Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 9: That Images Are Rightly Placed in Churches
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).
Calvin's other saying, that images ought not to be placed in churches, he proves in book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11. First, because in the first five hundred years there were no images in the churches of the Christians.
Second, because the Council of Elvira, canon 36, forbids pictures to be made in churches.
Third, because an image cannot be set up in a high place in a church without at once raising a certain standard of idolatry. For, as blessed Augustine says, letter 49: “When they are placed on these seats with an honourable height, so as to be attended to by those who pray and sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses, though they lack sense and soul, they affect weak minds, so that they seem to live and breathe.” Likewise on Psalm 113: “For that shape of the members does this, and in a way extorts it, that the mind living in a body thinks rather that a body feels which it sees most like its own,” and so on. And a little after: “Simulacra avail more to bend the unhappy soul, because they have mouth, eyes, ears, feet, than to correct it, because they do not speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk.” In the same place Augustine says that in the churches of the Christians there are indeed vessels of gold and silver, but not such as have a mouth and do not speak. He confirms it also from 1 John, the last chapter, where John does not say that they should beware of the cult of simulacra, but of simulacra themselves; because, namely, they cannot be had in a church without being adored.
Fourth, he proves it because churches are instituted for living and speaking images, instituted by God, such as are baptism, which is an image of inward sanctification and grace, and the holy Supper, which is an image of the body of the Lord. As then churches are adorned with these images which are in a way living, so they are dishonoured by dead images, and so on.
Fifth, he proves it in book 4, chapter 9, section 9, from Epiphanius in the letter to John of Jerusalem, where he says that it is against the authority of Scripture that the image of a man should hang in the church; and he speaks of an image which he himself says was of Christ or of some saint.
Sixth, others add that the Emperor Adrian (on the witness of Aelius Lampridius in the Life of the Emperor Alexander) ordered temples to be built without simulacra as a favour to the Christians.
These are their arguments; by which, however, in no way frightened, we assert that images of the saints are placed nowhere better than in churches. It is proved, first, because in the Old Testament, when the Jews were most prone to idolatry, there were images of cherubim in the temple, Exodus 25 and 3 Kings 6.
Second, it is proved from the custom of the Church which there was in the first five hundred years, so that the shameless lie of Calvin may appear. Tertullian, in the book On Modesty, before the middle, twice testifies that on the sacred chalices of the Catholic Church Christ was painted in the form of a shepherd carrying the straying sheep on his shoulders back to the fold; and this was so common that the Catholics, against whom Tertullian writes in that book, took an argument from it to prove that penance even for grave sins is granted in the Church. But surely the sacred chalices are wont to be placed in the church, and in the most sacred place.
Sozomen, book 5, chapter 20, and Nicephorus, book 10, chapter 30, write that in the time of Julian the apostate the statue of Christ which had been at Paneas was brought into the church by the Christians. Which surely was done before the year of the Lord 500 [the scan reads 300], since Sozomen did not reach that year. Eusebius, books 3 and 4 of the Life of Constantine, says that in the churches built by Constantine in Palestine there was a very great store of images of gold and silver.
Nazianzen, letter 49 to Olympius, complains that the city of Diocaesarea was to be overthrown, in which he himself had wonderfully adorned the church; and he adds: “For if the statues are thrown down, it is not this that tortures us, though otherwise it tortures us; but,” and so on.
Damasus, in the Life of Sylvester, writes that Constantine, in the place where he had been baptized, placed a lamb of the purest gold, and at the right of the lamb a silver statue of the Saviour, and at its left a silver statue of John the Baptist. And in the Lateran church itself he placed silver images of the Saviour, of the twelve apostles and of four angels. In the seventh synod, action 6, it is reported how the disciples of St. Epiphanius built a church to Epiphanius and placed his image in it.
Basil, in the oration on St. Barlaam, at the end, in the very oration shows that an image of St. Barlaam was painted in the church, and says that he is glad that the painters expressed his hand, burnt for Christ, better than he himself had described it in his oration: “Rise now,” he says, “O splendid painters of the deeds of champions; make glorious by your arts the maimed image of the general. With your colours make bright the crowned victor, whom I have described more dimly. I am overcome by you in painting the martyr's brave deeds; I rejoice to be overcome today by such a victory of your strength. I see the struggle of the hand with the fire more exactly depicted by you; I see the wrestler more brightly depicted in your image.”
Gregory of Nyssa, in the oration on Theodore, at the beginning: “If one comes,” he says, “to a place like this, where our assembly is today, where the memory of the just man and his holy relics are, he is first delighted by the magnificence of what he sees, beholding a house splendidly built as a temple of God, both in the size of the building and in the beauty of the adornment; where the carpenter has shaped wood into the forms of animals, and the stonecutter has polished stones to the smoothness of silver. And the painter too has spread out the flowers of his art, depicting in an image the brave deeds of the martyr, his resistance, torments, the savage forms of the tyrants, the violent assaults, that flaming furnace, the most blessed consummation of the champion, the representation of the human form of Christ presiding over the contests; all these, painting them skilfully in colours as in a book that contains the interpretations of tongues, he has set out for us the contests and labours of the martyr, and adorned the church like a lovely and flowering meadow. For painting too, though silent, knows how to speak on the wall and to help very greatly.”
In the Mass of Chrysostom, which Erasmus put into Latin, it is had thus: “The priest goes out by the small door carrying the Gospel, a minister going before with a lamp; and turned toward the image of Christ between the two doors, with bowed head, he says aloud,” and so on.
Evodius, book 2 On the Miracles of St. Stephen, writes that in the church where the relics of St. Stephen were kept there was also painted an image of the same martyr, to see which men were wont to run together in crowds.
Prudentius, in the hymn on St. Cassian, writes that in the church of St. Cassian he saw his image above his altar:
I lifted my face to heaven; there met me, facing me,
an image of the martyr painted in colours,
bearing a thousand wounds, torn in all his limbs,
showing his skin broken by tiny pricks.
Likewise of St. Hippolytus:
A picture above the tomb lives in liquid shades,
showing the bloody limbs of the man dragged.
Paulinus, in the letter to Severus, complains that Severus had had him painted together with St. Martin in the church, and asks that at least these verses be written beside it:
Martin stands by, the rule of the perfect life;
Paulinus, to teach you how to earn pardon.
Look on this one, sinners; on that one, you blessed:
let that one be the pattern for the saints, this for the guilty.
And in the tenth birthday poem of St. Felix he says: [the first line is damaged in the scan]
…and let us wonder at the sacred figures, the records of the ancients.
Nicephorus, book 14, chapter 2, writes that Pulcheria Augusta placed in the church which she had built at Constantinople the image of blessed Mary which Eudocia had sent her from Jerusalem.
Valentinian the younger, warned by Pope Sixtus (as Anastasius writes in the Life of Sixtus, he who continued the Pontifical of Damasus; and Platina and others), placed in the church of St. Peter above the confession, that is, above the altar of blessed Peter, a golden image of the Saviour adorned with most precious gems, and likewise golden images of the twelve apostles.
