarding the Conception of the Mother of God.

Thence gather that the celebration of the feast of the Conception at that time was common, at least in England, because not long before Anselm flourished who introduced it: otherwise Nicolaus would not so boldly reprehend Bernard. Richard à S. Victore 39. on Canticles: Mary is above men, in that never did she commit sin as men do: among us none is found who does good and sins not. And cap. 26.: All fair was she, whom grace possessed wholly, because no sin had place in her. And below: Stars are darkened, that is the saints, with the mist of human guilt: but B. Virgin all fair was, whom the sun of justice illustrated wholly, that she had neither stain nor darkness of guilt. And de Emmanuele lib. 2 cap. 31 he says: That in her corruptibility in things pertaining to punishment, and incorruptibility not only were abysses... he says: It befitted not that Mary whatever guilt liable. Cited by Busti Serm. 1 de Conceptione.

— In the thirteenth century flourished the most illustrious and most holy Patriarch Dominic, founder of the most flourishing Order of Preachers, famous for all piety and wisdom, who in the treatise On the Body of Christ which he wrote against the heretical Albigenses says: As the first Adam was formed of virgin earth never cursed, so it behooved it to become in the second Adam, namely Christ, whose earth, that is the Virgin Mother, never was cursed. Very many Authors mention this book, as seen in Carellum century 13. of his Rosary, and Alva in Sole veritatis num. 307., who equally assert that said book cast into fire once and again by the heretic Albigenses rebound unhurt and untouched; which Vincentius Bellovacensis also narrates, who died 35 years after his most holy Patriarch Dominic, lib. 29 cap. 96 of his Speculum Historiale. The same has holy Antoninus 3 part tit. 19 cap. 2 § 4 and several other writers of the life and miracles of St. Dominic.

The Adversaries reply that the aforesaid book was published not by St. Dominic but by a certain Dominic de Pantaleonibus Florentine of the Order of Preachers, who up to year 1262 is said to have written On the Body of Christ and against the Immaculate Conception. — Truly, as De Alva excellently replies trist. num. 2., this author seems altogether fictitious: First, because no ancient Writers or Nomenclators write his name: only some Recent writers of the Order of Preachers mention him. Second, at the time of the Council of Basle the PP. Preachers scrutinized all Libraries and Authors who militate for the purest Conception of B. Virgin, that they might supply arms to Turrecremata whereby he might impugn that immaculate Conception: but among the 28 Authors numbered by him for his opinion out of the Order of Preachers, none Dominic de Pantaleonibus is found: nay not even any praised by that name by the Anonymous who numbers for the same opinion out of the same Order 52 authors, nor by Peter de Vincentia who relates 69, nor Bandello who relates 72, nor other older writers of the same Order, who make not even the least mention of this Author. Third, false is it that in year 1262, wherein St. Thomas was born 31 years and St. Bonaventure 10, so grave a controversy broke forth between PP. Dominicans and Minors, that Dominic de Pantaleonibus needed to write a book on the defiled Conception of the Virgin against the Minors, as Michael Pocciantus Florentine relates in his Catalogue of Florentine writers fol. 47., where he says: Dominicus Panthaleonus Father of Order St. Dominic, perpetual cultivator of philosophy, etc. composed on the Conception by dialogue against Friars Minor. Likewise another treatise on the same matter, etc. But all these remain in the Library of Cenolii s. Mariae Vozellae, of which he was alumnus: died Florence 1376 day 28 August. All which are fictitious: for St. Antoninus Florentine in the same city and convent S. Mariae Novellae composed his catalog of all Authors who militated for the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and makes no mention of this author. Our Lucas Wadingus indeed in the Catalogue of Seraphic Religious Writers pag. 101. brings forward this Dominic Pantaleone Florentine among Minors, with the same treatises on the Conception of B. Mary: dialogue on the same: substance of Orbis; form of consecration blood Christ, etc. Another thing is to write treatise on the Conception blessed Mary Virgin, another truly to inveigh against her and against Minors. Wherefore the aforesaid book On Body of Christ acknowledges no author other than the most holy Patriarch Dominic.

In the same century flourished our Alexander Alensis, Doctor and Master in Theology of the Angelic and Seraphic Doctor, who although 3. part. quaest. 9. memb. 2. he may seem to assert that the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God was vitiated by original sin; nevertheless such was not his mind: for he speaks only of the active Conception, and on the part of the parents, not truly of the passive, and on the part of the Virgin, as De Alva proves excellently in Sole veritatis num. 12. Thence it appears that his mind and opinion he clearly signified in the book which he wrote on the life of B. Virgin divided into six books, where near the end of the third he treats of the Conception which he teaches immaculate and immune from original sin: as very many grave Authors related, and as is seen in Cavellus and De Alva just praised; among whom excels Goschalcus Hollen of Order S. Augustine in sermon Conception, where from book published by Alensis he relates:

Not yet were the abysses, that is, he says, the depths of original sin. I had already been conceived; for abyss is said from a, which is "without," and byssus, which is a certain luminous, fine, and clean thing made by weaver's work, whose contraries are in original sin, which is darksome through privation of the light of grace, and gross through perpetual loss, and foul through lack of divine love. Not yet therefore were the abyssi, that is, the depths of original sin, and I had already been conceived, namely with the grace of God preventing, etc.

Hence Michael de Carchano Mediolanensis Doctor, ancient and of most proven life, in his Quadragesimale on penance, sermon on the Conception p. 3., speaking of Alexander de Ales and his liberation from a most grave infirmity by the merits of the Virgin Mary, says thus:

He himself truly not ungrateful for so great a benefit repays what he promised: and composed one beautiful book, in which are contained all the deeds of that mellifluous Conception of the Virgin, which is divided into six books; and at the end of the third book, chapter penultimate, he asks whether the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin: and at the head of the question he sets forth the whole miracle wrought by the Virgin upon himself, and thus determines that the Virgin was conceived without original sin: he teaches and preaches her conception to be celebrated, and venerates and retracts whatever he had said in his sentences, etc.

And there subscribe many of the ancient writers, especially Daniel Agricola in his Corona on the Conception, John Vitalis Cardinal in his Defensorium, and Alanus Parisiensis, who wrote before the year 1500 the same concerning Alensis, narrating: therefore whatever he sensed here in his Summa, certain it is that he militated for the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

Flourished at the same time Seraph. Bonaventure, who although in 3. dist. 3. art. 1. qu. 2. he timidly asserted that B. Virgin was conceived in original sin: nevertheless, the matter more maturely weighed and deliberated, he clearly signified the opinion which he held Serm. 2. on the Assumption, where most clearly and most learnedly he proved the Immaculate Conception saying:

Our Lady was full of grace preventing her sanctification: grace namely preventing against the filthiness of original guilt, which she would have contracted by corruption of nature, unless by special grace preventing and preserving she had been preserved. For no Son of the Virgin was immune from original guilt, and she herself his Virgin Mother. For it must be believed that under the name of sanctification in the beginning of her Conception the Holy Spirit redeemed her from original sin (not that it had infused itself, but that it would have infused itself), and preserved her with singular grace.

And in Sermo 1. among other words he says: Our Lady was most pure, wholly lacking every stain both in body and soul. Nor does it avail to reply with the adversaries that that sermon is not St. Bonaventure's, or that the aforesaid words were added; for it stands from an ancient book set forth in print before 150 years ago that this sermon is entirely of the same Seraphic Doctor; since among the sermons expressed there it is read whole, and at the end of that book is read: Here end the general sermons on the common of Saints, as also those on B. Virgin, on Angels, and on the triple dedication, of St. Bonaventure Doctor Seraphic, Cardinal, Bishop, of the Order of Minors, amended and corrected from errors most diligently, at expense and labor of provident man lord James Pfortzenii citizen Basel year of salvation 1502.

— Nor does it stand in the way that Angelus Rocca Augustinian sacristan of the Apostolic Palace placed in the margin that this sermon is not St. Bonaventure's (if indeed that addition be his, which De Alva denies n. 19.), because, says Rocca there: in many other places holy Bonaventure taught the contrary opinion. As though the Seraphic Doctor could not amend in more advanced age, with the matter better found out, what when younger he had written in the books of Sentences.

— Nor does it matter that he seems to defend the same opinion in his opuscula, especially p. 3. and 1. On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy cap. 7.: for there constantly he defends not the affirmative opinion but rather inclines to the negative. To these add what we said above, namely that while he was acting it was statuted in the General Chapter celebrated at Pisa that the feast of the Immaculate Conception should be celebrated through the whole Seraphic Order, as already by very many it was being celebrated, as he testifies 3 dist 3 art 1 quest 1:

There are however certain who from special devotion celebrate the Conception of B. Virgin: neither dare we wholly praise, nor simply reprehend... We dare not wholly reprehend, because as certain say this solemnity is celebrated not by human institution but by divine revelation: which if true without doubt good is it to solemnize her Conception: but that this be authentic we are not compelled to believe: since what against faith right is not, we are not compelled to deny etc.

By which words it is evident that even there he did not so firmly adhere to the opposite opinion, but only timidly, while still younger, was inclined toward it.

To this pious opinion the Angelic Doctor also subscribes; for although in part 3, question 27, article 2, he seems to signify that the Blessed Virgin was first conceived according to the flesh, and as such contracted original sin, and was afterwards sanctified in the womb and cleansed from that very original sin; nevertheless, as Pintus learnedly observes at the beginning of his book De Conceptione Virginis, the Angelic Doctor there supplies most weighty arguments by which, were he now living, he would openly perceive and conclude that the Virgin Mother of God was immune from every stain of original sin. For it is precisely because the Church celebrates her Nativity that he concludes she was sanctified in the womb: A feast, he says, is not celebrated in the Church except for some saint; therefore the Blessed Virgin was holy in her very Nativity: she was therefore sanctified in the womb. But the Church has long since celebrated the Conception of the Blessed Virgin; therefore, according to the principles of St. Thomas, it must necessarily be concluded that that Conception was altogether holy and immaculate. Furthermore, he says there: We rationally believe that she who brought forth the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, received a greater benefit of grace above all others. Yet, as he subjoins there, we find that this privilege was conceded to certain others in a special manner, that they should be sanctified in the womb, as Jeremias, to whom it was said, chapter 2: Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; and as John the Baptist, of whom it was said, Luke 1: He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb; from which he concludes that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before she came forth from the womb. But surely this inference does not seem legitimate; for it ought rather to be drawn thus: because greater privileges were granted to Mary than to all the other saints, therefore Mary ought to be sanctified not only before her nativity, like certain other saints, but even in her Conception. For whoever argued would argue illegitimately: The sun owes a greater light than the stars; but the stars shine fourfold; therefore the sun ought to shine fourfold. Whence also Bromiardus of the Order of Preachers, who lived shortly after St. Thomas, in his Summa Praedicantium, treating of the Crown of the Virgin and of the twelve stars, that is, the singular gifts or privileges of Mary, speaks thus:

In her Crown she had the second star, or an honor raised up after the manner of a royal crown, in that she was sanctified more eminently and more specially than the rest. For of the others indeed it is well read that they were sanctified in the womb, as of Jeremias and John the Baptist. Yet they were not at once so sanctified but that they could still sin venially. She herself, however, was sanctified so eminently that she sinned neither mortally nor venially, as appears through St. Thomas in part 3, on Christ, question 27, article 6. In the same question also, article 2, on account of the excellence of her sanctification as regards priority of time, namely that she was sanctified in her animation, that is, in the union of her soul with her body in her mother's womb, and not before — which sanctification and cleansing is wrought through grace, whose subject is the soul; for nothing is capable of grace except a rational soul: thus then the Most High sanctified his tabernacle, in Psalm 15, etc.

