Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 13: The Arguments against the Cult of Images Are Answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 13. The Arguments of the Adversaries Are Answered
It remains now to answer the arguments of the adversaries. To Calvin's first I say that in those Scriptures idolatry is rebuked, that is, the cult of images which are held for gods, or through which those are worshipped as gods who truly are not.
To that proof by which Calvin tries to show that the Jews and Gentiles adored God in idols, I say that in Calvin's words many lies are contained. The first is that the Jews and Gentiles did not call their idols gods. For in book 1, chapter 11, section 10 of the Institutes, bringing in the Catholics answering him, he says: “We do not, they say, call them our gods”; then he answers: “Neither did the Jews or the Gentiles of old call them so, and yet the prophets everywhere do not cease to reproach them with fornication with wood and stone.” But if the Jews did not call their idols gods, whence is that of Exodus 32, “Make us gods, that may go before us,” and, “These are thy gods, O Israel”? Whence that of Micha, Judges 18, “You have taken away my gods which I have made me”? And 3 Kings 12, of the two calves of Jeroboam, “Behold thy gods, O Israel.”
And that simulacra were called gods by the heathens, no one is ignorant who has read anything in the poets or even in the orators. But one place now suffices from Daniel 5: “They drank wine,” he says, “and praised their gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, and of wood and of stone.” And another from the book of Wisdom, chapter 13: [they called] “gods the works of the hands of men.” Could the divine Scripture refute Calvin's lie more clearly? [The top of page 491 is merged across columns in the scan; this paragraph and the one before are rendered from what reads.]
The second lie is that the Jews, when they made the golden calf, did not forget the true God. For Calvin's words fight plainly and head on with the words of Scripture. For Calvin, book 1, chapter 11, section 9, says thus: “Nor were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember that it was God who had brought them out of the land of Egypt.” But Scripture, Deuteronomy 32: “Thou hast forsaken the God that begot thee, and hast forgotten the Lord that created thee.” And Psalm 105: “They made also a calf in Horeb, and they adored the graven thing; they forgot God, who saved them, who had done great things in Egypt, wondrous works in the land of Cham, terrible things in the Red Sea.” And Jeremias, chapter 2: “They have walked after vanity,” that is, after idols, “and they have not said: Where is the Lord that made us come up out of the land of Egypt?” What clearer?
The third lie is that the Jews in all their idols wished to worship the one true God. For so Calvin says, book 1, chapter 11, section 8: “They knew indeed that he was God, whose power they had experienced; but they wished to know God, the leader of their journey, by an image going before them.” And in section 9 he says: “The Jews were persuaded that under such simulacra they worshipped the eternal God, the one and true Lord of heaven and earth.”
But I will prove this is a lie. First, because if the Jews wanted only a bodily sign, there was no need to make a calf; for they had the cloud and the pillar of fire, which led them better than a calf, which had to be carried. They were seeking, then, not a bodily sign, but a bodily god.
Second, because no cause can be given why they made a calf rather than a sheep or something else, except that they were used to seeing the greatest god of the Egyptians, which is a black calf marked with white spots, which they call Apis; of which Cicero, book 1 On the Nature of the Gods, and Augustine, book 18 of the City of God, chapter 5, and all the writers, Herodotus, Diodorus, Plutarch, Pliny, Suidas, Eusebius and so on. The Jews, then, because they had seen a calf in the highest honour in Egypt, thought that the very God of heaven was that calf, and so set up an image of a calf to him.
Third, because in Josue, the last chapter, the choice is given them whether they would serve the gods which Thare and Nachor served, or the idols of the Amorrhites, or the God of Israel. Therefore they did not adore, or think they adored, the God of Israel in the idols. For otherwise they could have answered that the choice was foolish, since in the very idols of the Amorrhites and of Thare and Nachor they worshipped the true God. The same is confirmed from 3 Kings 18, where Elias says: “How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” Where Baal is clearly set against the true God. When then the Jews worshipped the idol Baal, surely they did not worship the true God. Add that of Deuteronomy 32: “They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not.” Add also that the Jews would be falsely accused so often of serving strange gods if in idols they had always worshipped the true God.
