Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 5: On the Name of Image and of Idol
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 5. On the Name of Image and of Idol
There follows now in its order the disputation on the cult of images, of which disputation there will be eight parts. For first we must speak of the names of image, idol and simulacrum. Second, of who were the enemies of images. Third, whether it is lawful to have images. Fourth, whether it is lawful to honour them. Fifth, with what cult they are to be honoured.
To these I will add a special treatise on the cross, in three members. For first we will treat of the true cross of the Lord; second, of the lasting image of the cross; third, of the passing image, that is, of the sign of the cross which we trace in the air.
To begin, then, with the name. Henri Estienne, in his Thesaurus, under the word eidōlon, writes that among church writers every simulacrum representing some divinity, which we think worthy of cult and honour, is called an idol. From which it follows that among church writers the images of Christ and of the saints, and especially the images of the Trinity, are rightly called idols. And indeed, if Henri by church writers understands his own doctors, Calvin, Martyr, Illyricus and others of the same class, he says rightly; for they hardly ever call our images anything else than idols. But if by church writers he understands the holy Fathers, or the apostles and prophets, what he says is most false. For in the first place the seventh synod, action 3 and action 7, says anathema to those who call the images of Christ and of the saints idols.
Then Origen, homily 8 on Exodus, and Theodoret, question 38 on Exodus, expounding that of Exodus 20, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing” (for which the Seventy turned eidōlon), “nor the likeness of anything,” and so on, say that between an image and an idol there is this difference: that an image is the likeness of a true thing, as when we paint a man, a horse and so on; for an image is so called from imitating. But an idol is a false likeness, that is, it represents what in truth is not; as when the heathens set up statues of Venus or of Minerva. Those were signs of idols, which represented gods begotten of women, such gods as neither are nor can be. And so they did not truly represent, but were false images; for what is not cannot be represented. From which we understand that the images of Christ and of the saints are not idols. But neither are the images of the Trinity or of the angels idols, because they are not made to represent the nature of the Trinity or of the angels, but to express the form in which they appeared, or at least their properties, as we will say below.
That this is the true difference of those words according to church writers is proved, first, because Scripture nowhere gives the name of idol to any true image, but only to the simulacra of the heathens, which represented false gods. Scripture calls the Son of God the image of the Father, Wisdom 7, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1, but never calls him the idol of the Father. And in 3 Kings 7 it is said that Solomon made for the adornment of the temple images of cherubim, after the likeness of men; likewise images of lions, oxen, palms, pomegranates, flowers and so on; and yet these are never called idols, because, namely, they were likenesses of true things.
Second, because the Scripture of the Old Testament ordinarily calls idols elilim, as in Leviticus 19 and 26 and elsewhere, or aven, as in Numbers 23, Osee 6 and elsewhere. And elil signifies vain, false; and likewise aven, vanity, a lie; sometimes too it calls them sheqer, that is, a lie, as Jerome noted on chapter 7 of Osee; where you always see that an idol signifies something false. Lastly, in Habacuc 2 Scripture says: “What doth the graven thing avail, because the maker thereof hath graven it, a molten and a false image?” where an idol is most clearly defined as a false image. Like which is what Plato says in the Theaetetus: pseudē kai eidōla peri pleionos poiēsamenoi tou alēthous, that is, “making more of lies and idols than of the truth”; where he joined the idol with the lie and set it against the truth.
Third, because blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 8, says: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world.” Where an idol is said to be nothing because, although it is something as to its matter, yet it is nothing formally, since it represents what is nothing, and so does not truly represent, and consequently is not. To which place Jerome, on chapter 7 of Osee, brings another like it to prove that an idol is nothing; for in Esther 14 it is said: “Give not thy sceptre to them that are not,” that is, to idols.
Fourth, because blessed Jerome, on chapter 2 of Habacuc and chapter 13 of Zacharias, and elsewhere again and again, compares heresies with idols; because, as an idol is a false image, so heresy is a false imagining.
Fifth, from the very property of the word. For, as Tertullian teaches in the book On Idolatry, idol is a diminutive from eidos, that is, form, and signifies a little form, not in size but in perfection. For properly an idol (as Eustathius expounds on book [11?] of the Odyssey) is an empty image, such as is seen in a man's shadow; and such as are phantasms, that is, images which we fashion by imagination, to which often nothing answers in reality; and such lastly as are the ghosts and shades of the dead, which seem indeed to be something solid, but are empty. Hence Homer in book 11 of the Odyssey, and Lucian in the Dialogue of the Dead, call the souls of the dead eidōla; and Virgil in book 6 of the Aeneid seems to have wished to explain the same when he says:
Here Aeneas, trembling with sudden fear, snatches his sword
and offers its drawn edge to them as they come;
and did not his wise companion warn him that they were thin lives without body
flitting under a hollow semblance of form,
he would rush on, and beat through shadows with the steel in vain.
Where what Homer and Lucian call eidōla, he calls shades and hollow images, that is, vain and empty. Since, then, an idol in its proper and first meaning marks an empty image, therefore the sacred writers and the doctors of the Church called the statues of false gods idols, though they are solid as to matter, because they are empty as to form, that is, as to representation. So much of the name of idol.
