Bellarmine · De Controversiis · Appendix to the Treatise On the Cult of Images
Chapter 1: A Refutation of the Booklet Falsely Called the Synod of Paris
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, Appendix ad Tractatum de Cultu Imaginum, of the controversy On the Church Triumphant. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
In which is contained a refutation of the booklet which falsely bears the name of a Synod of Paris.
In the year 1596 there came out at Frankfurt a new booklet with this title: The Synod of Paris on images, in the year of Christ 824, copied from a most ancient Codex, and now published for the first time. In this present year, when the booklet was shown to me by a friend, I noticed at once that it is neither truly a Synod nor a writing worthy of the light. So, lest the title should deceive the unwary, I thought it would be worth the trouble to refute the booklet very briefly.
Chapter I
To begin, then: that there is no Synod of Paris contained in this booklet can be shown by this argument, that no decrees are seen in it, no canons, no subscription of Bishops, no mention of a synod. Indeed the booklet itself openly convicts the emptiness of its own title. For so we read on page 126: “We, not by gathering a synod, but as we asked of you and received leave to act, together with our household, your sons, so far as we could at intervals, hindered by the many various business of the kingdom, have studied to consider what we might be able to signify to your Highness on so great a need.”
And so that the sense of these words may be understood, we shall set out the argument of the whole booklet. Michael Balbus, the Greek emperor, wrote a fairly long letter to Louis the Pious, the Latin emperor, in which, after many other things, he signified that the Church was divided into two parts because of the images of Christ and the saints, some contending that they were to be adored, others that they were not; and at the same time he asked that Louis should work in the West so that, the superstitious cult of images being taken away, the Church might recover peace and unity.
Louis, having received this letter, obtained from the Supreme Pontiff leave to call together some learned men, who should carefully gather the testimonies of the ancient Fathers on the cult of images. When this was done he ordered a letter to be written which he intended to send to the emperor Michael in the name of the Supreme Pontiff, with the Pontiff's own consent, to whom it was first to be shown. Lastly he sent by two Bishops both the aforesaid letter and another written by himself properly to the Pontiff himself, who was called Eugene.
These five things, then, are contained in the booklet lately published. First, the letter of Michael Balbus to Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne. Second, the testimonies gathered from the ancient Fathers, by which it is proved that images are neither to be broken, as the Iconoclasts wished, nor to be venerated, as the second synod of Nicaea had decreed. Third, a letter written in the name of the Supreme Pontiff by the Frankish Doctors to the emperor Michael, in which it is taught that images are neither to be injured nor yet adored. Fourth, a letter of the emperor Louis to Pope Eugene, the second of that name, in which he urges him to send a legation to Greece and to bring peace to the Church. Fifth, a letter of the same Louis to Jeremias and Jonas, the Bishops whom he is sending to Rome to the Supreme Pontiff, in which he instructs them how they ought to conduct themselves prudently with the Pontiff, so as to draw him over to their opinion.
From these things it will be easy to understand that those who wished to adorn this booklet with the handsome name of a synod of Paris wanted to deceive. They tried to help the cause of the Iconoclasts and to bring some harm to the Catholic faith; but, God helping, we shall soon bring it about that they are sorry to have lost their oil and their labour.
Chapter II
For, to come to the letter of Michael, which takes up the first part of the booklet: it seems indeed full of religious zeal, so that anyone who did not know from elsewhere who this Michael was would judge him one of the best and most Christian of princes.
But there are extant the public annals of John Zonaras, George Cedrenus, and others who committed to writing the deeds of the Greek Princes. From these we may learn that Michael was a stammerer [Balbus] not only in surname but in fact, a man impious and most wicked: one who was given more to Jewish superstition than to the Christian religion; who flatly denied the resurrection of the flesh, and for that reason mocked the prophets and apostles who had preached it; who said that fornication was lawful, and so despised holy celibacy that he chose for his wife a nun out of a monastery, already consecrated to God; who rejected the seventh ecumenical synod, approved by Hadrian the supreme Pontiff; who judged the holy images worthy of no honour; who heavily favoured the Iconoclasts, and set before himself above all others as a model Constantine Copronymus, the prince of the Iconoclasts; who punished St. Euthymius and St. Methodius and other pious defenders of the truth with exile, prison or death.
This then is that Michael who, clothed in a sheep's skin while he was in truth a ravening wolf, pretends, as if on fire with zeal for the faith, to desire nothing else but the reformation and peace of the Church. But just as in that very letter he laments the murder of the Emperor Leo, whom he himself next succeeded, and whom he says was wretchedly killed by certain wicked men in a conspiracy, while it is clear enough from the authors cited above that this same Michael was the head of the conspiracy: so too he seems to complain piously that the Church is divided by disputes over the cult of images, while he himself was the chief author of the dispute and division, since he had rejected the general synod which had taken away the disputes, and was striving to spread Iconoclasm; and, not content with the disputes of the East, was busy sowing and spreading disputes in the West too.
As for his blaming the Catholics, at the end of the letter, that they despise the life-giving cross, that they adore images as if they were gods, that they offer sacrifices to them, that they wish by some device or other to have them receive children from the sacred font and to take holy communion, and lastly that they show other superstitions or follies of this kind in the cult of holy images: these are mere slanders and impostures. Nor will anyone wonder that a Greek emperor could write lies of this kind in his letter to Latins placed far away, who is willing to consider how gross and how incredible are the lies which the heretics of our own time invent about Catholics living in places near them.
But from the second Council of Nicaea, truly lawful and ecumenical, whether Michael Balbus will or no, celebrated in those very times, it can be made clearer than the light of the sun that these things are the inventions and frauds of heretics. For that Council, to which all Catholics assented, taught that to holy images is due indeed their own veneration, but not greater than to the life-giving Cross; and that sacrifice is in no way to be offered to them, nor are they to be adored with the cult of latria, which is proper to God. Let the synod be read, and the impostures will vanish at once.