Blessed Augustine, book 1 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 10, testifies that in his time Christ could be seen in many places painted between the apostles Peter and Paul; and he says the same of the history of Abraham about to sacrifice his son, book 22 against Faustus, chapter 73. And it is not credible that Augustine speaks of private houses, to which entrance is not open to all, but of public places, and of places not profane but sacred. For blessed Gregory, book 9, letter 9, says that not without reason were images of the saints painted in venerable places by the ancients. There by the name of the ancients he cannot understand the men of his own age, but those before; and he himself flourished after the year 500. He speaks therefore of the Fathers who flourished before the year 500.
Lastly Adrian I, in the book for images which is had after the seventh synod, near the end, reports that Sylvester, Damasus, Celestine, Sixtus, Leo, John and Pelagius, pontiffs, adorned churches with pictures; all of whom yet sat before the year of the Lord [600?]. You see, then, how notably Calvin lies when he says in the Institutes, book 1, chapter 11, section 13, that in the churches of the Christians there were no images in the first five hundred years.
Third, it is proved from four councils, two Eastern and two Western. In the East the seventh synod was held wholly for this matter. Likewise in the eighth synod, canon 3, the decrees of the seventh synod are renewed. In the West a Roman council was held under Gregory III, which indeed was national, but nearly a thousand bishops came together to that council. In that council the heresy of the Iconoclasts was condemned, who were throwing images out of the churches, at the very beginnings of this contention. See Sigebert in the Chronicle for the year 733. A council was also held in the time of Stephen and Charlemagne for the same matter, as Adrian I, who succeeded Stephen, testifies in the book for images to Charles.
Fourth, it is proved by reason. For sacred signs can be placed nowhere better than in sacred places. Then, no adornment of churches is better than that of sacred images, because images at once adorn the church and hold the minds of men, lest they wander in empty thoughts. Besides, the church is a certain image of heaven; for the Apostle, Hebrews 9, compares the tabernacle of Moses with heaven, and Chrysostom, homily 30 on the first to the Corinthians, says that the church of the Christians is as it were the royal palace of heaven, or a certain earthly heaven. As then the church is an image of heaven, so it is fitting that in the church itself there be images of those who are in heaven, that is, of Christ and of the saints. Lastly, where will the images of the saints be better placed than in their own houses, that is, in the basilicas of the saints, where their relics rest?
To the first argument the answer is plain. For it was not an argument, but a lie.
To the second, Payva answers that the Council of Elvira only forbids an image of God which is painted to represent the likeness of God himself. But this does not seem to satisfy, both because the council speaks in general of pictures, and because such images, which are true idols, were not in use at that time, nay, never were in the Church, as we showed above from the testimonies of Origen, Augustine and Damascene; while the council speaks of what was wont to be done, and forbids it to be done thereafter.
Nicholas Sander, book 2 On the Cult of Images, chapter [1?], answers that that council forbade images in churches because the time and place required it. For there was then a danger lest the heathens should think that ours adored wood and stones; and lastly there was a danger lest in the persecutions the images should be treated with insult by the persecutors. This answer is good.
Nor does it stand in the way that some say this council was held after the Council of Nicaea, and so there was no danger of persecutions. For in truth this council was held before Nicaea, while the persecutions still lasted, as is plain from canon 25, where it treats of those who brought letters from the confessors. For those who confessed the faith in persecution were wont afterwards to give letters of commendation for the lapsed to the bishops; and almost the whole council treats of those who fall into idolatry. Yet I grant that that reason of the canon, “lest what is adored and worshipped be painted on the walls,” does not much fit this exposition.
Alan Cope, in the Dialogues, book 5, chapter [16?], says that images are forbidden here because they had begun to be adored by those Christians as gods; and that this is the sense: It is resolved that there be no pictures in the church, lest something existing on the walls be adored and worshipped as God. In which sense blessed Ivo took this canon in his Decrees, part 3, chapter 10. But to this exposition too the reason of the canon does not wholly fit; for it should rather have been said, “lest what is painted be adored,” than, “lest what is adored be painted.”
Others, then, say that it is only forbidden that images be painted on the walls of the church, but not that images painted on panels or cloths be had in the church; and they would have the reason be the honour of the images, because on walls they are very easily spoilt, whether by the damp of the walls, or by mould, or in some other way. For which reason it was once forbidden too that the cross be carved on pavements, lest, namely, it be trodden underfoot. And then this will be the sense: It is resolved that pictures ought not to be in the church, that is, in the fabric itself, or the walls of the church, lest what is adored and worshipped be painted on the walls; that is, lest it happen that a sacred and venerable thing, such as holy images are, be on the walls, where they are very easily spoilt. To this exposition the reason of the canon fits most aptly.
Add lastly that whatever the council decreed, that council is more for us than against us. For against us there can only be a council of nineteen bishops, which was provincial and not at all confirmed, and seems to have erred in other decrees; especially since in very many cases it will not have the penitent absolved even at the point of death.
(For so I take what the council says, that communion is not given, though there are not wanting those who take communion to mean only the Eucharist. But I am moved by these reasons. First, because in the Council of Elvira itself reconciliation and communion are taken for the same. For in canon [60?] we read: “It is resolved that penance ought to be done, and so they be reconciled, unless the necessity of sickness should compel communion to be given before the time.” Where you see that to reconcile and to give communion are the same, or at least that reconciliation is included in communion itself. For the ancients were wont always to join the sacrament of reconciliation with the sacrament of the Eucharist. And so Tertullian and Cyprian and other writers of the same antiquity take communion, reconciliation and peace for the same. Second, because St. Innocent, in the letter to Exuperius, chapter 2, correcting the ancient observance, such as it was at the time of the Council of Elvira, shows plainly enough that reconciliation was wont to be denied to certain penitents even at the end of life. “It has been asked,” he says, “what ought to be observed concerning those who after baptism, given over at all times to the pleasures of incontinence, at the very end of their life ask at once for penance and the reconciliation of communion. Of these the former observance was harder, the later, mercy intervening, more inclined to kindness. For the former custom held that penance should be granted, but communion denied. For since in those times there were frequent persecutions, lest the easy granting of communion should fail to call back from falling men secure of reconciliation, communion was rightly denied, penance granted, lest the whole be wholly denied; and the reason of the time made the remission harder. But after our Lord restored peace to his Churches, the terror now driven off, it was resolved to give communion to the departing, both because of the Lord's mercy, as a viaticum to those setting out, and lest we should seem to follow the harshness and hardness of the Novatian heretics, who deny pardon. So with the last penance communion is granted, that men of this kind, even at their very end, may by the Saviour's leave be delivered from everlasting ruin.” So Innocent.)
