Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 7: That It Is Lawful Both to Make and to Have Images
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 7. That It Is Lawful Both to Make and to Have Images
These things set down first, to show that the use of images is lawful for Christians we will set out and refute the various errors which have arisen on this matter.
And the first is that of the Jews, who were once most prone to idolatry, but after the coming of Christ are most superstitious against images. For they say that it is forbidden by divine law to make any images at all, on the witness of Paul of Burgos, addition 2 to Lyra on chapter 20 of Exodus; which the Wycliffites teach too, in Waldensis, volume 3, title 19, chapter 132. Their reason is that in Exodus 20 it is said: “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing,” and so on. But this is a manifest error. And without doubt not every image is forbidden in the Decalogue, but only that which can be called an idol, that is, an image which is held for God, or which represents as God a thing which is not God. For when it is said, “Thou shalt not have strange gods,” the inward act of idolatry is forbidden; but when it is added, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,” and so on, the outward act is forbidden. See Augustine, question 71 on Exodus.
This opinion is proved. First, because if every image were forbidden, it would follow that the precepts of the Decalogue are not only ten, but eleven or twelve, against Scripture, which says they are ten, Exodus 31 and 34, Deuteronomy 4, 9 and 10. For it is certain that one precept is, “Thou shalt not have strange gods”; another, “Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain”; third, “Sanctify the sabbaths”; fourth, “Honour thy parents”; fifth, “Thou shalt not kill”; sixth, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”; seventh, “Thou shalt not steal”; eighth, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”; ninth, “Thou shalt not covet.” These nine are distinct without controversy.
Now that “Thou shalt not covet” either ought to be divided into two, so that the ninth is, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,” and the tenth, “nor his house,” and so on; or not. If it ought to be divided, then either that “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing” will be the eleventh, or it must be said that it is not a precept distinct from the first; as in truth Clement of Alexandria says, book 6 of the Stromata; Augustine, question 71 on Exodus, and letter 119, chapter 11; and commonly the scholastics on book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 37; and all the Latin catechisms. And then it is not any graven thing whatever that is forbidden, but only the graven thing which is held for a strange god.
But if “Thou shalt not covet” is only one, as Philo thinks in the book On the Decalogue, before the middle; Josephus, book 3 of the Antiquities, chapters 6 and 8; Origen, homily 8 on Exodus; Ambrose and Jerome on chapter 6 to the Ephesians; Procopius and Rupert on chapter 20 of Exodus; then all those words will be one precept: “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,” and so on, “and thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.” But to make images simply, and to adore them, are distinct things, as is plain; for one can adore a graven thing which he did not make, and another not adore one which he did make. Therefore only one of these is forbidden, otherwise there would be eleven precepts. But it is certain that the cult is forbidden; therefore the making is not forbidden in itself, but only as ordered to cult. And so he sins who makes one in order to adore it, not he who makes one for another use.
It is proved, second, that images are not forbidden absolutely by divine law, from this, that in Scripture itself we read of images made by God's command. For in Exodus 25 God ordered images of cherubim to be made over the ark; in Numbers 21 the bronze serpent; in 3 Kings 6 and 7 cherubim, oxen, lions and other things. The Jews answer that God gave the precept to men, not to himself; and that he ordered the images of the temple to be made, as he forbade theft, and yet himself ordered the Jews to despoil Egypt, Exodus 12.
But on the contrary. First, the precepts of the Decalogue are explanations of the law of nature, except that about the sabbath; and things forbidden by the law of nature are forbidden because they are evil, not evil because they are forbidden; and so they cannot be commanded by God. Nor did God ever command theft; but as Lord he gave the goods of the Egyptians to the Jews. Then, if images were forbidden, surely it would be because of the danger of idolatry; but the danger is the same if God orders them to be made; nay, so much the greater as they are held to be more divine, as happened with the bronze serpent, 4 Kings 18. God, then, did not forbid images absolutely.
It is proved, third, because a thing is never understood to be forbidden which in no way goes against the end of the law. And the end of the precepts of the first table is that God's honour be kept for him unimpaired, as is plain from the beginning of the Decalogue, “I am the Lord thy God”; likewise from that threat, “I am a jealous God”; likewise from that explanation, Exodus 20, “You shall not make gods of silver, nor shall you make to yourselves gods of gold”; likewise from Leviticus 26, “You shall not make to yourselves any idol or graven thing, to adore it”; lastly from that of Isaias 42, “I the Lord will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven things.” But an image not made for veneration does not go against the honour of God; therefore it is not forbidden.
You will say: An image is an occasion of idolatry. I answer: So too are the sun and the moon and many other things; but by accident.
Fourth, the art of painting and carving is good and from God, as is plain from Exodus 31 and 35, where it is said that God gave to two men, Beseleel and Ooliab, his spirit, wisdom and knowledge for carving and devising many things for the adornment of the tabernacle.
Fifth, God is the first author of all images, natural and artificial; for he begot the Son to his own image, and formed man to his own image.
Sixth, the image is according to nature and necessary. For in the first place all natural things produce something like themselves, that is, an image of themselves. Man, whatever he knows, whether by sense or by intellect, knows through images. We cannot move in the light without our bodies casting a shadow, which is an image of the body. All clothes are images of the limbs for covering which they were made.
Lastly, the Jews in the time of Christ had the image of Caesar on their coins, as is plain from Matthew 22; and now too they keep the images of princes on their money. Why then do they say that it is not lawful to have any image? Surely if anyone wished to snatch from them the images which they have on their coins and hangings, they would change their opinion at once.
The second opinion is that of Ambrose Catharinus, in the little work On Images. For he thinks that God in the Decalogue forbade images simply, but that that precept was positive and temporary; for he thinks it is proved because God himself ordered the images of cherubim to be made, to show that images are not evil in themselves but only evil because forbidden; and also so as not to prejudge the New Testament, in which images were to be permitted. [The top of page 477 is merged across columns in the scan; this paragraph and the next two are rendered from what reads.]
But this opinion does not please us, both because of the arguments made against the Jews, and because St. Irenaeus, book 4, chapters [31 and 32?], teaches expressly that the Decalogue is the natural law, except the precept of the sabbath; and Tertullian, in the book On Idolatry, [teaches] constantly that this precept is to be kept by Christians. Blessed Cyprian teaches the same, book 3 to Quirinus, chapter [59?], and in the Exhortation to Martyrdom, chapter 1. Blessed Augustine affirms again and again that the whole Decalogue, except the law of the sabbath, is to be kept by Christians, and by name that, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing.” See book 15 against Faustus, chapter 4 [and 7?]; book 19, chapter 18; book 3 against the two letters of the Pelagians, chapter 4. Blessed Thomas has the same, second part of the second part, question 122, articles 1 and 4. Therefore if all images were forbidden in the Decalogue, Christians who have images would sin.
You will say: In the Decalogue the precept of the sabbath is positive at least in part; therefore nothing prevents the precept on images too from being in part positive. I answer that in the precept of the sabbath many things are set down which show that it is positive. For first there is put before it, “Remember”; because, namely, since it is not a natural precept, the Jews could easily forget it. Second, a reason is added to the precept, “Because the Lord rested from his work on the seventh day”; but no reason is added to any other precept, because the rest are simply natural. Lastly Irenaeus, Augustine and Thomas expressly except only the sabbath from the natural precepts of the Decalogue.
The third opinion is that of Thomas Cajetan on chapter 20 of Exodus, who teaches that it is not forbidden to make any image or idol, but only forbidden that anyone make for himself an image which he means to hold for his god; and he proves it because it is not said, “Thou shalt not make a graven thing,” but, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing.”