But, you will say, how then is it said of the calf, Exodus 32, “These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt”? How too is it said of the calf in the same place, “Tomorrow is the solemnity of the Lord,” YHWH? And Judges 17: “I have consecrated this silver to the Lord, that my son may make a graven god”? To the first I answer that by those words it is signified that the Jews thought they had received the benefit of deliverance from Egypt not from the God of Moses, but from Apis, the god of the Egyptians. To the second and third there is a double answer. One is Cajetan's, on chapter 32 of Exodus: that the very name of the Lord was truly given to the idol by the idolatrous Jews; and that perhaps Scripture signifies this, Wisdom 14, when it says, “They gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood.” For the one name of God that is incommunicable is this, YHWH; for the others are sometimes given to creatures too.
You will say: But that name YHWH is the proper name of the God of Israel; therefore it could not be communicated. I answer: Perhaps those Jews who believed there were several true gods did not think this was a proper name, but a common one. Perhaps too they communicated that name by likeness. For as the Egyptians are wont to call the Nile their Jupiter, and we say of a valiant man, This is our Achilles, of a wise man, This is our Cato, so the Jews said of the calf, This is our YHWH; let Moses have his own.
The other answer is that of Abulensis, Cajetan and others on chapter [17?] of Judges, who say that there were two kinds of idols among the Hebrews. One without the name of any certain god, such as was the idol of Micha, Judges 17, and perhaps the golden calf which Aaron made, Exodus 32, and which Jeroboam renewed, 3 Kings 12; for Scripture does not call the calf the god Moloch or Baal and so on, but always says, “These are thy gods, O Israel.”
The other kind was with a certain name, as Baal, Moloch, Astaroth, Chamos and so on, as can be seen in 3 Kings 11 and elsewhere. They say, then, and not improbably, that of the first kind it can be admitted that the Jews thought they worshipped the true God in the idol. But that in this too they erred most gravely, both because they sacrificed to the idol and believed that a divine power was in the idol itself, and also because they imagined God to be bodily and like the idol itself. From which it followed that they thought they worshipped the true God, but in truth worshipped only their own invention; as the Manichees said they worshipped God the Father and his Son Christ, but because by God they understood a bodily light, and by Christ this bodily sun, they had nothing of God and of Christ but the name.
And that the Jews thought God bodily and like the idol, according to this opinion, is plain from the golden calf. For they made God in the form of a calf for this reason, because they had seen a calf in the highest honour in Egypt; for from that they thought that the highest God was that calf. And in this way too the Jews truly forgot God, though they did not think they forgot him. But in the idols of the second kind it is so certain that the Jews neither worshipped nor thought they worshipped the God of Israel, that even Peter Martyr, a Calvinist, admits it, on chapter 17 of Judges.
The fourth lie is that the heathens did not think the idols were gods. For so Calvin says, book 1, chapter 11, section 9: “Nor are the heathens to be believed so stupid as not to understand that God was other than wood and stones.” So he. But although some were not so stupid as to think that idols of wood or stone were gods, yet very many were so stupid that they truly believed that the idols themselves lived and felt and were gods. Nor was this so great a stupidity as Calvin would have it seem. For the heathens were moved to believe that the idols were gods for four causes. First, because this was told them by their priests. Second, because they saw almost the whole world believe it. Third, because by the working of the devil the idols were sometimes moved and spoke and foretold things to come, or rather seemed to move and speak; for in truth the devil moved them and spoke in them, but the people believed that they themselves truly moved and spoke. And that idols were wont to speak is plain from chapter 21 of Ezechiel and chapter 10 of Zacharias, and from Valerius Maximus, book 1, the last chapter. Fourth, because they were endowed with human form; and he who sees that his own members feel and live is easily persuaded that things like himself live and feel too, especially if he hears it affirmed by the wiser. But whatever the causes were, I prove that many of the heathens believed that the idols themselves were gods, and so that Calvin lies.
That they believed idols were gods I prove, first, from Scripture. For all the prophets labour to teach that idols of gold and silver are not gods, and prove it because they do not speak, do not see, and so on. See Isaias 40, David in Psalms 113 and 134, and Habacuc 2; but especially the letter of Jeremias, Baruch 6, where after each argument he concludes: “Whereby you may know that they are not gods.” And surely the prophets would be fools if they tried to refute what no one asserted. Besides, in Acts 19 the heathens say of Paul: “This Paul persuading hath drawn away much people, saying: They are not gods which are made by hands.” Therefore they themselves thought those were gods which are made by hands. Besides, in Jeremias 2 and Wisdom 13 and 14 Scripture says that the heathens were wont to call upon idols and commend their safety to them; and no one calls upon or prays to a simulacrum, says Augustine on Psalm 113, who does not think he is heard by it.
