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.