This being so, either the Franks who were counsellors to the Emperor Louis believed the letter of Michael, or they did not. If they believed it, they were circumvented and deceived. If they did not believe it, they misused that letter to move the Supreme Pontiff to rescind the acts of his predecessors, and himself to disapprove and condemn the synod of Nicaea approved by Hadrian.
But whether they were deceived or wished to deceive, there was no point in publishing their error or their crime to the world; especially since not without cause our forefathers willingly allowed booklets of this kind, which could bring no profit but very much harm, to lie hidden.
Chapter III
I come now to those testimonies which those few men called by the emperor Louis say they gathered from the monuments of the ancients. For those men seem to have sinned on many counts. And first, before the collection, they very boldly took upon themselves judgement over Apostolic writings. Nor did they judge rashly only of the Supreme Pontiff, but also of a General Synod approved by the Pontiff. In this they far surpassed the sin of that author who published, in the name of Charlemagne, a book against the cult of holy images. For he (as the Fathers of the council of Frankfurt also did) disapproved the second synod of Nicaea because he thought it had been celebrated without the consent of the Apostolic See. But these counsellors of the emperor Louis, whose writings we are examining, confess that the synod for the cult of images, that is, the second of Nicaea, was assembled and approved by Hadrian the Supreme Pontiff; and yet they are not afraid to examine, judge and find fault with both the Synod itself and the letter of the same Hadrian to the emperor Constantine for the cult of images, and again the defence of the same Synod sent by Hadrian to Charles.
For these are their words, on page 19: “First we had read before us the letter of the Lord Pope Hadrian which he formerly directed to the emperor Constantine and Irene his mother, at their entreaty, in the lands across the sea, for setting up images; and, so far as the matter was open to our littleness, just as he rightly rebuked those who with rash daring presumed in those parts to break the images of the saints and wholly abolish them, so he is known to have acted without discernment in that he ordered them to be adored superstitiously, for which cause also he ordered a synod to be assembled.” And below, on page 21, of the defence of the Nicene Synod published by Hadrian, they speak thus: “He tried to answer, chapter by chapter, in their excuse, what he wished, not however what was fitting,” and so on.
So, forsooth, they did not blush to judge their own judge and the judge of the whole world, to feed the shepherd of all the sheep of Christ, and to teach the teacher of all; than which rashness no greater can be thought of.
Chapter IV
But perhaps they found some new and hidden testimonies, relying on which they did not fear to withstand the Apostolic prelate to his face. On the contrary, they gathered, without any reason or order, testimonies most well known and common, and ones that have nothing to do with the matter.
And, to discuss a few by way of example: they take the first testimony from the book of St. Augustine On heresies, where we read that Simon Magus ordered his own image, and that of Helena his little harlot, to be adored by his disciples. And they say this is the first origin of adoring images. As if, when false worship is in question, the golden calf had not been adored by the Hebrews, and the statues of dead men by the Gentiles, before the times of Simon! But the Catholic Church does not learn the cult of sacred things from her enemies. And if from that testimony it were allowed to conclude that the images of Christ and of the Saints are not to be venerated, it will be allowed by the same reasoning to conclude that not even Christ himself is worthy of any honour; since it was impious to worship the images of Simon and Helena precisely because Simon and Helena were most unworthy to be worshipped.
But plainly ridiculous are the testimonies they took from letter 56 of the same Augustine to Dioscorus: ridiculous, I say, if they are applied to the matter we are dealing with. For what St. Augustine discusses about the images which flow from bodies and pass into the mind, so that through them we see or think something, these men bring forward to prove that the painted or carved images of Christ and the saints are in no way to be venerated. How well these things fit the present dispute, let the reader judge.
What more? Very many testimonies which the Supreme Pontiff Hadrian set down for images in that most learned letter of his, these men, who fight against images, cite again.
As for what they say, and even try to prove with some testimonies, that custom, or number of years, or any authority of antiquity is not to be preferred to the truth: that would be rightly said if it could be proved that the cult which the Catholic Church shows to images comes down from manifest error and not from certain truth. But when there is a dispute about anything, that custom is of great weight and antiquity is to be revered, not even they can deny. For why did they labour so much in turning over the monuments of antiquity, if no probable argument can be drawn from antiquity? Do they not see that by this deed of theirs they fight against their own words, and in fact destroy what they were trying to build up with words? Certainly, if it were allowed to bring forward the testimonies of St. Augustine, St. Basil and other ancient Fathers, in which they prove Church teachings from antiquity or from the custom of the Church, there would be no end.
But what passes all wonder is this: they bring forward many testimonies for the adoration of the Cross, and when they want to give the reason why the sign or wood of the Cross is to be adored and the images of Christ are not to be adored, they say the cause is that Christ was hung on the Cross, not on an image, and that he redeemed us by the Cross, not by an image. If I should wish to refute this, I fear that readers would think me too slow of wit. For certainly Christ was not hung on the sign of the Cross which we paint on a wall, or on a panel, or on the forehead, or in the air; nor even on those wooden crosses which are seen everywhere and adored in Churches; but on that one Cross of which these signs of ours, which we paint or set up, are images. Since, then, the adversaries allow us to venerate the image of the Cross, why will it not be allowed to venerate the image of the Crucified? And if we rightly adore the image of the Cross because by the Cross we were redeemed by Christ, what cause can be imagined why the image of Christ, who properly redeemed us, may not rightly be venerated?
But, they say, it is not lawful to venerate anything made by hands. What then? Is the wood or sign of the Cross not made by hands? The book of the Gospels, and the sacred vessels, which in their opinion are to be venerated, what are they but works of human hands? And yet it is true that nothing made by hands is to be venerated with that kind of cult with which God himself, who was not made at all but is the maker of all things, is to be venerated.