The name of simulacrum is indeed a little more common. For Lactantius, book 6 On True Worship, chapters 10 and 13, calls man the simulacrum of God; and in book 2 On the Origin of Error, chapter 2, he says that simulacrum is said from likeness, and so that every true image can be called a simulacrum. Yet truer is what others say, that simulacrum is said from feigning, not from likeness. For in the Scriptures simulacra are everywhere put for idols. For always where the Latin interpreter put simulacra, as in Acts 13, Psalm [113?], 1 John, the last chapter, and elsewhere, in the Greek it is always eidōla; and blessed Augustine, on Psalm [113?], says that the Latins call simulacra those which by the Greeks are called idols. Jerome too, on chapter 7 of Osee, says that the simulacrum is opposed to God as the lie is opposed to the truth, because the simulacrum represents a false god.
Lastly, as Homer and Lucian call the shades of the dead idols, which seem to be certain solid bodies and are not, so too Lucretius, book 4, and Virgil, book 4 of the Georgics and book 6 of the Aeneid, again and again call the same shades of the dead simulacra.
Chapter 6. On the Leaders of the Iconoclasts
The authors of iconoclasm were all either Jews, or Mahometans, or magicians, or plain heretics; so that those who in this time attack images cannot deny that their grandfathers and forefathers were impious men.
Alfonso de Castro, under the word Image, attributes this error to a certain Felix, whom he says was condemned in a council of Franconia, on the witness of Platina in Adrian I; and yet he cannot find who this Felix was. He likewise attributes it to Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, whom blessed Gregory rebukes in book 7, letter 109, and book 9, letter 9. Lastly Alfonso attributes the same error to blessed Epiphanius, in the letter to John of Jerusalem.
But none of these, with Alfonso's leave, was engaged in that error. For the Felix condemned in the Synod of Frankfurt is Felix, bishop of Urgel. And he (as is plain from Ado in the Chronicle and from Jonas, book 1) taught only that Christ is the adoptive Son of God. But because the same synod at the same time (as is plain from the same Ado, in the chronicle of the year 792) rejected the false synod of the Greeks against images, both Platina and Alfonso thought that the Felician heresy was the heresy of the Iconoclasts.
And Serenus did indeed break images, but is in no way to be counted among the Iconoclast heretics. For he broke images because he saw them being adored as gods by Christians then lately converted. Hence blessed Gregory praises his zeal and faith, and only rebukes his rashness, that he dared to do what no bishop had ever done; and he warns him to instruct the people why images are kept by the Church, and, the instruction given, to let the images be put back in the churches. Nor was there need for Castro to say that Serenus and Epiphanius are excused from heresy because the matter was not yet determined. For the matter was determined well enough by the use of the whole Church; but these did or taught nothing against the faith or the truth. And especially Epiphanius, who is cleared of all suspicion of error about images in the seventh synod, action 6, volume 5; and we will treat of this matter below. And surely it is not without rashness and prejudice to the Catholic faith that such gross errors are attributed to such great men.
Nicholas Sander, book 1 On Images, the last chapter, says that the first Iconoclasts were the Manichees; both because Tarasius seems to indicate it in the seventh synod, and because Faustus, in Augustine, book 20 against Faustus, chapter 3, boasts that God is worshipped by the men of his sect without simulacra. But whether the matter is so I strongly doubt. For Tarasius, in the seventh synod, action 3, does not say that the Manichees rejected images, but says that the Iconoclasts, while they reject images, are like the Manichees, who asserted that Christ did not have a true body; for he who denies that Christ can be painted seems to think that Christ did not have a true body. And Faustus in Augustine does not speak of the images of the saints, but only of images of God. Hence neither does Faustus in that place rebuke the Catholics for having images, nor does Augustine rebuke the Manichees for lacking images.
The first Iconoclasts, then, are the Jews, who in their Talmud, which came out in the year of Christ 476, order 2, tractate 1, distinction 2, teach expressly that the churches of the Christians are houses of idolatry; which is plainly said because of the images, both from the seventh synod, where the Iconoclasts are often called Hebrews, and from the dialogues of Leontius, where a Jew disputes with a Christian about images. A part of these dialogues is had in the seventh synod, action [5?].
About the same time Xenaias arose, whom Nicephorus, book 16, chapter 27, and Cedrenus in the Compendium say was the first of the Iconoclasts. And this Xenaias was a Persian by nation and a barbarian, [a Manichee?] and a runaway slave; and although he was not baptized, yet he pretended to be a Christian and crept into a bishopric. But although he openly held that images are not to be venerated, yet we do not read whom he persuaded, unless perhaps a few. [The top of page 475 is merged across columns in the scan; these lines are rendered from what reads.] But after about a hundred years, under the Emperor Justin the younger, certain Samaritans burst into a certain church and raged most fiercely against the images of Christ and of the saints, as is plain from the letter of Simeon the hermit to the Emperor Justin, which is had in the seventh synod, action 5.