This opinion displeases only in the manner of speaking. For Cajetan takes idol and image for the same, though this is false, as we showed above. Then he seems to grant that it is lawful to make idols which are held for gods, provided he who makes them does not hold them for gods. But Tertullian, in the whole book On Idolatry, proves by most evident reasons that it is forbidden to Christian painters or statuaries to make idols for the heathens. And the Church celebrates on the eighth of November the martyrdom of Saints Claudius, Nicostratus and their companions, who were killed because they would not make simulacra for the heathens, though they were most skilled statuaries.
Nor would Cajetan deny this, since in the second part of the second part, question 10, article 4, he teaches that it is not lawful to sell idols to the heathens; so he spoke carelessly in the commentary on Exodus. Nor does that little word “to thyself” stand in the way; for according to the Hebrew phrase it is redundant, as in Genesis 12, “Go forth out of thy country,” and in the Canticle of Canticles again and again.
Chapter 8. That It Is Not Forbidden to Make Images of God
The fourth opinion is Calvin's, book 1 [the scan reads 5] of the Institutes, chapter 11, where he says, first, that it is sacrilege to give a visible and bodily image to God, who is invisible and incorporeal. Second, that images of Christ and of the saints are not forbidden simply, but ought not to be put in churches. Third, that histories painted have some use for instruction; but that images of Christ or of the saints alone, without the representation of deeds done, have no use except for pleasure, and so are made in vain.
To begin, then, with the first head: Calvin proves that an image of God cannot be painted. First, because in Exodus 20 every likeness of God is forbidden; for after Scripture had said, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing,” it added, explaining it: “You shall not make gods of silver, nor gods of gold with me,” that is, you shall not make images of gold or silver to represent God. And Deuteronomy 4: “You heard the voice of his words, but you saw not any form at all” on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb; “keep therefore your souls carefully, lest perhaps being deceived you make you a graven similitude.” And Isaias 40: “To whom then have you likened God? or what image will you make for him?” And chapter 46: “To whom have you likened me, and made me equal, and compared me, and made me like? You that contribute gold out of the bag, and weigh out silver in the scales: and hire a goldsmith to make a god.” Lastly in Acts 17 Paul says: “Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.”
Second, he proves it from the Council of Elvira, canon 36: “It is resolved that there be no pictures in churches, lest what is worshipped or adored be painted on the walls.” Where it is plain that it treats of images of God, who alone is worshipped and adored by Christians.
Third, he proves the same from the Fathers. For Eusebius, book 1 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter [6?], and book 2, chapter 8, and Lactantius, book 1 of the Divine Institutes, chapter 15, write that all those whose simulacra we see were mortal men; therefore there was no simulacrum of the true, immortal God. Likewise Augustine, On Faith and the Creed, chapter [7?], says that it is wicked to set up simulacra to God. Besides, the same Augustine, book 4 of the City of God, chapters 19 and 31, reports Varro saying that those who first brought in simulacra of the gods both took away fear and increased error. And in book 6, chapter 10, he reports the complaint of Seneca, who grieved that the inviolable gods were dedicated in the vilest and meanest matter.
He could have added Origen too, book 7 against Celsus, at the end, and John Damascene, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 17, who teach that Christians have no image of God, since he is incorporeal and invisible. Lastly the Fathers of the seventh synod, actions 4, 5 and 6, who say that Christ is rightly painted because he is man, but that God cannot be painted.
Fourth, he proves it from the danger of error. For although St. Gregory wrote that images are the books of the unlearned, yet on the contrary Scripture calls a wooden image “a doctrine of vanity,” Jeremias 10, and a molten one “a teacher of lies,” Habacuc 2. And so, says Calvin, if Gregory had been taught in the school of the Spirit, he would never have said that an image is the book of the unlearned.
Fifth, by reason: because it does not seem possible that a true bodily image be made of an incorporeal thing. Add too that images are made of things absent; but God is everywhere present.
This opinion of Calvin is also that of some Catholics, as Abulensis on chapter 4 of Deuteronomy, question [?]; Durandus on book 3, distinction 9, question 2; and Peresius On Traditions, part 3, in the treatise on images; who teach that an image of God is not rightly made, and is perhaps tolerated by the Church, yet not approved.
I say three things. First, that it is not so certain in the Church whether images of God, or of the Trinity, are to be made, as images of Christ and of the saints. For the latter all Catholics confess, and it belongs to the faith; the former is a matter of opinion. Second, that the fraud and cunning of Calvin is wonderful, who, after he has proved that images of God are not to be made, so passes on to amplifications and sings a triumph, as though he had proved that it is not lawful to honour or make any image. Third, I say that it is lawful to paint even an image of God the Father in the form of an old man, and of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, as Cajetan teaches, third part, question 25, article 3; Ambrose Catharinus in the book On the Cult of Images; Diego Payva, the last book against Chemnitz; Nicholas Sander in his work On the Cult of Images; and Thomas Waldensis, volume 3, title 19, chapter [155?]. And this we prove thus.
First: the angels are incorporeal, and yet they were painted and carved in the Old Testament, Exodus 25 and 3 Kings 6; wherefore God too, though incorporeal, can be painted.
Calvin answers that this was done for the schooling of the old law, but that that childish age has now passed. But we do not ask for what purpose they were made, but we dispute that an incorporeal thing can be painted. And as the angels were painted for the schooling of the people, why could not God be painted for the schooling of the people? For although that age has passed which could be called childish with respect to ours, yet ours too can be called childish with respect to the age to come in heaven.
Second: God was seen in bodily form. For he appeared to Adam as a man walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Genesis 3. Jacob saw God leaning upon the top of the ladder, and so in bodily form, Genesis 28. Moses saw the back parts of God, that is, the back and shoulders, Exodus 33. Isaias, chapter 6, and Micheas, 3 Kings, the last chapter, saw the Lord sitting on a throne in the form of a man, a king. And Amos, chapter 9, saw the Lord standing upon the altar. Lastly Daniel, chapter 7, saw him sitting on a throne, and describes his head and his white hair and his white garments. The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, Matthew 3. Lastly the angels appeared very often in human form, Genesis 18 and 19, and in the book of Tobias. They were also seen with wings, as in Isaias 6 and Daniel 9, and in a white robe, Matthew, the last chapter, Luke, the last chapter, and John 20. What then forbids their being painted so?
Calvin answers that God's sometimes showing himself in human form was a prelude of the incarnation, and that the dove vanished at once, to show that the Holy Spirit is invisible. But to what end is this? For we do not ask for what end, or how long, God appeared in bodily form; but we contend that God can be painted in that form in which he showed himself. And besides, it is not true that the appearance of God in human form was always a prelude of the incarnation; for sometimes God the Father appeared, or the Holy Spirit, who yet were not to be incarnate. Blessed Augustine, book 2 On the Trinity, chapter [10?], thinks that in those three men who appeared to Abraham, Genesis 18, the three persons of the Trinity appeared; and in the same book, the last chapter, he shows that the person of the Father was seen in human form, from Daniel, chapter 7; for there we read that the Ancient of days was seen on a throne, who was giving the kingdom to the Son of man, that is, to Christ; and yet neither the whole Trinity nor God the Father was to be incarnate.
Third: Scripture in words gives God all human members, since it says that he stands, sits, walks; it names his head, feet, arms; it gives him a seat, a throne, a footstool, and so on. Why then could not a picture be shown such as Scripture paints?
They answer that Scripture gives members to God without danger because elsewhere the same Scripture says that God is incorporeal. But why, I ask, could not the same Scripture prevent the error of the picture? For as we learn from Scripture that the members given to God in Scripture itself are to be taken metaphorically, so too we learn from the same that the members given to God in a picture are to be taken metaphorically. And the unlearned, who see pictures and cannot read the Scriptures, can and ought to be instructed by prelates and preachers, as the Council of Trent warns, session 25. Otherwise, I admit, pictures of this kind are not shown to the unskilled without danger. For here we defend only this, that images of this kind are not to be condemned universally.
Fourth: things are painted which seem less able to be painted than God, namely the virtues, which are not only spiritual but even accidents. Why then could God not be painted?