(In whose words this seems to be weighed: that Innocent did not say that reconciliation was once granted to the lapsed and communion denied, but penance granted and communion denied. For to the lapsed penance was first granted, that is, the action of penance was enjoined; then at another time reconciliation was given. [The top of page 483 is merged across columns in the scan; what follows in this parenthesis is rendered from what reads.] That by the name of communion is to be understood, not reconciliation, but the action of penance, is excluded by what he himself says: that to those asking for penance and the reconciliation of communion, penance was granted and communion denied, lest men secure of reconciliation should not be called back from falling, and that the reason of the time made the remission harder. Where you see that to deny communion is one and the same as to deny reconciliation and remission. Which is seen still more clearly in the following words, where it is said that in the later time communion was granted, lest the Church should seem to imitate the harshness and hardness of the Novatians, who denied pardon. For in Innocent's judgement to deny communion is to deny pardon and to imitate the hardness of the Novatians, who, on the witness of Cyprian, book 2, letter [?], of Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 2, and of Socrates, book 1, chapter [?], did not forbid penance, and even urged men to it, but taught that reconciliation was to be awaited from God, not given by the priests. But nothing could be said more plainly than what Innocent added in the last place: that at this time communion is given with penance, so that men in departing this life may be delivered from everlasting ruin. For it follows that those to whom communion is denied are not freed from everlasting ruin; which would not follow if, communion being denied, reconciliation were not denied too.)
But this makes for us, that it is plainly gathered from here that there were images in the churches at that time; for the council would not say, “It is resolved that pictures ought not to be in the church,” unless they had already begun to be there. Besides, we have from here that either the images themselves, or at least the saints whose images they are, were worshipped and adored; for that is what is meant by, “lest what is worshipped and adored be painted on the walls.” Add that this very council, canon 26, appoints a fast on every Saturday, and canon 33 forbids the use of wives to bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons; both of which our adversaries abhor.
To the third I say that Augustine speaks of simulacra, presupposing the error of the heathens. For Augustine means to say that when someone thinks a simulacrum is God, and comes to adore and invoke the simulacrum itself, he is wonderfully confirmed and nourished in error by the very likeness of the human members. That he is to be understood so I prove from his words. For in letter 49, question 3, he says: “When they are placed on these seats with an honourable height, so as to be attended to by those who pray and sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses,” and so on. Where note that, “so as to be attended to by those who pray.” And what he says in the same place: “the veneration of many coming in besides,” and so on. For experience teaches that images which are not held for gods deceive no one, however rude, so far as to be thought to live and breathe.
To that about the golden vessels of the Church, I say that Augustine wished to show that the human shape deceives men into error, not by reason of the matter, because it is precious, but by reason of the shape, because it shows a shape like ours. And Augustine shows this in two ways. First, because many grew in learning up to the faith, and meanwhile the simulacra [held them, not because they were of gold or silver], but because that shape draws them on so easily that they seem to live and feel, since the shape of the simulacra is like our own. Second, because the Catholics too have in sacred places vessels of precious matter, and yet, because the human shape is lacking, not even the heathens would think that those vessels live or breathe.
You will say: If chalices are not thought to live because they lack human form, then images which have human form, if they are in the church, will be thought to live. I answer: Augustine does not say that images of human form are thought to live; but that, if they are thought so, they are thought so because of the form, not because of the matter. Augustine therefore does not say that there were no images in the Church, but only that the human form of simulacra avails much to nourish error in those who worship simulacra for gods. To the confirmation I say that John speaks of idols. For so it is in the Greek: phylaxate heautous apo tōn eidōlōn; from which text the Latin text may be interpreted.
To the fourth I say, first, that Calvin rightly imitates his forefathers. For the ancient Iconoclasts too said that they did not want those dead images, but that the Eucharist was enough for them, which is the image of the body of the Lord; to whom the Catholics answered in the seventh synod, action 6, volume 3, that the Eucharist ought not to be called an image or figure of the body of the Lord, since it is truly the very body of the Lord. I say, second, that living and dead images are not contrary to one another, but some are helped by others, as we have shown. Lastly, the images of the saints are not rightly called dead. For the life of an image is its representing; those then are dead which represent nothing.
To the fifth. Thomas Waldensis, volume 3, title 19, chapter 157, says that Epiphanius did this because of the heresy of the Anthropomorphites then flourishing. Others say that Epiphanius speaks of the image of a profane man, which was honoured there like the images of Christ and of the saints; so answers Marianus Victorius in the note on this letter. The more common and truer answer is that those words are counterfeit. Which is plain, first, because they were added after the end of the letter; for the letter had plainly ended, as will appear to one who reads it.
Second, because the Iconoclast heretics did not object this place to the Catholics, though yet they objected all the sayings of the Fathers which could have any colour, as is plain from the seventh synod, action 6.
Third, because Epiphanius the deacon, in the seventh synod, action 6, proves that two other like places were inserted into the writings of Epiphanius by heretics.
Fourth, because, as is said in the same place, the disciples of Epiphanius placed his image in his church; which surely they would not have done if their teacher had said that it is against the authority of Scripture.
Fifth, because in the time of Epiphanius Basil, Nyssen and others were living, who praised images in churches.
Sixth, because that opinion, that it is against the authority of Scripture that the image of a man hang in the church, would be unworthy of Epiphanius, a most learned man, since it is most foolish. For it is nowhere read to be forbidden; nay, the contrary is read, as is plain of the images of cherubim in human form which were in the temple of Solomon.
Seventh, because Gregory, book 9, letter 9, says that no bishop ever before Serenus of Marseilles broke an image of Christ or of the saints.
Eighth, because blessed Jerome, in the letter to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem, recites this whole letter of Epiphanius translated by him into Latin, and yet makes no mention of this veil.
Ninth, because the style does not agree with the rest of the letter.
To that about Adrian's temples without simulacra, I say that Adrian ordered temples to be made without the simulacra of the heathens. For the Christians would not pray in the temples of the heathens, because they were full of idols. Therefore Adrian ordered temples to be made for them without such idols. Hence the same Lampridius in the same place calls those simulacra divinities; and images are not called divinities unless they are set forth to be adored as gods.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX.
Imacjincs m teinj)lis recle collocari.
Alterum Calvini dictum. quod imagines non de-
beanl poni in templis, probal ipse lib. 1. Inslit.
cap. 11. Primo, quia primis quingcnlis annis non
luerunl ullae imagines in tcmplis Christianorum.
Secundo. quia concilium cliberlinura can. 30.
prohibcl picluias in templis licri.
Tertio, quia noii potesl imago in templo in su-
blimi loco stalui, ({uiu statim erigalur signum
quoddam idololalriae. Kam. ut b. Auguslinus ait,
epistola 49. Cum his sedibns locanlur honorabi'
li sublimitate, ut a 'precantibus. atque immolan-
tibus alleitdantur . iysa svmilitudine animato-
rum membrorum, atque sensuum. quamr/is sen-
su, et anima careanl. ofjlciunt infLrmos animos,
ul viverc ac spirare rideantur. Itcm in psal.ll.^.