Not long after, after the year of the Lord 600, Mahomet arose, who allowed the men of his sect no images in their temples, as is plain from the Koran, chapters [?] and [?], and from experience itself. For the Turks have no images, and think us idolaters because of the cult of images.
Again after about a hundred years, that is, after the year of the Lord 700, a certain Hebrew sorcerer promised Yazid, king of the Arabs, a Mahometan, thirty years of life if in his empire he ordered the images of Christ and of the saints to be taken out of the churches of the Christians and burnt. He ordered it; but when the Christians did not obey, he sent Arabs and Hebrews into the churches, who carried out the impious business. But King Yazid died the following year, and the Hebrew, as an impostor, was forced by his successor to die a most shameful death. The history is reported in the seventh synod, action 5, and also by Cedrenus, Zonaras and Nicetas in the Life of Leo the Isaurian.
A little after, the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, likewise persuaded by the Jews, ordered by public edict that images be taken down and destroyed out of all churches, and put to death many of the Christians who resisted; whence he got the surname Iconoclast. The authors are Cedrenus, Zonaras, Paul the Deacon and others. And this was the first of the Christians who made war on images. For although Philippicus, on the witness of Paul the Deacon, had taken down the images of the six synods, yet he had done it out of hatred of the sixth synod, not out of hatred of images; for Philippicus was a Monothelite, not an Iconoclast.
And whether Leo did rightly or wrongly can be seen even from this, that in that cause he chose to cling to the counsels of Jewish sorcerers rather than of St. Gregory the pope and St. Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, who then held their sees and openly resisted the emperor, as is plain from the same authors. And that that Gregory and Germanus were most excellent and most learned pontiffs all the historians of that time, Greek and Latin, relate. Twelve wise men also resisted Leo, who with their head, who was called the ecumenical master, were maintained at public cost, and were the best and wisest of all; whom Leo burnt together with their house and their very well furnished library. See Zonaras in the Life of this Leo.
Next, Constantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, followed the impiety of Leo; who as an infant gave an omen of his future wickedness by fouling the font with dung while he was being baptized. And besides, he was a sorcerer, and a Nestorian heretic; for he did not believe that blessed Mary was the Mother of God, as can be learned from Zonaras and Cedrenus.
And Sander rightly warns that William Xylander did not faithfully turn the words of Cedrenus in this history. For when Cedrenus wrote that this Constantine exacted an oath from all subject to his empire, by which oath they should declare that they would not adore an image, he turned it, “that they would not supplicate a simulacrum”; as though, namely, Christians made supplication to idols. When yet it is certain, as we have now shown, that images are not rightly called simulacra; and the use of Christians holds that we venerate images, not that we make supplication to them as though they lived and felt. But surely it is no wonder if those who do not keep faith with God do not keep faith either in translating books.
After the year of the Lord 800, when the war against images had rested for a while, it was renewed by the Emperor Leo the Armenian and by those who succeeded him, Michael the Stammerer and Theophilus; all of whom Cedrenus and Zonaras, in their lives, testify were most wicked men, the last also given to the Jewish sect and to necromancy.
At the same time as Theophilus was attacking images in the East, there arose in the West, under the empire of Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, Claudius the Spaniard, bishop of Turin, a disciple of Felix of Urgel, who took away all images and crosses from all the churches of his diocese. And he was an unlearned and proud man, as appears from his tract inserted in the books of Jonas; and he tried to call back to light the Arian heresy, already buried.
After those times, about the year of the Lord 1372, John Wyclif arose, who touched in passing on the finding of fault with images; but his disciples afterwards attacked images more sharply. See Thomas Waldensis, volume [2?], title [19?]. Claude de Seyssel, in the book against the Waldenses, the last article, attributes the same error to the Waldenses.
John Cochlaeus too writes, in book [3?] of the History of the Hussites, that an image of Christ crucified was thrown down by Jerome of Prague and fouled with dung, while yet he himself in his bedroom adored an image of Wyclif crowned with a diadem.
Lastly, in this our age, the first who took images out of the churches was Andreas Carlstadt, in the year 1522, on the witness of John Cochlaeus in the Life of Luther. And Luther, although he approved the thing, yet found fault with its author, as Cochlaeus says in the same place, because he had not asked power and authority from him to do it. Likewise Cochlaeus writes, in the Acts of Luther for the year 1520 [so the scan], that the Zwinglians fought against images. Philip too, in the Common Places, explaining the Decalogue, finds fault with the veneration of images. Likewise the Magdeburgers, Century 8, again and again, but especially chapters 6 and 10.
Lastly John Calvin, book 1, chapter 11, and book 4, chapter 9, section 9, of the Institutes, finds fault most sharply with the cult of images; and the Calvinists, wherever they can, break them, or burn them, or scrape them away.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Dc nomi)ic imaginis el idoU.
Sequitiir nunc ordinc siio dispulalio de cullu i-
maj^inum; cujns dispnlalionis oclo crunl parlcs.