Thus far John Bromiardus. Wherefore Peter à Valleclausa, in his Disputations 6, treating of this question 27 and article 2 of the third part, speaks thus:

Therefore that text was touched by a falsifying hand, and in John Bromiardus, who flourished in the year 1260, as the Chronicle of the Order of Preachers records, that passage is read as it ought to be. See Bromiardus in the Summa Praedicantium, under the word Varia, article 2: for Bromiardus there adduces St. Thomas saying in that place that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified not before animation, but in her very first animation, from which is inferred the exclusion of original sin from the Mother of God. Moreover the Brethren would not have St. Thomas saying this there, and contradicting himself in part 1-2: they adulterated the text, etc.

— But that this was the genuine opinion of the Angelic Doctor can be gathered from very many passages of his works, and especially in Book I of the Sentences, distinction 41, question 3, ad 3, where, inquiring whether God could make things nobler and more excellent than those He has made, and objecting to Himself the authority of St. Anselm — namely, that the Blessed Virgin shone forth with such purity — he responds as follows:

To the third it must be said that purity is intensified by withdrawal from its contrary; and the same created thing can be found to which nothing purer could possibly be found among created things, if it be stained by no contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from both original and actual sin; yet she was subject to God, inasmuch as in her there lay the power to sin.

Likewise, on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 3, lecture 6, adducing that text of Ecclesiasticus 7, One man among a thousand have I found — namely Christ, who would be without all sin — but a woman among them all have I not found, one who would be entirely immune from sin, at least from original or venial sin, he makes an exception for the most pure Virgin, worthy of all praise. So it stands in all the ancient manuscript exemplars, as may be seen at Paris both in the Library of the Sorbonne and in that of St. Victor, as I myself read with my own eyes; and likewise in the Parisian edition made in the year 1511. But in later editions, for example the Tenetiana of the year 1593, the enemies of the Immaculate Conception struck out those exceptions from the Angelic Doctor.

— Moreover, Nurembergius, in his annotations upon the decrees of the Council of Trent concerning the altogether pure Mother of God the Virgin, relates that at Rome, in the library of Cardinal Storsae, in the year 1625, a most ancient exemplar of St. Thomas upon the Epistles of Paul was seen, and that in it, upon that text of Romans 5, in whom all have sinned, there stood this commentary: One alone excepted, the Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of original sin; and he adds that it was shortly thereafter shown to Cardinal Treio, and through him to Urban VIII, the Supreme Pontiff. The same judgment must be formed concerning the exposition of the same Angelic Doctor upon the Angelic Salutation, where he had these words: Mary was preeminent with respect to guilt, because she incurred neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin. Although these opinions are no longer found in modern editions, they are nevertheless so authentic that not even John de Turrecremata, the most ardent impugner of the Immaculate Conception, dared to deny it, as Catherinus and Salmeron relate. Nevertheless, even so, the enemies of the Immaculate Conception did not lay furtive hands upon the pious words of the Angelic Doctor without leaving still intact these words in the same place:

She exceeds the Angels with respect to purity, which indeed would not be true if the most Blessed Virgin had been stained by original sin and handed over to it.

— I pass over the innumerable others who, from this century down to our own times, have been assertors and champions of the Immaculate Conception; since this pious opinion, says Vazquez (Book 3 of his Commentary on the Summa, disp. 117, cap. 2), spread abroad after the time of Scotus not only among all Scholastic theologians but also among all the faithful of Christ, and has grown together with the ages of men to such a degree that no one can now be drawn away from it or shaken out of it. He had said before: At that time, not only among all the Professors and Doctors of theology (excepting the Dominicans, who have always persevered in their opinion), but also among all who profess the faith in the name of Christ, there is such a concurrence of mind and affection toward this opinion that, without great scandal to the people — as Corduba rightly observed — no one can now any longer propose the contrary view to the people in sermons. All this Vazquez wrote most truly, long before Paul V, under gravest penalties, imposed silence upon the adversaries, forbidding them to teach and defend the contrary opinion in public conclusions, sermons, lectures, or any public acts whatsoever. There must be excepted, however, those words in which he excludes the Dominican Fathers from the defense of the Immaculate Conception; for Turrecremata alone counts twenty-eight Doctors of the Angelic Order in favor of the contrary opinion. We find that he who wrote after him, in the third part, section 2 of his work, enlarged their number up to fifty-two; Peter de Vincentia, alphabet 6, numbers sixty-nine; Vincentius Bandellus, chapter 23, enumerates seventy-two; Paulus Grysaldus, in Catalogue 5, numbers eighty-two. But our De Alva, clearer-sighted than them all, computes ninety-two in his Trituration; and against these, in his Ventilabrum he sets an equal number of most strenuous defenders and assertors of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God drawn from that same Order. And upon all these patronages of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the sacred Faculty of Paris will impose a most illustrious crown, since for three hundred years now it has devoted itself most strenuously and most successfully to the propagation and defense of that doctrine, as will appear from its celebrated decree and its formula of oath.

Statute of the sacred Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris concerning the matter of the Immaculate Conception of the most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Whereas many of our forefathers, bravest and most strenuous soldiers of the Catholic faith, crushed by their sacred disputations the heresies springing up in various times, never wearied by labors or perils: against those errors nevertheless which strive to violate the praise and dignity of the Immaculate and most glorious Mother of God, the perpetual Virgin Mary, they ever judged that one must rise up more vehemently with a certain special, holy, and perfect hatred, and must fight more sharply. Inasmuch as they judged that insult to pertain chiefly to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His most loving parents. For what is written in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 3, concerning the Father is also most true of the Mother, and of either parent: Glory not, he says, in the dishonor of thy father, for his confusion is no glory to thee; for the glory of a man is the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son. Therefore, when in the last century the question concerning the purity of the Conception of Mary, the heavenly Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, began to be agitated more frequently than usual — the Holy Spirit, namely, willing that the truth of this matter should at length be brought to light — having weighed more carefully the arguments of both parties, they prudently suspended their judgment for a time; finally they inclined to that side which seemed to support the glory and purity of the Virgin, and thus, by disputation, they refuted the vainest rashness of those who obstinately contended, without efficacious proof, that the Virgin was conceived in original sin; so that they might decree the contrary part of the question — which affirms that the Virgin, while she was being conceived, was immune from the original stain by a special gift of God — to be greatly consonant with piety, faith, right reason, and the divine Scriptures. Which opinion, a few years later, the sacred plenary Council of Basle, after a long disputation of this question and a most weighty deliberation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at length defined — teaching that doctrine which asserts that the blessed Mother of God, Mary, when she was conceived, was freed from every stain of original sin by a special and singular grace of God, and that it is to be approved, embraced, and held by all Catholics as pious and consonant with ecclesiastical worship, the Catholic faith, right reason, and Sacred Scripture; and it forbade the contrary assertion to be taught or defended henceforth, under threat of divine judgment. Since we see this holy decree of the Synod approved and confirmed by the judgment, consent, and religious devotion of all the Churches, and likewise of the whole Christian people, we cannot but admire — and cannot bear without indignation and grief — the vain, proud, rash, and insane obstinacy of certain men, who even in our own day do not fear to assail or call into doubt this pious and religious doctrine approved by the judgment and authority of the universal Synod and of the Church, which according to the promise cannot err, waging implacable and most impious war against the eminent dignity of the most loving Mother of God. That we may meet and resist their fury the more eagerly and firmly, following in the footsteps of our forefathers according to our profession, order, and degree, we have assembled together for the third time, and after much, grave, and mature deliberation we have bound ourselves by a special oath and devoted ourselves to the defense and protection of that most pious doctrine which asserts that the blessed Mother of God was preserved from original sin by the singular gift of God, which we believed long ago to be true, and believe now. Enacting that no one be henceforth enrolled in this sacred college of ours unless he professes by a similar oath that he will always be, according to his powers, an assertor and strenuous defender of this religious doctrine. But if anyone of ours — which God forbid — like a deserter to the enemies of the Virgin, should dare to take up the patronage of the contrary assertion, which we judge false, impious, and erroneous, in contempt not only of our authority but of that of the Synod and of the Church, which is beyond doubt supreme, we decree that he be deprived of all our honors, deposed and cast forth from us and from our fellowship like a heathen and a publican, to be driven far away. We therefore appeal to you and summon you, O holiest Mother of God: believe that you, worthy of all praise, were preserved from original sin by the singular gift of God, and preach it, preaching with your blessing and your resources. Help us; and through the tender mercies of the mercy of Jesus Christ and through the charity of His undefiled Virgin Mother we beseech you: resist valiantly, for your office and by the divine authority given us, the enemies rather of the Blessed Mary herself; drive them from your territories, and expel them punished, so that the religious devotion, piety, and charity of the Christian people toward the most glorious Mother of God, the one hope, patroness, and mother of the human race, may be fostered, increased, and kindled more and more each day — a deed doubtless most grateful and most pleasing to her most loving Son, our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and most fruitful also for this people whose care you bear. Given at Paris at St. Mathurin's, for the first Congregation, on the third day of the month of March, in the year of the Lord 1496. At the second Congregation on the 6th day of the same month; and for the third Congregation, at the Augustinians, in the chapter house, on Thursday the 9th of the same month of March, after the Mass of the Conception celebrated with the oath; and published on the 21st day of the month of August, 1494, at St. Mathurin's in a Congregation specially convoked for the oath made upon this matter, and at the Sorbonnic disputation of the same month on the 26th, with the Lord Rector of the university assisting, the Most Reverend Father in Christ the Archbishop of Bourges, three Bishops, with many Abbots, Royal Counsellors, and very many Doctors both in Decrees and Bachelors, with a great multitude of students. By command of the same Dean, read and pronounced by me, Henry Bertrand, Priest, Master of Arts, public Notary, and Bedel of the same Faculty. And there swore, both in the preceding and in other Congregations of the same Faculty, one hundred and twelve Doctors of the same Faculty, standing firm in the said determination and statute.

