Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 12: That the Images of Christ and of the Saints Are Rightly Honoured
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).
We assert with the Church that the images of Christ and of the saints are to be honoured; provided, however (as is declared in the Council of Trent, session 25), that no trust is placed in the images, nor anything asked of them, nor any divinity believed to be in them, but that they are honoured only because of those whom they represent to us. This opinion is proved.
First, by the testimony of Scripture; we have three kinds of testimonies. First, those testimonies which treat expressly of images, namely Exodus 25, of the cherubim of the propitiatory, and Numbers 21, of the bronze serpent. For the images of the cherubim which were over the ark, Exodus 25, were necessarily adored by those who adored the ark. Nay, Jerome, in the letter to Marcella that she should move to Bethlehem, says that the tabernacle was venerated by the Jews for this reason, because the cherubim were there. The bronze serpent too could not but be honoured, since it had been set by God in a high place, and brought health to the wretched who looked upon it. Hence Augustine, book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 10, speaking of certain signs which deserve veneration as religious things, puts the bronze serpent as an example.
Besides, both of the images of the cherubim and of the image of the serpent, that they ought to have been honoured is plain from the rule of blessed Augustine, book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 9, where he says that useful signs instituted by God are to be venerated, because their honour passes to the prototype. And it is certain that those images of the cherubim and of the serpent were instituted by God and useful. Now, if it was lawful to venerate images of angels, why not also of the saints? If it was lawful to venerate an image of Christ in the form of a serpent (for that the serpent was a figure of Christ we have in John 3), why will not an image of Christ in the form of a man be the more venerable?
Then we have other testimonies which teach that creatures are to be honoured religiously because of their relation alone to God, as Psalm 98, “Adore his footstool”; Matthew 5, “Swear not by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool.” Where note that an oath is an act of religion, by which God is honoured primarily, and secondarily that by which one swears. Therefore God is honoured not only in himself but also through heaven and earth, [inasmuch as they have a relation to God; the top of page 487 is merged across columns in the scan, and these lines are rendered from what reads]. But images have a like relation; therefore they too are to be honoured.
The third kind of testimonies is of those which teach that creatures are called sacred or holy because of their relation to sacred things. Exodus 3: “The place whereon thou standest is holy ground,” because of the angel present there. In Exodus 12 the day of the Pasch is called a holy and venerable day, because of what it signified, and because it was dedicated to divine worship. In Exodus 28 the garments of the priests are called holy for the same cause. Isaias 11: the sepulchre of Christ glorious. In 2 Timothy 3 the Scriptures are called sacred letters: “From thy infancy,” he says, “thou hast known the holy scriptures.” Why are those letters called sacred, unless because they are signs of sacred things? And not only letters, but even the words themselves when spoken we are wont to venerate, especially the name of Jesus; and we hear the Gospel standing with head uncovered, nay even with lights lit, though at midday, as Jerome proves in the book against Vigilantius. But the images of Christ and of the saints are also instituted to signify and represent sacred things; why then should it not be lawful to honour them? For that a holy thing, by the very fact that it is holy, is to be venerated is plain from those words of Exodus 12: “The first day shall be holy, and the seventh day shall be kept with the like solemnity”; [in Bellarmine's Latin, “venerable with the same religion”]. Where you see that a holy thing and a thing religiously venerable are taken for the same.
Second, it is proved from the councils of the Church. We have in the first place canon 82 of the sixth synod, where images are called venerable. For although these canons are not of firm authority, yet this canon was always received by the Church, and testifies at the least to the use of the ancient Church. Then we have the Roman synod under Gregory III of nearly a thousand bishops, held for images in the year [732?], according to Sigebert in the Chronicle. Likewise the synod held at the villa of Gentilly, in the year 766 according to Sigebert, or 767 according to Ado, in which there was dealing about images, and the Greeks were warned to be willing to think with the other godly about images, as Paulus Aemilius testifies, book 2. Again another synod held at Rome for images under Stephen III, in the year [769?] according to Sigebert, which synod Adrian mentions several times in the book on images to Charles.
Then after the year 788 [so the scan] the seventh synod, action 7, defined that images are to be venerated, not indeed with the cult of latria, but with that honour with which we also follow the sacred letters, the sacred vessels and so on; witnesses Paul the Deacon, Cedrenus, Zonaras and others. And this council is such that it can in no way be doubted that it was general and lawful. For it had in the first place the legates of the Roman pontiff and of three other patriarchs, of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and also the patriarch of Constantinople, all agreeing, as is plain from the signatories. Besides, there were present 350 bishops, on the witness of Cedrenus, that is, more than in the first, second or third general synod. Besides, the Emperor Constantine consented. Moreover, the matter was disputed sharply and long, with Scriptures, councils and Fathers brought forward. If then any council is general and lawful, surely this one is.
Nor does it stand in the way that the councils of Constantinople going before and that of Frankfurt following are said to have decreed the contrary. For even if those had been wholly lawful, yet they would have to yield to the Nicene; because this was plenary and general, those were particular. For it is the rule of Augustine, book 2 On Baptism, chapter [9?], that the councils of a part must without doubt yield to plenary ones. And that those were particular is plain. For in the Council of Constantinople under Leo the others were not called, nor were the other patriarchs present, except Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, who yet did not consent, and so was deposed.
In the Council of Constantinople under Constantine Copronymus the Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochene and Jerusalem patriarchs were not called, nor were they present, either in person or by legates; but only a false bishop, whom the heretics had put in after deposing St. Germanus the patriarch. This is testified by Cedrenus and Zonaras in the Life of Constantine Copronymus, and by the Magdeburgers themselves, Century 8, chapter 9, column [551?], and by Paul the Deacon, who was then living, book 22 of the Roman History.
Lastly the Council of Frankfurt was particular in the judgement of all; and (if what the Centuriators say is true) there were present indeed legates of the Roman pontiff, but they did not assent to the synod.
To this is added that it is gathered from the outcome that the Nicene council was lawful; for it alone won in the end. For the images remained in the churches and always had their honour in the Church; nay, the acts of this council alone survive; the other three soon vanished, and only some memory of them is kept in the histories; which happened too to the first Nicene council. For there were very many councils held by the heretics against the first Nicene, but they vanished with their errors; only the faith and canons of Nicaea have come down to us. We have besides the eighth general synod, the last action, canon 3, and the synod of Trent, session 25.
Third, it is proved from the Fathers. Basil, against Julian, as Pope Adrian cites him in the letter to the emperors, in the seventh synod, action 2: “I honour,” he says, “the histories of their images, and I adore them openly; for this has been handed down to us by the holy apostles, and is not to be forbidden,” and so on.
Chrysostom, in the liturgy: “The priest,” he says, “bows his head to the image of Christ.”
Ambrose, sermon 10 on Psalm 118: “He who crowns the image of the emperor,” he says, “surely honours him whose image he has crowned; and he who has despised the statue of the emperor is surely seen to have done wrong to the emperor,” and so on.