So these collectors could have left out the greatest part of the testimonies they brought, since nothing else is proved by them but that God alone is to be venerated with the cult of latria proper to him alone, and that images are not to be adored in such a way that sacrifices are offered to them; which neither we deny, nor did the holy synod of Nicaea deny.
And so that you may see, reader, how much strength the truth has, even those who attack it not seldom defend it, whether unwillingly or unawares. That happened to our collectors. For among other testimonies they gather also some to prove that images are not to be broken or injured. But in those same testimonies there is found not only what they want, namely that images are not to be treated with injury, but also what they do not want, that they are to be treated with honour. The collectors sometimes saw this, and boldly corrupted the text; sometimes they did not see it, and unawares left a testimony against themselves in their own booklet.
You have an example of the first on page 87, where St. Gregory is cited, who in the fifth letter of the seventh book, to Januarius, sharply rebukes some who carried the image of the Blessed Virgin and the Lord's Cross to the Synagogue of the Jews to insult them, and orders Januarius the Bishop to take the image and the Cross from that place, with the veneration of which it is worthy, and bring them back into the church. Here the good collectors simply deleted or left out the name of the image, lest, against their teaching, not only the Cross but also the image of the blessed Virgin should appear to be venerated; unless perhaps the name of the image was left out by an error of the copyists.
Next, on page 91, they write down these words from the synodical letter of Pope Gregory: “We make images and adore them for no other name but for the Word of God incarnate for us,” and so on. Do you hear the word, collector, “we adore”? And yet this testimony was brought forward by yourself. But we have clearer ones.
A little below are set these words from the book of St. Basil to Amphilochius On the Holy Spirit, chapter 17: “The honour of the image passes over to the first form,” and so on. Here again you have the honour of the image. But let us come to the clearest.
A little after are brought these other words from the letter of the same Basil the Great to the emperor Julian: “I believe in one God the Father almighty, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, one God; these three I adore and glorify. And I confess also the dispensation of the Son made flesh, and the Mother of God, holy Mary, who bore him according to the flesh. And I receive also the holy Apostles, Prophets and Martyrs, and the prayer to God through them, which makes the most merciful God favourable to me; for which reason I also honour and adore the figures of their images; this especially was handed down by the holy Apostles, and not forbidden, but in all our Churches their histories are portrayed,” and so on. What have we heard? St. Basil the Great is called as a witness by the adversary, and he is truly a witness above all exception. And he openly affirms that he honours and adores the images of the Apostles, Prophets and Martyrs. And he affirms it while he sets out the confession of his faith, and speaks of things not doubtful or likely, but most certain and well tried. And he adds that this was handed down by the Apostles and received and observed by the whole Church. What, I ask, can be answered? A most weighty author speaks openly, and his testimony is brought forward by the adversaries. Nor are other like testimonies lacking in the same booklet, of Athanasius, Germanus, Leontius and others, which are unwisely brought forward by the adversaries against themselves and for us, that is, for the cult of holy images. But I aim at brevity, and do not gladly waste time in refuting these follies.
Chapter V
There follows the third part, that is, the Letter of Pope Eugene to Michael and Theophilus his son, the emperors (which letter the same collectors seem to have written; for Eugene wrote no such letter, but, as we said above, it was written to be sent in the name of the Pontiff if he approved it). In this we are forced to find the prudence of the Collectors wanting. For with what face did they dare to prescribe to the Roman Pontiff what he ought to write? And with what confidence could they hope that the Roman Pontiff would write to the Greek emperor things contrary to what his predecessors had written more than once?
But let us see, if you please, a little more carefully whether that letter befits the supreme Pontiff. I pass over the fact that in this booklet the letter lacks its beginning; a fault which seems to be ascribed not to the first author but to him who now at last, after so many centuries, has brought this booklet to light. I say nothing either of the letter being very wordy, obscure, barbarous and unskilled; let that be allowed to the times. I am silent lastly on this, that while it tries to remove the contradiction which seemed to be in the words of St. Gregory, the more it tries to unwind itself the more it entangles itself. But three things I cannot pass over in silence.
First, this letter makes the supreme Pontiff a most shameless flatterer of the emperor, when it speaks thus: “O venerable Princes of the World, with the whole Holy Church of God, which by the Lord's disposing and entrusting you govern.” And below: “for uniting the Church which, by the Lord God's ordaining, you rule.” What fouler flattery? Michael Balbus, having killed the lawful emperor, when he himself had already been condemned to death for his crimes, seized the empire as a tyrant; and the Supreme Pontiff will affirm that by God's disposing, entrusting and ordaining this same Balbus took up the helm not only of the empire but also of the Church! And if the Church of God, to be governed by God himself, was handed over to the Emperor, what are the Bishops doing in the Church? What is the supreme Pontiff himself doing? “The Emperor,” says St. Ambrose, “is within the Church, not above the Church; a son of the Church, not its ruler; a sheep, not a shepherd.” And St. John Chrysostom said to his Deacon: “If he who is crowned with the diadem comes unworthily to receive the holy mysteries, hold him back and restrain him; you have greater power than he.”
Next, in the same letter this argument is repeated more than once: “If no image had ever been painted or carved, nothing would be lost of faith, hope and charity, by which one comes to the eternal kingdom”; and yet because of images dispute and division arose in the Church, peace was troubled, charity violated. And those who write that letter in the name of the Supreme Pontiff do not notice that by this argument is proved not only what they want, that images are not to be adored, but also (if anything is proved at all, as we shall soon see) that images are to be taken away altogether, which they do not want. Yet that argument is worth nothing.
For although nothing would be lost of faith, hope and charity if no image were painted or carved, yet when one has been painted or carved, he sins against the faith who denies that it is to be venerated; since the honour of the image is referred to the prototype, which the faith teaches is to be venerated, and the adversary does not deny it. And this very thing can be made clear by a likeness. If some little book of divine Scripture, such as the letter to Philemon, were not extant, nothing would be lost of faith, hope and charity; and yet, because it is now extant, he who denied that it is to be received with veneration would sin against the faith; and if disputes arose on that account, the letter would not be cast away, but the ignorance of those who disagreed would be refuted and instructed.