Formula of the Oath. — You shall swear that you will hold the determination of the Faculty concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, namely, that in her Conception she was preserved from original guilt? R. We swear.

Indeed, the same sacred Faculty was so tenacious and zealous an observer of this statute and oath that none of its clients and sons ever dared to depart even a little from that pious opinion without being immediately compelled publicly to abjure what he had presumed to assert to the contrary. Hence, long ago, even before the aforementioned decree — namely, in the year 1387 — it issued a celebrated censure against fourteen propositions of John de Montesono, which censure was afterwards confirmed by Apostolic authority. Wherefore in the year 1388 a revocation of the contrary opinion was made before the King and the deputies of the university by Master William, Bishop of Évreux. In the same year, on the 21st of March, a similar revocation was made before the church of St. Germain of Auxerre by Friar John Thomas of the Order of Preachers. In the same year, on the 16th of May, Friar Adam of Soissons, Preacher, revoked the same publicly in the cemetery of the Holy Innocents. In the following year, on the feast of St. John the Baptist, the same Friar Claudefridus of St. Martin, Preacher, revoked it publicly in the church of our greater convent of Paris. In the same year, on the 20th of August, Friar John Adea, Preacher, revoked it in the church of St. Bernard. In the same year, on the 10th of October, Friar Peter de Chanchevo, Preacher, revoked it also in our church of Paris. There are very many other such public revocations, whose acts I possess entire; they splendidly attest the perpetual observance of the sacred Faculty of Paris toward the Unspotted Conception of the Blessed Virgin; and lest I be longer than needful, I refrain from further instances here.

— Now, when after the Council of Trent, about the year 1575, some men attacked keenly this decree and oath of the sacred Faculty and Academy of Paris — Maldonatus goading them on and taking their side — after grave contentions and controversies back and forth, at length the patronage of the sacred Faculty was taken up not only by the Parliament of Paris but also by the Supreme Pontiff, to whom an appeal had been made from the sentence of the Bishop of Paris pronounced against the Dean and Syndic. There is extant a most illustrious letter addressed to him, as well as a most learned theological treatise circulated publicly concerning the preservation of the Virgin Mother from original sin; wherein, responding to the arguments and objections of Maldonatus, among other things it contains the following:

Nor did the Faculty invent the article of faith concerning the Conception, but it proposed what had been set forth by the Council of Basle, and believed with Sirtinis; if it gave authority to these, the Council of Trent detracts from them, and the Roman See prefers the opinion of the Tridentines to that of the Basleans; let the Faculty itself conform itself and give assent now according to the Council of Trent: the affirmation that the conception is not an article of Catholic faith, and that whoever thinks otherwise is not to be marked as a heretic, etc.

The Adversaries object various authorities of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by which they judge our assertion to be altogether overthrown. Since all of which would be long and tedious to recount, here we shall bring forward and examine only those which seem to patronize the opposing opinion most of all. First indeed they summon to their side Origen, Homily 8 on Leviticus, where, expounding those words: Whatsoever woman shall have received seed, he speaks thus:

If a woman conceive seed and bear a son: but there is a mystical conception which would set Mary alone apart from the rest of women, whose bringing forth was not from the conception of seed but from the presence of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High, etc. And a little within: But even he who is born, whether he be of male or of female sex, Scripture pronounces concerning him that he is not clean from stain, unless he be of one day of his life. And below: whence, if it please you to hear what also other Saints thought of that nativity, hear David saying: In iniquities, he says, was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me; showing that whatsoever soul is born in flesh is polluted with the filth of uncleanness and sin; and therefore that was said which we mentioned above, that no one is clean from stain, no not though his life be but of one day.

Then in Homily 12, which is on the great Priest, he says:

Everyone who enters this world is said to be made in a certain contamination. Wherefore also Scripture says: No one is clean from stain, not even if his life were of one day. By this very thing therefore, that he is placed in the womb of the mother, and that he takes mortal flesh from the origin of paternal seed, he can be said to be contaminated in father and in mother. Or do you not know that when a male child has been made ten days old, it is offered at the altar that it may be purified there, as if it had been polluted in the very conception, whether of paternal or maternal seed? Every man therefore is polluted in father and mother. But Jesus my Lord alone entered this generation clean; he was not polluted in the mother: for he entered the body uncontaminated, etc.

Finally, in Homily 5 upon the book of Numbers, he says: Because Christ alone is without sin, who did no sin, therefore in Him alone the Spirit dwelt and > remained. For if He is He of whom something singular and excellent is said, namely what we said above: Because he did no sin, it is established that all the rest were under sin: if all, necessarily also the Prophets, etc.

— Truly I answer, that by these and similar sayings our assertion is by no means assailed. Not indeed by the first, seeing that in it Origen treats of the law of purification, to which all women were subjected who had conceived from received male seed, and from which the Virgin Mother of God was altogether immune, since she conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit; whence Origen speaks only of active, not passive Conception. By the second I say, that Origen intends only that Christ the Lord was not contaminated through maternal conception; because since He Himself was conceived of the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, He alone by the force and manner of His generation was clean from every stain and iniquity, wherewith others are infected by reason of the first carnal generation, or of the active conception of parents, of which only Origen speaks, not of conception properly so called, or of animation, of which this discourse is. — To the third I say, that Origen there treats of actual sin; not of original; for he does not say: who had no sin, as the adversaries will, but who did no sin; but there is none, I think, of the adversaries who affirms that the blessed Virgin actually sinned, seeing they wish her to have been pronounced free from all actual sin by the Council of Trent, not that original sin is to be understood.

They object 2. Various authorities of Saint Ambrose. First indeed in Sermon 7, expounding those words: And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, he says:

All were within the nets, nay we are still within the nets; because no one is without sin except Jesus alone, whom not knowing sin, the Father made sin for us. For he delivered him up bound with cords, delivered him up with nets, sending him not into sin, in which all men were, but into the likeness of the flesh of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh: sin was the flesh according to that text, because the hereditary curse was condemned. Sin was the enticement and minister of sin: the Lord Jesus came, and in flesh subject to sin exercised the warfare of virtue.

Then in the Commentary upon Luke ch. 2 he says:

For not conjugal intercourse kept reserved the secret chambers of the virginal womb, but the Holy Spirit poured in an immaculate seed into an inviolate womb: and He alone through all things out of all born of woman is the holy Lord Jesus, who by the heavenly Majesty both felt not the earthly contagion of corruption in the novelty of an immaculate birth, and drove it away.

Likewise on Isaiah, as alleged by blessed Augustine book 1 contra Iulianum, and in the first book de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis:

Every man, he says, is a liar, and no one is without sin, save one God alone. It is preserved therefore that of man and woman, by that mixture of bodies, no one conceived should be without fault; but whoever is without fault is without fault also of this kind of conception.

— I answer, that from these and similar sayings of S. Ambrose nothing can be deduced against our assertion; since it is openly evident that in the first cited authority the discourse is only concerning actual sins, whereto flesh vitiated by original sin is wont to entice; which enticement of sin Christ had not, just as neither had the Mother of God, because each was immune from the original stain. Meanwhile I warn that this authority, ob> jected by the adversaries, is to be received with caution; for they are accustomed in many places to interpolate it, adding some things and taking away others, that they may drag holy Ambrose even against his will into their opinion.

— To the second authority I say, that the word "alone" does not signify exclusion of anyone; for it is established that very many were sanctified in the womb of their mothers, and felt not in birth the earthly contagions of corruption: but it only indicates that Christ the Lord drove away all that corruption by His own heavenly Majesty, which the others, endowed with the same prerogative, attained only through divine aid shining upon them and His benefit. Likewise I say that in the aforesaid words Saint Ambrose intends only that Christ the Lord is alone among those born of woman who did not feel the earthly contagions of corruption in the novelty of an immaculate birth, because He was born of a Virgin altogether unspotted and most pure. I warn moreover that the adversaries corrupt even this authority; for they add: Holy was the Lord Jesus in Conception; but those words in Conception are found neither in S. Ambrose nor in S. Augustine, who brings forward the same authority lib. 1 Contra Iulianum.

— To the third authority I say, that from its words it sufficiently appears that S. Ambrose is to be understood only of actual sin, not of original; or of active, not passive Conception. Nor does it matter that S. Augustine adduces that authority lib. 1 Nuptiis et concupiscentiis, c. 8, that he might prove from it original sin; for first it is certain that that authority as brought forward by S. Augustine is now not found in S. Ambrose. Moreover the adversaries are accustomed to corrupt even it: first indeed they add the particle "alone" in place of the particle "one God". Second they add the word "conceived". Third they omit the word "seems", so that they elicit an absolute and affirmative proposition out of a dubitative one.

They object 3. Many sayings of S. Augustine by which there seems to be signified first that Christ alone was immune from original sin. Thus lib. 2 De Baptismo parvulorum, cap. 21:

There is not, he says, among the sons of men, nor was there, nor will there be, one who was ever bound with no sin, or who has not that justice whereby one comes from sin, except the one Mediator, through whom, the enmities of sins being finished, we are reconciled to God. He alone therefore also made man, remaining God, had never any sin, nor took on the flesh of sin, although from a mother of the flesh of sin. For what He took thence, that truly He cleansed by taking.

These are his words. The same has lib. 1 De Nuptiis, cap. 11, and lib. 2 De peccatorum meritis et remissione. Then they bring forth from the holy Doctor those authorities by which there is signified that the Blessed Virgin died on account of Adam's sin. Thus in the second Sermon on Ps. 34: Mary from Adam died on account of that sin: Adam died on account of sin: and the flesh of the Lord from Mary died for the blotting out of sins. Finally they heap up various sayings of the same, by which the holy Doctor signifies that all born from the commixtion of man and woman draw original sin, and likewise that they who are born of any parents whatever remain so long under the devil unless they be reborn in Christ, who willed not to be born of the same commixtion of both sexes, that by His grace they plucked from the power of darkness may be translated into that kingdom: thus he speaks lib. 2 De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis.