Fifth: man is a true image of God; but an image of man can be painted; therefore of God too. For what is the image of an image is also the image of the exemplar; for things which are like to one third thing are also like among themselves.
They will say that man is not the image of God in the part in which he is painted, that is, the body, but in the part in which he cannot be painted, that is, the mind.
I answer: If it were so, it would follow that man cannot be painted. For a man is not a man by reason of shape and colours, which alone are expressed in an image, but is a man by reason of substance, and chiefly by reason of the soul, which cannot be painted. Yet a man is said truly and properly to be painted, because the shape and colours of the image represent not only the shape and colours of the man but the whole man himself; otherwise it would never happen that a thing painted seemed the true thing itself. Which yet happened with the grapes which Zeuxis had painted, to peck at which little birds came running, on the witness of Pliny, book 35, chapter 10.
So, then, although man is to the image of God by reason of intellect and will, yet the whole man himself, understanding and willing, is rightly said to be, and is, the image of God. For in Genesis 1 God did not say, “Let us make the mind,” but, “Let us make man to our image.” [The next lines, at the top of page 479, are merged across columns in the scan. What reads is the story of the monk who told the Emperor Theodosius, when the people had thrown down his images, that for his own images he was killing the images of God, as the Tripartite History reports.] And yet the emperor was killing not souls but men. If then the whole man himself is the image of God, and the whole man is truly painted, therefore the image of God is truly painted.
Yet this is true, that as man is an image of God very imperfect, dark and unlike, so too man painted is an image of God very imperfect, dark and unlike.
Lastly it is proved from the use of the Church. For images of this kind are now received almost everywhere; nor is it credible that the Church would tolerate universally something unlawful. Add that the seventh council, action 5, approves the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the Council of Trent, session 25, admits images of God, especially in the pictures of histories.
For the answering of the arguments it is to be observed that a thing can be painted in three ways. In one way, to express the perfect likeness of the form and nature of the thing itself; and in this way only bodily things are painted, which are endowed with lines and colours. And if anyone tried to paint God in this way, he would set up a true idol.
In another way, to show some history to the eyes; as if one wished to paint the expulsion of Adam from paradise, he would have to paint God in the form of a man walking, and Adam and Eve naked hiding among the trees, and lastly an angel in human form carrying a sword and driving out Adam with his wife. But he who painted so would surely not wish to represent the nature of God or of the angel, but only to show to the eyes by a picture what another would show to the ears by reciting the Scripture; and in this way God can be painted.
Third, something can be painted outside a history to set forth the nature of a thing, not by an immediate and proper likeness, but by analogy, or by metaphorical and mystical meanings. As we paint the angels young, winged, beautiful, with bare feet and so on, to signify that they are always strong in power, move most swiftly, are endowed with the splendour of grace and virtues and so on; which see in Dionysius, the last chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy. In this way too the virtues are painted. And man himself, the image of God, is of this third kind; for there is no other likeness between man and God than an analogical one. In this way we paint God the Father when we paint him outside a history in human form. In this way we paint Christ in the form of a lamb, and represent the evangelists by the eagle, the lion, the ox and the man, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove or of tongues of fire. Where yet it is to be noted that images of this kind ought not to be multiplied; nor should it be tolerated that painters dare to invent out of their own heads images of the Trinity, as when they paint one man with three faces, or one man with two heads and a dove between them. For these are certain monsters, [and offend more than they help; the rest of this passage is merged across columns at the top of page 479: it likens such pictures to centaurs, Geryons and the hydra of Hercules, monsters and idols which give our adversaries occasion to blaspheme].
Besides, it is to be noted that Bartholomew Carranza errs, who in the Summa of the Councils says that in canon [82?] of the sixth synod the image of Christ in the form of a lamb, and of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, is forbidden. But the council does not forbid these images, but only sets before them the images of Christ in human form. Nay, in the seventh synod, action 2, is read the letter of Adrian to Tarasius, in which the image of Christ in the form of a lamb is said to have been praised in the sixth synod. Tarasius says the same in the seventh synod, action [4?], and Epiphanius the same in the seventh synod, action 6; and besides, in the seventh synod, action 5, the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove is approved.
Besides, Bartholomew's reason seems to conclude against himself. For he says that these images are forbidden because, when the truth is present, figures ought to cease. But these images were not in use in the Old Testament, but began after the coming of Christ. For the image of the lamb took its occasion from those words of John, “Behold the Lamb of God”; and the image of the dove from that dove which appeared over Christ, Matthew 3. This author seems to have taken the occasion of his error from the canon itself, which is not had whole in that collection; but the error is to be corrected from the seventh synod, where this very canon is often brought in whole.
From these things the arguments of the adversaries can easily be answered. To the first it could be said in one word that in all the Scriptures cited an image of God of the first kind is forbidden. Yet I think that Exodus 20, when it says, “You shall not make gods of gold and gods of silver with me,” and likewise Isaias 40 and 46, where God complains, saying, “To whom have you likened me?”, speak to the letter not of an image made to represent the true God, for such were not made by the Jews, but of any simulacra whatever that were held for gods. For God means to say: If a wooden simulacrum is God to you, since I too am God, it follows that I am like the wooden god, according to you; for God and God could not but be alike.
To the second I say that if that council speaks of the image of God alone (as Calvin would have it), there is no difficulty; for we will understand the council of an image of God of the first kind. But if the council speaks of all images, even of the saints, there is a greater difficulty, of which below.
To the third. Eusebius and Lactantius speak of the idols of the heathens. For they wish to show that the gods of the heathens were men, and they prove it because all the idols of the heathens are statues of men, whose tombs too are shown. Augustine, On Faith and the Creed, speaks of an image of God of the first kind. Varro in Augustine says rightly that those who brought in simulacra of the gods took away fear and increased error. For some therefore believed that the simulacra themselves were gods, and seeing that they neither profited nor harmed others or themselves, began to despise the gods. But if they had believed the simulacra to be not gods but images of the gods, and images not proper but analogical, they would neither have lost their fear nor found error; as the fear of princes is not lessened, nor does any error arise, through their images which we see daily. Seneca in the same Augustine complains that simulacra were set up to the gods because of the same error, because the simulacra themselves were thought gods, or at least the gods were judged like those simulacra. Origen and Damascene and the Nicene Fathers speak of an image of God of the first kind.
To the fourth I say, first, that blessed Gregory is wrongly rebuked by Calvin. For blessed Gregory, when he says that pictures are the books of the unlearned, does not treat of an image of God, but of the images of the saints, and most of all of painted histories in which the mysteries of redemption are contained. And the prophets whom Calvin sets against Gregory, when they say that wood is a teacher of vanity or of lies, speak of the simulacra of false gods, not of the true images of the saints.
I say, second, that idols indeed are teachers of lies, because they wish to seem gods, or at least seem to represent the likeness of the gods, when they do not truly represent it. But the image of God and of the Trinity, as it is painted by us, is a teacher of truth, because it is neither held for God by us, nor made to represent God's likeness, but to lead man into some knowledge of God through analogical likenesses.
To the fifth, we have already shown how an incorporeal thing can be painted.
To the last: absent things are wont to be painted because they are not seen; but God, although he is present, yet is not seen; therefore he can be painted as if he were absent. Otherwise neither ought we to pray to God with an outward voice; for words are for those who do not see the thoughts; but God searches the reins and hearts.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Liccre imagines et facerc et haberc.
His praeraissis, ul oslendamus licere Chrislianis
usuni imaginum, proponeraus el refulabimus va-
rios, qui de liac re exslilerunl, errores.
Ac primus quidem esl Judaeorum. qui quondam
propensissimi eranl ad idololatriam ; at post Cliri-
sli adveulum superslitiosissimi sunt conlra imagi-
nes. Dicunl enim jure divino prohibilum esse ima-
gines quaslibel eiilcere, tesle Paulo Burgensi, ad-
dit. 2. ad Lyianuni super cap. 20.Exod.quod idem
doccnt Wiclcfislae apud Waldensera, lom. 3. tit.