Augustine, book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 10, speaking of sacred signs, such as are images, letters and sacraments: “But because these things are known to men,” he says, “since they are done through men, they can have honour as religious things, but not wonder as marvels,” and so on; where by name he puts the bronze serpent among those things which deserve religious honour. Likewise in book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 9, he says that those serve under signs who honour useful signs and do not know what they signify, as the Jews once were; but those who venerate useful signs and know what they signify, he says, do not so much honour the sign itself as the thing signified, and so are free. And that the images of the saints are useful signs instituted by God, and so worthy of veneration both by slaves and by the free, is plain from book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 25, where he says that pictures and statues belong to the superfluous institutions of men, except those which for a good end are set forth in their place and time by one who has authority. And it is most certain that such are the images of Christ and of the saints. Lastly in book 10 of the Confessions, chapter 34, he finds fault with painters and like craftsmen because they sometimes go far beyond necessary and moderate use and godly meaning. Where he admits that some pictures are necessary, and some have a godly meaning, and so are venerable.
Paulinus, in the tenth birthday poem of St. Felix, speaks thus of the images painted in the church:
And let us wonder at the sacred figures, the records of the ancients.
Where, when he calls the figures sacred, he teaches also that they are to be honoured; for all sacred things are to be honoured.
Gregory, book 7, letter 5, to Januarius, bishop of Cagliari, speaking of an image of blessed Mary and a cross which had been placed in the synagogue of the Jews, which he orders to be taken away from there: “Therefore we exhort,” he says, “that, the image and the cross being taken away from there with the veneration that is fitting, you restore what was violently taken away.” And in book 7, letter 53, to Secundinus, he teaches that a sacred image is to be honoured even by prostration to the ground, yet not as God: “And we,” he says, “prostrate ourselves before it, not as before the divinity,” and so on.
Damascene, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 17, says that the cult of the cross and of images is an apostolic tradition.
Besides, that the cross, that is, the image of the Crucified, was always honoured in the Church is most certain. For Lactantius, in the poem on the passion of the Lord:
Bend the knee, and adore the venerable wood of the cross.
And Sedulius, book 5 of the Easter Poem:
And lest anyone not know that the figure of the cross is to be honoured.
Ambrose, in the oration on the death of Theodosius: “More wisely,” he says, “did Helena act, who raised the cross of Christ on the head of kings, and set it there, that the cross of Christ may be adored in kings.” And in the book On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation, chapter 7: “When we venerate in Christ the image of God and the cross,” he says, “do we divide him?”
Jerome, in the Life of Paula: “Prostrate before the cross,” he says, “she adored, as if she saw the Lord hanging there.”
Athanasius, question 16 to Antiochus, says that Christians honour the image of the cross rather than that of the lance or the pillar and like instruments of the Lord's passion, because if the heathens accuse us of worshipping wood, we can at once separate the two pieces of wood of the cross from each other, and in that way, the figure of the cross being taken away, tread those two pieces of wood underfoot, to show that we venerate not wood but the image of the Crucified. Lastly the Fathers testify that Christians were always accused by the heathens of worshipping the cross, which is the image of the Crucified.
Tertullian, in the Apologetic, chapter 16, says that Christians were called devotees of the cross; nor does he deny that this is true. Minucius Felix, in the Octavius, answers the heathens who objected the adoration of the cross. Nor does it stand in the way that he says, “We neither adore crosses nor wish for them”; for he speaks of the adoration proper to God, of which they were accused. Meanwhile from the objection it is certain that the cross was honoured in some way by the Christians. Julian in Cyril, book 6, objects the same. But surely it would never have come into the minds of the heathens to object to ours the adoration of the cross, unless they had seen that the cross was held in the highest veneration by those first and most holy Christians.
And ridiculous is the answer of the Magdeburgers, who say from the Council of Frankfurt, Century 8, chapter 9, at the end, that the reason of the cross and of other images is not the same; for Christ redeemed us by the cross, not by an image. For that answer, first, cuts the throat of the Centuriators themselves; for they do not admit that the cross can be honoured. Then it is an unlearned answer; for Christ did not redeem us by this cross which we venerate, now of gold, now of silver, now of stone, now painted on a panel, or traced in the air, but by that one wooden cross whose image is the one we venerate. For we do not have that true cross of Christ everywhere, and much less did the ancients have it in the time of Tertullian and Minucius, since it is certain that it was found afterwards in the times of Constantine the Great. And Christ redeemed us more by his body than by the wooden cross. Wherefore, if it is lawful to venerate the image of the cross, much more the image of the body.
The fourth argument, from miracles. For God works many miracles through the images of Christ and of the saints; from which we understand that it pleases him that images be honoured. Famous in the first place is what Eusebius reports, book 7 of the History, chapter 14, where he testifies that from the base of the bronze statue of Christ set up by the woman with the issue of blood at Paneas, a certain herb unknown to all was wont to spring, which, when it had grown up to the hem of the image of Christ and touched it, had power to drive away all diseases; which Theophylact also reports on chapter 9 of Matthew. Sozomen adds, book 5 of the History, chapter 20, another miracle of the same image: that when Julian the apostate had removed the statue of Christ from there and set his own in the same place, at once fire from heaven tore apart the statue of Julian and wrenched the head from the rest of the body, wholly in the way that once happened to the idol Dagon, 1 Kings 5.
Nor is a notable lie of the Centuriators to be passed over in this place. For what happened to the statue of Julian they attribute also to the statue of the Saviour. For so they speak, Century 4, chapter 13, column 1447: “It seems,” they say, “that that too was broken by lightning, that there might be a testimony that that superstition by which some power is attributed to statues does not please God.” And in the same place they call superstitious the power of the herb which cured all diseases. But when they say that the image of Christ was broken by lightning, they lie most openly against the faith of all the historians; and when they ascribe the best-attested miracles of Christ to devilish superstition, they imitate the scribes and pharisees, who slandered the miracles of the same Christ as done in Beelzebub. [The top of page 489 is merged across columns in the scan; these lines are rendered from what reads.]
Many other miracles done by God through images can be read in the Magdeburgers themselves, Century 6 and following, chapter 13; who yet answer this argument from the Caroline books, that it does not follow that images are to be adored because they work miracles. For there are many other things through which God works miracles, which yet are not adored. For Eliseus cured the leprosy of Naaman through the waters of the Jordan; Christ cured the blind man with spittle; and yet we do not adore the water or the spittle. Nay, God sometimes works miracles even through wicked men, and yet we judge those men unworthy of all honour.
I answer that the end of the miracles is to be looked to; for that which is confirmed by a miracle has God's testimony. But Eliseus and Christ did not use the water or the spittle in the miracles that the water or the spittle might be honoured, but to show, the one that he was a prophet of God, the other that he was the true Son of God. Likewise wicked men do not work miracles to commend themselves and their life, but the faith; which not they, but the faith which they preach, is to be venerated.
But the miracles done through images were done for this, to prove and establish the cult of images. For why, I ask, did the heavenly fire tear apart the statue of Julian, unless to avenge the wrong done to the statue of Christ? And why did blood come out of the image pierced by the Jews, which cured very many sick, as is in Athanasius in the book On the Passion of the Image of the Lord, Gregory of Tours On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 21, and Regino in the chronicle of the year [804?], unless to show that he honoured what the Jews were treating with insult?
Besides, the benefits which are conferred by God through images, why are they conferred only on those who honour images and think that the cult of images pleases God? For that miracle done at Edessa through the image of Christ, as Evagrius reports, book 4, chapter [26?], was done for the safety of those who venerated the image of Christ. Zonaras also writes, in the Life of Michael the Stammerer, that when Leo the Armenian was persecuting images, his son Sabbatius Constantine, who was mute, came to a statue of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and, praying to the saint himself in his mind, received the use of speech by a divine miracle. But if the cult of images were idolatry, surely God would have seemed to favour idolatry most of all at that time.