Second, from the Fathers. Augustine, book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 7: “I grant,” he says, “that those are sunk deeper who think the works of men are gods than those who think the works of God are.” And below: “They venerate simulacra either as gods, or as signs and images of gods.” And in letter 49 and on Psalm 113 he says that many heathens thought that the simulacra themselves lived, breathed and heard, and so were living gods, and were nourished in this error by the very likeness of the human members.
Tertullian, in the Apologetic, chapter 12, says that the gods of the heathens suffer more from the craftsmen while they are being made than the Christians suffer when they are killed for not being willing to adore them.
Eusebius, book 3 of the Preparation, chapter 15: “Hesiod,” he says, “reckons that there are thirty thousand gods on earth; but I see far more of stone and wood, the creations of men.” Lastly Cyprian, Lactantius, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Theodoret and others who write against the heathens laugh at the heathens for worshipping wood and stones as God. And what is it that Horace says, book 1 of the Satires, satire 8?
Once I was the trunk of a fig tree, a useless log,
when the craftsman, doubtful whether to make a stool or a Priapus,
chose that I should be a god.
And not only the poets, but even most learned men thought so. For Hermes Trismegistus, in Augustine, book 8 of the City of God, chapter 23, says that some gods were made by the highest God, others by men; and he says that the gods made by men are statues, to which demons are bound by a certain magic art, so that the statue is as it were the body of the god, and the spirit shut in it is the soul, and the whole idol is a god, as body and soul are a man. And Arnobius, book 1 against the Gentiles: “I used to venerate,” he says, “O blindness! simulacra lately taken out of the furnaces, gods made on anvils and with hammers.” And below: “As though a present power were in them, I fawned on them, spoke to them, and asked for benefits.” And below: “I believed that wood, stones and bones were gods, or dwelt in the matter of such things.”
See, then, reader, whether Calvin does not lie when he denies that the heathens held idols for gods.
But, he says, the heathens changed simulacra at will, and yet did not change gods. I answer that the heathens, with the same folly with which they thought that some gods could be made by the hands of men, could also believe that some gods could be destroyed by the hands of men.
But again, Calvin says, they set up many simulacra to one god. I answer that the heathens had some gods in heaven and others on earth; nor did they think it absurd that one heavenly god, as Jupiter or Apollo, should have on earth many lesser colleagues, that is, many idols of the same name.
Lastly Calvin adds: the heathens consecrated new images, and yet did not think they made new gods. I answer that it is false that the heathens did not think they made new gods, at least earthly ones.
The fifth lie is in book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 10: “The prophets,” he says, “everywhere reproach Jews and Gentiles with fornication with wood and stone for no other reason than for doing what Christians wish to have done: that God be venerated carnally in wood and stone.”
This is a lie and a most deceitful argument. For in the first place the Jews and Gentiles sacrificed to idols, as is plain of the Jews, Exodus 32 and elsewhere, and of the Gentiles, 1 Corinthians 10 and elsewhere; and this Scripture calls fornication. But Christians never sacrifice to images.
Besides, the Jews and Gentiles either thought the idols were gods, as we have shown, or at least in the idols worshipped creatures as God; which Christians do not do. And that the Gentiles in idols worshipped creatures as gods is proved. For very many in the simulacra worshipped as gods dead men, whom they themselves believed to be dead, but did not easily dare to tell the peoples so. Lactantius proves this, book 1, chapters 11 and [15?], where he reports too that Cicero had a plan to make his Tulliola a goddess by setting up a simulacrum to her. And Augustine, book 8 of the City of God, chapter 26, proves that the gods of the pagans were men; as in book 18, chapter 5, he teaches that the simulacrum of Serapis was wont to show, with a finger put to its mouth, that it should be kept quiet that Serapis had been a man; nay, that even a capital penalty was set for those who said that Serapis had been a man, though it was certain that he had truly been a man, and had died and been buried. Cyprian likewise proves it at the beginning of the book On the Vanity of Idols, and Eusebius, On the Preparation for the Gospel, book 2, chapter 7, and Tertullian, Apologetic, chapter 11, at the beginning.