Lastly, in that same letter Constantine and his mother Irene are blamed because by their edict they ordered the holy images to be held with veneration according to the decree of the general Council. Such a rebuke surely could not have been written by a Supreme Pontiff unless he were plainly out of his mind. For what? Pope Hadrian extols Constantine and Irene with the highest praises because they favour the religious cult of holy images; and Hadrian's successor Eugene will rebuke the same emperors for the same cause? And what greater folly can be imagined than that a Supreme Pontiff should say he is displeased that the decrees of general Councils, approved by the Apostolic see, are kept and defended by an emperor?
But if the collectors were not very prudent, the Bishop of the Apostolic see was not inconstant; for he held to what his predecessors had decreed, not without great ripeness of deliberation. For Eugene did not send that letter; and a little after, Hadrian II had the eighth ecumenical synod celebrated at Constantinople, in which the seventh synod on the cult of images was approved again. Lastly, Anastasius the Librarian of Rome, in the preface to the seventh synod addressed to Pope John VIII, who had next succeeded Hadrian II, writes that all the Roman Pontiffs were of the same opinion. “What the present synod teaches,” he says, “concerning the adoration of the venerable images, this your Apostolic See also, as some writings indicate, held of old, and the universal Church has always venerated, and venerates still, except only some of the Gauls, to whom indeed the truth of these things has not yet been revealed.”
Chapter VI
There remains the last part, that is, the letter of the emperor Louis to Pope Eugene, and the other of the same Louis to Jeremias and Jonas, the Bishops. In these nothing is to be noted, except that some things are said in them which seem to smell of the frauds of recent heretics. Hence it comes to mind to suspect that perhaps either this whole booklet is made up, or, what is more credible, corrupted and enlarged to bring ill will on the Roman Church.
But whether it is a true book or made up, or partly genuine and partly adulterated, this one thing is certain: it is not a book worth wasting time in reading. The false title, the barbarous diction, the insipid sentences, the perverse order, the frequent repetition of the same testimonies, could easily have persuaded the printer, had he looked to the common good and not his own gain, to hold back from publishing a work of this kind.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
APPENDIX AD TRACTATUM DE CULTU IMAGINUM IN 0 U A CONTINETUR Refutatio libelli 3 qui falso Synodus Parisiensis Anno 1596. prodiit Francofurti novus libellus cum hoc titulo. Synodus Parisiensis de imaginibus anno Christi 824. ex vetustis¬ simo Codice descripta , et nunc primum in Lucem edita. Hoc autem praesenti anno cum mihi is libellus ab amico ostensus esset, ani¬ madverti continuo , nec vere Synodum_ esse , nec scriptum luce dignum. Quare ne forte inscriptio fallat incautos, operae pretium me factu* rum existimavi, si libellum brevissime confutarem. . . ' • / • . • • ■ ■ APPENDIX AD TRACTATUM DE CULTU IMAGINUM CAPUT PRIMUM. Principio igitur non esse synodum ullam Parisiensem, quae hoc libello contineatur, argumento esse potest, quod nulla in eo conspiciantur decreta, nulli canones, nulla exstet Episcoporum subscriptio, nulla synodi mentio ; sed et ipse libellus aperte redar¬ guit sui tituli vanitatem. Sic enim legimus pag. 126 : Nos non synodum congregando, sed quemadmodum a vobis postulavimus, licentiamque agendi percepimus, una cum familiaribus nostris, filiis vestris, quantum pro multiplicibus regni diversis occupatio¬ nibus impediti , per intervalla potuimus , considerare studuimus, quid Almitati vestrae de tanta necessitate significare potuisse¬ mus. Ac, ut verborum istorum sententia intel- ligatur, totius libelli argumentum expone¬ mus. Scripsit Michael Balbus imperator Graecus ad Ludovicum Pium imperatorem Latinum epistolam bene longam, in qua, post alia multa, significavit, Ecclesiam pro¬ pter imagines Christi et sanctorum in duas partes esse divisam, cum alii adorandas, alii non adorandas esse contenderent; et simul petiit, ut Ludovicus in Occidente ope¬ ram daret, ut sublato superstitioso cultu imaginum Ecclesia pacem et unionem recu¬ peraret. Ludovicus his litteris acceptis a Summo Pontifice facultatem obtinuit convocandi vi¬ ros aliquot doctos , qui veterum Patrum testimonia de cultu imaginum diligenter col¬ ligerent. Quo facto scribi jussit epistolam, quam nomine Summi Pontificis, ipso con¬ sentiente Pontifice, cui primum ostendenda erat, ad Michaelem imperatorem dirigere cogitabat. Denique tum epistolam praedi¬ ctam, tum aliam a se ad ipsum Pontificem, qui Eugenius dicebatur, proprie scriptam per duos Episcopos misit. Haec igitur quinque in libello, nuper edito, continentur. Primum, epistola Michaelis Bal¬ bi ad Ludovicum Pium, Garoli Magni filium; secundo, collecta testimonia ex veteribus Patribus, quibus probatur, imagines, neque frangendas esse, ut volebant Iconomachi, neque colendas, ut synodus Nicaena secunda