— I answer to the first, that the aforesaid authority is variously interpolated by the adversaries: for Saint Augustine there opposes the holiness of Christ to the > corruption of men: since when he had said: And indeed we should have been born in the flesh of sin; but He in the likeness of the flesh of sin — we not only of flesh and blood but also of the will of man and of the will of the flesh; but He only of flesh and blood, and not of the will of man nor of the will of the flesh, but born of God: and therefore we unto death with sin, He for us unto death without sin. He subjoins: He alone therefore also made man, remaining God, had never any sin, nor took the flesh of sin, although of the nature of the flesh of sin: for what He took thence, that truly either cleansing He took, or took cleansing. Therefore He chose the Virgin Mother conceiving not by the law of the flesh of sin, that is, not by the motion of carnal concupiscence, but deserving by pious faith that she become the holy germ, whom He would elect, create, chose from whom He would be created, etc.

From which it lucidly appears that the aforesaid authority of Saint Augustine is not reported entire and sincere. For they add the four first lines fabricated out of their own head. Then, where S. Augustine has "although of the nature of the flesh of sin", these interpolators write "although of maternal flesh of sin". Add that S. Augustine speaks of active, not passive Conception, or of concupiscence existing in the will of the man and arising from the pleasure of the flesh, when man is generated, from which no one besides Christ was immune. Wherefore S. Augustine subjoins: Therefore the Virgin Mother, not by the law of the flesh of sin, etc., that he might designate that Christ supposed sin in no way either in Himself or in His parent. But here there is discourse not of active but of passive Conception. To the second I say that the holy Doctor wishes nothing else than that the Virgin Mother of God died on account of Adam's sin, admonishing lest we judge men propagated by seminal way immune from being rendered free of original sin, who would lie under death no less because they are propagated from Adam. Or to say that S. Augustine by these words signifies that the Blessed Virgin by the mode of her generation was liable to sin, and so ought to have died of necessity, although through the benefit and privilege of God she was immune from actual contraction of sin. To the third kind of authority I say first that such authorities vitiated in all respects are accustomed to be objected by the adversaries, as is evident from the aforesaid one, wherein very many things are omitted and things distant from each other connected. I say second that the holy Doctor there institutes discourse only of active Conception on the part of the parents, which since it always has libido admixed, thence it is that it has some sin joined to it, by which reason the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God was not immune from sin.

They object 4. S. Leo the First in the Epistle to Flavian, where he says: Otherwise human captivity could not have been loosed unless He took up our cause without damage of His Majesty, that He become true man, and alone have not the contagion of sin. Then Sermon 1 De Nativitate, says: No one is severed from participation of such alacrity, one common reason of joy belongs to all, because our Lord, destroyer of sin and death, as He found none free from vice, so came to loose all. And Sermon 1 De resurrectione: What in all men was transfused of damnation, this in Christ is the sacrament of piety. But, say the adversaries, Christ made the blessed Virgin partaker of the sacrament of His redemption: therefore she also was partaker of transfused damnation. I answer to the first, that that authority is altogether fictitious and supposititious, as will openly appear to anyone reading the aforesaid epistle. To the second I say, that this authority is not to be understood thus, as if S. Leo truly judged that He loosed only those whom He found conquered in guilt when He came into the world: for He found all free and loosed from the bonds of sin who were already illumined by sanctifying grace: but his mind is, that no one was truly free from captivity of sin unless either anticipated by the benefit of grace itself he guarded himself lest he fall, as befell in the Blessed Virgin; or already entangled in the bonds of sin he was loosed by the intervening grace. To the third I say that S. Leo speaks not of damnation of fault but of penalty, for he says: Infirmity indeed and mortality, which shall be not sin but the penalty of sin, were received from the Redeemer of the world for punishment, that they might be spent for price. Why then in all, etc.

They object 5. All those holy Fathers who distinctly and precisely seem to assert the Blessed Virgin to have been infected with original guilt: chiefly Rupertus lib. 1 In Cantica, where concerning the Blessed Virgin he says: And thou indeed certainly couldst have said, behold for in iniquities was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me; since thou wert of that mass which was corrupted in Adam, thou lackedst not the hereditary stain of original sin. Into the same opinion they bring S. Anselm lib. 2 Cur Deus homo, cap. 16, where he says: Although the conception of Christ Himself be clean, and without the sin of carnal delectation. Yet the Virgin herself whence He was assumed was conceived in iniquities, and in sins His mother conceived Him, and was born with original sin, since she herself sinned in Adam, in whom all sinned. They bring also S. Anthony of Padua in a certain Sermon On the B. Virgin, where he says: The blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb of her mother from sin by grace, and born without sin. Nay they add S. Bernardine of Senis, Sermon on S. John Baptist, which begins: As the sun rising upon the world, where distinguishing a threefold sanctification, he says: The third was maternal sanctification, and this removes original fault, and confers grace, and removes pronity to sinning as well mortally as venially, and this was in the Virgin Mother, etc. — I answer to Rupertus, that he wishes only that the Blessed Virgin in that instant in which she conceived Christ was not made drunk with the wine of luxury wherewith other women are made drunk: Thou hadst not, he says, experienced the vice of this age, the wine of carnal pleasure, without whose drunkenness no woman ever besides thee could conceive, or can conceive; and yet thou knowest to judge how much better, more clement, sweeter, and stronger was the pleasure, or love of God, in which thou didst conceive; without doubt thou hast drunk of that torrent of pleasure. Then he subjoins the words praised in the objection, after which he adds: But before the face of this love sin, neither that nor any other, could stand; before the face of this fire every stub perished, that the whole dwelling might become holy, in which God would dwell nine whole months. By which words Rupertus signifies that he speaks only of the active Conception of the Blessed Virgin, namely that she conceived Christ without any pleasure, which other women experience on account of the hereditary blemish, and which also the Blessed Virgin would have experienced, had she not been divinely preserved. Whence this was this singular privilege of the Virgin Mother of God, that her Son alone could not say Behold in iniquities was I conceived, namely because the Virgin conceived Him only through the supervening Holy Spirit and the overshadowing power of the Most High: which indeed this Virgin Mother of God could not say, because her mother drank that wine of pleasure when she conceived her in her womb: whence she could say, Behold in the iniquities of my parents was I conceived. Which things being so, she would have conceived Christ even amid that iniquity of pleasure, seeing she was of that mass corrupted in Adam, unless she had been divinely overshadowed and preserved from that drunkenness of pleasure. From which it appears that Rupertus speaks only of the active Conception of the Virgin's parents, not of the passive, or her animation. To S. Anselm I say, that the words placed in the objection are not his, but only Boson his disciple's asking in what manner God assumed from a sinful mass, that is, from mankind wholly infected with sin, a man without sin, like a grape from leavened dough; for although the conception of the same man be clean and without the sin of carnal delectation: Yet the Virgin herself whence He was assumed, etc. But who would call the words of the questioning disciple the resolution of the Master? Add that if all things Boson says were to be judged genuine S. Anselm's opinion, he would labor under many absurdities, for he asks many things and supposes them as true, when nevertheless they are most absurd. — To S. Anthony of Padua, I say the aforesaid sermon is altogether fictitious, nor was it ever found among his works: for so far is that most holy man from having thought the Virgin Mother of God defiled with any sin, that he openly teaches the contrary, as is seen in the sermon of Parasceve, where he says Christ was clothed in a white garment, that is, he says, flesh clean from every stain of sin, assumed from an immaculate Virgin, etc. And Sermon 2, 5th Sunday after Pentecost, he says Mary was a throne of cloud, because immune from sin. De Alva has other authorities of the same in Militia Immaculatae Conceptionis against the malice of original sin. Hence in Sole veritatis n. 28 he observes that the aforesaid words are not S. Anthony the Paduan's, but S. Antoninus the Florentine's p. 1 summae, tit. 25, cap. 6, wrongly affixed by the adversaries to S. Anthony of Padua. — To S. Bernardine I say, that his words praised in the objection do not favor the adversaries; for to remove original fault is not only to take it away and wipe it off when it already existed, but also to prevent lest it infect. For truly to remove someone from laws is the same as not to compel him to keep the laws. That however the opinion of that most holy man is otherwise is clear from the same sermon, for at its beginning he thus says: The sacrament of the glorious Virgin Mother of God, most sublime to venerate, most devout to treat of, sweetest to contemplate. Today, most beloved, is set before us this day indeed glorious, which offers us the ray of solar light, while it proclaims the Mother of God conceived, etc. If therefore the day of Mary's Conception was glorious, which inflamed, illumined, and strengthened pious minds by its splendor, and sublime, venerable, most devout, sweetest sacrament: therefore that Conception was not with fault and sin. Likewise within he insinuates more saying: In which words the wisdom of the Lord describes a threefold gracious state of the Blessed Virgin: First, of Conception: second, of Nativity: Third, of Annunciation. The first, namely her Conception, he calls like the Sun, etc. If therefore Bernardine commends the Conception as the Nativity and Annunciation, in which there was no stain or fault, and calls the Conception like the Sun and gracious, that is illustrious with grace and clarity of holiness: the consequence is that so far is he from opposing the Immaculate Conception, that rather he patronizes it, if you weigh and ponder his words with equal balance. — Finally he answers with the Doctor in 3 dist. 3 q. 1 n. 14 that all the authorities of Saints whatsoever that can be objected signify nothing else than that the blessed Virgin, propagated from Adam by seminal way, had a debt of contracting original sin, and by the force of her Conception would have contracted it, unless by special privilege of God her soul, in that same instant in which it was formed, was illumined by sanctifying grace. For as our Pitigianus teaches most gloriously here art. 2, the Blessed Virgin was threefoldly liable to sin: First, in the loins of Adam and other parents: second, in the womb before animation, for then the body already existed to be sinned, and so it was to be infected with sin, unless prevented: third, in the very instant of animation, because although in that same real instant of time she was gifted with grace, yet her soul prior in nature can be conceived without grace, and in a state indifferent to grace or to sin.