Primutn cnim cHcendum eril dc npmine imaginis ,
idoli el«mulacri. Secundo, qui fncrint hostcs i-
maginum.Terlio, an liccal habcre imogines. Qufir-
to, an liceal eas coicre.Quinlo.quo cullu colftndae
sint.
His addam peculiarem Irnclalum de cruce, et
quidem trimembrem. Nam Primo agemus de vera
crucc dominica. Secundo, de imagine crucis per-
manente. Tertio, de imagine Iranseunte, idesl, dc
signo crucis, quod in acro pingimus.
Utigitur a nomine incipianius.IIcnricus Slepha-
nus in suo thosauro in voce i(5toX5v , scribil apud
ecclesiaslicos idolum vocari omnesimulacrum,nu-
mcn aliquod ropraesenlans, qnod cullu el honore
dignamur. Ex quo scqnilur apud ecclesiasticos i-
liiagincs Christi el sanctorum, et praecipuc imagi-
nos Trinilalis rcctc vocari idola.El si quidem Hen-
ricus pcr ecclesiasticos intelligit doctores suos ,
Calvinum, Martyrem, Illyricuni et alios ejusdem
classis, recle dicil, ilii enim vix unquara aliter i-
magines noslras appollant, quam idola. Si aulem
per ecclesiasticos intelligit sanctos Patres, vel a-
postolos et prophetas, falsissimum est, quod ipse
dicil; nam in prirais VII. synodus, acl. 3. et act.7.
iiniilliitma (licll lis, i|ui liniiKlncs Chritti cl «iin« lo-
riiiii vociiiit iddlii.
I>ciiii|(< On/i'ii('shomil. K. iii l,\o<l. d Ihfotlo-
ntiis (piiicst. :iK. Iii KmiiI. cxpoiK iilcs ilhid K\o<l.
2(>. .Vnk 1'urifH htn nnilplili' (<pnnl l,.XX. vnrUTiiiil
«(•iMXov) ct (uiiufni Hiniililiiiliiicm cir. Dm iiiil in-
lcr i-ii.i^Miic I iiloiiiiii Ikk^ inlcrcsHc. ipiod iiii;iiro
csl vctii rci -<iiiiililiii|ii:iil (0111 pin^iiiiiis hoiiiiiiciii,
(Mpiiim i!lc. Imiiitn ('(11111 nh imitiiiido dtclii nitt. I-
tloliiin iiiitcin csl fiilMi siinililtido, hh"<l. rcpr.-icscii-
liit iil, (piod r(!V('r.i iion csl.ri nim ^jcniilc-, pro()0-
nchiinl slaliiiiH Viriicris, {iiit Mincrv;i«. Illu si;;nii
iilohi cr;inl,(ptiii rcpr.ics('til;ih.int Dcos ^cmiri-j foc-
ttiinitii, (pi;ih:s Dii iicc siitit. ncc. (-.sst: possiint. Al-
ipit: il;i iicc vcro rcpr;ic>ciil;ihiinl. scA craiil riihrii;
im;igiiios. Id cnim.(pioil iioii cst.rcpraoscrihiri iiori
polcsl. Kx (pio iiitt'lli'^'iniiis iimigiiics Christi ct sari-
ctoriiiit tioii i-ssc ido!;i.S('d tic(t Triiiiliitis, anliiii-
^M'lornin iiiianines siint idola, «piin non sunl fiiclac,
;ii| rcpiiicsciiiiiiidiiin ii;ititr.uit Trinihilis. vol ;\u^c.-
loritin. scd iid cxprmf-ndiiin hintiiiin, 'tn fpt;i Jipp;i-
riicrnitt, vel ccrtc coriiin [iroprictalcs, ul iiifra di-
(-cinits.
Ilatic csso vcr;im dilTcrcntiain illaniin vociiin s»--
cundum eccIcsi;isli('os. prohiitiir Priiiio, (|iiia Scn-
pltira niisfptittn irihiiit noincii idoli iilli vorao im;i-
giiii, scd soliiin siiiioliii-ris gonliliiiin, qiiac fnlsos
i)cos rofcrchiinl. Scripliira vocal liliiiin Dci iitia^M-
niMn Patris, Sapicnt. 7. Coloss, 1. cl ad llohriicos
I. iit niiiiKpiiiii vocal idolitiii Palris ; ot ?*. I»'.g. 7.
dicitur. S;ilt)iiioii fci-isst; ad oriiiilitin hMupIi itnagi-
ncs chornhin ail similitudinom lioininum : itcm i-
maginos IcDniim, botim, piilMMriim, inalogi-analo-
ruin, flornm oli;. noc iin'pi;iiii isla vocuntur ido-
lii, (liiia niinirum rcrum vcraruin siinililudtnes c-
rant.
Socundo,qnia S(>.'iplina Toslnmonti vcloris idola
vocnl ordinario a^S^^X , ul Levit. 11). 20. ct :ili-
bi, vcl n'3*^i<, ut Niim. 23. Oseae , 6. et alihi.