statuerat; tertio, epistola, summi Pontificis nomine scripta a Francis Doctoribus ad Michaelem imperatorem, qua docetur, ima¬ gines neque injuria afficiendas esse, neque etiam adorandas ; quarto, epistola Ludovici imperatoris ad Eugenium Pontificem ejus nominis secundum, qua eum hortatur ad legationem in Graeciam mittendam, et Eccle¬ siam pacificandam ; quinto, epistola ejusdem Ludovici ad Hieremiam, et Jonam Episco¬ pos, quos Romani ad Summum Pontificem mittit, eosque instruit, quemadmodum pru¬ denter cum Pontifice se gerere debeant, ut eum ad suam sententiam pertrahant. Ex his promptum erit intelligere, fucum facere voluisse eos, qui hunc libellum spe¬ cioso nomine synodi Parisiensis ornare vo¬ luerunt ; qui quidem causam Iconomacho- rum juvare, et Catholicae fidei detrimentum aliquod adferre conati sunt ; sed Deo ju¬ vante, mox efficiemus, ut oleum et operam se perdidisse doleant. CAPUT II. Nam ut ad epistolam Michaelis, quae pri¬ mam partem libelli occupat, veniamus : ea quidem plena videtur religiosi studii, ut si quis aliunde quis iste Michael fuerit, ignoret, arbitretur eum unum ex optimis, et Christia- nissimis principibus fuisse. Sed exstantannales publici JoannisZonarae, Georgii Cedreni, et aliorum, qui res gestas Graecorum Principum litteris mandaverunt. Ex bis cognoscere licet, Michaelem non solum cognomine, sed etiam re ipsa Balbum, APPENDIX de cultu imaginum. virum fuisse impium et scelestissimum , quippe, qui magis Hebraica) supeistitioni, quam Christianae religioni addictus esset : qui resurrectionem carnis pernegaret, et ob id prophetas, et apostolos, qui eam praedica¬ verant, irrideret : qui fornicationem licitam esse diceret, et sacrum coelibatum adeo contemneret, ut e monasterio sanctimonia¬ lem, jam Deo sacram, sibi conjugem delige¬ ret: qui septimam synodum oecumenicam, atque ab Adriano Pontifice maximo appro¬ batam, respueret : qui sacras imagines nullo honore dignas arbitraretur : qui Iconoma- chis impense faveret, et Constantinum Co- pronymum, Iconomachorum principem, sibi praeter caeteros imitandum proponeret : qui S. Euthimium, sanctumque Methodium, aliosque pios veritatis defensores vel exilio, vel carcere, vel morte mulctaret. Hic igitur est ille Michael, qui ovinam pellem indutus, cum esset re vera lupus ra¬ pax, quasi fidei zelo accensus, nihil aliud optare se fingit, nisi Ecclesiae reformationem et pacem. Sed quemadmodum in illa ipsa epistola deplorat necem Leonis Imperatoris, cui proxime ipse successit, quem dicit ab improbis quibusdam conjuratione facta mi¬ sere necatum, cum satis aperte constet ex auctoribus supra citatis, ipsum eumdemMi- chaelem conspirationis principem fuisse : sic etiam pie queri videtur, Ecclesiam ob dissensiones de cultu imaginum esse divi¬ sam, cum ipse potissimum dissensionis, et divisionis auctor esset, qui synodum gene¬ ralem, quae dissensiones sustulerat, rejecis¬ set, et Iconomachiam propagare studeret : et non contentus dissensionibus Orientalibus, in Occidente quoque dissensiones serere, ac propagare satageret. Quod vero in extrema epistola Catholicos reprehendit, quod vivificam crucem despi- ciant, quod imagines, *ut Deos quosdam a* dorent, quod ei sacrificia offerant, quod ab eis nescio quo artificio de sacro fontem susci¬ pi, et sacram communionem percipere ve¬ lint, denique quod alias id genus supersti¬ tiones, vel ineptias in cultu sacrarum imagi¬ num ostendant, merse calumnise, atque im¬ posturae sunt. Neque mirabitur ejusmodi mendacia Graecum imperatorem in sua epi¬ stola ad Latinos longe positos scribere po¬ tuisse, qui cogitare voluerit, quam crassa, et quam incredibilia mendacia nostri tem¬ poris haeretici de Catholicis in vicinis locis degentibus fingant. Sed ex Concilio Nicseno 11. vere legitimo, et oecumenico, velit nolit Michael Balbus, illis ipsis temporibus celebrato, luce solis clarius effici potest, illa esse commenta, fraudesque haereticorum. Docuit enim Con¬ cilium illud, cui Catholici omnes assentie- bantur, imaginibus sacris deberi quidem, suam venerationem, sed non majorem quam vivificae Cruci, neque illis ullo modo sacrifi¬ candum esse, neque eos cultu latriae, qui Deo est proprius, adorandas. Legatur syno¬ dus, et imposturae subito evanescent. Quae cum ita sint, vel Franci, qui Ludo- vico Imperatori a consiliis erant, fidem ha¬ buerunt litteris Michaelis, vel non habue¬ runt. Si fidem habuerunt, circumventi sunt, atque decepti. Si fidem non habuerunt, abusi sunt litteris illis ad permovendum Summum Pontificem, ut majorum suorum acta rescin¬ deret, et synodum Nicaenam, ab Adriano ap¬ probatam, improbaret ipse atque damnaret. Sed sive decepti fuerint, sive decipere voluerint, nihil attinebat istum vel errorem, vel scelus ipsorum orbi terrarum prodere, praesertim, cum non sine causa majores no¬ stri libellos ejusmodi, qui nihil utilitatis, detrimenti autem plurimum adferre pote¬ rant, libenter delitescere passi sint. CAPUT III. Venio nunc ad ea testimonia, quae pauci illi viri a Ludovico imperatore vocati, ex veterum monumentis collegisse se dicunt. Multis enim nominibus viri illi peccasse vi¬ dentur. Ac primum quidem ante collectio¬ nem satis audacter judicium sibi de scriptis Apostolicis desumpserunt. Nec solum de Summo