^oc cnim facit, el extorqiiet quodammodo illa
fifjura membrorum.ut animus in corpore vivens
magis arhitrctur senlire corpus, quod suo simil-
limum lidel ctc. El Paulo posl: Plus valenlsimu-
lacra ad curvandam infelicem animam, quod
os. ocidos, aures, pedes habent: quani ad corri-
gendam. quod non loquunlur, neque vident,ne-
que audiunt, neque amtmlant. Ibidcm Augusti-
nus dicit, in lemplis Christianorum esse quidem
vasa aiirca ct argcnlo.i, scd n(m talia, (|uae os ha-
bcant cl uon loquantur. CouQrmat eliam ex 1. Jo-
an. ullimo, ubi Joannes non dicil. ut caveanl a
cultu simulacrorum, scd n simulacris ipsis, quia
nimirum non possunt haberi in lemplo, quin ado-
renlur.
Quarto probat, quia templa sunt inslitula pro
imaginibus vivis et iconicis , atque a Dco institutis
quiiles sunt baptismus,qui est imago internae saa-
ctificationis et gratiae; et sacra coena, quae est
imago corporis Domini:sicul ergo templa ornantur
islis vivis quodammodo imaginibus, ila dehone-
stanlur imaginibus mortuis etc.
Quiulo, probal lib. 4. cap. 9. § 9. ex Epipbanio
in epist. ad Joanucra hicrosolymit. ubi dicit, con-
tra Scripturae auclorilatcm cssc, quod in Ecclesia
pcndeal imago hominis; el loquitur de imagine,
quam ipsc dicit fuissf^ Christi. vel sancti alicujus.
Scxto addunl alii, quod Adrianus imperator ( tc-
sle Aelio Lainpridio in vila Alexandri imperaloris )
in graliam Clirislianorum tcmpla jusserit exstrui
sinc simulacris.
Ilacc sunt illorura argumenta, quibus lamen ni-
bil territi, asserimus nusquam melius, quara in
templis imagincs sanclorum collocari. Probalur
primo, quia in Ttistamenlo veleri, quaudo Judaci
propensissimi ad idololatriam eranl,in templo fuc-
runl iraagines cherubin. Exodi 23. ct 3. lieg. G.
Secuiido, probalur ex consuetudine Ecclesiae,
quiic fuil primis quingcnlis annis, ul appareat im-
pudcns Calvini incndacium. Tcrtullianus in libro
dc pudicitia. anle medium, bis testatur, in sacris
calicibus Ecclesiae calholicae, depictum fuisso
Christum in forma pastoris ovem erranlera suis
bumcris rcportaiUis ad ovile; et tam cral id com-
mune. ut catliolici, conlra quos in eo libro scribit
Tertullianus, inde argumcntum sumcrenlad pro-
bandum poenitcntiiim, etiam gravium delictorum,
in Ecclesia conccdi. At certe caliccs sacri in Ec-
clcsia, ct in loco maxime sacro poni solent.
Sozoinenus lib. 5. cap. 20. et Niccphorus lib.
10. cap. 30. scribunt tempore Juliani apostatiie
statuam Christi, quae apud PaneaL'em fueral, in
templum a Christianis introductam. Quod ccrle fa-
ctum csl anle annum Domini 300. cum ad eum
annuni Sozomenus non pcrvenerit. Eusebius lib.
3. el 4. de viia Conslardini, dicil,in templisa Con-
stanlino cxstructis in Piilaestina, fuisse maxiraara
copiiiin iniaginum aiirearum ct argentcarum.
Nazianzenus cpist. 49. ad Olympium, conqueri-
tur, quod civitas Diocacsariensis evcrtenda essct,
in quii ipse lemplum mirifi(;c exornaral; cl addil;
Neque enini si statuae dejiciantur, hoc nos ex-
cruciat, etiumsi alioqui excruciat, verum etc.
Damasus iu vita Sylveslri scribit. Constiintinum
in loco. ubi fucral biiptizatus, posuissc agnum ex
auro purissimo, ad dcxleram agni, statuam argeu-
leam Siilvaloiis: ad laevam autcm, slatuam argen-
tcam Joaiinis Baplislue. In Ecclesioaulem ipsa La-
llllKlt Si;i I NDIil
4MI
icrimciisi pnsiiissr^ iiiia^liiicN iiitriMilfMs Siilv;ilnrl,
:i|)(iil()li.s (IimkIoiiii cI aii^i-lis (|ii.ilii(ii'. Il) VII. sy-
iioild, iici. 4). rclcrliir. (iiiciiiiiiliiiodiiiii disripiili s.
K|ii|iliaiiii, lciii|diiiii l'!|ii|di.iiij(i cr(.'.\criiiil, cl lliM-
^IIICIII C|lisdcill III ('() pilMHIIIIll.
liiisiliiis (iriil. III s. jl.iilaiiiii iii lliic, iii ipsii cdii-
rioiic (islcinlil iiiia;;iiii'iii siiiicli llarliiiiiii iiliciilii iii
toiii|d() (lcpicliiiii, (>l iiit, ^Miiilcro si\ (piod iiKdiiis
piclorcs c\prcs>('niil iiiaiiiiin rjii.s prn <',lirislo
coiiitiuslati), (piain ipsc (iriiti(iniMlcs(-rips(irit:.W'C(),
iiiipiil, f(irliiiiii uiiirtnri^ /Wc/orinu jiirhtrn n ro-
his suiicniliis. Cmnlci) hili ics/roc l'itrlihiilinis
vktiyrid hoiiiv. viclits. Vidro inuuits ail ijinnn tii-
vtam v.nirliiis n rnliis (Irsrripliini. Milnt liirtn-
lorrni. iii rrslrn inui<iiiii'. illnslnns ilrjiirlnin.
(Ircnorius iiysscnns or.il. iii 'riKMidoriiiii, iiiilio:
lHiUrhilnr. iiupiil. (Inni nrilnn. ni Irinplnni Ih-i,
cl niitiinihhlinr strnrhirtir. rt (uljrrli oriKilns,
ilrrorr .s/i/c;»(//(/o rlnlionitnin intnrliir: iihi rt fn-
hrr in (ininuilinin liiiiiniin tiiinnni fornuiril, rl
pirlnr iiuln.ril rlinin jhirrs arlis in iiniuiinr ih'-
pirlos, fortid fnrtn nuirhiris, rriuiiiiuintins. rru-
vidlus.rlfrrnUin rl iinnidnrs hirdnnoruni fornuis,
iiniwlus violrnlos. Ihiininrdin ilhiin foriuwrni.
hrdlissinidni. ronsiunnuitionrin iillilrtiw. rrrldini-
•nuin /ir(j,c.s/(//s Chrisli linnuiiuw fornuw rlji(iirni,
onmia nohis Id.nujiidni in lihro qtimtam.qni lin-
!}uiiru.m intrrprrlnlioiws rontinrdl.rolorihus nr-
liliriosr (Iriiiiujrns. rrrtdinind dlquc Idhorcs
mdrhiris nohis c.x'prc.^sit. ac taniqiidm prdlnm
amornum ct Ihiriiiinn. Icinplnm orndrit. Solrtc-
•nim ctiam piclurd tdccns in parirlc loqui,inaxi-
mcqucpruiicssc.