Porro '?>'7J< signincnt vanum, fnlsnin; et simili-
tcr i^lX vanutn , mcndaciuin; inlcrdum ctiam vo-
cal *7p^. idest, mcndacium, ut llicronyinus noNit
in cap. 7.0senc, ubi sempcr vidcs idolum aliquid
fiiisi signiricarc. Dcniqnc H;ibacuch.2. ait Scriptu-
ra; Qaid prodcsi sculplilQ, quia sculpsit , iUud
fielor suus conflatile, etimagincm falsam? ubi
clarissimc dcfinilur idolum imago falsa. Cui^simile
csl, quod ait Plato in Theeleto,cum ail: Trjo/; /.%'.
iiotoXa -spl -Xclovo? -oiri^rdtxcvo'. -.o~j aXr/J5uc,idost,
mcDdacia el idola pluris faciunt, quam veritntem
ubi idolum cum mendacio conjunxit,el verilali op-
posuil.
Tertio, quia b. Paulus 1. Corinth. 8. ail: Scimus
quia nihil est idohim in mundo.Vh\ idolum nibil
esse dicitur. quia licel sil aliquid secandum mate-
riam, lamen nihil est formaliler.cum id repraesen-
let quod nihil est, et proinde nec vere repraesen-
tel, el consequenler nec sit. Cui loco aliura simi-
lem adducit Hieronymus in cap. 7. Oseae,a>l pro-
bandum idolum nihil esse; nam Hesther. 14. dici-
tur: i>'e tradas sceptrum iuum his,qui non sunt .
idest, idolis.
Quarto. quia b. Hieronymus in c. 2. Habacuch ,
ctin c. 13. Zachariae, elalibi passira confert hae-
47 i
DE IMAGIMBUS SA.VCTORL.M
reses cuni idolis, f|iiia ul idolum esl falsa iniago ,
ilu liaeresis esl falsa iinasinalio.
Quiulo, Q\ ipsa V()i'is propriclale: nam ul Ter-
lulliiiiius (iocel lihro (1(5 idololalria) idoluui csl di-
niinulivum ab tiooc. idesl, foruia, el signilical for-
inain parvain, nou (luautilaUi stda, sed pcrf(3clioue.
l'iSt euirn proprie idoluin (ul exponil Eustall)ius in
lib. n.Odisscac) iiuago iuauis. quaiis csl . quae
cernilur in umbra iu)minis, cl qualia sunl phautas-
rnala, idcsl, imagiucs quas iinagiualionc fabrica-
mus, quihus saepe uiliil respoudetin re; el quaiia
denique sunlspectra el.umbrae morluorura, quae
videnliir quidem esse aliquid solidum , scd iuaucs
sun!. Uiide llomerus in il. Odisseae, el Lucianus
in dialogo dc morluis. auimas morliiorum ^vocaut
e)5wAa; cl Virgilius in 0. lib. Aeneidos videlur idi-
psum explicarc voluisse, cuui ail:
(orripU hic f^itbila Irrpiduf^ foriaidine ferrum
^eneas, fttriclamque aciein venienlibus offerl:
El, ni docla coines tenues sine corpore vilas
Adinbneal volilare cava sub iinagine fonnae;
Irraal, et frustraferro diverberet uinhras.
Ubi quod Homerus et Lucianus vocanl siooXa >
vocat ipse umbras, el cavas imagines, idesl, vanas
cl inanes. Quoniain crgo idoluin propria el prima-
iMa significatioue dosigual imagiuem iuanem, inde
scriptores sacri el ecclcsiaslici doclores vocave-
runl idola slaluas falsorum Deorum , licet solidae
sint quoad inaleriam, quia inaiics sunt quoad lor-
mam, idesl,quoad rcpraesenlationcm. Ilacc de no-
mine idoli,
Nomen simulacri esl qiiidem pnulo communius;
nam Laclantius lib. 6. de vcro cullu, cap. 10. el
13. vocat bominem Dei siiuulacrum ; et lib. 2. de
origine erroris, cap, 2. dicit , simulacrum; dici a
similitudine, et proindc omnem vcram iniaginein
[)0sse dici simulacrum. A^erius lamen est, quod a-
lii dicunt, simulacrum dici a simulando. non a si-
inililudine; nam in Scriptiiris simulacra ubiquc po-
nuntur pro idolis. Scmper cnim ubi Lalinus inler-
pres posuil simulacra, iitActor. 13. psal. l\^. 1.
.foau. ull. el alibi, semper in greco est sfotoAa; et
b. Augustin. in psal. Ilio. dicit: Latinos ea simu-
lacra vocare, quae a Graecis dicuntur idola. Hie-
ronymus quoque in cap. 7, Oscae dicil, sic opponi
simulacrum Dco, sicul opponitur n)eudaciuin vcri-
lali; quia simulacriim Deum falsum refert.
Denique, sicul Homcrus et Lncianus vocant ido-
la umbras mortuorum, quae vidcntur solida corpo-
ra quaedam, el non sunt; ila etiam Lucretius lib.
4. et Virgilius lib. 4. Georgicorum , et lib. 6. Ae-
neidos, casdem mortuorum umbras passim appcl-
lanl simulacra.
CAPUT VI.