19. cap. 132. Ralio eorum est, quia Exod. 20. di-
cilui:Ao?i facies Ubi sculptile,neque omnem simi-
liludincm elc. Caeterum hic cst error manifeslus.
El sinc dubio non prohibclur in decalogo oninis
imago, sed solum illa, quae dici potest idolum ,
idcst, imago, quae liabelur pro Deo, vei quae re-
praesenlal lamquam Deum eam rem, quae non est
Dciis.Cum enim dicilur:iVo?i habebis Deos alienos,
prohibelur aclus inlerior idololatriae; cum autem
mi&i[[ir: Nonfacies tibi sculptile elc. prohibelur
aclus exlerior. Vide Auguslinum quaest. 71. in E-
xod.
Probalur haec senlentia. Priraum, quia si prohi-
berelur omuis imago, sequerctur praecepla dcca-
logi non esse tanlum 10. sed 11. vel 12. conlra
Scripluram. quae dicit esse 10. Exod. 31. et 34.
Deuter. 4. 9. et lO.nam constat unum praeceptura
esse: Non habebis Deos alienos. Alterum, non as-
sumes nomen Dei in vanum. 3. Sabbatha sanctifi-
ces. 4. Honora parentes. o. Non occides. G. l\on
moechaberis. 7. I\on furaberis. 8. Non dices fal-
sum teslimonium. 9. Non concupisces. Ista novem
sine conlroversia sunt dislincta.
Porro illud : Non concupisces, vet debel dividi
in duo ; ut nonum sit , non concupisces uxorem
alienam; 10. non concupisccs rem alienam;vcl ista
oinniaad unum perlinent. Si debel dividi in duo ,
crgo illud: Non facies tibi sculptilc, eril undcci-
inum,vcl oporlet dicere,illud non esse praeceplam
distinctum a primo, ut revera dicunl Clemens ale-
xandr. lib. 6. slrom. Augustin. qu. 71. in Exod.et
epist. 119. cap. 11. et communitcr scholast. 3.
senlenl. dist. 37. et catcchismi omnes Lalini. Et
lunc non prohibelur sculptile quodcumque , sed
solum sculplile, quod habclur pro Deo alieno.
Si autem: Non concupisces, est unura tanlura ,
ul exislimant Philo in lib. de dccalogo ante med.
.Toseph. lib. 3. antiquit. cap. 6. el 8. Origen. hom.
8. in Exod. Ambrosius et Ilieronym. in cap. 6, ad
Ephes. Procopius el Ruperlus iu cap. 20. Exodi :
Tunc illa omnia verba erunt unum praeceplum :
Non facies libi sculpiile elc. El non adorabis ea,
neque coles, sed facere imagines absolule, etado-
rare easdera, sunl res dislinctae, ul patet; quia po-
lest unus adorare scuIpliIe,quod non fecit, etalius
non adorare, quod fecit.Ergo unum tanlum horum
est prohibilum, aiioqui essenl undccim praeccpla.
Sed cerlum est prohiberi cullum: ergo non prohi-
betur fabricalio per se, sed solum in ordinc ad
cnltum. Proindc peccal, qui facit, ul adi.rct, non
qui facit ad alium usum.
Secundo probalur, legc divina non prohiberi i-
magines absolule, ex eo, quod in ipsa Scriptura
legimus imagines factas Dei jussu.Siquidera Exod.
2.1, Deus tieri jussit imagines cherubin super ar-
cam. I\um. 21. Serp.enlem aeneum. 3.Reg. 6.et7.
Cherubin, boves, leones et alia. Respondenl Ju-
daei: Dcum praecepisse hominibus,non aulem sibi
ipsi. Porro imagines templi ipsum jussisse fieri,si*
cut prohibuit furlum;et tamen ipse jussit ul Judaei
spoliarenl Aegyplum, Exo.d. 12.
Al contra. Primo, praeccpla decalogi suntexpli-
cationes juris nalurae, exccpto illo dc sabbalho :
res autem prohibila^e jure naturae,sunl prohibilae,
quia malae; non malae, quia prohibilae, et proin-
de nec a Deo praecipi possunl, Nec jussit unquam
Dcus furtum, sed donavil ul Dominus , Judaeis
bona Acgypliorum, Deinde , si imagines esscnt
prohibitae, certe propter periculum idololatriae :
at idera est periculum, si Deus jubeat eas fieri,ira*
mo eo raajus, quo illae habenlur diviniores, sicut
accidit de serpenle aeneo, 4. Reg, 18. non ergo
prohibuit Deus iraagines absolule.
Probatur tertio, quia numquam inlelligitur pro-
bilum id, quod nullo modo adversatur fini Jegis:
finis autem praeceplorum primae tabulae est, ut
servelur Deo suus honor illibalus, ul palel ex ini-
tio decalogi: Ego sum Dominus Deus iuus. Item
ex illa comminatione: Ego sum Deus zeloies. Ilem
ex illa explicalione, Exod.20. iVo?i facietis mccum
Deos aureos , et Deos argenteos. Ilera ex Levit.
26. Non facietis sculptile, etidolum, ut adoretis.
Denique ex illo Isaiae 42, Ego Dominus gloriam
meam alterino7i dabo, et laudern mcam sculpli-
libus. At ima^o non facla ad veneralionera , non
adversatur honori Dei: Non igitur est prohibita,
Dices: Imago est occasio idololalriae, Respon-
deo: Eliam sol el luna,et alia multa sunt talia; sed
per accidens,
Quarto, ars pingendi el sculpcndl bona est, et
a Deo, ut palel Exod, 31, el 35. ubi dicitur, Deus
dedisse duobus viris Beseleel et Ooliab spirilum
suum, sapientiam et scientiam ad sculpendum, et
excogitandum raulla pro ornalu labernaculi,
Quinlo, Deus primus auctor est oraniura imagi-
num, naluraliura et artificialiura; nam genuit fi-
lium ad imaginem suara ; et formavit hominem ad
imaginem suam.
Sexto,, imago est secundura naluram, et neces-
saria: nam iu primis omnia naluralia producunt a-
liquid sibi similc, idest, imaginem sui,Homo quid-
quid cognoscit sive sensu,sive inlelleclu, per iraa-
gines cognoscit, Non possuraus in lumine versari,
quin corpora noslra umbram efrici.ant, quae imago
est corporis, Yesles omnes imagines sunt eorura
membrorum, ad quae tegenda faclae sunt.
Denique Judaei tempore Chrislihabebant imagi-
nem Caesaris in nummis, ut patel Mallh. 22. ct
nunc etiam retinenl imagines principura in pecu-
niis, cur ergo dicunt, non liccre ullam iraaginem
haberc? CeVle si quis eis eripere vellet iraagines,
quas in numrais ct aulaeis habcnt, conlinuo muta-
rcnt scntcntiam.
i.ilir.ii .^ici \|)|;h
*n
Snniinlii opliiio csl Aiiiiiro^ii <',;itliiniiii lii opii>
MCOlo l|(! IIIM^illilillS. Illli (|nr(>l. hiMIOI 10 il('l',;i|)i^O
pr(iliil)oiss(> iiii.iv;io**s sioi|ili(-il(*i : m''I illod |ii'iio-
('('|il(ioi loibsc poMlivoiii i'l (('iiiponiU;: iiiioi pro-
))lio'«^ii exislioiiil ipsi' Dcoiii jiiHSi!iS(! lli*ri liii<i^iiicH
rlicroliio, lil niiliciirct. ioi;i;,'liics noii cssc iiiahis
pcrsc, scd Miloio oiiil;is,<pii,i pi(ili(liil;is : cl cti;iiii
110 prHciiKllciirclor Tnsljonciilo iiovo, iii (pd» pcr-
iiiillciiihH' ci-iitil iio;i^'iii('s.