Pontifice, sed etiam de Generali Synodo, a Pontifice approbata, temere ju¬ dicarunt. In qua re longe superarunt pecca¬ tum auctoris illius, qui nomine Caroli Magni librum edidit adversus cultum sacrarum imaginum. Ille enim (quod etiam Patres concilii Francofordiensis fecerunt) Nicaenam synodum secundam improbavit, quoniam celebratam fuisse existimavit sine consensu Apostolicae Sedis. At consiliarii isti Ludovici imperatoris, quorum scripta discutimus, fa¬ tentur synodum pro cultu imaginum, id est, Nicaenam secundam ab Adriano Summo Pontifice coactam, et probatam, et tamen tum ipsam Synodum, tum epistolam ejusdem Adriani ad Constantinum imperatorem pro cultu imaginum, et rursum defensionem e- CAPUT IV. i jusdem Synodi, ab Adriano ad Garolum missam, examinare, dijudicare, reprehen¬ dere non verentur. Haec enim sunt ipsorum verba pag. 19 : « Primum epistolam Domini Adriani Papae, quam pridem pro imaginibus erigendis Constantino imperatori, et Irenae matri ejus ad eorum deprsecationem in transmarinis partibus direxit, coram nobis legi fecimus, et quantum nostrae parvitati res patuit, sicut juste reprehendit illos, qui imagines sancto¬ rum temerario ausu in illis partibus confrin¬ gere et penitus abolere praesumpserunt ; sic indiscrete noscitur fecisse, in eo quod su- perstiose eas adorari jussit, pro qua etiam causa synodum congregari praecepit » . Et infra pag. 21. de defensione Nicaenae Synodi ab Adriano edita sic loquuntur : « Per sin¬ gula capita in illorum excusationem respon¬ dere, quae voluit, non tamen quae decuit, conatus est etc. » . Ita nimirum judicem suum, et totius mun¬ di judicare, pastoremo mnium Christi ovium pascere ; et doctorem universorum docere non erubuerunt, qua temeritate nulla major cogitari potest. CAPUT IV. Sed fortasse nova aliqua, atque recondita testimonia repererunt, quibus freti resistere in faciem Apostolico praesuli non reformida¬ runt. Imo vero notissima et vulgaria, et quae nec nihil ad rem faciant sine ulla ratione, vel ordine collegerunt. ' Ac, ut exempli gratia pauca discutiamus, primum testimonium sumunt ex libro S. Augustini de hseresibus, ubi legimus Simo¬ nem Magum jussisse imaginem suam, et Helenae meretriculae suae a discipulis adora¬ ri. Atque hanc esse dicunt primam originem adorandarum imaginum. Quasi vero, si de falso cultu agatur, non ante Simonis tempo¬ ra, vituli aurei ab Hebraeis, et simulacra ho¬ minum mortuorum a Gentilibus adorata fuerint. Sed Ecclesia Catholica non discit cultum rerum sacrarum ab hostibus suis, et si ex eo testimonio liceret colligere non esse Christi, et Sanctorum imagines venerandas, licebit eadem ratione colligere, ne ipsum quidem Christum ullo honore dignum esse ; propterea siquidem impium erat, Simonis, et Helenae imagines colere, quod Simon, et Helena indignissimi essent qui colerentur. Sed ridicula plane sunt, quae ex epist. 56. ejusdem Augustini ad Dioscorum testimonia desumpserunt : ridicula, inquam, si ad id, de quo agimus, referantur. Quae namque S. Augustinus disputat, de imaginibus, quae a corporibus defluentes in animum penetrant, ut per eas aliquid cernamus, vel cogitemus, ea proferunt isti ad probandum non esse Christi et sanctorum imagines depictas, vel sculptas ullo modo colendas. Quae quam be¬ ne cohaereant cum praesenti disputatione, lectoris esto judicium. Quid ? quod plurima testimonia, quae Summus Pontifex Adrianus in epistola illa sua doctissima pro imaginibus posuit, isti rursum allegant, qui contra imagines pug¬ nant. Quod vero dicunt, et nonnullis etiam te¬ stimoniis probare nituntur, non esse consue¬ tudinem, vel annorum numerum, aut quam¬ libet vetustatis auctoritatem praeferendam veritati : tunc recte diceretur, si probari posset, cultum, quem Ecclesia Catholica imaginibus exhibet, ex manifesto errore, non ex certa veritate descendere. Sed cum de re aliqua litigatur, multum valere consuetudi¬ nem, et venerandam esse antiquitatem, ne ipsi quidem negare possunt. Quorsum enim tantopere laborarunt in evolvendis antiqui¬ tatis monumentis, si nullum probabile argu¬ mentum ex antiquitate peti potest ? Nonne vident, se hoc suo facto contra sua verba pugnare ? et re ipsa destruere, quod verbis astruere nitebantur ? Certe si liceret testi¬ monia S. Augustini, S. Basilii, aliorumque veterum Patrum in medium afferre, quibus ipsi ex antiquitate, vel Ecclesiae consuetudi¬ ne probant Ecclesiastica dogmata, nullus fi¬ nis esset. Sed quod superat omnem admirationem, illud est, quod multa testimonia proferunt pro adoratione Crucis, et cum rationem red¬ dere volunt, cur signum, vel lignum Crucis adorandum sit, et imagines Christi non sint adorandae, dicunt eam esse causam, quia Christus in Cruce suspensus fuit, non in ima- gine : et quia per Crucem nos redemit, non per imaginem. Quod si refellere voluero, ti¬ meo ne nimiae tarditatis lectores existimare videar. Certe «nim Christus non in signo Crucis, quod in pariete, vel in tabella, vel in fronte, vel in aere pingimus, suspensus fuit, neque etiam in ligneis illis crucibus, quae passim cernuntur, et adorantur in Ec¬ clesiis ; sed in illa una Cruce, cujus ista no¬ stra signa, quae pingimus, vel eiigimus, ima- appendix de cultu imaginum. gines sunt. Cum ergo liceat per