Iii niissa Olirysostomi. (]iinm Ernsnuis latinani
IVcit, sic liabctnr: Sdc.crdos ciircdilur c parro o-
stio portans cvdiujclium. prdcrcdi-nlc ininistro
cuin luccrna. el conversus ad Cliristi imaqincm
inlcr diio ostia, inflexo capile cuni excUimatio-
nc dicil clc.
Evodiiis lil). 2. do miraculis sancli Sti^plmni
scribil. in Kcclcsia, iibi rcliiiiiiac s. Stcphiini ser-
vabantiir, fuissc (puxpic iniap^incm ejnsdcm ninr-
tyris dcpictiim, ad (jiiiiin visondani frc(|acntes bo-
minos concnrrcre soliti eranl.
Prndontins in Iiyinno dc s. Cnssiano scribit. sc
in tcmpio s. Cassiani \idisse supcr allare cjus ima-
ginem.
Erc.vi ad cocluin fnciem, ftlotii obvia c.ontra
Fucis rolonim picta iinaiio martijris.
Plaijas 1111110 _r/<')'('«.s', lnlos lacrrala per artus,
liuplam minulis prarferens panclis cnlem.
llcm (ic sanclo llippolyto:
Picla siipcr tuinulum species Uquidis vigel umbris,
EflUjicms Iracti membra cnienla viri.
Panllntis cpisl. ad Scverum, conquerilnr, quO(i
sc una cuni siincto Martino in tcmplo depingi cu-
ravcrat, el rogat, ul salicm isla carmina adscribi
jubeat.
.^dstat Marlinux pcrfeclac re(]uta vilae,
l'aulinus veniam (juo merc.arc dorel,
Hunc peccalores, iUum speclale bcali^
Exemplar sanclis illc sit> isle reis.
Mt iialali 10. sancti l-^etirJH, imiiiit:
SnnitnHiiiw fi^nmur in aiilnit,
IHni'iHuri[un niitrnn, vrleruin mnnumfnln /I{/urrl« rfc.
Niccpliorii^ lil). li. c.ip. 2. scribil , l'(il( Itcriiini
Aii;^'iislaiii posiii.HM; III lciiiplo , (pioil (^xisl.ilililio-
poli ipHii (•.\irii.\criil, iiiiiii{iiiriii b. .Miiriiti;, quaiii n
llicrosolymis ad caii) iiiiM-rat Kintociii.
Valcntiniaiiiis jiiiiior iKiiiioiiitiis ii Si\l'i |iii[ia (u(
iii vilii Si\li scribiiiil Aii.ist:isiuH,<|iil Hnpplcvil puii
liliciilc Diitiiisi. 1'liiliiia. ct alii) poMjil iii Kccicsiu
s. 1'clri .siiprii liiimiliiiii. id(!sl, siipi^r iill.in: b. l'i:-
Iri, iiiiii^iiKnii iiiirciiiii Salviiloris , ^(imiiiis prelio-
sissimis oriiiitiim , c.l diiodcciiii apo.stoloruiii iiiiii-
giiics itciii ;iiirciis.
II. A(i^'iistiiiiis Iib. l.di; consctisii ev:iri(^clisla-
riim, ciip. 10. tcsliilur, miillis iii locissiio lciiipon:
ccriii polnissc Cliii.sliiui di-picliiin iiil(;r iiposlolos
i'cliiiiii cl l'iuiluiii: cl idi-iii diril dc bisloria Abra-
liac maclaro voicntis liliiim. Iib.22. coiil.Fiiiisliiiii.
Ciip. 7.'t..\on cst aiitcin crcdibilc Aii^mi^Iiiiuiii Io pii
dc priviitis doiiiibiis . :id (pi.is noii oiiiiiibii'; p:ilcl
a(lilus,scd di; piiblicis locis. cl locis noii [iroriuiis,
scd sacris. l\'am b.(irc;:oriiis iib.Ihcpist.O. dicit, iri
locis vcn(M;ibilil)ns non sinc r:itioiic dcpictas iiii;i-
gincs Siiiiclornni fuissi; iib iiiitlipiis. Ibi iiominc
antiipioriim non potcst inlclli^Mirc liomiiics sui sac-
ciili. scd siipcrloitiin: nornil ;iiiti'in ipsc posl ;ii)-
iinm .■»()(». Kr^'() loipillnrdc l';ilribus , qui aiilc aii-
nuiii "iOO. lloriicrunt.
l>(Mil(pic Adrlanus I. iu libro pro ima^rinibus.qiii
b;ibctiir posl VII. synodnm circa fin(Mii , rcfcrl
Sylvcslniiii, l);itii;istiiii. Coclcstliium, Slxtnin. Leo-
ncm, Joaniiem ct Pelagium, pontllices tcmpla pi-
ctiiris c\orn;issc. Oui t;iiiicn omiu's aiile annum
Ihnuini jO(). scdcrmil. Vulcs igltnr, qn;im ci^regui
mcntialnr Calvinus, cum ait in Institul. lib. 1. ca|).
II. § 13. in t-(Miiplis Cbrisllanorum non fuisse imii-
gincs primls ."iOO. aniiis.
Tcrtio, probiilur c.\ quatnor conciliis. duobus
oricnliilibus. el duobus occidentalibus. In orlentc
cclcbrala csl VII. synodus toia pro li;ic rc. Item
in VIU. syiiodo . Ciiii. .'5. rcnov;intur dccrcta se-
Iitimae synodi. In occidcnte cclebratum esl con-
ciliuin romanum sub Gregorio III. quod qui-
dcm nnlionalc fnit, scd coiicnrrcriinl ad id conci-
liiim fcrc mille episcopi. In eo concilio damnala
esl liaercsis Iconomachorum. imagincs e templis
dctnrb;inliiim, sub ipsis initiis bujiis conlenlionis.
Vide Slgcbcrlum in clironlco ;mnl ()33. Cclebr:iluin
esl eliani concilium temporc Slopbnni el Caroli
Magni, pro cadcm re, iil lcstaliir Adri;iruis I. qui
Slepluino successil.ln libro pro imaginibus ad Ca-
rolum.
Qu;irto, probalur rationc; nam signa sacra nus-
qu;im mcluis. qiiam in s;icrls locis poni possnnl.