De principibus lconomachorum.
Auctores lconomachiae fueruiit omues aul Ju
daei, aut Mahumetani, aut Magi , aut manifeste
Haerelici, ila ul negare non possinl qui boc tem-
pore oppugnant imagines, avos et majores suos
fuisse impios.
AlphonsusdeCaslro, verbo, Iniago. tribuil huuc
crrorem cuidam Felici, quem dicil daranalum in
concilio rranconiae, tesle Platina in Adriano I .
neclanien polesl invcnire, quis islc Fclix fuei-il.
Tribuil itein Screno cpiscopo Massiliae . quem b.
Gregoriiis reprcliendil lib. 7. cpist. 109. el lib. 9.
t!pist.9,Dcniquc eundem errorem Irihuit Alphonsus
b. E|)iplianio iii cpisl. ad Joan. Hierosolymit
Scd nullus horuin, pace Alphonsi, in islo erro-
re vcrsalus est;namFcIix damnatus in synodo fran-
cofordiensi, esl Felix cpiscopus urgelilanus. Is au-
tcm (ul ex Adone in chronico, et Jona lib,l. patct)
solum docuil.Ghristiim esse filiiim Dei adoptivum,
([iiia laiiKMi cadciu synodus reprobavit eodem liun-
porc (ut ex codciii Adumi iii chronico anni 792.
|)atcl) pscudosyuodiim Graecorum contra imagi-
ncs. pulavcrnnl lain l>lalina,quam Alphonsus, hae-
resim Felicianam esse haeresim Iconomacho-
rum.
Sercnusaulem confregit quidem imagincs, sed
nullo modo Iconomachis haereticis annumerandus
esl; iiam imagines fi-egil, quia videbat eas a Cliri-
sliauis, luin reccus conversis , adorari pro Diis.
Undc bcatusGrcgorius laudat zelum cjus el lidem,
et solum reprchendil lemeritatem, quod ausus sit
id faccrc, (|U0(I nullus iinquam epis(;opus fc(;cral ,
(!l itioucl cum. ul populiim inslriiat ciir imagines
ab Ecclcsia tcncanlur. ct praemissa inslructioue i-
magiucs in tcinplis rcponi sinal. Nec erat opus,ut
Castro diccrct, S-irenura el Epiphanium cxcusari
ab hacrcsi, quia res nondum erat dcterminala. Sa-
lis ciiiin res dclcrminala eral usu tolius !']cclcs[ae:
scd niliil isli coiilra fidcin aul veritatcra cgf^runt
vcl docncruiit. .Ac praeserlim Epiphanius, qiii pur-
gaiiir ai) oiuni suspicione crroriscirca iinagincs in
A'l[. synodo, act. G. loin. .>. et nos infra de liac re
agcmus, El certe rion sinc temcrilate el pracju-
dicio calholicae fidei tara crassierrores tain raaguis
viris tribiiuntur.
Niculaus Sanderus lib. 1. cap, ult. de imagini-
bus, dicil,primos Iconomachos fuisse Manichaeos,
luni quia id videlur indicare Tharnsius m VII. sy-
nodo. luin etiam quia Fauslus apud Auguslin. lib.
20. c. 3. conl. Fausluin , glorialnr a suac seclae
bominibus Deum sinc siraulacris coli. Sed an res
ita se liaheat, veliemcntcr duhito; nnm Tharasius
in VII, synodo act. 3, non dicil Manicliacos re-
spnisse imagines, sed dicil, lcoiioraachos dum i-
magines respuunl, similcs cssc Manichaeis , qui
asscrehanl, Chrisiiim non habuissc verum coipus;
qui enim negal Chrisluni possc dcpingi, videlur e-
xisliiuarc , Chrislum noii liahcrc verum corpus.
Porro Fauslus apud Auguslinum non loquilur de
imaginibus sanctorum, scd solum de imaginibus
Dei. Unde nec Faustus eo loco reprehendit catho-
licos, quod habercnt imagines, nec Augustinus re-
prehendil Manicliaeos, qiiod imaginibus carerent.
Ergo primi Iconomachi sunl Judaei , qui in suo
Thalmud quod piodiit anno Christi 476. ord.2.
Iract. 1. dist. 2. discrlc docenl, Chrislianorum ec-
clesias esse domos idololatriae,quod propler ima-
gines dictum csse patcl lum ex VII. synodo, ubi
frequenler Iconomachi dicuntur Hebraei: tum ex
diulogis Leontii, ubi allerculur Judaeus cum Chri-
LIIIK.I bK.L.Nhl !i
47S
sliiiiio di' iin;iKiiiil>ii''- ll<il)('ltii° p.ns lioriuii ilinli)-
^iw. iii VII. s\iiihIii, iicl. :».