.SimI liiioc opioio iioliis iioii priili;itiir,liiiii projilcr
ui'^iiiii(Mit;i riicliH'(iiili'ii.lo(lii<'(is.iuinctiiiiii(pii;i siin-
«•Ids Irciiiicos lili. t.ciip.iM.cl :i2.(li«.('rIo (loccl.dc-
<';iio;^oiii cssc |i';^'roi n;iliir.ilciii. cvccpld pr;icc('plo
d(! s.ildiiillio. Ml Tcrliilli.iii.ldi.dc i.ldlohil.tnlo i'oii-
lcodlt.lioiic oiiixiiiio (i|)SiM'Viiiidoiii lioc piiicc.cptoio.
Idcio ddccl li. <lypri;iiiiis lil). '.\. uA (hiiiiiiooi , c
;>'.). cl lii" i'\li()rliiiioiic lo.iitvrii. ciip. 1. Ii. Ao^ii-
sliii. piissiin iilUriiiul toliiin dt-ciiloijooi, oxc«^plii !(!-
j;(! (I(! Siihhiitlio . ii ('lirisliiinis scrv;(ii(liiiii , cl
notoioiiliiii illiid: .Vo/i farics lihi srulplilr. Vidi;
lil). I."». coiil." l''iiiistiitii. ciip. \. (H 1. ct lil). 1!).
Ciip. 18. lih. IJ. coolrii 2. cpisl. I'clii^,'i;iii. ciip. 4.
Idcoi li;il)cl h. Tliomiis2. 2. (]. 122. iirl. 1. cl 4.
Vv^o si 10 (icc;iI();;o proliii)cr(Mitiir oioocs iiii;i;.(i-
nes, pcoCiircMil ('lirisli;ioi liiihciitcs ioi;i;,'iiics.
Diccs: io (ltM';ilo;:;o pr;icccptiim s;ii)l)iitlii csl po-
silivnin s;iltctii c\ p;irtc; cr;?o iiiliil prolnhcl, "pio
iiiiiiiis cli.im priicccpliim dc iniii^'itiil)iis sil c\ piir-
lc posilivooi. Ucspondco: iii pr;icccpl() s;il)h.illii
posil;i cssc imillii, (]ii;ic imli(-i'tit. illtnl ossc posi-
livom; o;im i^imo. pr;icmillitiir, Moinculo: i]m.\
niiniruin ciiin non sil ii;iloriile priiecoptnin, polc-
r;itit illiiis liioilc .iml;ici ohlivisci. Scciimlo. ;iddi-
Uir ralio pr;icccpli: Qiiia Doniinufi quiovil ab o-
pore dic scplinio: non aulcm additur ralio ulli al-
lcri praccc|>lo. (]oia caclcr;i siitil simplicitcr natn-
ralia. I)ciii(im! Irctiacos. .Viiiiiistiiuis ct Tliom;is di-
scrte solnm siihhiitliuiu cxciiiiuiil a naliiralihos
praeceptis dccaiogi.
Tcrtia opiiiio csl Tliomac ('ajclnni in c. 20. E-
xod. qui doccl. non cssc proliihiluin fiiccrc ulhim
imaj:;incm, vel idolom, scd solum proliihilum, es-
sc, iic (]uis facial sihi imatrincm. qu;im iiaiicrc vc-
lit pro Dco soo: ct prohat, quia nou csl diclum:
i<on facies sculplilo:M^A\.non facies tibisculptiU'.
Haec scnlcnlia displiocl solum iii modo loijuen-
di; nani Cajcl;iiius pro coilcin iiahel idoioin. et
imagiucm. cuin lalsum sil: ul sopra ostcndiinus.
Deindc videtur concedcre iiceie laccrc idoia.quae
habcantur pro Diis, modo noii iiabcat pro Diis ii-
]e, qui facii. Al Tcrlullianus lolo Ith. dc idololatria
probat cvidcnlissimis rationihus prohibilum esse
Olirislianis pioloriixis, aul slaluiiriis faccre idoia
gcnliiibos. El Eoolcsia cclci)riil S. novembr. mar-
tyrium sanclormn Claudii. ?iicostrati el sociorom,
qui necali sunl, qoia nolucrunl simulacra gentili-
hos fiiccre cuin csscnl perilissimi slaliiarii.
Neque Oiijelauus iioc ncgaret, qtiippc qui in 2.
2. quacst. 10. arlic. 4. docet, non iicere vetidcre
idola gentilibus; idco inc;iule ioquotus csl in com-
menlario E\odi. Ncc ohslal ilia p;u-licula, /i"/>i;nam
secundum bchr;iicam plirasim rcdundat. Sicul Ge-
ncs. 12. Yade tibi de terni tm:c{ in caulicis can-
licorum passim,
l)F.r.L\nMi.M. Voi. 1.
OMM T Mll
■You r'rt««.' ^troliiliiUiM imaginon //ri,
(Miiirla (iplnio OHt Ciilvini, lil). 5. Iiistildl. ^ap.
1 1. iihi (iicii 1'iiiiio , iicriiH t>Ktii! Dco iiifhllilli et
iiicnrporco, liiiiip;iiicin visitiiliMii ct rorpnrciiin rol
lii-.irc. Sccoiido, iinii^'iii("( Olirlsii (rl Miiictitriini
iinii c^M' priilnhiliiH simplMilRr, nrd iion (|(;ti(!r<'
piiiii 111 ti-iiipii^. Tcilni. liitlmiiiH dcpicliis liiibcrc
;iliipiciii ii^iiin iid iiislriiciidiim;iiiiii;;incs iiiiiiMii »0-
l;is Olirisli. vi^l KiinciDrnin hiiii! nilii iioliilioiio rn-
riiiii ^'cstiirnm iiiilloin li ibcrc iisiiin, iiisi ad obie-
cliindiim, i'l idiMi fruslr.i licri.
ri cr'^'i> incipiiitmis a pritiio rapitc, probal Oal
viiiiis non possc pin^'i iiii.(^'inciii l)(;i. 1'riiiio, ipiia
IImiiI. 20. pruliihcliir oiiiiiis llci siinililodn; ii.iin
piisttpi.im (li\( rat Scrtptiii.i: Mon fucicn lilU hcuI-
plile. nciinc onincni sinulilnilincni, siil)iiint?il in
ft;i. ('\piic;iiis; Dcus aiircos cl <ir<jcnlc.i}s non fn-
ciclis incruni, idcst, non lacictis iniin,?iiics iiure-
iis, vcl argcntcas, ipiiic Dcum rcpracsciitcl. Kt I)e-
iilcron.4..)/(M;ic7t7o r/uoff Dominiis loquuliis sit ti-
hi in inonlc Uorch, rorrni vcrhornin <iu<lisli, i-
maniiwni nulhiin %u<lisli, <jhsrrv<i crtjo Iripnnm
ne foile dexcjilns faci<iH tibi uUanisiniHilu<tinem.
Et ls;ii. 'lO. Ciii siinilrin fci-istis DcinnyAul qiiain
inia<iincin ponelis ci? VX cap. 40. I.ni assiniila-
slis nic, el (ulaeqnaslis, ct conijiarastis inc, et si-
niilcni ftrislis'/ (jni confcrlis auruin de saeculu,
el ar<icnliiin slaUra powlrralis.eon^lnrrntcs av-
rificein. ul faciat Dcuin. Dciiiqtic Acl. 17. l*iiolus
dicit: Genus erqo cum sinins Dci , non existi-
niamluin, auro, vel ar<)cnlo. aut lapidi artis
sculplurae.el coijilalionis lioniinnni dicinuni es-
.S(3 siinile.
Sccuiido, probat c\ conoilio (dibcrtino can. 36.