adversarios Crucis imaginem colere, cur imaginem Cru¬ cifixi colere non licebit ? et si jure Crucis adoramus imaginem, quia |»per Crucem led- empti sumus a Christo, qua causa fingi po¬ test, cur non jure coli possit imago Christi, qui proprie nos redemit ? At, inquiunt, nihil manu factum colere fas est; quid igitur? Lignum vel signum Cru¬ cis non est manufactum ? Codex Evangelio- rum, et sacra vasa, qum horum opinione ve¬ neranda sunt, quid sunt aliud, nisi opera manuum humanarum ? Et tamen verum est9 nihil manufactum esse colendum eo genere cultus, quo Deus ipse qui omnino non est factus, sed omnium rerum factor colendus est. Quare poterant collectores isti maximam partem testimoniorum, qme attulerunt, omit¬ tere, quoniam iis nihil probatur aliud, nisi solum Deum esse colendum cultu latrise sibi uni proprio, et non esse imagines ita ado¬ randas, ut etiam sacrificia illis offerantur, qu£e neque nos negamus, neque sancta Ni¬ caena synodus negavit. Ac, ut videas, lector, quantas vires veritas habeat, ipsi quoque qui eam oppugnant, non raro vel inviti vel imprudentes eam tuentur. Id accidit collectoribus nostris. Nam inter alia testimonia colligunt etiam nonulla, ut probent imagines non esse frangendas, vel injuria afficiendas. Sed in iisdem testimoniis non habetur solum quod ipsi volunt, imagi¬ nes videlicet non esse afficiendas injuria, sed habetur etiam, quod nolunt, afficiendas honore. Quod quidem isti collectores ali¬ quando viderunt, et textum audacter cor¬ ruperunt, aliquando non viderunt, et testi¬ monium contra se in ipso suo libello impru¬ dentes reliquerunt. Prioris rei exemplum habes pag. 87. ubi allegatur S. Gregorius, qui in epistola quinta libri septimi ad Januarium reprehendit acri¬ ter nonnullos, qui B. Virginis imaginem, et Crucem dominicam contumeliae causa ad Judaeorum Synagogam detulerunt : et man¬ dat Januario Episcopo, ut sublatam ex eo loco cum ea, qua dignum est veneratione, imaginem, atque Crucem, in^ecclesiam re¬ ferat. Hic boni collectores nomen imaginis simpliciter deleverunt, vel omiserunt, ne vi¬ deretur contra eorum dogma non solum Crux, sed etiam imago beataj Virginis vene¬ randa, nisi forte librariorum errore nomen imaginis sit omissum. Jam vero pag. 91. adscribunt haec verba ex epistola synodica Gregorii Papae : « Nos non ob aliud nomen imagines facimus, et adoramus, sed pro nobis incarnato Verbo Dei etc. » Audis ne collector, vocabulum, (adoramus ?) et tamen a se hoc testimonium prolatum est. Sed habemus clariora. Paulo infra ponuntur haec verba ex libro S. Basilii ad Amphilochium de Spiritu san¬ cto cap. 17 : « Imaginis honor ad primam formam transit, etc. ». Ecce tibi rursus ho¬ norem imaginis. Sed ad clarissima venia¬ mus. Paulo post adferuntur haec alia verba ex epistola ejusdem Magni Basilii ad imperato¬ rem Julianum. « Credo in unum Deum pa¬ trem omnipotentem, Deum patrem, Deum Filium, Deum Spiritum sanctum, unum Deum, hsec tria adoro et glorifico. Confiteor autem et filii Incarnati dispensationem, et Dei genitricem, quse sequndum carnem eum genuit, sanctam Mariam. Suscipio vero et sanctos Apostolos, Prophetas, et Martyres, et ad Deum deprecationem, quse per eos propitium mihi efficit misericordissimum Deum, pro quo et figuras imaginum eorum honoro et adoro, specialiter hoc traditum est a sanctis Apostolis, et non prohibitum, sed in omnibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designari vel historias etc. ». Quid audivimus? S. Ba- silius Magnus ab adversario advocatur testis, et vere testis est omni exceptione major. Is vero palam affirmat, se honorare, et adorare Apostolorum, Prophetarum, et Martyrum imagines. Idque affirmat, dum fidei suse confessionem edit, ac de rebus, non dubiis aut verisimilibus, sed certissimis, et explo¬ ratis loquitur. Addit vero id ab Apostolis traditum, et ab omni Ecclesia susceptum, et observatum. Quid, quseso, responderi potest? Auctor gravissimus, aperte loquitur, et ejus testimonium ab adversariis profertur. Neque desunt alia testimonia similia in eodem li¬ bello, Athanasii, Germani, Leontii, et alio¬ rum, quse imprudenter ab adversariis contra se, et pro nobis, hoc est, pro cultu sacrarum imaginum proferuntur. Sed ego brevitati studeo, neque libenter in his refellendis ine¬ ptiis tempus tero. CAPUT V. Sequitur pars tertia, id est, Epistola Eu- genii Papee ad Michaelem, et Theophilum ejus filium imperatores, (quam epistolam CAPUT V. iidem collectores scripsisse videntur. Neque enim Eugenius ullam talem epistolam scri¬ psit; sed (ut supra diximus) scripta fuit, ut nomine Pontificis mitteretur, si ipse proba¬ ret. In qua re cogimur desiderare pruden¬ tiam Collectorum. Qua enim fronte Romano Pontifici praescribere ausi sunt, quod ipsum scribere oporteret? Qua vero fiducia sperare potuerunt, Romanum Pontificem scripturum ad Graicum imperatorem contraria iis, quae praedecessores ejus non semel scripserant ? Sed videamus, si placet, paulo diligentius, an epistola illa summum Pontificem deceat. Omitto autem, quod in hoc libello epistola illa caret principio, quod peccatum non pri¬ mo auctori, sed ei, qui nunc demum post tot saecula libellum hunc in lucem edidit, tribu¬ endum videtur. Nihil etiam dico quod epi¬ stola