C.ircil iilflil li'lii|)lis /.iMinlir iiii|in'iiiilr (•\sillii Xi'
Diijiis, i|ii('iii pi liii i|ii'iii IriiiiiiiiMrliDHiiii Iiiinm' tll-
niiil Nii-cplionis lili. 10. c. 27. cl OmlnMiiiH iti
ci)in|MMiiliii. i''iiil iiuliMii Kli; XiMiiijii^ liDiiKi |irrs:i
cl li.ii li iiii^i. iiiiiiiii i't scrviis rn^iliviis: i-l liccl ikhi
nsscl l);i|)luiiliis, siiuiiliiiis liiiiicii sc (llirisliiiiiiiiii
irrcpsii lul cpisi-iipiiliini. Scil <|iiiiiiii|ii:iin i>lc iipor-
In siiiisil, noii i<ssc vcncriiinliis iiiiii^Miics : iiini l:i-
llicn lc^'inuis, (piiiil pcrsiiiiscnl.iiisi IdiIi' iilnpiihiis
puucis. Al |)osliinnos fcro cciiiiini, Jnsiino juniDru
inipcriiliirc, Siiiniiriliiiii (piiil:iin iriiipcrniii iii cc
('li^siiiin (piiiiul.iiii, cl in iiiiii;,Miic.s Cliiisli, (<l siiii-
ctornin lcrocissinic (;nissiiii siinl, nt p:ili!l(;\ i;pisl.
SiiiMMinis crciiiii:ic ml Jnsiiiiiiin iinpcralnruiii, ipi.ic
liiilicliir in Vll. syiiDili), ;i(-l. .'».
.\on (lin poslcii posl iinmiiii Doniiiii (lOO. i>\i)rlns
rsl Miilioincliis, ipii siiiic sccliic iKiiniiiihiis iinlliis
iiniijliiics iii tciiiplis piMinisit. nl v.\ Alcorjino. c.ip.
!,'». cl n. ct CA ips;i c\pci-i(Mitiii p;itci. INcc ciiiin
Tnrciio iin;i^?incs lnibiMil, cl iios idololiilriis pukinl
proplcr colliini iinii^Miiiini.
Itcriiin posl iinnos ItMi; ccntnni, itlosl, posl nn-
iiiitn /00. l)on)ini.llobr;ieiis (]iii(l;uii in:ilcliciis K/.i-
(li ro^^i ;iri»bum-in:iluiin(M:in() proinisit ilO.^iiinos vi-
l;»o. si in sno impcrio iuhorot iin:ij?incs (lliristi ol
sanclorum ox (llirishiinornm ccolosii.s aiiforri cl
comburi. Jiissil illo, sod ciim Clirisliiiiii noii pnro-
ronl, iinmisil Arabos ot llohriioos in ooclosiiis, qiii
no^^oliiun impijiro porlVconiiil: Soil ro\ Kzidos ;in-
no seqnenti obiil, ot llobracus lanqnam im|)oslor
:i su(MM'ssoro ojiis ttirpissima morlo mori ooii(;tiis
osl. iMiu-riiliir bisloria in VII. synodo acl. 5. nooiioii
a Codrcno , Zoiwnra cl Niccta iii vila Lconis l-
Siiuri.
P.uilo posl. 1.00 Isiitinis imporalor a Jndaois si-
iniliior porstiasus, publico (mIIcIo imiiiiinos deponi
cl dcbMi ox lomplis (Miinibtis jiissil: El inullos
Cbrisliiuioruin rosisloiilium iioci dodil; undo lco-
iiomiicbi cognomon invonil Anclorcs sunl, Ccdrc-
inis, Zonarus, Paulns diaconus el alii. Alque bic
fuil primns Cbrisii;inonim.qui bellum movil conlra
imagincs; nam clsi IMiilippicus, lcslo Paulo diaco-
no, deposticral imiij^inos scx synudorum: tamen id
locoral odin sexliic synodi, non odio imairinum.
Fuit cnim Pliilippicus Monolbclilii , nou lconoma-
cbns.
1'lrum aulom Leo roclc fcoerit, au malc, vel ex
00 porspici potcsl, quod maluil in ca caussa Ju-
diicorum malciicorum consiliis adliaerere , quam
s. Gregorii papac, s.Germnni pnlriarcbae conslan
linopoliliini. qtii lonc scdobanl.cl impernlori iiper-
te reslitorunl. ul o\ iisdcm auctoribus palel.Fuisse
aulem Grogorium illum el Germanum, oplimos et
doclissimos ponliliccs lr;idunt bislorici omncs cjiis
temporis Gracci ot Lalini. Ucslitcrunl eliam Lconi
duodecim sapicntcs, qui cuin praeposilo suo , qui
dieebalur magislcr oocumenicus. publicis sumpli-
bus alebantur. cl omnium oplimi ct sapientissimi
cranl: quos Leo tina cum domo. ct inslruclissiraa
corum bibliollieca combussil. VideZouaram in vita
bujus Leonis.