Placuit in templis non habcri ]iirluras, neqnod
colitur, vel ad(rralur, in jxirielihus dipin<jalur.
Ubi palam csl agi de imagiiiihus Dci, qoi solus a
Chrislianis coiilur el adoiiiUtr.
Tertio. idcm prohal e\ l'atribus: nam Eusebius
lib. 1. de praeparatioiic evangclica, cap. ti. el lib.
2. cap. 8. cl Lactanlius iih. l. divin. iiislitulio-
num, c. ir>. scrihunt, oinncs quortim simuiacra
videmus. fuisse iiomincs morlales: ergo nulluni
eral siimilacrnm veri Dci immortalis. Ilcra Augu-
slin. dc lidc, ct symbolo, cap. 1. dicil, ncfasessc
Deo simuiacra collooarc. Practcrca idcm .Vugustin.
iil). 4.de Civil. Dci c.l9.el 31 relcrl Varronem di-
ccntcm. qui primi Deoruin simuiaora indiixerunt,
eos et timorcm dcmpsisse, el errorem au.xisse. Et
lib. (). c. 10. rcfcrlSenccae qucrimoniam, qui do-
lebat inviolabiles Deos in materia viiissima, atque
ignobili dedicari.
Polcral addere cliam Origenem lib. 7. conlra
Celsum, in Que, et Joan. Damascenus lib. 4. de fi-
dc, cap. 17. qui docent, Cliristianos nullam Dei i-
maginem habere. utpolc iucorporei el jiivisibilis.
Dcnique Palrcs YIl. synodi, act. 4. 5. et C. qui di-
cunt. Christum reclc pingi, quia csl homo: Dcuoi
aulein piogi non posse.
Quarlo. probal ex pcriculo erroris: nam licet
s. Gregorius scripseril imagincs csse libros idiola-
rum, tamen e conlrario Scriplura vocat imoginera
6<
ili>
DE IMAGIMBl S SAISCTOKUM
lignoam, doctrinam vanilalis. llicrem. 10. et con-
flalile. (ioclorcni mcndacii. Uabncnc 2. IlaqueAn-
qiiil Calvinus.si Grcgoriiis iii schola sjyirilus edo-
vlus 1'aisset. numquam dixissel imagiacm librum
idiolarum cssc.
Qiiinlo. ralionc. (iiiia non Yidelur possc ficri ve-
ram iuiagiiiem corporeiun rci iucorporeae. Addc
cliam, quod imagines llunt rerum abseuliuai:Dcus
aulcm ul)iquc cst praesciis.
Haec opinio Calvini cst cliam aliqnorum calholi-
coruu), ul Abulensis in cap. 4. D>^ulcr. quacst. 'i.
Diirandi in 3. disl. 9. q. 2. et Pcresii dc tradilio-
uii). part. 3. iu ^ractalu dc imaginihus;qui docent,
imaginembei non rectc ficri.cL abEcclesia fortasse
lolcrari. non lainen probari.
Ego dico lri:r. Primo. non cssc lani ccrlum in
Ecclesia. an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Tri-
nilatis. quain Chrisli et sanclorum;iioc enim con-
litenlur onuics calliolici, et ad iliJcfn pcrlincl.illud
cst iu opiu!onc.Scciindo,mirain essc Calvini frau-
dem el astuliam, qui posteaquain probavit non
esse faciendas iiuagiues Dei, ita degrcdilur ad am-
plificatioucs, el Iriumphnm caiiit, quasi probassel,
non licerc colcre,vel facere ullani iinagincm. Tcr-
tio dico, liccrc pingcre eliam imaginem Dci Palris
in forina hominis scnis; ctSpirilus sancli in for-
ma coluinbac, ul Cajetanus docet in 3. p. q. 2j.
art. 3. Ainbrosins Catharinus in lib. dc cultu ima-
giiium. Dieghns Payva lib. ultim. conlra Ki;maiti-
iim. Nicolaus Saiiderus iu suo opcrc dc cultu ima-
ginuin. Thoiuas Waldcnsis lom. 3.tit.l!).c. Vio. Id
vero ila probamus.
Primo: Angcli siiul incorporci, el lamen dcpicli
et sculpti sunt in Tcslameiilo vetcri: lv\od. 2."). 3.
Reguin G. quarc Deus etiara, liccl incorporeus,
pingi poterit.
Calvinus respondet id factuin esso ad paedago-
giara vcl(;ris lcgis, nunc autem praetcriisse saccu-
ium illud pucrilc. At nos non qiiaerinuis quorsum
facta siiit, scd taincu dispulainus pingi posse rcm
incor|)oream: et sicut ad paedagogiam populi pin-
guitlur angoli, cur ad pacdiigogiam populi non po-
teril pingi Deus ? Nam licei praelerierit sacculum
illud, quod puerilc dici polcrat respcctu noslri,la-
men el noslrum puerilc dici potesl rcspeclu fuluri
saeculi in coelo.
Secundo: Deus visus csl corporca spccie; nam
Adaeapparuilfa?H7aaAU /to}?io deambulans inpa-
radiso ad aiLramposl meridicm, Cciies. 3 Jacob
vidil Dciim innixum sumrmlali scafae;cl proinde
forma corporea, Genes. 28.Moyses vidit pos/erio;'a
Dei, idesi, terga et humcros, Exodi 33. Isaias cap.
(>. el .Michaeas 3. Reg. ult. viderunt Dominumsc-
denlem in snlio ad formam hominis rcgis.Et Amos
cap. 1). vidit Domiimin stanlem super altare. Dc.u-
que Dariiel cap.T.vidit eurn sedenlcrn in llirono.eX
describil capul el capillos ejus canos,cl veslimcnta
ejus ulba. Spiritus sanctus apparuit in forma co-
lumlae, Mallh. 3. Dcni([uc angidiapparuerunl IVe-
qucnlissime in forraa hunuma, Gcncs. 18. et 19.
in lib. Tobiac. Visi sunl cliam cum alis, ul Isoiac
6. el Daniel. 9. et in stola candida. Mallh. ullim.
Luc.uli.ru .loan.2().Quid ergo prohibcl sic pingi ?
Respondiil Calvinus: Quod Dcus inlcrdum se o-
stenderil in huraana formi, fuissc praeludium in-
carnationis, coluinbani autem subilo evanuisse, ut
indicarel Spirilum saiictum invisibilcm esse. Sed
quorsum haec?Nonenimquaerimusad quem liuLMii,
vel quamdiuDeus apparueril in forma corporea,sed
conlendimus possc Deuiu pingi in ea loruia, iii qua
seipsuin demonstravil.Kt praeicrca iion est veriim,
apparilionem Dci iii forma humana semper fuisse
pracludium incarnalionis ; nain inlcrdum apparuit
Deus Paler, vel Spirilus saiictus, qui lamen incar-
nandi non crant.B.Augustinus lib. 2, Trinil.cap.il,
cxisiimat. in illis tribus viris, qui apparucruul A-
brahae, Gcnes. 18.apparuissc Ircs pcrsonas Trini-
latis: et lib. codcm, cap. ullimo, convmcil, Palris
personam visara esse in forma humana, exDanielc
cap. 7. ibi cniin lcgimus visuiu cssc anliquum di-
crum, in llivono, qui lilio liominis, idesl, ChrisLu,
regnum tradebal; et tamen nec lota Trinilas, nec
Deos Palcr incariiandus erat.
Tcrlio: Scriplura verbis Iribuil Deo omnia mein-
bra humana, (iura euin dicit slare, sCderc, ariibu-
larc: iiominal ejus caput, pcdes, brachia, Iribuit
ills edein,thronum,sc ibelluin etc.Cur ergo nuii po-
tcril piclura e.\.iiiberi, qualis dcpmgilur Scriptura?