You insist: Naturally first the Blessed Virgin was daughter of Adam before she was sanctified: but in that prior state she had a debt of contracting original sin: therefore in fact she previously had original sin, before she was freed from it. — The Doctor distinguishes the minor ibidem num. 15: that she had that debt positively in that prior instant, he denies; for what belongs to someone positively prior in nature than something else can be affirmed of him simply for the instant of time in which he exists, and in which that instant of nature is included; and thus it could be said that the blessed Virgin had original sin and sanctifying grace in the same instant of time, which is absurd: in that prior instant she had that debt negatively, inasmuch as she is not conceived to have had anything for that instant of nature by reason of which she ought not contract original sin, because for that instant she was not yet conceived as having sanctifying grace, he concedes. Which solution certainly appears legitimate even in the opinion of the adversaries, who do not deny that God of absolute power could preserve the Virgin from original sin.

They press: The Blessed Virgin in that prior state of nature, in which she is pre-understood toward grace, has not justice, nor is conceived as just: therefore she must necessarily be conceived as unjust, or as not just, and consequently as having original sin. — The Doctor denies the inference num. 17. Nay, he says, there is no falsehood in those abstracting, 2 Physics; for one not understanding does not understand not this; as one not understanding man to be animal does not understand him non-animal, because then abstraction could scarcely be without falsehood, abstracting from something essentially inherent in it.

They object 1. If the Blessed Virgin had been conceived without original sin, she would have had no need of Christ the Redeemer and Mediator: but this is absurd: therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the major, n. 15. For she herself, he says, would have contracted original sin by the reason of common propagation, had she not been anticipated through the grace of the Mediator: whence as others needed Christ that sin already contracted might be remitted to them by His merit, so she more needed a Mediator arising from sin, lest it should ever be contracted by her; and in fact she would have contracted it.

You will urge: None (says S. Zosimus Pope, Epist. 155, in Augustine) is made free except one who is servant of sin; nor can he be called redeemed unless he was truly before a captive through sin: therefore if the Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin, she truly and properly had no need of Christ the Redeemer. It is confirmed by a like case, because although Christ (as many Theologians teach) merited for the good Angels the grace whereby they were preserved from falling, yet for that reason He cannot be called their Redeemer: therefore by a like case He will not be judged properly Redeemer with respect to the Virgin, if He truly freed her not from sin. — I distinguish the antecedent: none can be said to be redeemed unless he was before captive through sin, by debt, I concede; in fact only, I deny. For properly is anyone said to redeem someone from captivity and prison while, when he is already about to be cast into prison on account of debts, he makes satisfaction to the creditor for him and pays his debt: but the blessed Virgin, as the Doctor teaches expressly, had a debt of contracting the captivity of original sin; and by the force of her conception and propagation from Adam by way of seminal transmission she would have contracted it, had she not been divinely preserved. Hence it is that that preservation can truly and properly be called redemption: but otherwise is it of the Angels, who had no debt in themselves of incurring a fall, had they not been prevented; whence their preservation cannot be called redemption so properly as the preservation of the Blessed Virgin.

They object 2. The Blessed Virgin was subject to all the penalties prescribed on account of original sin, namely hardships and sorrows, nay even death itself: therefore she contracted that sin. — I answer, indeed the Virgin Mother of God endured all these things, not indeed under puncture and necessity, but unto merit and ampler grace; for it was fitting that she be assimilated to her Son, who willed to suffer temporal hardships and labors, nay death itself, that redemption might be copious with Him: for the Mediator can, says the Doctor n. 8, reconcile someone so that there be taken away from him penalties useless to him, and there remain in him penalties useful to him: original guilt would have been useless to Mary; temporal penalties however were useful, because in them she merited: therefore, etc.

Finally they object: If the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original sin, and had died before the Ascension of Christ, she ought to have entered the kingdom of heaven: but no man before the Ascension of Christ could be received into heaven; since only through the triumphal entry of Christ into heaven was its entrance opened to men: therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the inference of the major: for absence of original sin does not necessarily infer entrance into the kingdom of heaven; for the holy Fathers long ago, dying before Christ's birth, were absolved from original sin, yet were not endowed with the clear vision of God; for this was reserved for men in that Ascension of Christ, namely that ascending into heaven He should lead captivity captive and give gifts to men: For so God decreed, says the Doctor n. 19, *that although He accepted the foreseen Passion of Christ for remitting original guilt to every believer and future believer in that Passion; nevertheless He did not remit the penalty due to that sin, namely the want of the divine vision, on account of the Passion foreseen, but on account of the same exhibited: and therefore as the door was not opened to those Fathers until the Passion of Christ was exhibited, so it is probable that neither would it have been unlocked for the Blessed Virgin, had she died before the Ascension of our Lord Christ into heaven.

WHETHER THE B. VIRGIN WAS IMMUNE FROM ALL ACTUAL SIN.

Note 1. Actual sin is distinguished in the usual way into a twofold kind, namely mortal and venial. Mortal is the deliberate transgression of the divine law gravely obliging, by reason of which the friendship of man with God is dissolved, and grace and charity are removed from man, in whose presence the soul lived, by whose loss and absence it incurs spiritual death. Venial is the transgression of a light precept, or not perfectly deliberate and free, which neither dissolves friendship with God, nor removes grace or charity from the soul: but only diminishes its fervor, nor removes from the ultimate end, but only delays from its attainment. But it is called venial either because it is light offense in comparison with mortal sin, or chiefly because it is worthy of pardon.

Note 2. From the Seraphic Doctor in 2 dist. 29, art. 3, quaest. 2, there can be distinguished a threefold genus of venial sin; for one befalls man from the surreption of sensuality: another from some sudden and undeliberate motion of reason: finally a third is called venial on account of imperfection of act and levity of matter, such as an idle word and a lie whether jocose or officious; which genus of sin indeed is found for the most part even in men illustrious for surpassing piety. We ask therefore whether the Virgin Mother of God sinned venially in any of these ways.

Note 3. From the Subtle Doctor in 2 dist. 20, quest. 1, there is distinguished a twofold confirmation in grace: one whereby the ability to sin is taken away, even venially; another, whereby de facto sinning is taken away. The first belongs only to comprehensors and the Blessed: For to be unable to sin, he says, cannot belong to a wayfarer, otherwise it would be a contradiction, because certainty of beatitude is the greatest part of beatitude: but inability to sin would then be knowable by anyone, as now the ability to sin is certain to us. But this infallible certainty of beatitude can belong only to the comprehensor. Moreover, so long as in the object of the will of the wayfarer there is defect of good, the will of the wayfarer can fail from rectitude by willing that, not according to due circumstance; but so long as man is a wayfarer, his own will cannot be conjoined with an object in which is the whole reason of good; therefore so long as he is a wayfarer, he can fail from rectitude; and consequently could sin, and accordingly no wayfarer can be so confirmed in grace as to exclude infallibly the power of sinning. But the second confirmation in grace does indeed not exclude the power of sinning, but only the act of sin, into which man cannot rush headlong on account of the special assistance of God, His protection, and special helps, which are so tempered to free choice that they infallibly remove every sinful act. The prior impeccability is called intrinsic and as it were antecedent; the latter extrinsic and consequent. It is certain however that the B. Virgin, so long as she lived in this world, had not impeccability from within and antecedent, because no habitual grace of this life, however perfect, so determines the will that antecedently it is not still indifferent to sinning. Nor surely did such antecedent impeccability befit the B. Virgin in this life: then because she was purely a wayfareress: then because although liberty to sin be a defect, yet it conduces to merit, according to Ecclesiasticus 31: He that could transgress and hath not transgressed.

But it is asked whether she had the second genus of impeccability.

One Conclusion. — THE MOST BLESSED VIRGIN WAS IMMUNE FROM EVERY SIN WHATEVER OF ACTUAL KIND. This is common among all the faithful of Christ against the heretics the Lutherans and Calvinists.

The Conclusion could be proved by very many texts of Sacred Scripture: namely those, by which above it was proved that perpetual enmities and hostilities were between Mary and the demon: but such a battle would not have intervened had the blessed Virgin fallen into any sin: therefore, etc. — Similarly it could be proved chiefly from the book of Canticles, where the Virgin Mother of God is preached not only all fair and without stain, but ch. 2 it is said of her: As the lily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters. Which oracle Sedulius lib. 2 De Paschate excellently weighs thus:

And as the soft rose rises amid sharp thorns, Having naught that wounds, outshining the Mother in honor; So Light come from sacred stem through Mary, The new Virgin expiates the deed of the ancient Virgin.

And Hugh of S. Victor:

Hail holy parent of the Word, Flower from thorn, lacking thorn, Flower, glory of the thornbrake: We are the thornbrake, we are the thorn Of sin bloodstained, But thou knowest no thorn.

It is proved secondly from the Council of Trent session 6, Can. 23: If any one shall say that a man once justified cannot sin more, nor lose grace, and therefore that he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or contrariwise that he can avoid throughout life all sins, even venial ones, without a special privilege of God, as the Church holds concerning the B. Virgin: let him be anathema.

The same opinion very many of the holy Fathers defend, chiefly indeed S. Augustine, who in the book De Natura et gratia, cap. 36, frees utterly from actual sin the Virgin Mother of God. For when Pelagius, to prove his dogma — namely that men can be without all sin — had brought forward examples of many of both sexes who are reported in Scripture not only not to have sinned but even to have lived justly, such as were Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, Abraham, etc., and had added also women, Debbora, Anna mother of Samuel, etc., and even the Mother herself of our Lord and Savior, whom he says piety compels to confess was without sin: when Pelagius had affirmed these things, I say, concerning the impeccability of the B. Virgin, Augustine assents to him and speaks thus: Except therefore holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, out of honor to the Lord, I wish no question at all when sins are treated of; whence do we know that more grace was conferred upon her for overcoming sin on every side, who merited to conceive of a sinner Him whom we know had no sin. Hence therefore except the Virgin, if we could gather together all those saints and saintly women while they lived here, and ask whether they were without sin, what do we think they would answer? whether this which is said here, or that of John the Apostle? etc. From which it appears that S. Augustine openly teaches that the most blessed Virgin was stained with no proper and actual sin. — He teaches the same truth when he says that if she draws the original stain from her parents she is nevertheless sanctified less than Jeremias in the womb, as Christian piety forbids believing her less filled with the Holy Spirit than John; for she is honored with festal praises being born. Lastly, since it altogether stands that Mary was cleansed from original contagion by grace alone, etc., as it is wholly pious to believe, she had not her own fault. The same he teaches also in Epist. 171, where although he does not suffer her to be held pure from defect of origin, he doubts not that she was sanctified in the womb; and indeed that a more copious blessing of sanctification descended into her, which both sanctified her body and also kept her thereafter immune from all sin, which is believed to have been granted to no other among women by nature.