verbosa est admodum, obscura, bar¬ bara, imperita ; detur enim hoc tempori. Taceo denique, quod dum conatur tollere re¬ pugnantiam, quae in verbis S. Gregorii esse videbatur, tanto se magis involvit, quanto magis conatur evolvere. Sed tria quaedam ta¬ citus praeterire non possum. Primum enim facit haec epistola Pontificem summum, adu¬ latorem imperatoris impudentissimum, dum ita loquitur: « 0 venerandi Mundi Principes, cum universa Sancta Dei, quam Domino dis¬ ponente, et committente gubernatis, Eccle¬ sia » . Et infra : « propter adunandam, quam Domino Deo ordinante regitis, Ecclesiam » . Quae foedior adulatio ? Michael Balbus inter¬ fecto legitimo imperatore, cum esset ipse pro sceleribus suis jam morti adjudicatus, tyran¬ nice invasit imperium, et Pontifex Maximus affirmabit, Deo disponente, committente, et ordinante hunc ipsum Balbum gubernacula suscepisse non solum imperii, sed etiam Ec¬ clesiae, et si Ecclesia Dei ab ipso Deo guber¬ nanda Imperatori tradita est, quid faciunt in Ecclesia Episcopi ? quid ipse summus Pon¬ tifex ? « Imperator (inquit S. Ambrosius) in Ecclesia est, non supra Ecclesiam, filius Ec¬ clesiae, non rector ; ovis, non pastor. » Et S. Joan, Chrysostomus Diacono suo dixit : « Si is, qui diademate coronatur indigne adeat ad sacra mysteria percipienda, cohibe et coerce, majorem tu illo habes potestatem ». Deinde, in eadem epistola non semel repe¬ titur hoc argumentum : « Si nulla unquam picta, vel ficta fuisset imago, nihil periret de fide, spe, et charitate, quibus ad regnum per¬ venitur alternum » : et tamen propter imagi¬ nes orta est dissensio, et divisio in Ecclesia, y turbata pax, charitas violata. Et non animad¬ vertunt, qui eam epistolam nomine Summi Pontificis scribunt, eo argumento non solum effici quod ipsi volunt, imagines non esse adorandas, sed etiam effici (si quid tamen efficitur, quod mox videbimus) imagines om¬ nino de medio esse tollendas, quod ipsi no¬ lunt. Nec tamen argumentum illud aliquid valet. Quamvis enim nihil periret de fide, spe, et charitate, si nulla picta, vel ficta esset imago tamen quando picta, vel ficta est, peccat in fidem, qui eam negat esse venerandam, quo¬ niam honor imaginis ad prototypum refertur, quod venerandum esse fides docet, et adver¬ sarius non-negat. Et potest hoc ipsum simili¬ tudine illustrari, si libellus aliquis divinai Scripturae, ut epistola ad Philemonem, non exstaret, nihil deperiret de fide, spe et chari¬ tate : et tamen quia nunc exstat, qui eam ne¬ garet esse, cum veneratione suscipiendam, peccaret in fidem ; et si propterea dissentio- nes orirentur, non esset epistola abjicienda, sed imperitia dissidentium coarguenda, et instruenda. Postremo in eadem illa epistola reprehen¬ ditur Constantinus et mater ejus Irene, quod edicto suo j usserit sacras imagines juxta Con¬ cilii generalis decretum, cum veneratione esse habendas. Quae sane reprehensio a Summo Pontifice, nisi plane amente, scribi non potuit. Quid enim ? Adrianus Papa Con¬ stantinum, et Irenem summis laudibus effert, quod sacrarum imaginum religioso cultui fa¬ veant: et Adriani successor Eugenius eosdem imperatores ob causam eamdem reprehen¬ det ? et quae major stultitia fingi potest , quam ut Summus Pontifex moleste ferre se dicat, quod ab imperatore decreta Concilio¬ rum generalium, a sede Apostolica approba¬ ta, serventur, ac defendantur ? Sed si parum prudentes collectores fuerunt non fuit inconstans Apostolicae sedis Anti¬ stes; permansit enim in iis, quae praedecesso¬ res non sine magna deliberationis maturitate statuerant. Nam neque Eugenius eam episto¬ lam misit : et paulo post Adrianus II. syno¬ dum cecumenicam octavam Constantinopoli celebrandam curavit, in qua synodus septima de cultu imaginum iterum approbata est. Denique Anastasius Bibliothecarius Roma¬ nus in praefatione septimae synodi ad Joan- nemVlII. Pontificem, qui Adriano II. pro¬ xime successerat, scribit, in eadem sententia fuisse omnes Romanos Pontifices. « Quae », 10 * appendtx de cultu imaginum. inquit, «super venerabilium imaginum ado¬ ratione praesens synodus docet, haec et Apo- stolica vestra Sedes, sicut nonnulla scripta innuunt, antiquitus tenuit, et universalis Ec¬ clesia semper venerata est, et hactenus ve¬ neratur, quibusdam dumtaxat Gallorum ex¬ ceptis, quibus utique nondum est horum ve¬ ritas revelata ». CAPUT VI. Restat pars ultima, hoc est, epistola Lu- dovici imperatoris ad Eugenium Pontificem, et altera ejusdem Ludovici ad Hieremiam, et Jonam Episcopos. In quibus nihil observan¬ dum occurrit, nisj quod in eis quaedam di¬ cuntur, quae redolere videntur fraudes re¬ centium haereticorum. Unde venit in mentem suspicari, ne forte vel totus hic libellus sit confictus, vel, quod est credibilius, deprava¬ tus, et auctus ad invidiam Romanae Ecclesiae conciliandam. Sed sive sit verus liber, sive confictus, sive partim sincerus, partim adulterinus, illud unum constat, non esse librum dignum, in quo legendo tempus conteratur. Titulus fal¬ sus, dictio barbara, sententiae insulsae, ordo perversus, eorumdem testimoniorum crebra repetitio, facile potuissent persuadere typo- grapho, si is commune commodum, et non proprium lucrum spectasset, ut sibi ab eden¬ do ejusmodi opere temperaret.