Others worshipped as gods in the idols not dead men but demons, as is plain from Hermes in Augustine, book 8 of the City of God, chapter 23. Although the demons dwelt in the idols not only when invited by magic arts, as Hermes says, but also of their own accord, and put themselves in place of dead men, that they might be adored in their stead, as blessed Cyprian teaches at the beginning of the book On the Vanity of Idols, and blessed Augustine, book 8 of the City of God, chapter 24, and book 22 against Faustus, chapter 17. And the same is plain from this, that the demons took to themselves the names either of the idols in which they dwelt or of the dead men in whose stead they were worshipped. For when adjured and asked their name, some say that they are called Beelzebub, some Moloch, some Chamos and so on, others Jupiter or Mercury or Apollo and so on, as Origen observed, book 6 against Celsus, a little before the middle; Eusebius, book 4 of the Preparation, chapter [6?]; Lactantius, book 2, chapter 16; and Sulpicius in the Life of blessed Martin. Scripture testifies the same, when it says in Deuteronomy 32, “They sacrificed to devils and not to God”; and Psalm 95, “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils”; and 1 Corinthians 10, “The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”
Others said that they worshipped in the idols neither the simulacrum, nor dead men, nor demons, but parts of the world. For in the idol of Apollo they worshipped the sun, in the idol of Neptune the sea, in the idol of Jupiter the upper air, and so on, as Eusebius reports, book 3 of the Preparation, chapter 2, and Augustine on Psalm 113, and book 4 of the City of God, chapter 10, and book 7, chapter 3 and following.
Others lastly said that they worshipped in the idols not the bodily parts of the world themselves, but [their souls, that is, of the sun, the moon, fire and so on; the top of page 493 is merged across columns in the scan]. But all these, as is plain, worshipped the creature in place of the Creator; for who denies that dead men, demons, the elements and the stars are creatures? This, then, Scripture rebukes in the heathens, that they adored the creature in place of the Creator; which surely Catholics do not do, nor ever did, since they think images are neither gods nor images of gods.
Chapter 14. The Second Argument Is Answered
To the second argument, from the councils, I say in the first place that the two councils of Constantinople were unlawful. Which is plain, first, because the Roman pontiff was not present, either in person or by legates, as is plain from Zonaras, Cedrenus and Paul the Deacon, and from the second Nicene synod, action 6. And it is a church rule, from the first Council of Nicaea, that general councils may not be held without the judgement of the Roman pontiff, as Socrates among others reports, book 2, chapter [17?]. Second, because those patriarchs did not consent, either in person or by legates, as is plain from the same authors. Third, because all the authors who write of general councils, as Psellus, Photius, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Nicolas, Paul the Deacon, [a name damaged in the scan], Ado, Sigebert, the Abbot of Ursperg and others, either do not number these councils of Constantinople among the councils of the Church, or openly rebuke them.
I say, second, that even if they had been lawful, yet they were abrogated by a plenary and truly general council, that is, the second of Nicaea.
And here it is to be noted that that Council of Constantinople is falsely called the third of Ephesus by many more recent writers, as by him who published the councils, in a certain admonition set before the seventh synod, and by the author of the Summa of the Councils at the beginning of the seventh synod, by Sixtus of Siena, book 5 of the Holy Library, note 217, and by others. The cause of the error was that Theodosius, bishop of Ephesus, presided over that profane council. For that it was truly held not at Ephesus but at Constantinople is plain from all the ancient historians, and from the council itself, which is had inserted in action 6 of the Nicene council.
It is to be noted, second, that Calvin and the Magdeburgers shamelessly praise the Council of Constantinople mentioned. For that council, though it thought impiously about images, yet thought rightly about the cult and invocation of the saints and about the merits of works, and said anathema to those who teach what Calvin and the Magdeburgers now teach. For canon 15 anathematizes those who do not invoke blessed Mary; canon 17, those who do not honour and invoke the other saints; canon 18, those who do not believe that God will give eternal life for the merits of works according to the just balance of his judgement. And these canons are had inserted in the second Council of Nicaea, action 6, and the Magdeburgers themselves recite them faithfully, Century 8, chapter 9. From which may surely be seen their incredible dullness or shamelessness, who praise that by which they are anathematized.