Paul the Deacon writes, book 21 of the Roman History, that when a certain Iconoclast, seeing a statue of the Blessed Virgin, had thrown stones at it and broken it, the Virgin herself was seen by him in sleep, threatening him terribly with these words, “On your own head you have done this”; and that a little after the same man was struck by a huge stone, and so crushed, as he had broken the statue.
The fifth argument can be drawn from a like thing, in this way. Man is worthy of veneration because he is the image of God; therefore the images of Christ or of the saints too are worthy of veneration. For what befits man because he is an image necessarily befits all images. And that man is venerable because he is the image of God Cyril and Augustine testify.
Cyril, catechesis 12, says thus: “If the image of an earthly king is honoured, how much more the rational image of God?” Augustine, letter 203, to Maximinus, a Donatist bishop, explaining why in the title of a letter he had said, “To the honourable brother,” says that he did not honour his episcopate, but honoured the image of God which he knew was in him, though he was a heretic.
The Magdeburgers answer from the Caroline book that the argument concludes nothing, since painted images are not like men as man is the image of God; for the image of God is in the mind, while the likeness between man and a picture is in the outward shape. Unlearnedly; for the argument proceeds from a like proportion: as man stands to God, whose image he is, so a picture stands to Christ, whose image it is. If then man is honourable because he is the image of an honourable thing, surely the image spoken of too is honourable, because it is the image of an honourable thing.
They answer, second, that man is not adored, at least religiously, but only civilly. But although man as king or emperor is honoured civilly, yet man as the image of God is honoured religiously; because the cause why he is honoured is a sacred thing; as he who honours a man because he is a saint, or a prophet, or a priest, or a bishop, surely honours religiously, not civilly, as we said above.
The sixth argument, likewise from a like thing. The image of a king is venerable with a certain civil honour; therefore the images of Christ and of the saints are honourable with a religious cult. And this argument can be confirmed from the notable fraud of Julian the apostate, which Gregory Nazianzen describes in the first oration against Julian, Paul the Deacon in the Life of Julian, and others. It was the custom that the images of the emperors were adored by all, which the Christians too did, since they knew that that adoration was only civil, such as they paid to the emperor himself, though a heathen. Julian then, to force the Christians at least by mistake to adore idols, ordered his image to be painted so that Jupiter was painted with it, bringing down from heaven the crown and purple to the emperor, and Mercury and Mars also painted looking at the emperor, to show in that way that he was wise and brave. And so he set himself forth painted among the gods, that the Christians, venerating the emperor's image by custom, might at the same time venerate the images of the false gods. And Nazianzen notes that the simpler Christians were worthy of pardon, who did not notice the trick and did not think they adored anything other than the king's image.
The Centuriators answer, in the place noted, that these are not alike, because the image of the king is adored because of the king's absence, who cannot be everywhere at once in the whole kingdom; but God is present everywhere. But in the first place we do not ask why the image of a king is adored; but from the fact that it is adored we gather that the image of Christ is rightly adored. Besides, Christ as man is not everywhere, nor are the saints everywhere. Lastly, it is false that the images of princes are not adored when the prince is present; nay, as to do insult to an image is a graver sin when the prince is present than when he is absent, so too to honour the image when the prince is present is a thing most pleasing to him.
The seventh argument, from the contrary. An image is capable of wrong and insult; therefore also of honour and cult. Eusebius, book 9 of the History, chapter 10, writes, to the disgrace of Maximinus, that his images were either thrown down or smeared with black colours. Suetonius writes the same of the images of Domitian.
Theodosius too (otherwise a most excellent and most godly prince), when the people of Antioch had thrown down the image of his wife, was so angry that he came near to overthrowing all Antioch. There are two orations of Chrysostom on this matter, the second and third to the people of Antioch, in which he laments that crime committed against Theodosius. See also Theodoret, book 5 of the History, chapter [19?]. Lastly Julian the apostate would not have thrown down the statue of Christ unless he believed that a wrong was done to Christ in that way. Nor would God have struck the statue of Julian with lightning unless it had received a wrong from him, and unless it had seemed to belong to Julian's insult.
The eighth argument. We rightly curse and break the idols of the heathens, and for this Theodosius is greatly praised, because, on the witness of Theodoret, book 5 of the History, chapter 20, he ordered the idols to be destroyed everywhere. But surely this is not done except by reason of what they signify, because they are images of false gods. Therefore on the contrary the images of Christ and of the saints, because they signify things truly good and holy, are honourable.
The ninth argument, from the wickedness of the Iconoclasts and the godliness of those who honour and have honoured images. For the Iconoclasts, as we showed in chapter 2 of the disputation, were all either Jews, or Samaritans, or Mahometans, or necromancers, or plain heretics, whom no one can deny to be impious. But those who defended images were holy and learned men, as Gregory and Adrian, supreme pontiffs; Germanus and Tarasius, bishops of Constantinople; John Damascene, Methodius, Leontius, Jonas of Orleans, Paul the Deacon, and other men godly and learned by the consent of all. And it is not credible that God willed to teach the Church through his enemies rather than through his friends and saints.
What of this, that the devil himself hates images? For, as we read in the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 45, to a certain hermit who complained that the spirit of fornication, vexing him, had grown old with him and would not go away, the devil appeared, and promised that he would go away if he would promise no longer to venerate the image of the Blessed Virgin which he had in his cell. But perhaps the devil feigns hatred of images, so that men, deceived, may honour them the more. But if it is so, why has the devil so often brought about the overthrowing and breaking of images through Jews and Mahometans?
The tenth argument, from the unhappy end of the Iconoclasts and the happiness of those who defended images. For in the first place, in the time of Leo the Iconoclast, after the images of the saints were burnt in the forum of Constantinople, so grievous a plague arose that three hundred thousand men died at Constantinople. See the chronicle of Matteo Palmieri, year 741. Likewise on the same occasion the same Leo and his successors lost the empire of Italy, and were never able to recover it again. See Zonaras and Paul the Deacon in his life. At that time Yazid, king of the Arabs, who had ordered the images of the Christians to be broken, did not outlive one year, though thirty years had been promised him by him who incited him to iconoclasm.
In the time of Constantine Copronymus unheard-of calamities fell upon the East. For huge earthquakes threw down whole cities and killed many thousands of men. Likewise a most grievous plague arose, so that vineyards, gardens, wells and other places hardly sufficed for burying the men. And that it might not be doubted for what cause these things happened, at the same time everywhere, on the clothes of men, on sacred veils and priestly vestments, small crosses appeared by God's doing, as if marked with oil; for God wished to show that he willed the image of the cross to be seen everywhere, which Constantine Copronymus at that time was striving to blot out altogether. Besides, so horrible a cold came on that the Black Sea was frozen for a hundred miles, and the ice was thirty cubits deep; upon which came snow, which also turned to ice, to a height of twenty cubits above the other ice of thirty cubits. A little after, the ice began to break up, and huge fragments like great mountains or islands ran about with great force; some even, dashed against Constantinople, overthrew part of the walls and the houses near. And Paul the Deacon testifies that he saw all these things. In the same year there was afterwards so great a drought that rivers, springs and wells were almost all dried up; so that all understood and said that all these things happened because of the impiety against God and the saints which the Iconoclasts had practised.