Deindeiiullum (■slornamenluju lcmiilonun mclius,
quam sacrarum imaginum, qula imagincs simul
(emplum ornanl, et conlincnt incnles bominum,
Jic vagentur Inanibus cogltalionibus. Praelerca lem-
plum est imago quaedam coeli ; nam apostolus
Hebr.O.comparat labernaculumMosaicum cum coe-
482
UK LMAGIMIJUS SANCT0I5UM
fo: el Clirysoslomus honi. 30. iii piiorcin ad Co-
iiulhios dicil, U'inpi;:m Ciirislinnorum esse qunsi
rogiiun coeli, sive lcrreslre quodthim coclum. Si-
ciii ergo teuiplum esl iiinigo coeli, ila dccel, ul in
ij)S() lemplo sinl iuiagiues eoirmi , qui in coclo
sunt, idesl.Chrisli el sanclorum. Dcnique,ubi mc-
liiib ponenUir imagines sancU)rum. <piam in domi-
hus ipsorum, idesl. in hasincis sanctorum,ubi rc-
li(piiae ipsoruni quiescunl ?
Ad prinuim argumcntiim palcl solulio. Non cnim
illud argumenlum. scd mcndacium luit.
Ad sccundum Payva rcspoudet, concilium cii-
hcrlinumsoluin proliii)cre imaginem Dci,quae piu-
giUir ad ipsius Dci elligiem repracsenlandam. Sed
iion vidclur salislacere , tuin quia concilium lo-
(piitur in genere de picturis, tum etiam quia nou
cral in usu co tcmpore, immo nec unqiiam fuc-
lunt in Ecclosia taics imagincs, quac suul vcra i-
dola.ul ostendimus supra tcslimoniis Origfnis.Au-
gustini ct Damasceni: Conciiium aulcm loquitur
dc eo, quod tieri solebal,et inlcrdicit ne dcinceps
liat.
INicolaus Sanderus iib. 2. dc cullu imaginnm c.
1. respondet:Concilium iilud proliihuissc iinagincs
in lemplis, quia tempus et locus id rcquircbant.
Tunc eniin pcriculum eral.ne gentiles exislimarent,
nostros adorare ligna el lapides: ac deniquc peri-
culuni crat.nc in perscquuUonihus Aiisscnt iniagi-
nes conlumelia afTcctae a perseiiuulorihus.llaec so-
lutio hona est.
Nequc obstat quod quidam dicunt. hoc conci-
liuni ceiehratum iuisse posl conciiium nicacnum,
ot proinde non fuisse periculum persequutionum;
nam revera concilium lioc cclehratuin fuit anle
nicaenum,cuin adiiuc durarciU persequutiones,ul
palel ex canonc 25. ubi agilur de iis, qui adfere-
hant litcras a conressoribus. Solcbant enim ii. qui
in pcrscquulione confilehanlur fidcm, postca da-
le lileras commendalilias pro lapsis ad cpiscopos,
et in toto fere conciiio agitur de iis, qui labun-
lur ad idololatriam. Fateor tamen rationcm illam
canonis. No, id.quod adoratur et coliiur,inparie-
tibus depi7igaiur, non raullum quadrare huic ex-
posilioni.
Alanus Copus in dialogis lih. 5. cap. K». dicit,
hic prohiheri imagines, quia ah illis Chrislianis a-
dorari cocpcrant tainquam Dii: ct hunc csse sen-
sum: Placuil in Ecclcsia non csse picluras, ne ali-
(|uid in pariclibus cxislcns adoretur et colnlur ul
Deus. In quem scnsuin acccpit islum canoneni h.
Ivo in suis decretis parl. 3. cap. 10. sed huic ctiam
cxpositioni ralio caiionis non omnino quiidrat; nam
dehuissel dici polius, nc id quod pingitur, adore-
lur: ([uam ne id qiiod adoralur, pingalur.
Alii ergo dicunt tantum prohilieri , ne imagines
dcpinganlur in parictibus Ecclesiac, non autem no
depictac in tabcllis ant vclis inEcclcsia habeanlur;
elralioncm csse volr.nt prcjplcrhonorcm imaginum,
(|uia in parictihus lacillimc corrumpunlur, vel liu-
niore pariclum, vel silu, vel alia ralione. Qua ratio-
iie fuitolim prohihitum eliam,ne crux in pavimen-
tis scnlperelur, nc vidclicct conculcarctur; ct lunc
liic erit sensus: Placuit picturas in Ecclcsia, idesl,
in ipsa fabrica, sive mnris Ecclesiae esse non dc-
herc, nc id. quod adoralur cl colitur. in parietihns
depiiigalur, idesl, ne contingal rcin sacram elve-
ncrahilem, quales sunt sanciae imagines, in paric-
tibiis essc, uhi faciirmie corrnmpanlur. Iluic expo-
silioni aplissinn^ convenit ralio canonis.
Adde postremo, quidquid concilium staluerit .
magis illtid concilium cssc pro uohis. quain con-
tra iios; nain contra nos tanluin esse ])olesl con-
ciliuin II). episcoporum, quod provinciale fuil, cl
niinime contirmalum, et iii aliis decretis videtiir
errasse. praeserlim cuin in plurimis casibns. no
iii arliculo quidem mortis velit absolvi pocnilen-
tem.
(Sic enim accipio, quod ait concilium , com-
miinloncni dari quanmis non dcsint . quiper
comnmnionem accipiant solam eucliaristiam.Mo-
veor autem /lis rationibus. Primo , quoniani in
ip^io elibc.rtino concilio pro eodem accipitur re-
conciliatio et communio; nam can. CO. sic legi-
mus, placuit agi debere pocnitcnliam. et sic re-
conciiiari, nisi necessitas injirmitatis cbc(jerit
antc lempus dare communionem.Ubivides ideni
esse reconciliaro, et darc communionmn . aut
cerle in ipsa communione includi reconcilia.lio-
ncm. Sulebant enim veteres sacranicnt um rccon-
ciiiationis sempcr conjunciere cum sacramento
eucha/ristiac. Et idco Tcrtullianus et Cyprianus,
et alii scriptores ejusdem anticiuitatis pra eodem
accipiunt communionem , reconciliationcm et
paceui. Secundo, quia s. Innoccnlius in epist.ad
Exuperium.cap. 2. Corrigcns observationcm an-
tiquam, qualis fuit tomporc concilii elibcrlini .
satis aporte indicat , conmevisse pocnitenlibus
nonindlis. etiam in fino vitae. negari reconcilia-
tioncm. Quaesitum est , inquil, quid de liis ob-
servari oporteat, qui jwst baplismum omni tem-
poro incontincntiae voluptaiibus dediti in exlre-
7/10 fLne vilae suae pocnil07iiiam siuiuL et recon-
ciliatione7)t co7nmu7iionis cxposcunl. De his ob-
servalio prior, durior, poslerior. intei^vonienlo
misericordia, i^icliiialior est. Na7n co7is7(eludo
prior lcnuit.ut co7icederelurpoe7iilc7ilia,sed com-
mu7iio 7iegareiur. Nam cum illis te^nporibus cre-
brae pcrscquuliones esse7it.7ie commimio7iis co7i-
cessa facilitas honwies de reco7iciliatio7ie securos
non revocarct a lapsu, negata merito co^nmimia
est, co7iccssa poc7iileniia, ne toitnn pcmiiis 7ie-
garotur. ol d7iriorem esse rcrnitysio7iem fecil lcm-
'po7-is ratio. Sedposloaqua/m Domi nus nostcr pa-
cc7n Ecclcsiis sui» reddidit. jam dep^dso lcrrore.
coui7nunio7icm da^iobeunlibvs plaeuil.et propler
Domini miscricordiam quasi riaiicum profcctu-
ris, et nc Novaiiani hocrctici ncga7ilis vc7iiam ,
aspcritale77i et durilia^n subscqui videamur.