And of the Council of Frankfurt, on which the adversaries chiefly lean, I say three things. First, that whatever that council defined is not to be made much of. For without doubt the second Council of Nicaea is to be set before it, which it is certain was more universal, older, and without controversy approved by the supreme pontiff. For it is certain from the council itself that the legates of Pope Adrian were present; and that it was again approved by Leo III is plain from Ivo, part 4, chapter 147.
I say, second, that if what the Centuriators say is true, Century 8, chapter 9, column [639?], that synod does us no harm. For they themselves say that Adrian and his legates did not consent to the Synod of Frankfurt, but opposed it. But it is certain that a synod which the Roman pontiff opposes is of no authority, as is plain both from Gelasius, in the tome On the Bond of Anathema, and from experience; for no synod was ever held lawful which the Roman pontiff opposed.
What of this, that the Synod of Frankfurt itself teaches this very thing? For (as is plain from the Caroline books) the Synod of Frankfurt decreed that the last judgement of controversies belongs to the Roman pontiff, and by this chiefly refuted the seventh synod, because it thought it had been held without the authority of the Roman pontiff. Therefore the Synod of Frankfurt, on the Magdeburgers' own showing, destroys itself.
Besides, in the same place the Magdeburgers say that the Nicene synod was confirmed by Adrian; but the Council of Frankfurt rejects a synod held without the pope's authority; therefore, in the Magdeburgers' judgement, it is not our Nicene synod, but some other, that is rejected in the Council of Frankfurt. Lastly, in the same place the Magdeburgers teach that in the Synod of Frankfurt it was not defined that images be taken out of the churches, but that they should remain in the churches, yet not be adored. Why then do they themselves take images out of the churches? Why do they break them? Why do they not keep the decree of Frankfurt? From which is refuted also the lie of the Apology of the English, which teaches that in the Council of Frankfurt it was decreed that images be destroyed. But on the contrary the Synod of Frankfurt, on the witness of the Caroline books, of Hincmar and of the Magdeburgers themselves, said anathema to those who wish to destroy images. Besides, the thing itself shows the same. For if that synod had decreed it, why was it not done? For who in the Western Church would have resisted a decree of all the bishops and of a most powerful king? And that it was not done is more certain than certain; for no historians report it. Nay, Jonas of Orleans reports as a new and sacrilegious thing that Claudius of Turin wished to destroy images in his diocese.
I say, third, that it is a most uncertain thing what was decreed about images in the Synod of Frankfurt. For the ancient authors do not agree with themselves. For in the first place the decree of Frankfurt itself, which is cited in the preface of the Caroline books, testifies that in the Synod of Frankfurt the synod was condemned which had met at Constantinople and had ordered images to be adored. Where, when it names Constantinople, it seems to speak of the synod of the heretics against images; but when it says that it was decreed there that images be adored, it seems to speak of the synod of the Catholics.
In like manner the Caroline books themselves say that in the Synod of Frankfurt the synod was condemned which had been held at Constantinople in Bithynia, without the authority of the pope, for adoring images. Where, when it names Constantinople and says that the authority of the pope was absent from the synod, it seems to speak of the synod of the heretics; but when it says in Bithynia, and that that synod was held for images, it seems to speak of our Nicene synod. For Nicaea is the chief city of Bithynia, while Constantinople is in Thrace.
Now Hincmar of Reims, chapter 20 of the book against Hincmar of Laon, who flourished almost at the same time, says that in the Synod of Frankfurt the synod was condemned which had met at Nicaea without the pope's authority. Where too he joins two contraries, as is plain. Aimoin, book 4, chapter [85?], On the Deeds of the Franks, and the Abbot of Ursperg in the chronicle for the year 793 write that in the Synod of Frankfurt the seventh synod of the Greeks was condemned, which had met at Constantinople under Constantine and Irene; where they too join contraries with each other.
But many more recent historians say that in the Synod of Frankfurt the synod on taking away images was condemned, which the Greeks called the seventh general. So Platina in the Life of Adrian, Blondus, second decade, book 1, Sabellicus, Ennead 8, book [8?], Paulus Aemilius, book 2 On the Deeds of the Franks. Because of this confusion Alan Cope, dialogues 4 and 5, teaches that in the Synod of Frankfurt only the heretical synod of Constantinople was condemned, and that the Nicene was not only not condemned but even confirmed; which opinion I should wish were true, but yet I suspect that it is false.