Lastly the obstinate Emperor Constantine so perished that at his death he cried out that he had been given over, still living, to unquenchable fire to be burnt. Zonaras and Paul the Deacon are witnesses, in his life. On the contrary Pepin and his son Charles, who with the Roman pontiff defended images, were raised to the kingdom and the empire, and lived and reigned most happily, as is plain from the same authors.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII.
Imagincs Chrisli ct sanctorum recte coli.
Nos cum Ecclesia ns3erimus,imngines Chrisli el
sanclorum honorandas esse, modo tamen ( ul in
concilio tridenl. sess. 23. declaralur ) in imngini-
bus non coUocetur fiducia,nec ab eis aliquid peta-
lur, nec in eis inesse credatur ulla divinilas, sed
solum honorenlur propter cos,quos nobis reprae-
sentant. Quae senlenlia probatur. Primum, testi-
monio Scripturae; hnbemus Iria genera teslimo-
niorum. Primo ea teslimonia, quae expresse agunt
de imaginibus , nimirnm Exod. 23. de cherubin
propiliatorii. Et num 21. de aeneo serpente. Ima-
gines cnim cherubin super arcam existentes Exod.
23. necessario adornbanlur nb iis, qui arcam ado-
rabant.lnmiollieronymus in cpistola adMnrcellam,
ul migret Bethlehera,ideo dicil tnbernaculum fuis-
sc vencratum a Judaeis, quia ibi erant cherubin.
Serpens quoque aeneus non poterat non honorari
cum in loco sublimi a Deo positus fuisset, el snlu-
tein miseris in se aspicientibus adferret. Unde Au-
gustinus lib. 3. Trinit. c. 10. loquens de quibus-
dam signis, quae veneralionem tamquam rt^ligiosa
merenfur, ponit pro exemplo serpentem aeneum.
Praeterea tam de imaginibu? cherubin, qunm dc
imaginibus serpentis, quod honorari debuerint,
patet ex regula b. Augustini lib. 3. doctr. christ.
cap. 9 ubidicit, signn utilia divinitus instiluta,
venernnda esse, quia honor eorum ad prototypuin
trnnsit. Fuisse autem illas imagines chcrubin el
serpentis a Deo inslilutas et uliles, certum esl.
Jam vero, si licuit, vcnerari imagines angelorum,
cur non etiam sanctorum? Si licuit venerari imagi-
nem Chrisli in forma serpentis ( nara serpenlem
Chrisli fuisse figuram, habemus Joan. 3.) cur non
potius vencrabilis cril imago Cliristi in forma ho-
minis?
Deindc, habemus alia testimonia, quae doccnt,
creaturashonorandas religiose proptersolam rela-
lionem ad Deum,ut psalm. 93. Adoralc scabellum
pedum ejus. Matth. 3. Nolite jurare per coelum,
quia thronm Dei est, neque per terram, quia
scabellum est pcdum ejus. Ubi noln, juramentum
esse actura religionis, quo honoratur priraario
I iiii:it siiciiMii s
ihi
POIIS, Sn(Mllltlill'i() i'l, |)<M' <|l|i)i| Jdl.ilill, |'l<)|illii-l
Cr^O l>(MIS illl'illlll'llllllll sillO (jl^ltlliH ('.ll'1'tMIISllllllllti.
|i(M' ('iicliiiii (4 lcrniiii.iin t.diiliiiiicliii llal i'|msii)iii|i
(MCiidilis, (|tliil('litiN rclaliDiiciii liiiltfiil inl hiuiiii.
Scd MiiiiliMii rciiilKuiciii liiiliciil iiii.igincM it;iliir
(uiilciii niliiiiKi coIcikIiic siiiil.
Illliiiiiiiii ^'iMiiis lcstiinoiiidniiii csl (Miiiiiii, (|iiac
t|(»C(Mil, crciiliiriis (li(M sacnis, vcl saiiclas |irn|tltM-
rolatioiKMiiiidnis sacriis.Kxod :i. /yOci/Ni/i r/KoM/oM,
/('»'/'(» S(//i('^icsf:|)i(iplcr;ui^;<'liscilii'<'l|triics(Milia 111.
K\od. \1. (liciliir dics 1'ascliiic. dics saiicliic cl \i'
iioi'iil)ilis proptcr si^Miiliciilioiiciii , ct (|iiiii diMliiMi-
lii iM'iil cnlliii diviiio. I']\(id. 2S. dii iiiilnr vcslcs sii-
c(M'doliiin saiiclac propliM' Ciiiidcin caiissaiii: Isaiiic
II. scpiilclii iiin Clirisli ^'loriosniii. '1. Tini. .'l. di-
cimliir Scripliiriio sacnic lit(M'iic: Ah infanlia, iii-
(liiil. S(/c/'(/s lilcras nosli. (lor lit(M'iic illac dicuiiiiir
sacriic, iiisi (|iiiii si^^iiii sunl rcriiui siuiiiriiiu ? \i'v.
soliiiu liUMiis. simI cliain vcrlia ipsa proUilii. vciic-
riiri. cousncvuuus, priicsiMliin noiiKMi, Jcsiis; cl
('Viin^M'liiiin audiimis sliiulcs dclcdo capilc, imiiio
ctiiiui luininilMis acccnsis. (piiimvis, in inciidic,iil
llicronyimis iirobal lih. iii Vi^,'iliiiiiliiiiu.Al iiua^iiiics
(llirisli cl siinclorum suiil cliiuii insliluac iid s\'^u\-
licaiuliis cl rcpriicsiMiliiudiis rcs ^iiciiis, (Mir cr;,M)
cas hononirci iioii liccal? Nam rciii simcUmi psse,
lioc i|)so (|uo(i siiuclii csl viMiciidiiUMu, piilot ox il-
lis v(M'bis l']\od. 12. />/Vs prinui. crii sancla, cl
scpUma cadoni rcli<iinni' vcncrabHia. TUi vidos
pro oodoiu accipi, rcin saiiclam cl rcligiosc vcnc-
rabilcm.
Sccuiulo, probiilur c\ coiicilis Ecclcsine JUibc-
miis in primis canoncm 82. scxlae synodi, ubi di-
cnntur imagiucs voncriibilcs; lamolsi cnim isli ca-
iioiics noii sinl iirmac aucloriUilis, Uuucii islc oa-
non semper rccoplus Uiil ab Ecclcsia, cl tcslalur
ut minimum usum Ecclcsiao anli(iuac. Dciudc lia-
bcnms synodum romauam sub Grc^orio III. cpi-
vscoporum Umc millo pro imaj^inibus cclcbraUmi,
anno IXi. juxla Sigoberlum, in clironico. Itoni
synodum babitom villa gouliliaccnsi, anno 700.
juxta Sipcborlum. vel 7G7. juxla Ailoncm, in ca
dc imaginibus aclum. cl admonili Grncci, ul cum
aliis piis de imaginibus scnlirc vellcnt, ul Paulus
Aemilius lostatur lib. 2. Rursus aliam syuodum
pro imaginibus llomae celobnilam sub Stepliano
III. anno 7(»S. juxla Sigcbcrtum, cujus synodi me-
minit aIi(]uolios Adrianus in lib. dc imaginibus ad
Carolum.
Post annuni dcinde 788. seplima synodus act. 7.