Kcspondent: Scripturam ideo siue periculo Iri-
bucre mcuibra Deo, quia alibi eadcm Scriplura
Deum incorporcum cssc dicit. Sed cur, ([uaeso,
cadem Scriptura non poterit impedire errorem pi-
cturac ? Siciit eniin a Scriptura discimus, incnibra
quae tribuunlur Deo in ipsa Scriptura melaphorice
esse accipicnda, ila etiam ab eadcin discimus mem-
bra, quae tribuunlur Dco in pietura, mctaphoricc
esse accijiienda. Ei idiolae, qui vidcnt picturas cl
nou possuiiL lcgere Scripluras, possunl ac debenl
a praelaLis et concionaloribus inslitui, ul conciliuin
tridcnliiuiin monet, sess. 25. Alioqui fateor, iion
sine periculo exhiberi imperitis ejusmodi picluias.
Hic enim lantum defendimus, non esse in univer-
suin dainnandas ejusmodi imagines.
Qufirlo, pinguiiLur ea, quac ininus videntur pos-
se i)ingi quain Deus, nimirum virLutes, quae iion
solum spiriluales, sed etiam accidenlia sunt; cur
ergo non poterit pingi Deus ?
Quinlo, homo cst vera iraago Dei, sed hominis
potcst pingi imago, crgo et .'.»ci;nam quae est ima-
go imaginis, est ctiain e.\cmplaris;quae enim sunt
similia uni lcrtio, sunt etiain inler se similia.
Dicent, hominera non csse imagincm Dei qua
parle piiigitur, idcst, corpore, sed qua partc noii
pplesl pingi, idesl, animo.
Respouilco: Si ita csset, sequerelur, liorninem
non posse depingi; nam homo non est homoratio-
ne ligurae et colorum. quae sola ex[)rimunlur in
iinagiue, scd est hoiiio ralione subslanliae, el
pradcipuc ratione animae, quae pingi nonpossunt.
Dicilur tamcn homo vere cL proprie depingi, quia
figura cl colores imaginis non solum iiguram et
C()lorcsliominis repraesentant.scd ipsum tolum ho-
mincm; alioqui numquam fieret, ut rcs depicla vi-
dcrelur rcs ipsa vera. Qtiod taincn accidituvis,
quas pinxeraL Zeusis, ad qiias carpendas aviculae
accurrebanl, tesle Piinio lib. 3.>, cap.lO.
Ila igilur liccl honio siL ad imaginem Dci ralio-
nc inlellcctus et volunlalis: tamen ipse lolus ho-
ijiiiin >i:<;i I 470
iiio iiili'||i^(iiis fl volciis, riM:lt> iliritur i-l i-si iini vnliMidir, i-l iii.i^i^ olViMiiiuiil ili'ror(iiiliil<^ k>i-i, '(h.kii
^'(1 Dim; iiiiiii (iiMics. 1. iiiMi iiil HiMis: h'tiriiiniiin jiivcnl i^liiiililiiilinc.l/inlt; <Miiiiti inlniHlrl liUM^.irlcl
(ininiiiin, sml, fannnviH Ikhhiiwih itd iiniiiiinoin ni sint npcr'' (-iiinrii iriiiiliii-in lih, !. nip. l. «rol
lh'i; cl riiin iiii|iiM-uliii' (|iiiil,iiii siicvMi-l iii imis i|iii Ii)).mtiiiiI 111111111-« rdriii.i^ iiii.i^iiiiiiti rriiiil.iliH, vl rnH
iiiiilVc^MM.iiil iiii.Pp^iiiciii iivoiis siiin', (liMl ilii s. l.iiii'|ii.i(ii iniiiislr:ii|ii;M-il<iiii iii'ntr:iU! il«*|iif*t;t riili'!!'
Miicndoiilus ( iii riinMliirchis rclcrl iii lii^lnii.i ic (l;i |ir(i|i(iiiiinl, ims(|uo voninl ccrhiirDN. jfcryonKs,
liHiDSii, riip. i.*l. ) ciiiii III. i|c ii;;crc, i|iiihl pm iiii;i- j iiins liirr«iiili's. iii.inHli.i ci iilnlii, ipiilni^ (-crli! oc-
j^iiiiliiis siiis, |)ci (i(-iiiliil iiii,i^;in('.s. l',[ l.iiiicii iiii- ni^iiiiiciii hl.ispliciii.iinii picinrM n<i»irMli'iicritiil.
pcniliir 11(111 .iiiiinas, si*il Ikiiiiiikis iKtcldcliiil.Si iiii l'r:i('l('ns'i noliiiKliiin ca\, crrnri! It.-irlltiiJoiniHMim
1(1111 ipsi) loliis lioiiio c>l iin i^'o lici, ct loliis liM li.ir.iii/.iini, ipii in siiiiiiii.i ('MnciliiiriKii (li(-il.('.iii. H:V
iiio vcrc piiij.;iliir: cr^n iiii,i'Mi hci vcrc piii^jiliir, scMiic syiioiit, proliilicri iiiiii^'lii(*iti Ohrlsli iii f(»r-
lliiid liiiiii-ii vciiiiii cst ipioil si(-iil iioino (^st iiii:i}.Mi inii ii^Mii, 1*1 .Splnlits siiiicll m rorin:i i-oiiiiiilt:i(>. Al
IhM v.ihlc iinp(M-t'(M*lii, ohsciini ct (lissiiinlis.' it.i cl- (-onciiiiiiii iion |iroliilicl tstiis iiii.i({iii(;s, scd iiiilH-
liiiii iioiiio pii-liis cst im:i;'o l>i'i v.ililc iinp''i rcci;i, ponil liiiilinii isiis iiii;i^'incs (Ilirisli in roriri;i liiiin!i-
ohsi-iiiii cl ilisMiiiilis. ii.i. I ii.lc iii \ il. syiioiio, .icl. 2. Ii;^,'iliir (*|ti>.l(ilii
liltinio prohiiliir c\ tisn llcclcsiiic. ,l.iiii ciiiiii ic Viln.iiii inl Tliiirii>iiitii. iit (pi:i l.iinhil.i difMiitr 111
ccptiic suiil rcrc iihKpic cpisiiioiii iiii.i'p'iiics;iic(pic >l. syiiO'lo iiii:i;.'o Chrisli iii fonii.i ;i'^'iii. Iiicin
criMliliilc csl Mcclcsiiiiii loliMiitiiriiiii iiiiivcrsiililcr <lnil liciiiis iii VII. syiioilo. iiclioii. V kIimii Kpi-
.iliipiiii lilinliiin. .\(i(lc (]iioii (diinliiini Vil. iict. .'i. phiiniiis in VII. syiiodo . iirt 0. cl pr;icli'riM in
ipprohiil iniii^'iii(Mii S|)inliis siiiic.li iii loniiii coiiim- VII. syiiodo.iicl. .'i. iipfirohiiliir iiiiii^'0 Spiriliis san-
hiic. cl coiu-iliiim Irulciil scss. 2.*». iulmiilil im:it,'i- cli iii rnnii;i (•oiiimhiic.