First, because those Caroline books, although they are falsely ascribed to Charles, as we will say, yet were without doubt written in the time of Charles, as is plain from the refutation of those books which Adrian I published; and they seem to have been written in the Council of Frankfurt, and to contain the acts of the Synod of Frankfurt. For Hincmar, an author of that time, asserts this, and the books themselves bear it on their face. And that the synod which is refuted in these books is truly the second of Nicaea cannot be doubted, if one reads either the books themselves or Adrian's answer.
Second, because all the ancient authors agree in this, that in the Council of Frankfurt the seventh synod was rejected which had decreed that images are to be adored. So Hincmar, Aimoin, Regino, Ado and others teach again and again. And to say that all these lie, or that their books are corrupted, as Cope says, seems to me a little too hard.
Third, because if these authors spoke of the false seventh synod, that is, of the synod of Constantinople against images, surely they would have mentioned in their histories the Nicene synod too, the true seventh. But they do not mention any seventh council except that one which they say was rejected.
Nor does it stand in the way that the Caroline books and the Abbot of Ursperg and Aimoin say that the synod rejected was held at Constantinople. For the Abbot followed the Caroline books, as did Aimoin too; and the author of those books could have put Constantinople in place of Nicaea either by a slip of memory or out of ignorance. Otherwise, since he adds that the synod was held in the province of Bithynia, where Nicaea is, not Constantinople, he shows well enough that he speaks of Nicaea. And likewise the Abbot and Aimoin, when they say that the synod was held under Constantine and Irene, clearly show that they speak of the Nicene synod, even if by mistake they name Constantinople. Nor again does it stand in the way that Hincmar and the Caroline books say that the synod rejected in the Council of Frankfurt met without the authority of the pope, which is false of the Nicene, as it is true of the Constantinopolitan. For Hincmar followed the Caroline books, as he himself indicates; and the author of those books told this lie along with many others, to deceive the Synod of Frankfurt, as we will say shortly.
Nor lastly does it stand in the way that Platina, Blondus, Sabellicus and Paulus Aemilius say that the synod on taking away images was rejected. For in the first place all these are more recent. Then, what they say does not fight with the sayings of the ancient historians. For in the Synod of Frankfurt two synods were rejected, namely that of Constantinople against images, and the Nicene for images, as is plain from the Caroline books and from Hincmar. And perhaps this is the cause why some of the ancient historians name Nicaea, others Constantinople, when they say that a synod of the Greeks was rejected in the Council of Frankfurt.
It seems to me, then, that in the Synod of Frankfurt the second Nicene synod was truly rejected, but by error and materially, wholly in the way that once the Synod of Rimini condemned the homoousion. For the author of the Caroline books deceived the synod and thrust two lies upon it. One lie was that in the Nicene synod it had been defined that images be adored with the cult of latria. The other, that that decree was made by the Greeks without the consent of the Roman pope.
These two lies being taken for truth, the Synod of Frankfurt rejected, and rightly, the Nicene synod as profane and unlawful. That those two things were urged on the council is plain from the Caroline books themselves. For in the preface it is had expressly in this way: “There was brought into the midst” (namely in the synod at Frankfurt) “the question of the new synod of the Greeks which they held at Constantinople about adoring images, in which it was written that those who did not pay to the images of the saints service or adoration as to the divine Trinity should be judged anathema; which our most holy Fathers above, refusing in every way to pay them adoration and service, despised, and condemned those who consented.” So there. In the work itself too Constantine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, is brought in at the Nicene council saying anathema to those who do not adore images with the cult with which the most holy Trinity is adored. Behold clearly the first lie. The same author teaches clearly that the judgement of controversies of faith belongs to the supreme pontiff, and so that that synod for adoring images is worth nothing, because it lacks the pontiff's authority.