<iolinivil. imagincs csse vencraudas, nou quidom
cullu lalriao, sod honore illo. quo eliam prosequi-
niur sacras literas.sacra vasa etc. testis Paulus dia-
conus, Cedrenus.Zonaras etc. Est autcm hoc oon-
ciiium cjusmodi. ul nullo modo dubitari possit,
quin generale cl logilinuim Uieril. INani habuit in
primis legatos romani ponlificis, et trium aliorura
patriarcharum, Alcxandriae. Auliochiae. Ilierosoly-
uiac. necnon palriarcham coslantiuopolitauum, o-
uines consentientes, ut ex subscriploribus palet.
Praeterea adfuerunl episcopi 350. tesle Oedreno,
idest, plures quam in priiua, secunda, vol terlia
synodo gcuoridi. Praclcrca conscnsil iinperalor
ConslanUuus. Ad hacc dispulalum csl acritcr, cl
diii iilj.ili^ III iiii!(liu(ii ScripluriH , cotic.iliin iit l'ii-
IriliiiH. Si cr(((i iilliiiii cal cuiiciliuiii jjttiieralc lui{i*
tiiiiiim, ccitc lioc cHl.
Ncipic ol)Hliit,(pi(t)l coiitriiriiKii dii.iiiliir nliiliiinHO
cuiicilia coiisl.uitiiiopdlil.iiM |ir.ii'iMMli*iili<i nl fr.iii-
corordiiMiso HiMjinMiH. Niiiii cliiimii illii uiiiiiia fui»-
s(Mil |c;'iliiii;i, tamcn ccdcrc dcbcriMit iiKiK!iio;
ipii.i Ikic |»liMi;iriiini iM (^'ciici.ili;, ill.i pat liciiliiria
fiKMiiiil. Kst oiiiiii ri;^iilii Aiii;iistiiii lil». 2 (lc, ho-
plisiiK), ciip. !t. coiKMliii piirtii uliiri:i pliMKiriis nIiic
diiliitalioKi; rcdcrc dchcrc. 1' iilssc, iiutciu ilUi Inii
piirliciiliirni.piitot; iiiiiii iii coiiHtiiiitiiiopolit.ino hiil)
J.iMKio tioit UiiTiiiit vocali. ncc iKiriicruiil tilli pa-
triiircli;i(; c^ccplo liiMiii.iiK) p;ilri.irchii coii ^tiiiiiiiio-
polililtlO, (|lll I.IIIKMI tlOII COII.s(MI-ilt,Cl idco dcp')Si-
tiis liiil.
In ciiiicilio coiisl;inliiK)|iidil;iiK) miI) (iiiUilaiiliiK)
Copiouynio nou suiil vociili.iicc iiilhiciiiiil.ncc pcr
se. iicc piM' lcgalus romatius. ahixatidritius, aiitio-
(•licniis, lii(M'osolyiuiliitiiis p;ilri;ircli;K', scd soliis
psoudocpiscopus, (jiKMii li;KM('lici dcposilo s. (ior-
iiiiiiK) p:ilri;irch;iui Ummm;iiiI. Tcsliinliir Ikicc Cc/lrc-
niis ct /oiKiriis in vitii Constimtini Copruiiyiiii, cl
ipsi oli;im Magdchurgciisos. Cciiliir. S. cnf». !).<;(. I.
■'■».■»1. (d P;iuUis (]i;i(:<)iiiis,ipii tiiiic vi\cl)al. Iib. 22.
rcruni romaniirum.
Dcnitpic IVaticofordicnsi; oiniiiiim jiidicio parli-
cuUuc Uiil.ol (si V(M'uui osl^ipiod (^(Miluiialorcs <li-
cunt) adfucruiit (luidctn lcg;iti romani ponlilicis,
sed synodo, assonsi non siint.
Ad liiicc accodit.(|uo(l cx cvcnlu colligiliir nicac-
nuin Uiissc lcgilimuin.uaiu soluin illiid landcni ob-
tinuil. Imagiucs euim in lcmplis pcrmnnscrunl, cl
suuiu honcrom in Kcclcsia scmpor habuorunl: iiii-
mo cliatn sidius hujus concilii acta c.xslanl, rcli'|u;i
tria mo\ evauucruiil, el, solum in historiis aliijiiii
coriitn meiiioria scrvala esl.quod idcm accidilpri-
tno nicacno. Eucruul cnim pliuima coiicilia cclc-
brala ab hiioreticis conlra nicacnum I. scd ipsa
cuin suis erroribus cvanncrunl.sola fidcs el caiio-
nes nicacni ad nos porvcncrunt. Habctnus praelc-
rcn YUI. syiuxlum geuoralem. acl. ult. c=iuon .*>.
synodum tridentinam, sess. 2.>.
Terlio. probatur cx Palribus. F^asilius in Julia-
num.ul cital Adrianus papa in epistola ad impcni-
lores, in VII. synodo, act. 2. HistoriaSy inquit,
iniaginum illorum honoro, ct ^uilani adoro hoc
cnim nobis tradituni o sunctis apostolis, non csl
^'trokibcnduni clc.
Chrysostomus in lilurgia: Sacerdos, inquit, ad
imar/incni Cliristi capnt inclinat.
Ambrosius.serm 10 in psalm. 118. Oj/t.inquit.
imaginem coronal imperaloris.uliqne illwn ho-
norai, cujus imagincm coronavit, el qui stafum
contempserit iniperatoris. inrperalori iitiquc fc,-
cisse vidclur injuriam elc.
Augustinus lib. 3. Trinit. cap. 10. loquens de si-
gnis sacris. quales sunt imaoines.Iilcrae et sacra-
menta: Sed quia. inquit, liaec Iwniinibus nola
sunt. quia per nomines sunt.honorem tamquam
reiigiosapossunt liaberc. stuporem tamquam mi-
ra. non possunt c/c.ubi nomin:ilim ponil scrpcnlcra
aeueum inler ea, quae merentur honoremrcligio-
sum.Item lib.S.dc docliiua clirisliana.cap.O, dicil,
4S8
DE IM.VGINIBUS SANCTORUM
eos servipe sab signls, qui lionoranl ulilia signa,
nec sciunl quid significent^quiiles cran olim Judci,
Qiii autem veneranlur utilia,et sciunt quid signifi-
cent, dicit eos non tam lionorare ipsum signum
qnam rem signilicatam,et ideo liberos esse. Quod
autem imagincs sanclorum sint utilia signn divini-
lus instiluta: et proinde veneratione digna tam a
servis, quam a liberis. patel ex lib. 2. de doctrina
christiana, cap. 25. ubi dicit, picluras et slatuas
perlinere ad superflua instiluita hominum, exce-
plis illis quae ob finem bonum suo loco et terapo-
re proponuntur ab eo,qui habet aucloritalem. Ta-
les autem esse Christi et sanctorum imagines, cer-
tissimus cst.Denique lib. 10. Confess. cap. 34 re-
prehenditpictores etsimllesartifices, quod neces-
sarium, et moderatum usum, et piam signiticatio-
nem longe aliquando trasgrediantur. Ubi adraittit,
quasdam esse pioturas necessarias,quasdam etiam
piam significationera habentes,et proinde venera-
biles.
Paulinus natali 10. s. Felicis, de imaginibus in
templo depictis, sic ait:
Miremurque sacras veterum monumenla ftguras,
Ubi cum sacras vocat figuras,honorandas etiam do-
cet; res enim sacrae omnes honorandae sunt.