Wherefore Proclus of Constantinople deservedly in Oration 6 calls the most blessed Mother of God, among all things besides, an impeccable sanctuary. Rightly also Ildephonsus in the Sermon On the Assumption, when he compares her to the ark of the Old Testament. Above which the propitiatory and Cherubim overshadowing on this side and that are figured, because no contagion of sin crept into Mary inwardly: but within was all the custody of the Law, and the Manna. In which similitude Proclus also used it, adding that this Ark was within and

For this assertion and truth S. Thomas brings forth this excellent reason Opusc. 60, art. 3, where having premised the aforesaid authority of S. Augustine for the innocence of the B. Virgin, he subjoins:

For she would not have been a fit Mother of Christ, had she ever sinned: then because the honor of parents > redounds to the offspring, according to Prov. 18: The glory of children are their parents; whence contrariwise the ignominy of the mother would have redounded to the son: then also because he had singular affinity to Christ, because from her he took flesh: and it is said 1 ad Corinth. 6: What concord hath Christ with Belial! Then also because Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father, dwelt in a singular manner, not only in her soul, but also in her womb. And it is said Wisdom 1: Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body subject to sins. And therefore it is simply to be held that the blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, so that may be fulfilled what is said Cant. 4: Thou art all fair, O my love,* etc.

They object 1. That heretics say the B. Virgin sinned the sin of infidelity, when Luke 1 to the Angel announcing the Incarnation, as if incredulous she said:

How shall this be done, because I know not man? Whence Luther in the postilla on the Gospel of the Annunciation: He himself, he says, truly felt within himself a sense of incredulity. And Calvin on the aforesaid words of Luke says she was no less doubtful of the omnipotence of God than Zachary: therefore she committed some actual sin. — I deny the consequence, and to the antecedent I say with S. Augustine Hom. 1 ch. 5 ex 50: While she asked, she doubted not of the promise. Or, as S. Bernard gloriously says Homil. 1 super Missus est: She doubts not of the fact, but asks the mode and order of the thing; for it is not asked whether this shall be done, but how. S. Ambrose confirms all these excellently in the same words, where he notes there was not the same affection of mind in Mary and in Zachary concerning the Angelic oracle; Zachary was presently reprehended and punished for incredulity, but not the Virgin Mother of God. Because therefore, he says, it could come about that Zacharias, who had not believed, be condemned to silence: would Mary however, if she had not believed, celebrate the infusion of the Holy Spirit? But neither did Mary not believe; nor yet ought she rashly to usurp: not to believe the angel, to usurp divine things: for she does not make herself know the mystery hidden from eternity in God: which neither the higher Powers could know. And yet did she not hold faith? she refused not the office but accommodated her affection, promised her service: for indeed when she said: How shall this be done? she doubted not of the effect, but asked the quality of the effect itself. How much more temperate is that answer than the words of the Priest! She says: how shall this be done? he answered: whereby shall I know this? She already treats of the business: he still doubts of the message. He denies that he believes what he denies that he knows, and as if seeking another author of faith: she professes that she will do, nor doubts it must be done, but inquires how it can be done.

They object 2. That she sinned the sin of negligence when she lost her Son for three days, and the sin of impatience when she rebuked him with these words: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Therefore, etc. — I deny the antecedent; and to the first I say, that since the Virgin Mother of God and her most holy spouse Joseph knew Jesus to be true God, they left Him to His own will; whence they could easily be induced to believe He was with their kinsfolk and acquaintances, and accordingly no negligence of theirs appears there: seeing they knew He needed not their guidance and presence to return home safe. Equally there was no impatience; for the aforesaid words of Mary are not signs of rebuke but of sorrow, and testify only the immense love and grief of the Virgin over the absence of her most loving Son.

They object 3. She seems to have sinned the sin of ambition, when at the wedding feast she required a miracle of her Son saying: They have no wine. For by these words, says Luther on ch. 2 of John, she seems out of ambition and vainglory to have sought a miracle for ostentation. — Truly I answer with S. Augustine tr. 8 in Ioan., that those words were not a token of vainglory but of the surpassing faith of the B. Virgin concerning the divinity and omnipotence of her Son, as well as a sign of the burningest charity wherewith she burned toward the poor, whom she willed not to be overwhelmed with shame for want of wine. Nor when Christ said: What is it to me and to thee, woman? My hour is not yet come: did He reject the petition of His mother as too importunate, but showed the fullness of wisdom and power communicating itself at its pleasure. Not rejecting (says S. Augustine lib. 4 De Consensu Evangelistarum, cap. 10.) her of whom He took flesh, but then chiefly insinuating His Divinity: acting conversant in the flesh, which Divinity had made that woman also, not made in her. But that Christ subjoins: My hour is not yet come, the same S. Augustine expounds thus tr. 19 in Ioan.: He had foretold therefore this hour, he says, which then had not yet come, in which dying He ought to acknowledge the Mother of whom He had been born mortal. Therefore about to work divine things, not the Mother of Divinity but of infirmity, He repelled her as unknown: but now suffering human things, from whom He had been made man, He commended her with human affection. For then He who had been nourished by Mary made Himself known in power: now He whom Mary had brought forth hung upon the Cross.

They object 4. S. Chrysostom, who wishes even that sin of vainglory and a certain pride to be detected in her: for expounding that Matth. 27 where certain ones saying to Christ: Behold thy mother, and thy brethren stand without seeking thee, to which Christ answers: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? sets forth the reason of this answer thus: Such, he says, words He spoke, not that he was ashamed of His Mother, or cast off her from whom He had come: for if he were ashamed of her, He would by no means have gone forth through her womb into light: but that He might show nothing did that avail her unless that it was her office to profit in all things. For what she had undertaken to do was of a certain proud ambition, since she was wont to show forth to the people that she ruled over her Son and exercised authority over Him, when as yet she had proposed to herself nothing great concerning Him in her imagination. Therefore she came unseasonably. Of faith, I pray you, is the pride both of her and of them. Since equal it was for those entering to hear Him with the crowd, or if they would not this, to wait until He made an end of speaking, and then approach, they against the doors go forth before Him. Whence Calvin says on this passage, there is no doubt that by these words He carps at the importunity of Mary, that she attempted preposterously to break off the course of His doctrine. — I answer with S. Ambrose on this passage, that Christ answered thus that He might teach the hearers that the bond of minds is more religious than of bodies: Nor, he says, are parents injuriously refused, but the bonds of minds are taught to be more religious than of bodies. Therefore here (as some catch at snares) not the Mother is denied, who even from the cross is acknowledged: but the form of the precepts preferred before bodily kinship. Nor does it repugn to understand that by figure of parents He points out to the Jews, from whom is Christ according to the flesh, the Church, to be preferred to credulity. To S. Chrysostom I say, either that he exceeded in oratorical manner in this expression, or that he deviated ever so little from the truth herein, as S. Thomas ingenuously confesses.

Finally they object certain ones of the holy Fathers asserting that the B. Virgin wavered in faith at the time of the Passion. Thus chiefly Basil Epist. 318 asserts she fluctuated with a certain doubt, and tossed with scandal, when she saw her Son afflicted with punishment: In excess, he says, at the time of the Passion she was subjected to a certain doubt, according to the answer of the Lord, who had said: All you shall be scandalized in me. So likewise S. Cyril of Alexandria plainly hands down the same in his Commentaries on John, saying that blessed Virgin in the Passion of her Son not only suffered scandal but was well-nigh bereft of her state of mind. But less tolerable are those things which he narrates presently, that Christ commended the Mother to the disciple John, in what way, since she had fallen into her own thoughts and been filled with perturbations of thoughts, provision must be made for her. Therefore since He knew with what thoughts she was then agitated, He uttered this excellent mystagogy to His disciple, who could rightly and fitly explain the height of that mystery. The same Origen teaches Hom. 17 in Lucam, where among other things he says: What think we, that from scandalizing the Apostles the Mother of the Lord was immune in herself? If she suffered not scandal in the Passion of the Lord, Jesus died not for her sins. But if all have sinned and need the glory of the justification of His grace and redemption, certainly also Mary at that time was scandalized. — I answer first to Origen, that in this matter as in very many others he fell gravely, and accordingly is by no means to be heard. As to the other Fathers I say they somewhat exceeded in homiletic manner: or by doubt they understand great admiration and as it were stupor of the B. Virgin at the time of the Passion of Christ. For S. Ambrose declares her surpassing patience and unconquered constancy of soul in that immense grief wherewith she was pressed, Epist. 25, where he thus writes: Mary the Mother of the Lord stood before the cross of her Son: none taught me this but the holy Evangelist. And a little within: The Apostles fleeing, she stood before the cross, and with pious eyes beheld the wounds of Christ, because she awaited not the death of her pledge but the salvation of the world: or perhaps because she might recognize from the death of her Son the redemption of the world, etc. And in the Sermon on the death of Valentinian: She stood, he says, as holy Mary beside the cross of her Son, and the Virgin beheld the Passion of her Only-begotten; beholding her I read her, standing I read her: weeping I read her not.

WHETHER THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS TRULY AND PROPERLY TO BE CALLED MOTHER OF CHRIST.