Tribuitur ergo cum poenitentia oxt7'ema comvm-
nio, ut homines hujusmodi vclin supremis suis,
permilteiile Salvalore. a pcrpciuo exiiio vi7idi-
coMlur. llaec Jnnoce^ilius. cnjus verbis ilhid ex-
pe7idcndu7nvidetur, 7i07i dixissc hmoceniium ,
co7icessa7n fuisse aliqua7ido la.psis rcconciiintio-
nem, negatam comnm^iioimn : scd concessani
poe7iilc7itia7n, 7iogatam commu7iio7ie7n.Co7icode-
bntur cni7n lapsis primo pocnilontia.idesl.injim-
gcbaiur aclio poc7iitc7itiac , deinde alio le77ipore
I
I
I im:u i<ij L vurs 4«t
rir,oi\riliiilii> 11'ihnrhaliir. limlrvsl Hhtil \uiiuhU ^limiiii vnlinMHn oslfMidcrR hiinuliKT.i k''"I'Ii*>"*
ni iii,ci>ifil. ''"»''^ 'i'/ ll»ii(triiliiiii,tiliis hniiiismiim (•niiliiicri' li<»iiiiii('H iii nrorn, iM»ti riiiioiic innlcriiU!
IhiiiiliiiilihiiA, iiliif* rrcininliiiiiunnii, tiliis flunn (|iiiii prclinsii iinl. scil riilionn llnur;i(^ (|uiti ll;fii-
■iiisiiis i)i>fiiili'iiliut' (irliiniriii. I'nrrit iii>iiil liiiin- ■■iiii iMltriil iiii>lrii(* himiiIciii ; id iiiilciii iihIcihIiI
ffnlinmnoininf piifiiilfnlitir nun rfconrilialin Aii^iistiiiiis (liiplicitcr. Priiini , (|uiii iiiiilli ilorhiiiii
/ic»)i, srd jioriiilrntiiir tirlinnriii rssr inlrlliijrn,- c.Kiivri liiiil .nl Milcin.rt iiilcriiilMi|i|ilii';i(il •diiinl.icni
tUiin. prrsftiriiuiii rsl r.r. rn iiuiiil ipsr iliril, pf' miIi^: ikmi <|iiiii miI linii mI |(iih,;c iii)l»ilii)r,M'i| (|illil
Irnlihiis pornilfnlitini fl rrfttnriliulinnfin rtini- llt{iir;i illii!<oli«i;l(»li().si»,ii(iii liiin l;ii il(!pcr»Uiiil<M ro-
ninnionifi, fonrt^ssiun fuissr itiirnilrnliiun.nf to- lcni vlvcrc cl siMilirc,((iiciiiii<liii()(liiiii llt{iir;i siniiil;i-
/;/;;;, nrinirrliir. fl nriinltini rttniinuniitnrnt , nr. < ri(|uiiccsl noslr.K! Miiiilis.,*»cc,iin(lo,<|iiiii c^illiolirj
hiiniinrs (/<■ rfronrilitiliiiiif srruri nttii rrrtwurfn (Miiuii InlxMit iii loci.s siktis vhsii cx iiiiilcri.i prirlio-
liir ti Inpsu, cl <initi rfniissionrin (litriorrin frrii sii. cl liinicn <piiii dccsl lit;nrii liiiniiinii, nc k<'IiIiI<'k
Irinjtoris riilio. Ihi riilrs uiiiitl. Iniutrrniiuin iil (piiilcm piil;ir<'iil cii v;is!i vivcrc vcl spir;irc.
c.s.sc nriiuri ronuniiiuitnriu. , tinud nniiiri rrnin- \i\rrs : >\ ciiliccs inm piiliniliir vivcrc, <pii;i cii-
ciUtilionrm. ct rfniissionrm. ifuotl fltirius (itlliur rcnl liumim:i formii. crKo imiinin<'s (piiii: liiiliciil
pfrspirilur iii vrrhis sriiurnlihus . uhi ilirilnr , Iiuiii;iiiiiiii loi iii;iiii, si in lcmplo miiI. piil;iliimliir
•/»(i.s'/c»'i()r(' Ifinitorr ritnrrssuin fuissr ri)niinunio- vivcrc. Kcspmidco; Aii-^u^liiiiis noii (li<'il, im;i;rin<'s
nrm, nc vidrrrlur Kcrlfsiii. imiltiri iSovtititini n- lMiin;iii;ic lorniiic ptiliiri vivcrc; scd si pulcnliir.
sprriltilfin ft tlurilinm, <iui vfniuuinriitih(il.i:.r. pntiiri proplcr r<)rm;im,noii pniplcr ni;ilcriiiiii..\()ii
sfiilrntiti i<iiliir Innorrnlii nfnurr roiniiiunionrni rv^o Au^riislimis dicil : lmii;;iii;'s iii K<'<'lcsi;i noii
cs/. nriiiirr vriiiuin, rl ,\iiV(ili(Uii duriliiini iinilu- ruissi'., scd soiimi foniiiim liiim.iiiiiiii siimil;i(T(/riim
7't, (/itt, Irstr Ciiprituio lih. 2. rpisl. i. Anihrosiu miilliim v;ilcr(; iid rovciidum crrorcin in iis. qiii .si-
lih. l. dr pornilrnliii, riip. 2. c/ Sorriilr lih. \. iiniliici.i pro l>iis c(diinl. Ad coiilirm;ilii»iicm dico:
('(//). 2:1. pofnilfnliiun rohcfdfhtil, (ihjur (id f(im .lo;iiiiicm liKjui dc idolis. Sic ciiiiii csl 111 ^'r;icco:
h()rltth(ilur,ii(idreconfili(ilionvm(i l)fopft(>nd(im 'I^uXa^aTc sau-co^jc d-o •:wv ei^SwXwv: cx cpio lcxlii
no»Mi .s(/('<'»v/(>/;/';/s imprrtirndam dorrltdt. Srd l.ilimim iiilcrprcl;iri lc.Nliim liccl.