Gregorius lib. 7. epist. o ad Januarium episco-
pum Caralitanum, loquens de iraagine b. Mariae,
et cruce quae posita fuerant in synagoga Judaeo-
rum,quas jubet inde auferri: His,mqml,hortamur
aftatibus et suhlata exinde cum ea qua dignum
est veneraiionc, imagine atque cruce, debeaiis
quod violenier ablaium est reformare. Et. lib. 7.
epist. 53. ad Secundinum,docel imaginem sacram
honorandam etiam prostratione ad terram, non ta-
men ut Deum: Et nos, inquit, non quasi ajiie di-
vinitatem, anle illam prosternimur eic.
Daraascenus lib. 4. cap.17.de fide.dicit esse apo-
stolicam traditionem, cultum crucis et iraaginum.
Praeterea crucem,idest,crucifixi iraaginem fuis-
se in Ecclesia semper honoratam,certissimum est;
nam Lactantius in carmine de passione Domini
Flecte genu , inquil , lignwmque cTUcis venerabile
adora.
Et Sedulius lib. 5. carminis paschalis
Neve quis ignorely inquit, species crucis esse co-
lendarn-
A.rabrosiu8 oratione deobilu Theodosii; Sapien-
ier, inquit, Helena egit, quae crucem Christi in
capile reguni levavii et locavit, ut crux Christi
in regibus adoretur.El lib.de incarnationis domi-
nicac sacramenlo, cap. 7. Numquid, inquit, cum
in Chrislo imaginem Dei,crucemque veneramur,
dividimus eum ?
Hicronymus in vita Vau\a^:Prostrata,mf]u\l,ante
crucem, quasi pcndentem Donmium cerneret a-
dorabat.
Alhrnasius quijest. 16. ad Auliochum,dicit,Chri-
stianos imaginem crucis cclere potius quam lan-
ceae, vel columnae, et sirailium instrumcntorum
passionis dominicae.quia si gentiles accuscntnos,
quod colamus ligoura,possuraus mox separare duo
ligna crucis ab invicem, cl eo modo sublata figu-
ra crucis, conculcare duo illa ligna,ut ostendamus
nos non ligna sed imaginem crucifixi vcnerari.De-
nique Patres lestantur,Christianos semper accusa-
tos a gputilibus, quod colerunt crucem quae est
imagoCrucifixi.
Tertullianus in apologelico, cap. 16. dicit Chri-
stianos appellatos religiosos crucis:neque ipse hoc
negalesseverum.BIinutiusFelixin Octavio respon-
detgentilibus objicientibusadorationera crucis.Nee
obstat quod ipse dicit: ISon crucem neque adora-
mus, neque optamus; nara loquitur de adoratione
propria Deo, de qua accusabantur. Interim ex ob-
jectione constat crucem aliquo modo honoratam a
Christianis Julranus apudCyrillum lib. 6.idemob-
jicit. At certe nunquam gentilibus inmentemve-
nisset, nt nostris objicerunt adorationem erucis,
nisi vidissent primis illis et sanclissimis Christia-
nis crucem summae venerationi fuisse.
Ridicula est autem responsio Magdeburgensium,
qui ex concilio francofordiensi Cent. 8. cap. 9 in fi-
ne dicunl,non esse eandem ralionem crucis et ima-
ginumaliarum:naraChristusnosrederaitcruce,non
imagine. Ista enim responsio primo jugulat ipsos
Centuriatores, ipsienimnonadmiltuntcrucempos-
se honorari.Deinde imperita solutio est,nam Chri-
stus non redemit nos ista, cruce, quam raodo au-
reara, raodo argenteara, raodo lapideam, modo de-
pictam in labula, vel signatam in aere veneramur,
sed illa una lignea, cujus imago est,quan1 venera-
mur.Nec enim habemus ubique crucem illam Christi
veram,et mullo minus eam veteres habebaut tem-
poreTertuIliani et Minulii,cum posteareperlames-
seconslet temporibus Magni Constnntini.Magis au-
tem redemit non Christus corpore suo,quam cruco
lignea. Ouare si licet venerari imaginem crucis,
mullo magis imaginem corporis. Argumentum
quartum,a rairaculis. Deus enim per imagines Chri-
sti et sanctorum multa miracula operatur, ex quo
intelligimus placere illi, ut imagines honorenlur.
Illustre in primis est, quod Eusebius refert lib. 7.
histor. cap. 14. ubi testatur, ex basi statuae Chri-
sli aeneae ab Haemorrhoissa positae apud Panea-
dem, herbam quandam omnibus incognitam oriri
solitara, quae ubi crevisset usque ad firabriam
imaginis Christi, eamque alligisset, vim haberet
omnes morbosdepellendi;quod etiam refert Theo-
phylactus in cap. 0. Matth. Addit Sozomenus lib.
5. hist. cap. 20. de eadem imagine aliud miracu-
lum. quod videlicet cum Julianus apostala statu-
am Christi indo amovisset, et suam in eodem loco
posuisset, mox ignis de coelo statuam Juliani di-
scerpsit, et caput a reliquo corpore divulsit plane
ad eum modum, quo olim accidil idolo Dagon, 1.
Reg. 5.
Non est autem praetereundum hoc loco insigno
mendacium Centuriatorum: quod enim Juliani sta-
luac accidit. id illi tribuunt etiam statuae Salvato-
ris. Sic enim loquuntur Ceut. 4. cnp. 13. col.
1447. Videtur, inquiunt, eiiam ea fnlmine con-
fracta csse, ut cxstaret iesiimonium, superstitio-
nem illam, qua slatuis vis aliqua tribuitur, Deo
non placerc.Et ibidem superstitiosara vocant her-
i.iiii::! SKCi Milis
4K'I
Ikui iIIiiis viiii, i|iimc iiiorlios diiiiics cuimIiiiI. Al
niiii «liniut, Jiiiiiuiiii'lii C.lirlsli fiilitiliio (lisjcrliiiii,
iiiriiliiiiiliir iiprilissiiiii- ('iiiitiM llilciu (iiiiiiiiitn lii*
slniiconiiii. (iiiiii Jiitciii iiiiriiciilii tcsliiti.ssiiii.i <',liii-
sli. sii|icisliliiiiii (li.iliiiliciK^ iiilscribiiiil, iiiiil.iiiliir
s(*i'il)iis (U pliiirisiiciis, ()iii ('jiisiloiii Olirisli nnr.i-
(Mihi Mi nccl/.(>liiili llcrl, c.iliiiiiiiiiitiiiiiliir.
Miilla iiiiii iiiir.K^iil.i pcr iiiiii^iiics .1 Dco riictii lc-
|(i possiiiil iipiiil ipsos Mii|^(lcliiir^'i'iisrs (IimiI. (>. cl
scipiciililiiis. ciip. \'.\. ipii liiiiicii rcspoiidciit iiil
Ikm: iir^iiiiiciiliiiii c\ liliris ('.iiroliiiis, iioii S(.'i|ai,
iiiiii^iiKS css(< iiiioiiiiKliis, ipiiii iiiiriiciilii fiiciiitil.
niiiltii ciiiiii siiiil iiliii.jicr i)iiiic Uc.ws tiiiriiciilii r.icit,
(piiK* tiiiiuMi Moii iuloriiiitiir. INiiiii Klisiiciis pcr^piiis
.lordiiMis ciiriivil lcpriiiii ^.liiiiiiiii.' Clirisliis spulo
(Uinivil ciiocuin ; iu;c liiincn iuloninuis iKpitiin vcl
spiiliiiM, ipiiii (>liiiiii pcr lioiiiiiics iiiiilos iili(|iiiiiido
liicU l>cus iiiiraciilii. cl liiiiicii oos lioiiiiiics oiiini
lionor» indignos judiranius.