iics hci priic(-ipii(i iii pictiiris liislori.iriini. I»riic|crc;i riilio ll:irlholnm:i('i (-onlr:! ipsiini vidc-
l'id sohilionc ;ir},'iimculoriim (disiM-Viimlum csl tiir cnncliidcrc; ipsc enim dicil prnliihilas cssc liits
irihiis iiiodis possc iiiiipiid piii'.ri. luo modo iid iiiiii^'iiics. ipiiii pr;icsciilc vcril:ilc ccssiirc dc|ir»ui
cxpiimcud.im pcriocliim simililiidiiicui ronuiic cl ii^,'iir;ie..\l isliK.i im:i^'iiics iinii liicniul iii usuiiiTc-
iiiiluriio rci ipsius, ol lioc luodn rcs corporciic so- sliiiiKMilo vclcrl, scdcocpcrimlposl Chrisli advcu-
liim piii|.,'uiilur.(iiuic ImoiuiKMilis cl nilorihtis ju-iic- Itim. lmiij,'n cuim ;ifriii siimp-it nc(-;isinticm (,'.\ iliis
diliic suiit. Mt si (piis liiic r;iliniic IMmiiu piiigcrc vcrhis Joiiniiis: /•.Vcc avnt/.s /A'i: lm;i^'o aiitcm co-
lcnliircl, is vcriim idolmii couslilucrcl. iumhac c\ illii columhii. ipiac ii|»p;iriiil supcr Ciiri-
.Vllcro modo ad liisloriam alKpiam oculis cxlii- sliim. .Matth. .'i. Ocoasioucin crriindi vidclur islc
hoiid:iiii: ipKuuodo si (|tiis piii|:;crc vcllct (^xptilsio- aiictor ;i(-cc[)issc cx ipso c;iri(mc. rp.ii non inlCfjrc
lUMu .Vdiimi dc p:iradiso. piui^crc dchcrcl D.-uni iii hahcliir iii ill:i syiiodo. sed riirrii^iMidiis cst crror
hirma liomiuis ambulaulcm. cl .\diimum, alqiic K- c.v VII. synodo, ubi sacplus islc ipse canon intcgcr
vatii iitidos inler arhorcs si; ncciilhiiilcs.iic dcmtiiu adiliicilur.
:m^'cliim iu roriuii litim:iua jjladium gcsliiiUem, cl Kx hi,> ;id arguiiieulii advcrs;iriorum lacilc polc-
Vdiiuuim oum coujugc expclleiilem. Qui aulciu il;i ril respoudcri. .\(i primtim possel uno vi^rho dicj,
piugorcl.uon vcllcl corlc rcpracsoularc Dei vel aii- in omiiibus Scripluris cilalis proliiheri im;i^'inciu
1,'eli ualuram.sed solum exhiherc ociilis pcr piclu- Dei priiiii i,'cnoris. K.xislimn himen Kvodi 10. cum
r;iUK Id (puui iuu'il)iis exliihorot ;ilius rocilaudo dliliuv: Di^os nureo6,cl Dc.oii arnciileus non facin-
Scripturam, cl hoc luodo polcsl Dcus pingi. iis viccum. El simililcr Isaiae iO.cl 4(».ubi Deus
TiM-lio. polesl ;ilii]uid pingi cxlrii Iiisloriaiu ad couqueritur dicons: Cui (issiinilaslis mey i\(\ lilc-
c\|>Iioiind;iui ualur:im rei uon pcr immcdialam et r;im uoii r>^'i dc imaginc lactii ;id rcpr;icseulaudum
propriam simililudiucm, scd piu- aiuilogiam, sive Deiim vorum, ncc cuim lalcs a .ludaeis llebanl,
mot.ipliorioas.mystioasquosigiiilicaliones.Otiemad- scd dc quihuscuiiKpic simtiliicris. qu;ie habercnlur
modiiiu piniiimus augelos. jtivcncs, alalos. ror;no- pro Diis. Vull euim D<!us diccre. si vobis simula-
sos. uudis pcdibus clc ;id siiiuilicaudum cossciu- crum ligucum csl Dcus. cum cgo etiaiii sim Deus
per viribus pollere, cclorrime moveri, splendore scquilur, me similem esse Deo lignco secuudum
grali;ic ol virlulum pr;iodilos clo. quae vide apud vos: u:im Deus Doq nou possel non esse similis?
l»iouysium. cap. ullim. coelcslis hierarclt. lloe c- .\d secuudum dico. si concilium illud loquilur
iiaiii luodo piugunlur virlutos: El ipse Iiomo, ima- de imagine solius Dci (ulvull Calvinus) nullam
go Doi. cst luijus geuoris terlii. N011 euim esl iii- ossc diirioullalom: nam inleliigemus onncilium de
ler liomincm el Dcum alia similittido, quam an;ilo- imngino Dei primi geueris.Al sil loqualur conciliuni
gica. Hoc modo pingimus Doum Palrem. cuiu eum de omnibos imaginibus; ctiaiu sanolorum. esl ma-
c.vlra Iiisloriain pingimus humana iorma. jor difTu-ullas, de qua infra.
Iloc modo piugimus Christum iu forsua ovis. et Ad tertium. Enscbius el Laclanlius loquunlur
cviingelislas nqiraesculamus per aquilam, lcouem, de idolis genlium. Volunt enim ostendere. Deos
bovem et hominem. el Spiritum sanclum in forma gontilium fuisse homines, el probant, quia omnia
colmubao. aul lingu;u'um ignis. Ubi tamen unlau- idola genlium sunt slaluae homiuum. quorum cl-
dutu, non dobcre cjusmodi imagities mulliplioari, iam supulohra osleudunlur. Augustinus de fide ct
ncclolerandum, esset.quod piolores andenl ex ca- symboIo.loquiturdeimagincDeiprimigeneris.Var-
pile suo couringerc iiuagines Trinitatis: ut oum ro apud Auguslin^jm rccle dicit. eos,qui simulacro
pingiiul imum hominem oum Iribus laoiebus. vcl Deorum induxoruul, inelurn (leinp>isse. el crrorcm
uiiuiu liominiMu (-nm duobus cHitilibus. el iu me- ;iu.\isse: nam qiiidam proplercii credidcrunt ips-d
dio eoruin columbam: ista enim monstra quiiedam simulaora esseOeos.el videnleseanee aliis.nec sibi
480
I)E 1MAG1.M15LS SANCTORUM
prodesse, vcl obesse,coeperunl Deos conloinnere.
Al si non Deos simulacra. serl iniagines Deorum
esse crcdidissent, el imagincs non proprias, scd
analogicas, nec inetuui amisissent, ncc errorcm
invenissenl, qncmadiuodum non niinuilnr nielus
|irincipum, ncc ci'ror ullus oritur pcr imagincs c-
orundcm. quas vidcmus (|U(>tidic. Scncca apud e-
undem Auguslinum conqucritur, simulacra Diis
poni proptcr cuudcm errorcm.quia putabantur ip-
.sa simulacra Dii, vel cerle Dii simulacris illis si-
milcs judicabautur. Origcnes el Damascenus, el
Patrcs nicaeni loquunlur de imagine Dei primi
gencris.
Ad quarlum dico Primo: A Calvinn injuria re-
prchendi b. Grcgorium; nam b. Grcgorius, cum
ail picluras libros esse idiolarinn.non agil de ima-
gincDci, scd dc iraaginibus sauctorum, ac polis-
simum de liisloriis dcpictis, quibus mysteria re-
demptionis conlinenlur. Proplietae nuicm, quos
opponil Calvinus Gregorio, cum dicuul.lignum cs-
se doclorcu) vanilalis, vel mcndacii, de siiuulacris
lalsorum Dcorum, non de vcris sanctorum imagi-
nibus lo(iuuulur.
Dico seciindo: Idola quidem csse doctores men-
dacii, quia volunl vidcri Dti.vcl certe vidcntur re-
lerre Dcorum elllgiem, cum vcrc non rcfcranl: Al
imago Dei el Trinitatis, ul a nobis pingitur, do( tor
esl vcritatis, quia ncque babetur pro Dco a nobis,
nequc fit ad refcrendam Dci elTigcm, sed ad pcr-
ducenduu) bominem in aliquam Dei nolitiam per
analogicas similituiiines.
Ad quinlum, jam oslendinms quemadmodum
pingi possilres incorporea.
Ad ullimum, pingi solent absentia. quia non vi-
dcntur: Deus autem licel sil praesens, lamen non
videtur, ideo pingi potest, ac si abesset. Alioqui
nec oportcrel orare Deum voce exleriore; voces
enim sunl proptcr eos, qui non inlucntur cogila-
tiones: Deus aulem scrutalurrenes clcorda.