Note 1. That Theodorus of Mopsuestia preceded the Nestorian heresy and as it were shone before it, disciple of Diodorus of Tarsus, fellow-student of S. John Chrysostom, as Theodoret narrates lib. 5 Historiae cap. 30; whom moreover, born of a most ample family and in the highest riches, was drawn at Antioch by that same John Chrysostom to the institute of Monks, as Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem reports in the Ecclesiastical History. Nay the same asserts with Nicephorus lib. 13 c. 2 that he was that Theodore to whom S. Chrysostom wrote two books, to call him back fallen again from the more sacred purpose of living into the common life: and this one finally obtained the Episcopate of Mopsuestia, which is a city of Cilicia, which he ruled happily for 36 whole years with unwearied labor contending against any Heretics whatever, chiefly Arians and Eunomians, as also Origenists and Apollinarists, as Facundus reports lib. 3 cap. 3, and Theodoret lib. 5 cap. 39; who for this reason wonderfully commends this Theodore; nay Facundus remembers lib. 5 cap. 4 an honorable testimony concerning him even from Cyril, although he is reported later to have noted him in his writings, because after Nestorius was condemned in the Ephesine Synod together with his heresy, his books proscribed by edict of the Emperors, the writings of that master and of certain Bishops his disciples, in which the poisons of Nestorian error had been sprinkled, were disseminated abroad, especially those of Diodorus of Tarsus and of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, who was held pestilentest of all, and who was reported to have been author of that dogma to Nestorius. Wherefore Proclus of Constantinople forbade such books to be read by the faithful, and Cyril himself published books against Theodorus, which are referred to in the fifth Synod coll. 5, and of which Liberatus Diaconus makes mention in the Breviary in these words: Four, he says, were written by him (Cyril), three against Theodorus and Diodorus pious authors of the Nestorian dogma, and another book de Incarnatione, in which he demonstrates among others the testimonies of Dionysius the Areopagite placed therein. Nor does it matter that they ought to be called so by very many, as Rabbulla Bishop of Edessa teaches in the Epistle to Cyril, where he recites the heretical opinions of Theodorus, plainly the same which the Ephesine Synod had condemned in Nestorius: First he exposed, he says, that it is not to be believed that the holy Virgin is Mother of God; as if God the Word did not receive nourishment according to us. Nevertheless John of Antioch took up his parts; for a Synod having been gathered whereby he might curb certain instant ones, that Theodorus be condemned on account of certain depraved and heretical heads noted in the excerpts which were circulated, he wrote to Cyril persuading him by many reasons not to permit an illustrious man, who had performed glorious labors for the Church, to be condemned as heretic; rescribing to whom Cyril has these things: Dialogues, he says, and the depraved and unpraiseworthy opinions of Theodorus, or of certain others, whom it were better not praised lest I say anything harsh, because they bore in full manner as it were words against the glory of Christ — let no one, I beseech, ascribe to the holy and orthodox Fathers. Whence the same Cyril Epist. to Acatius Bishop of Melitene wrote that this Theodore had a blasphemous tongue and a pen ministering to it. Wherefore he complains that he is esteemed so great by the Orientals that acclamations such as these about him were made by the people in the Churches: The faith of Theodorus shall be followed: So we believe as Theodore believes: when nevertheless the same daring once to speak some small thing wrongly in the Church, they assailed him with stones. But as it pleases the shepherd, thus feels the flock, adds Cyril twitching John silently. Scarce therefore can we sufficiently wonder that Facundus lib. 3 cap. 3 asserts Theodore to have been praised by Cyril, nor blamed by anyone; for from S. Cyril he reports these written things of thine: There were written by the great Theodore against the heresies of the Arians and Eunomians perhaps twenty and yet more books, and other besides these Gospel and Apostolic writings he interpreted. And these labors indeed no one dared to rebuke, but with right decree to honor the study of right dogmas which is in them. These things however cohere not at all with the writings of S. Cyril just praised.

Note 2. That the Nestorians agreed with Catholics that the Word truly was made flesh or man: but whether this assumption of human nature, or incarnation, was to be called properly and truly generation, the Nestorians did not so consent: since Nestorius confessed indeed that the Son and Word of God passed through the Virgin; but obstinately denied Him to have been begotten of the B. Virgin, as S. Cyril reports lib. 1 Contra Nestorium: fearing indeed lest the people understand that passage as true generation, before whom he had said: he does not envy that voice to Christ's genetrix the Virgin, but knows her to be reverenced who received God, through whom the omnipotent Lord made His passage, presently he corrected his saying thus: In what mode at last did you understand that passing of the Word? he says: I did not say He passed, in place of what He is, He was begotten: for my opinion was not so quickly obscured? that God passed from Christ's genetrix the Virgin, I am taught from Sacred Letters: That God Himself was begotten of her, nowhere did I learn. Truly against the impious and nefarious opinion of the archheretic there was outcry from all Catholics, and the blasphemous error of that man was proscribed not only by contemporaries and posteriors but also by primary and anterior holy Fathers.

For all these with one voice testify that the divine Word was truly begotten of the B. Virgin, and that she is properly to be called genetrix of God, as will appear below.

Note 3. That certain Nestorians, that they might the more easily cover their nefarious dogma under a masked species of Catholic doctrine and similitude of words, did not refuse to call the B. Virgin Θεοτόκον. For when they saw themselves traduced into odium and held for heretics because they refused to admit that little word, as if this one appellation sundered them from Catholics: for certainly all contention of faith between Catholics and Nestorians consisted in constituting this one appellation, as testifies S. Cyril Epist. 1 to John of Antioch, and Ephraemius Patriarch of Antioch writing in Photius. That faith might be made certain of Catholic piety sur omnimoda, to hold and profess that the most holy Virgin is genetrix of God: that the Nestorians might repel this mark of heresy from themselves, they admitted this appellation upon this plan, that they might signify prior and separately to have been man in the womb of the Virgin, then assumed by the Word into communion of the same dignity and name: and thus by that plan they admitted the Virgin to be genetrix of God because she had begotten Him who was raised up to society and fellowship with God, as Vincentius Lirinensis lucidly expounds in these words:

It is to be confessed with singular gift, veriest and most blessedly Θεοτόκος, of the Lord and our God, and His Son: but not in that mode Θεοτόκος which a certain impious heresy suspects, which asserts her to be called Mother of God in mere appellation, who namely brought forth the man who afterwards was made God: as we say the mother of a Presbyter, or mother of a Bishop, no longer begetting a Presbyter or Bishop, but truly generating the man who afterwards was made Presbyter or Bishop.

These things thus premised, two things chiefly remain to be determined in this Question: The first, that truly the Virgin is to be called genetrix of God: second, how she concurred toward that generation, whether through purest blood, or through some cut-off little portion of her virginal flesh.

First Conclusion. — THE MOST BLESSED VIRGIN IS TRULY TO BE CALLED DEIPARA. This is of faith determined in various Councils, chiefly indeed the Ephesine, in which against Nestorius the B. Virgin Θεοτόκος, that is, genetrix of God, was proclaimed. The Angel Gabriel had signified the same denouncing the mystery of the Incarnation to Mary in these words: That which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God, Luke 2. Hence ibidem blessed Elisabeth at the visitation of Mary exclaimed: Whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?

With the same title of divine dignity and glory all the holy Fathers celebrated her from the very beginnings of the nascent Church, who either called God truly born of the Virgin, or the Virgin herself genetrix of God. Thus, to commemorate some out of very many, speaks Justin Martyr in dialogue with Trypho, where he says: Christ previously existed son of the Maker of all things, and God, who was born man through the Virgin, etc. Whence to Trypho the Jew objecting that he wished to demonstrate a thing incredible and nearly impossible, that he sustained God to be begotten and to become man: he answers that He willed to be begotten and lifted upon the cross for humankind. Ignatius Martyr subscribes, not indeed in the Epistle to the Romans, as Theodoret reports in Dialogue 1, but in that which is to the Smyrnenses, he says: Thoroughly persuaded concerning our Lord, who is of the race of David according to flesh, Son of God according to Deity, born of a Virgin. So Petavius reports from the apograph of the Florentine codex in the Library of the Grand Duke lib. 5 cap. 11. Irenaeus assents lib. 3 Adversus Haereses, cap. 31, where among other things he has:

If Adam was taken indeed from earth, of the Virgin and word of God he was formed: it behoved the same Word making recapitulation of Adam in Himself, to have similitude of the same generation. Why then did not God take again clay, but worked from Mary the formation, that not another formation should be made, nor another be the formation which should be saved, but the very same should be recapitulated, similitude preserved.

The same has Dionysius of Alexandria in the epistle against Paulus of Samosata: For already, he says, He dwelt (the Word, in those in whom more mothers were found: but one only Virgin daughter of life begot the living Word. — S. Athanasius also subscribes in the book De Salutari Adventu Iesu Christi: Who existed before ages God, he says, from Nazareth was seen man, born of Mary the Virgin, and the Holy Spirit. And presently, that God, he says, the Only-begotten decreed, by fullness of His Divinity, that the formation of that first and exemplar man, and a new work, be raised out of the womb of a virgin to Himself by natural generation. More distinctly declares this truth in Oration 1, where making discourse concerning the Word, splendor and wisdom of the Father, he says: Then afterwards for us that same one having taken flesh from the Virgin genetrix of God, Mary, was made man. S. Basil teaches the same lib. De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 5, and Hom. 25 on the human generation of Christ, in which he distinctly calls the most blessed Virgin genetrix of God. Gregory Nazianzen also consents Orat. 5, as also in the former Epistle to Cledonius, where likewise he constantly affirms blessed Mary genetrix of God.

The same is the unanimous opinion of the ancient Theologians and Latin Fathers: for Tertullian in Apologetic chapter 21 De Christo writes: That beam of God therefore, as it was ever preached before, let down into a certain Virgin, and in her womb flesh figured, is born man mixed with God. And lib. De Carne Christi, cap. 17: But before all things the reason will have to be commended which presided, that the Son of God should be born of a Virgin. S. Cyprian subscribes lib. 12 against the Jews: This, he says, was to be the sign of His nativity, that of a Virgin should be born man and God, Son of man and Son of God. — Hilary lib. 9: God therefore was born of a Virgin man, and according to the fullness of times about to proceed in Himself into God man. Ambrose lib. De Incarnat. cap. 5: Not otherwise of the Father, otherwise of the Virgin: but the same otherwise of the Father, otherwise of the Virgin in generation? Jerome lib. Contra Helvidium: We believe God to be known of a Virgin, because we read it. Augustine is wholly engaged in expounding this truth, chiefly Sermon 15 De Tempore: How, he says, in the rule of faith we confess that we believe in the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, if not the Son of God but the son of man had been born of the Virgin Mary? For what Christian denies that of that woman was born son of man, yet God made man, and thus man made God? Whence deservedly S. Cyril lib. De Recta Fide, concludes: Behold, he says, all best and wise Fathers who existed at divers times before us name the holy Virgin genetrix of God: and since they asserted the divine Word to be joined to flesh with natural union, they teach both that He was begotten in the womb of the Virgin, and proceeded from her according to flesh: although He who is without beginning and every prior age submitted generation from the Father. — Hence also appears Ephraemius Patriarch of Antioch to have written less truly in the work which he wrote against the Monophysites for the authority of the Synod of Chalcedon and of Pope Leo, when he says Leo first among Fathers with express words uttered this thing. For witness is John of Antioch in the Epistle to Nestorius, wherein he exhorts him, contention laid aside, to cease attacking that appellation, which by very many Fathers has been composed, written, and pronounced. Then he thus proceeds: For this name no one of Ecclesiastical Sayings repudiated. For many used it, and they celebrated: and who used it not, reproved not its users. Theodoret likewise in the Nestorian heresy writes, that the most ancient heralds of Catholic faith, from Apostolic tradition, taught the Mother of the Lord to be named and believed genetrix of God. Behold, Theodoret affirms that B. Mary of old was named genetrix of God from Apostolic tradition.