Ilcspondco: SiiccliiMdiim cssi^ liiiciii niiriiculo-
nini; id (Mimm, ipiod MMniculo coiiliriiiiilur, Dci ti;-
stiinoniiiiM liiilicl..liiiii Klisiicus cl Olirisliis iion ad-
hihucrunt iiquiitn vcl spulnni iii iiiiriKMilis, ul u-
(piiiin vcl spuluiM luiiioriuMMil, scd ul oslcndcrcnl,
illc (piidoiii sc cssc propluMiiiM Dci, iste iiutcin se
vcru-iM Dci Filiuin. Siiiiilitcr lioMiinos inuli non fii-
ciiiMl niiracMla, mI so ac vilam s^iiiiM comiiuMidcnl,
scd tidcin. Quan^ iion ipsi, scd lidcs, (juuin prac-
dicanl, vcncraiula esl.
Miracnla aulcm pcr iniagincs facta, idco facla
sunl, nt proharent jic sancircnl itna}^inuin cnllum.
iNani ciir, quacso, ignis coelcslis disccrpsil slatu-
am Juliani. ni^^i ul vindicarel injuriam factam sla-
tuac Clirisli? Kl cur ah imaginc a .ludaeis confos-
sa, sanj,Miis prodiit, qui infirmos plurimos curavit,
ul esl apud Alhanasium libro de passionc imagi-
nis Domini, (Iregoriuin Turonenscm de gloria
marlyrum.cap. 21. Rhegin. in chronico anni 804.
nisi ul osleniicrct se honorare id quod Judaeicon-
tumeliu afliciebanl?
Praetcrea benelicia, quac per imagines a Dco
conferunlirr, cur illis dunlaxal conferunlur. qui
imagincs honorant, el qui existimant Deo placere
cultum imaginum? IVam illud miraculum factum E-
dcssae per imaginem Chrisli.ul rcfert Evagrius lib.
4. cap. 20. faclum esl in salulc eorum, qui Chri-
sliiraaginem venerabantur. Scribil eliam Zonaras
in vila Michiielis Balbi, cuin Leo Armenius ima^i-
nes persequeretur,Glium ejus Sabbatium Constan-
tinum qui mutus eral, accessissQ ad staluam s.
(iregorii nazianzeni, el sancUim ipsum menle pre-
calum, loquendi usum divino miraculo rccepisse.
At si cultus imaginuni esscl idololalria, Deus cer-
lc tum maximc idololalriue favere visus fuissel.
Scribil Paulus diaconus lib. 21.rerum roraanarura,
cum Iconomachu3 quidam conspecta stalua b.Vir-
ginis, lapidcs in eam jecisset, eamquecomrainuis-
sel , per quietem virginem ipsam ab eo visam,
lerribililer his verbis comminantero: In capul tu-
um /toc /ecisfi.Deinde Paulo post eundem ingenli
lapide percussum, alque ita contrilura esse,ut ipse
slaluam comminueral.
Argumeulum quinlum duci potest a siiniii, hoc
modo: horao dignus esl veneralione, nuia imaso
l)ri c.sl, cr^'o cl caclcriui litrinincH Chrinli vcl n.tii-
cloriiiti (li^Miii siinl vi;iicriili«iiiiMpiod (Miim iiiii liiiit*
yiiii coiivciili (piiii iiiiii^'o csi. iil iicc(ssiiri(» oiitiil-
liiis iiiiii^iiiiliiis coiiM iiil. KnMi iiuliMii liominciti
vctii;r.il)il(Mii (piiili iiiis Di;i csl iitingo, Cyrtllus it
Aii;;iisliiiits lcsliiitliir.
Cvrilliis Ciilcchcsi 12. sir iiit: /»Ma«/" ////»i''X /cr-
rrjii »-('r/i,s Itiiiitiniliir, »yU(/n/o iiiii<its rntiinnilui i-
iiiiuiii ih'i:* AiitJiiHliiiiis (rpisl. 20.1. 11(1 .Miixtitiittilitl C-
piscopiiiii !>iiiiiiiisiiiriiiii. cx|ili<-iil.( iir iti liliilocpi-
pislol.K) di\cril: llimnrahili Irntri, vA iiil si; iioii
liononiri' cpiscopiiUiiii cjiis. scd Uouotnrri liiiaj»!-
nciti Di;i, (piiim iii illo scicbat cssc, cutn lioiiiu uh-
scl.
ilcspondcnt .Mat^dcliiirKensc» (w lili. Ciirolino.
iirgiiiiuMilum iiihil coiK liiilcrc, ciiui noii siitl simi-
lcs (lcpicliic imagiiics liiimitiis, iit iiiiiu/o Dci cst;
imugo ciiim Dci csl Iti iiuiilc.sinMliliido iiiilcm iii-
lcr homincm ct piciuni» «sl in «'xloriori llgura.
Impcrilc; iiiim iir-^Miiiiciitiiiii proccdit 11 siiiiili pro-
porlioiic, ut (Mriin lioiiio sc liahcl iid Dciiiii, ciijiis
csl iiiiago, ila se hiihcl picliira ad Christum, citjus
cst imago; si er;,'0 homo Idco csriiotiorahilis, ipii.i
cst imiigo rci hoMorahilts, ccrte cliam imii^ro «licl.i
csl honorabilis, (piiii iiiiano csl rci honor.ibilis.
llcspondent se« undo: llotnincm non adornri sal-
lem rcligiose, sed soliim civililcr. Al licct honio,
ul rcx, vcl impcralor lionorfjlur civililcr,tamcri ho-
mo,ul imago Dci honoralur roligiosc;caussa aulcin
cur honorctur sacra res, ost. qucmadmodiim «pii
honorat hominem, quia sanclus, vcl [irophcla, vcl
saccrdos, vel cpiscopus est. certe religiose hono-
rat, non civiliter, ul supra diximus.
Argumentum scxtum ilcm a simili. imago regis
est venerabilis civili quodam honore. crgo imiigi-
nes Chrisli el sanctorum sunt honorabiles cullu
rcligioso. Elconfirmari potesl hoc argumenliim cx
insigni fraude Juliani apostatae, quam describiifit
Grcgorius nazianzenus oralione 1. in Julianuin.Pa-
ulus diaconus in vita Juliani. el alii; erat in more
posilum. ut imagines imperatorum ab omnibus a-
dorarenliir, id quod etiam Chrisliani faciebunt,
quippe qui sciebant solura civilem adoralioncm il-
lam fuisse, qualera etiara ipsi imperalori licet e-
Ihnico deferebant. Julianus igitur utcogeret Chri-
slianos sallem per crrorem adorare idola, jubebat
suam imaginem ila depingi, ut siraul pingerelur
Juppiler d"e coelo coronam et purpuram impera-
tor delerens: pingerenlur eliam Mercurius et Mars
in impcratorem respicientes, ut eo modo indica-
rel, se sapientera el forlem esse. Ilaque seipse in-
ler Deos depiclum proponebat, ul Chrisliani de
more veneranles imaginem iraperaloris, simul ve-
nerarenlur imagincs falsorura Deoruni. Monel au-
lem Nazianzenus fuisse venia dignos Christianos
simpliciores, qui non advertebanf dolum, nec pu-
tabant sc adorare aliud, quam regis iraaginera.