7i(7ii7. (ipfrliiis tliri poluil ro , iiiiodrxlrcmo lor.o Ad (piiirliim dico. Primo, (liilvinum rcclc iinil.Tri
ndjanxiL Innorrnlius, IrihuL vidflicrt lioc Ifm- suos niiijorcs; ii;im ctiiiiii iinliipii Iconomac.lii dicc-
py/T cunipofnilcnliacommunioncm.ut lioniincs liiinl, nollc sc iiiiiij^iiifis isliis niorlu;is, scd siillicf;-
/7/. ('.r»7;/ dc liac vila a pcrpcliio c.vilio vindiccn- rc siiii cii('liiiiisli;im. (pi;ic csl im.Tfro corporis I)o-
///»'. Sctiuilur cnimcos, /////////s ncijalur cnnunu,- niiiii: (piilms ciilliolici rcspondcriiiil iri Ml syiiddo.
nio, apcrpclHO cjoitio minimc lihcrari:<iuod non iicl. ('». lom. :{. eucl);irisli;im non dchcrc vocnri i-
cssct c()/;.s('(/;/.('?(s, s/ nciiala commnnionc noii et- iii;iiiiiicm vcl lijiiiriun corporis Domiiii, cuin ipsiiin
iam rcconciliiiiio nciiurclur). Domiiii corpiis icvor;i sil. Scciindo dico: Im;i^'iiies
l*ro uoliisiuilcm lacil, ipiod Iiiiic iipcrlc colligi- viviis cl niorliiiis non cssc inlcr se conlr;iri;is. sed
lur. eo lcinporc fuisse im.iiriiics in lcin|)iis, ikui iiliiis juviiri ;ib iiliis, ul oslcndimus. Dcniquc ini.n-
cnim diccrcl coiicilium: Placuil picturas in Lc- piiics siinclorum noii rcclc voc;iri morluiis. Iiiiiij^i-
c/csKi cs.sc //o/i. (/c/)c/'e. nisi j;iin cssii cocpissciil. nis ciiim viU» csl rcpriu^sciiliilio: lliiic crgo suiit
Praclcnsi liiiic lialicnuis. vcl ips;is imiigmcs, vcl niorluac, quiic iiiliil reprncscnliin*..
ocrlc siimius. (pmriim smil iiii;ii,Miics. cidi cl ado- Ad ipiinlum. Tiiotiiiis \V;i!dciisis lom. ?>. lil. 10.
rari: id ciiim siyiiiliciil illud: ,\c id (juod coiilur ca|). l."»7. dicil: Kpii)iiiuiiiim proiilcr hacrcsiiii An-
ct (7.c/o/'(//Jt/', i7r/)'(J/'/(»/t7)//s (/('/)/7;y(//j/r.Adde quod Iropomorpliilarum lunc vigeiite hoc fecisse. Alii
lioc ipsum coneilium can. 2(>. iiuiicil jcjuiiiiim 0- diciml. l]|)iphanium loqiii dc iniagine liominis[iro-
mni sal)b;tllio: cl c;iii. ?t^. proiiiiiel usum uxorem fitiii. tpiac i])i lioiior;ib:iliir insliir iinaginum (Jhri-
cpiscopis. prcabyUMis. diaconis, sul)diiiconis;quo- sli el sanclorum: ilii respondcl .Mariaiius Viclorius
ruin utrumqqe execranlur advcrsarii noslri. in iinnoiatione ud hanc cpist. Communior el vcriov
Ad lcrtium dico: Aupfuslinum ioqui dr. simula- soltilio csl , vcrl);i ilhi essc sup[)0sitilia: quod i)ii-
cris pracsupposilo crron; gcntiliiim. Viill ciiim lcl primo. quia posl nncm cpistolac i>ta adjcctii
Augustiuus dicerc, quando quis pul.Tt simulacrum sunt; epislola euim planc finita erat, ul apparebit
cssc Dcuin. ct ;icccdit. uladorel, el invocct ipsum lcsicnti.
siinulacrum, miriibilitcr coniirnnitur. cl fovclur in Sccumlo.quia haorelici Iconomachi non objece-
crrorc. ab ipsa nicmbroruin liuinanoriim simijiiu- runl hunc locum calholicis. cum tiimen objccerint
fiinc. Ita eum csse intclligcnduin probo ex verbis omiiiii dicla Patrum, quac ulluin colorcm habere
ojus; nam iu c|)ist. it). quacst. 3. ait : Cum his sc- poler.-^nl, ul patet cx VII. synodo, acl. C».
iLihus collocimlur lionortihiU suhUmifate . ut a Terlio, qnia Epiphanius diaconus iii VII. syno-
precantibus , atque immolanUbns attendaniiir do. acl. 0 convincit duo alia similia loca. Kpiplia-
ipsa simiUtudinti <inlm(itorum mcmhrorum, at- nii scriplis fuissc inserla ab hacrcticis.
qiie scnsuum ctc. Lbi nola illud.j/f a precanUbus Quarto, quia ul ibidcm dicilur, discipuli Epiplia-
tiUcndantur. El quodibidcm ail: Accedente prae- nii in ejus tcmplo imaginein cjus posuerunl. quod
scrlim xencralionc mulloruni etc. Experientia e- ccrtc non fecisscnt, si eorum pr;icccplor dixissel.
nim docct imagincs, titiac non habcntur pro Diis. iil essc contra Scripttirae auclorilalem.
neminem licet nidissimum ila decipere ul [)ulentur Ouinlo. quia lcnipore Epiphanii Basilius, i\ys-
vivcre cl spirare. senus, et alii vivebant, qui imagines in templis
Ad illud (lc viisis Ecclesiac aurcis, dico: Augu- laudabanl.
m
DE IMAC.IMULS S\i>CTOUUM
Sexlo,qaia sonlenlia illa: esse conlra ScripUirae
auclorilalem pendere in templo imaginein homi-
nis, iiuiii,'na ossel Epiplianio, viro floclissimo, cum
sit ineplissima. IVusquam enini id legilnr prohibi-
tum, itnmo conlrarium legitur, ut palet de imagini-
hns cherubin in forma humana, quae eranlintem-
plo Salomonis.
Seplimo, quia Gregorius hb, 9. epist. 9. dicil:
IVullum unquam episcoporum anle Serenum Jlassi-
liensoiu Iregisse im;iginem Chrisli vol sanctorum.
Oclavo, quui b. llieronymus in epislola ed Pam-
machium. contra Jonnuem hierosolymilanum, lo-
lam fore hanc epislolara Epiphanii a se latinam
faclam recilal. el lamcn non meminit hujus veli.
Noiu), quia nec slylus convenit cum reliqua cpi-
slola.
Ad illud de Adriani teuiplis sinc simulacris, di-
00, Adrianum jussisse lieri templa sine simulacris
genliiium. Chrisliani enim nolebant orare in lem-
plis genlilium, quia plena erant idolis. Ideo Adri-
anus'iussit eislieri lempla sine ejusniodi idolis.
Unde idem Lampridius ea simulacra ibideni appel-
lal numina: numina aulem non vocanlur imagines,
nisi proponanlur adorandae pro Diis.