The Nestorians objected: The Blessed Virgin cannot be called Mother of God unless she have begotten Divinity: but it is false that she begat Divinity: since this is ungenerateable and unproducible: therefore false likewise that she is genetrix of God. They proved the major, as S. Cyril reports lib. 1 Contra Nestorium, by this example: As a woman indeed begets body: but God infuses soul: nor can the woman be called genetrix of soul because she begat the animated; rather she must be called genetrix of man: so the B. Virgin although she brought forth man — passing over together with Him this Word of God, for with this voice she used it — is judged not therefore to be called genetrix of God. Hence their voice was, as Maxentius reports Tomo 1 of the Library of the PP.: If by nature the Virgin Mary begat God, now she is not genitrix of flesh but of Divinity: and how do you preach not the Word God serum Divinitatis, which is common to Him with the Father; according to flesh, Him born of the Virgin. — I distinguish the minor: That B. Mary begat not Divinity as if Divinity through that generation had received anew to be, and had obtained new existence, I concede: thus that that man who was begotten of the most blessed Virgin was not truly and properly God, I deny. For as mothers are properly called genetrices of those whom consisting of body and soul they begat in their wombs and brought forth into light, although God alone produced the soul, because man begotten consists of body and soul; so the most holy Virgin even if she begat not Divinity nor gave it beginning, no less for that reason is to be called genetrix of God; since she begat that man who was not man before He existed God, that is, whose soul and body did not previously exist in nature than joined among themselves and hypostatically coupled with the Word. Which distinction and solution S. Cyril weighs gloriously lib. 1 Contra Nestorium, as also in the Epistle to Monks concerning true maternality of the B. Virgin, where he has:

The mystery of the Word. For the mothers of earthly men serving nature to beget, hold flesh in the womb, which little by little compacted, and advanced by certain inexplicable efficacies of God into human species is absolved. God moreover breathes animal spirit in ways He knows how. For He fashions the spirit of man in him, as the Prophet speaks: But there is another reason of flesh, another likewise of soul. Truly although these women are mothers only of earthly bodies; nevertheless when they have brought forth the whole animal composed of soul and body, they are said not to have brought forth only its part. Nor would anyone say, for example, Elisabeth mother of John, to be genetrix of flesh, not however of soul. For she brought forth the animated Baptist, and thus as one something out of both, man namely with soul and body. Something of this kind we shall confess to have been done also in the generation of Emmanuel. Since indeed there was born, as I said, of the substance of God the Father the Only-begotten His Word. But when He took flesh and made it proper to Himself, that He might be son of man and become like unto us, then it is by no means absurd to say, nay necessarily to be professed, that He was begotten of woman according to flesh: just as the soul of man is begotten together with its own body, and is reckoned one with it: although understood in nature, and diverse from it according to its proper reason.

They urged: Of him only whom she truly and properly begat is the B. Virgin to be called genetrix: but truly and properly she begat only the man who was united to God: therefore she is to be called genetrix of man alone. — I distinguish the major: whom she truly and properly begat as well according to nature as according to person, I deny: whom she properly begat according to nature through divine person subsisting, I concede. Similarly I distinguish the minor: truly and properly she begat man alone, that is, begat him who was only man as well according to nature as according to person, I deny: that he was man according to human nature, but God by reason of Divinity united hypostatically to Himself through the personality of the Word which sustained human nature, no otherwise than as if it were its own personality, I concede. Therefore since generation per se and properly terminates in person, or hypostasis, as in terminus, that is, in subsistent nature; thence properly is the B. Virgin to be called genetrix of God, seeing she begat nature which subsisted with the divine subsistence of the Word: for, as Ferrandus teaches gloriously, Epist. Ad

In both: Purely Divine is born of the Father, the same Incarnate Divinity properly born of mother. And this is the difference between the two generations of the one Son of God, that in divine generation there was no humanity, in human generation Divinity was joined to humanity properly being born.

For if I said, or wished to say, that Mary ever Virgin properly begat humanity, not properly begat Divinity, it would be conceded under some mode that she begat pure man, whom in no mode she so begat, that the Word made flesh properly begat. — By this reason therefore is the B. Virgin to be judged genetrix of God, that from her cut-off substance and formative and nutritive virtue the foetus contributed to the compagination and organization of Christ's body, which in that instant in which it was informed with rational soul and living, both the very body and soul united were united to Divinity by hypostatic union through the person of the Word; so that the very human nature, as personated and subsisting with the subsistence of the Word, was the total and adequate terminus of that fecundity of the B. Virgin. But whether the Deipara Virgin contributed toward formation of Christ's body by furnishing some cut-off particle of her flesh or blood or seed, is now to be determined.

Second Conclusion. — ALTHOUGH VERY MANY FATHERS SEEM TO TESTIFY THAT THE BODY OF CHRIST OUR LORD WAS FORMED FROM THE FLESH OF THAT MOST BLESSED VIRGIN HERSELF, YET IT APPEARS MOST PROBABLE THAT IT WAS FRAMED OF HER PUREST BLOOD. This consists of two parts, whereof

The first is persuaded. First indeed by the authority of S. Jerome (if however he be author of the Epistola De libro perfecto, which very many attribute to Thesiphon), where he says: I receive absolutely no seed, except that which the Apostle says: made of woman, made of flesh: by which words he admits blood not toward formation of Christ's body, makes no mention of seed, signifies expressly that the flesh of the Virgin was the matter for compaging that most sacred body. S. August. consents Psalm. 98, where making brief discourse concerning either mystery of Incarnation ⟦strictim?⟧, he says: From the flesh of Mary He took flesh, and that flesh itself of Mary He gave us to eat unto salvation. Which opinion certainly Serm. 30 corroborates saying: Therefore Mary was elected fertilized with all graces, filled in womb with all virtue and holiness, that of most clean flesh the cleanest Son should be born. — In the same manner speaks S. Bernard, Homilia 2 super Missus est, for expounding those words, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, he says: Fiat mihi de Verbo secundum verbum tuum: The Word which was in the beginning with God, let it be made flesh of my flesh according to thy word. And about the middle declaring no intellect can seize how the splendor of the divine Word poured Himself into the bowels of the Virgin, he says: So could Mary bear that inaccessible light drawing near to herself, that from a little portion of the same body to which He tempered Himself to her soul, the rest became shadow of the mass. Saint Anselm subscribes, lib. De Excellentia Virginis, cap. 12, where addressing the Virgin he says: Surely God who assumed man, of thy most chaste flesh did this for thy salvation and ours all. — In the same manner speaks S. Ildephonsus, lib. De Perpetua virginitate et parturitione Virginis, where among other things he says: Most glorious Virgin Mary nim**nimirum, because it was not by common law of nature: neither from the first origin of nature a Son, nor from seed of man, but of the Holy Spirit divinely procreated from her flesh, without any defilement of parents she brought forth God and man. — The same has venerable Bede, lib. 1 cap. 19 in Lucam, where concerning the incarnate Word he writes: Body from virginal womb drew flesh not from nothing, not elsewhere, but maternal from flesh. Similar things Rupertus writes, lib. 7 De Divinis officiis, cap. 25, where weighing the joy of B. Virgin over resurrection of Christ, among other things he says: Sweet wounds of her flesh she offered to be kissed, whom she bore living flesh conceived from her own bowels. — But most clearly of all posterior Doctors expound this truth, chiefly S. Bernardine, Serm. 61 art. 1 cap. 10: In a part, he says, cut off of the virginal body consists, is perfected and terminated the whole God, and the weight of the Sacraments of the Church. Richard of S. Laurentio consents, lib. 1 De Laud. Virg., cap. 2: Of the flesh of the Virgin, he says, a particle was taken, from which, by artifice of the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ was formed. — But our Alensis teaches this of all most clearly 2 par. qu. 27 memb. 3 art. 1, where he says: When it is said, that Christ was made according to body from the purest bloods of B. Virgin, as Dumascenus says, and the Master recites (in 3 d. 3) it is not understood of blood, which is one of four humors, but blood is there taken for flesh. The common consent of the Church also seems to favor, while in the Collect of the feast of Incarnation or Annunciation it is thus prayed: O God, who from the womb of blessed Mary the Virgin didst will Thy Word announcing by the Angel to take flesh, etc. It says not blood but flesh, that it may seem to signify the body of Christ to be taken not from seed or blood but from flesh of the Virgin itself. — To these accedes our Galatinus, who lib. 1 c. 1 reports the opinion of ancient Hebrews to have been, that a particle of flesh in Adam still innocent was preserved uninjured from contagion of sin, and derived to the Virgin, that from her purest flesh the body of Christ our Lord should be formed. Which opinion certainly the Doctor reports also in 3 dist. 3 q. 2 in these words: It is said according to the Master (in 2 d. 80) that some portion was in Adam of which all his sons were propagated: and some place that something of that portion was not infected in Adam, but preserved clean until the generation of Christ. Which opinion although the Doctor approve not, nevertheless, for his wonted modesty, he willed not to note it with censure. Hence some of his disciples, chiefly the most illustrious Ioannes Baptista a Campanea once General Minister of our whole Seraphic Order, afterwards Bishop of Puteoli, held as certain that the body of Christ our Lord was formed not from blood of Virgin but flesh, and defended that opinion most strongly in public disputations, as the most illustrious Franciscus Belligerus Bishop of Cadiz of our Order reported in encomio of B. Mary Virgin Tom. 1 disp. 13 fragm. 2 punct. 2, who equally adheres to this opinion, and confirms it with very many authorities and some reasons.

Nevertheless I prefer to subscribe then to the Subtle Doctor, with other Theologians affirming the body of Christ our Lord to have been formed not from flesh itself of the most blessed Virgin, but from purest blood. For the Doctor supposes this as indubitable in the place soon praised, saying: From blood of the Virgin, of which the body of Christ was formed according to Damascenus, cap. 15, since they were never animated with soul of any man, consequently never contracted stain from an animating soul. — Whence to the holy Fathers and praised authors I answer with S. Thomas, in 3 d. 3 q. 1 art. 5 ad 1. Therefore it is said Christ took flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter of His body was actually flesh, but blood, which is flesh in potency: for what is such in potency can be said absolutely such.