Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He adds shortly after:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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