Respondent Cenluriatoresloco notalo, non esse
haec similia,quia imago regis adoratur propter ab-
sentiam regis, qui non polest esse simul ubique in
toto regno: Deus aulem ubique est praeseus. At in
primisnon quaerimus, cur adoretur iraago regis.
sed ex co, quod adoratur, colligimus. recte ado-
rari imaginem Chrisli. Praelerea Chrislus, ut ho-
490
DE IM.VGINIBUS S.VISXTORUM
mo, non cst ubique, nec sancti sunt ubique. Deni-
(luc falsuin esl, imagiues principu.ai nou adorari
praeseule principe; iiumo sicul coulumeliaui face-
re imagiui gravius peccaluui esl praeseule priuci-
pe, quaui abseule; ila eliam houorare iraaginem
praeseute pruicipe, res est illi gralissiraa.
Argumeuium seplunum a conlrario: Imago est
capax iujuriac el conlumeliae.ergo et iionoris at-
(lue cultus. Eusebius lib. 9. bisl. cap. 10. scribit
iudedccus Maximini, imagines cjus 1'uisse vel de-
jeclas, vel atris coloribus ibedalas. Idem de ima-
giuibus Domitiani scribit Svetouius.
Tbeodosius quoque ( oplimus alioqui etpientis-
simus princeps ) cum Antiocbeni imaginem uxoris
cjus dejecissent, ila iratus est, ut parum abfuerit,
quiu lolam Anliocbiam everlcrit. Exstantde bac
re duae orationes Cbrysostomi, idest, sccunda et
lerlia ad populum Anliocbenum, (juibus deplorat
scelus illud iu Tlieodosium conimissum. Vidc et-
iam Tbeodoretum lib. 5. cap. 10. bisloriae. Deni-
que Julianus apostala Cbrisli slaluam noii dcjecis-
set, nisi eo modo Cbrislo injuriam licri credidis-
set. IVeque Deus Juliani slaluam lulmine percus-
sisset, nisi ab eo injuriam acoepissel, et nisi ad
Juliani contumeliara id pertinere visuin esset.
Argumenlum oclavum, idola geutium merito
execramur et confringimus, ct binc laudatur vnlde
Tbeodosius, quod, tesie Tbeodorelo lib. 5. cap.
20. historiae.jusserit idula ubique destrui. At cer-
le id non fit, uisi ralione signilicalionis, quia sunt
imagines falsorum Deorum; igitur e conlrario iraa-
gines Cbristi et sanclorum. quia res vcre bonas et
sanctas significant, bonorabiles sunt.
Argumentura nonum, ab improbitate Iconoraa-
chorum, et pielate eorum, qui iraagines colunt et
coluerunt. Nam Iconomachi, ulosteudiraus 2. cap.
disputationis, fuerunt omnes aut Judaei, aut Sa-
niaritani, aut Mahumelani, aut Necromantici, aut
manifeste haerelici, quos impios esse negare ne-
mo potest. At qui imagines defenderunt, fuerunt
sancti viri et docli, ul Gregorius et Adrianus sura-
mi pontilices, Gerraanus et Tarasius episcopi con-
stantinopolitani, Joannes damascenus, Jlelbodius,
Leontius, Jonas aureliauensis, Paulus diacouus,
et alii pii doctique viri omnium consensu. Non est
autem credibile, Deum per hosles suos polius,
quam per amicos el sanctos Ecclesiam docere vo-
luisse.
Quid, quod ipse etiara diabolus odit imagines?
Nara ut in Prato spiriluali cap. 4o. legimus: ErC'
mitae cuidara conquerenli, quod spirilus fornica-
lionis illum vexans, cum illo consenuisset,nec ab-
scedere vellet, apparuit diabolus, ac promisit se
discessurura, si is iraaginem b. Virginis, quain iu
cubiculo babcbat, non amplius se veneraturum
polliceretur. Sed forte diabolus fingit odium in
unagines, ut bomines decepti magis eas colanl. At
si itaest, cur diabolus tam saepe po.r Judaeos et
31ahumetanos procuravit imaginum eversionem ct
confraclioucm?
Argumcnlum decimum, ab infelici exilu Ico-
nomacborum, et felicilate eorum qui imagines
defenderunt. i\ain iu primis tempore Leonis Ico-
nomacbi, posleaquara imagincs sanctorum in foro
constantinopolitano crcmatae fuerunt, orta est pe-
stilentia tam gravis, ut Conslantinopoli treceiila
hominum millia iuterirftnt. Vide chronicum Mat-
thaci Palmerii, anno 741. Item eadem occasione a-
misit idem Leo el succosseres ejus imperium Ila-
liae. nec unquam amplius recupcrare poluerunt.
Vide Zonarara el Paulura diaconum in vila ejus-
dem. Eo tempore rex arabum Ezidcs, qui imagi-
nes Chrislianorum confringi jusserat, non super-
yixit uuum annum, cuin tamen .30, anni promissi
illi fuissent ab eo, qui illura ad Iconomachiara in-
citavii.
Tempore Constanlini Copronymi inauditae cala-
mitales orienlem invaserunt; nara lerraemolus in-
geutes integras urbes dejecerunt, et raulta raillia
hominum occiderunt. Item pestis gravissima orla
esl, ila utvineae, horli, putei, aliaqua loca vix suf-
ficerenl sepelieudis hominibus. Et ne dubitarelur
quam ob caussam ista acciderent.simul ubique in
veslibus hominura, in velis sacris, indumentis sa-
cerdotalibus divinitus existebant cruces parvae,
quasi oleo desiguatae:Deus enim indicare volebat,
velle se ubique conspici crucis imaginem, quam
Constantinus Copronymus eo tempore omniuo o-
bliterare conlendebal. Ad haec tam horribile fri-
gus accessil, ut uiare Ponticum ad centum millia-
ria congelarelur.cssetque glanies profunditatis 30.
cubitorum cui supervenit nix quae etiam in gla-
ciem versa est.ad altiludinem 20.cubitorum supcr
aliam glaciem 30. cubitorum. Paulo post coepit
solvi glacies, et fragmenta iugentia inslar magno-
rum moulium, vel insularum, magno impetii di-
scurrcbanl, quaedam etiam ad Constantinopolim
allisa parlein moenium, et vicinas domos everle-
runt. Testatur autem Paulus diaconus se vidisse
haec oinuia. Eodem anno tanta siccilas posteu
fuit, ut fluraina, fonles, pulei fere omnes siccaren-
lur; ila ul orancs intelligerent et dicerent, propler
irapietatem in Deum et sanclos, quara exercuerant
Iconomacbi, ista omnia fieri.
Dcnique obstinatus imperator Conslantinus ifa
periit, ut in morte clamaret, sed adhuc vivum igni
inexliguibili tradilum comburendum. Teslis Zona-
ras et Paulus diaconus in ejus vila. E conlrario Pi-
pinus el Carolns filius ejus. qui cum romano pon-
tifice imngines defendebant, ad regnum et imperi-
uni provecli felicissime vixcrunt, et rcgnaverunt,
ut ex iisdcm auctoribus patet.