Irapielalcin poiro l.conis sequulus est Conslan-
tinii!i Ciipronymns JMiJut Litonin llliui, qni iii »!•
^Miiiiii rutiiriii; tiiiprohiliitiN duin liu|>liz(irclur, hn-
(-niiii fDnlcin stcrcorc fDCi|.iVit:cl |)r.iclcrca tifcro-
111 iiiticus fiill, ol li.icrclti-us Ncslorliiiiii'»; n.tiii non
cn<(lidil h. M.iriiiiii i>'iHO l)ci|)iiruin, ut cx /ontiru cl
CoiliiMiD cd;{iids( i piilcsL
.Moticl iiiiliMii rc( lc Siiiidi^riis Giiliidiiiiitii .\tluii-
dnim, iiDii llili;lil(M- vorliHHn iti liiic jiitturiu vcrh.i
Coilront.rhi i!iiiin Cttdrimiis Hiripsii, Cdii .':iiiIiimiiii
isliiin i'\c;;issc itiriimcniuin iih (iiiinihii<^ tmpttrrj
sitii subjiulis, (piD piriiiiciilo coiillr:ii.irctil.tMill'i'n
so iniiiMtniMii ndDr:ilitroH;illu viTiiiic, V.'u6'/:\ti n;>o-
c-/;v/;Ta' Ti'n;ill<! vimIiI: niiHi st; siiiiiiliicro supidica-
liiros; qii;isi vkIcIIim;! Chrisliiini idolis siipplK ciil.
Ciiiu t.iiiiiMi CDtiHlcl, iil iani oslcndiimis, iriiiiKinc.H
iiDii nMlc VDCiiri siiiiul;ii-r.i; ol usiis Cliristi.iiiDriim
liiihciil, ul iiti:i^'iiii>s vciicriMiiiir , iidii ut cts (pt<isi
vivtMiliiius rl sciiliciiiihiu soppliccmus. Scil niini-
riiin ipii lidciit DcD iiDii li:il)ci, ndiil miriim , si ct-
i:iiii rKlciii iKiii scrvcl iii lihris Ir.iiisfcrciKlis.
Posl :iiiiiiiin iloiiKh; HOO.ctiin ;ili(pi:iiidiu (ptiovis-
scl hcllum coiilr;i imaKiii''s; iliaum rcnovatimi csi
a Looiii' ArmcniD iinpcriitDic: d qui ci siicccssc-
runl, .Michiii-lo ll.ilhi) ot Tlicophilo.ipios oinm^s int-
probissimos hiissc, poslromunr cliam jiidaicae sc-
ctiK; ct nocrom;iiiti;io :iddicliini tcstiinUir Cedrcnus
ct ZoiKirns in viln ipsonim.
Kodcm teinporiMpto Tlicopliiliis in orienlo imn-
Rincs opptigii;ih.il. cxslilil iii occidcnlc sub iinpc-
rio Liidovici Pii C.iroli Miuui lilii (ilniniius hispa-
iius, cpiscopus t;iiiriiioiisis, Fclicis Urgclil;ini di-
scipultis, qui imatfincs omnes, el criices e lcinplis
oinuibiis suiic dioccosis absltilil. Fiiil aiilom liomo
iiiipcritus ct supcrbus, ul o\ libollo i']iis, lihris
Joiiac inserto apparct, el liaercsim ariaiiani . j;iii»
sopiiIliMU. nirsusiid lucem rcvocarc coniilns csl.
Posl illa lcmporii circa annuin Domini I.'i72. e.x-
slitil Joanncs Wiclcf. (|tii obilcr attigil imnginuni
rc|)iclioiisioncin, scd discipoli ojus ;icriiis postc;i
iinngincs oppugn;iveruiil. Vide Tliomam Wnldcii-
scin, tom. IL til. I*,). Luadcm errorcm Iribuil W;il-
densibus Claudius Coussordius lib.conlra Wnldcn-
ses, arlic. uilimo,
Scribil cti;im Joiinncs Cocblaeus lib. ?>. bistoriac
Ilussilarum,;) Ilieronymo de Praga imagincm Cliri-
sti criicifixi dejoctam. et slercore foedalam. cum
lanipn ipsc in cubictilo adorarcl imagincm Wiclefi
di;idcmnte coronal;im.
Doniquc boc noslro saoculo primus. qui imagi-
ncs e templis abslulil, Andreas Carolslad. fuit .
anno L'>22. tcslc Joanne Cocblaeo in vila Lulberi.
Lullierus aulcm qunmqunm rcin probarel , rcpre-
hendiltamon auclorem.ut ibidom Cocblaeus dicit.
quia. ul id faccrel, non n se polcslnlem ot nticlori-
tatcm Qagitaveral. Ilem Zwiiiglianos conlra imagi-
nes pugnnssc scribil Cocliliious in acL Lulberi aii-
ni Io20. Pbilippus qtioque iu locis communibus
cxplicnns decalogum, reprebendil imaginum vene-
rnlionem. Simililer .Magdcburgcnscs Cenlur.S.pas-
sim. scd pr;iecipuo cap. 0. cl 10.
Denique Joan. Calvinus lib. 1. cap. 11. el lib.4.
cap. 9. § 9. Inslilut. acerrime imaginum cultum
reprcbeiidil: el Calvinislae, ubicumque possunl ,
eas fianguut. vel comburunt. vel abradunt.
470
DE IMAGIKiBUS SANCTORUM