Besides, those authors who say that the false synod was rejected which decreed that images are to be adored without doubt understand by that word “adored” adored with the cult of latria. For they themselves too teach that images are to be venerated, and yet they curse that synod which orders them to be adored. Ado, in the chronicle for the year [790?], says that at Rome on the day of the Exaltation of the Cross the cross was wont to be kissed and adored by the whole people. And in the chronicle for the year 717 he calls venerable the image which Philippicus the heretic overthrew and Theodosius the Catholic emperor restored. Regino, book 1 of the Chronicle, near the end, calls the denial of the adoration of the cross and the overthrowing of images by Leo the Iconoclast a crime. John Aventinus, book 4 of the Annals, says that an image of Charles the Great, painted in a church, was venerated by the people in his own presence. The Abbot of Ursperg in the chronicle inveighs against Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus because of the throwing down of images, and calls them impious and forerunners of Antichrist; and on the contrary he praises Pope Gregory, and says he was a holy man, who excommunicated the emperor because of the images of Christ and of the saints, and so on.
And that these are truly lies, that the Nicene synod lacked the pope's authority, and that it decreed images are to be adored with the cult of latria, is most certain. For in the Nicene council itself, action 2, the letters of Pope Adrian for images are recited, and in all the actions the Roman legates always sign first. Then, as regards the cult, in the first action Basil of Ancyra, who before had been a heretic, when he repented and set forth a Catholic confession, said in the hearing and with the approval of the whole council that he honoured images indeed, but not with latria, since that is owed to God alone. Likewise Constantine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, spoke in the seventh synod, action 3. Likewise the rest speak in actions 1 and 7.
Nor ought it to seem wonderful that the author of the Caroline books thrust such manifest lies upon the Synod of Frankfurt about the Nicene synod held a little before. For if now the Magdeburgers and Calvin dare to write that we honour images with divine honours, plainly as gods, while so many books of Catholics, and the general Latin council itself held at Trent on the borders of Germany, cry out expressly the contrary, what wonder if the same was invented about a Greek synod which very few could read, and which had been held in the East?
If you say, Then at least the Council of Frankfurt, which was very well attended and lawful, could err: I answer, It could err, and it did err, not in a question of law, but of fact. And besides, it is no wonder if it could err; for the Roman legates did not consent, as the Magdeburgers say; and the pope not only did not consent but even refuted the decree of Frankfurt, as is plain from the book of Adrian on images to Charles, where all the lies of those Caroline books are refuted.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII.
Solvuntur argummla adversariorum.
Superestjara, ut argumenta adversariorum sol-
vamus. Ad primum Calvini dico, in illis Scripturis
reprebendi ido'olatriam, idest, cultum imaginum,
quae habentur pro Diis,verper quas coluntur tara-
quain Dii ii, qui vere non sunt.
Ad probalionem illam, qua Calvinus conatur o-
stendere, Judaeos etGentilcs adorasse Dcum in i-
dolis; dico in verbis Calvini contineri multa raen-
J
LiijKii iii:(:i::^i)i;s
401
<lii('i;i. IMiiiiiiiii csl, M""'' Jii'liii'i <'l <li'.iililt''^ ii"ii
vociivriiiil hitos ^ua idolii; iiiiiii lili. 1. ('ii|). II. $
10. llislil. (iliiii'ii'11'^ ^il>i n'S|M)ilMiiil)'lll iiilliiiiiid-
niiii. iiil: A^"'i ■i'<"'""ii<.'<, iiii|iiiiiiil. uiislrnH hnm,
niinivnin im"j/i»K'«; (lciiidt' losiiondol: A'r(/u« iUi,
urit JlliiiWi, ""' (i('»l//lcs, oliin vncdhdiil, rl ht-
mcn nriii>lii'l(ii' pnssiin lUiti fitrniritliinws riLiii li-
i//i(t rt /if/in/c ('.i'/ir"/>r"»'<' iinn tlrsinrtjant. Al «i
Jiulaci '»""• i'"<'('''<i'i/ (</"/" anoH hcits, nnitr chI
illiitl llxinti 'M. /''"<• 7ii»/)(.s Ih-itH. (jiii nnH /in/rcf-
{lani:' ('/ i^li f^nnl l>ii Ini Isrnriy I ndi' illiul Vi
chaiuir.Jinlic. /■'»'. /'<'"•'< mcitH.<iniiH mihi 1'ircrinn,
(iltslidisliH:'i:i :{. licii. I2. Uc diuihitH rilidis llic-
roltniiin, ('('(■(' hii Ini Isriicl.
^Miml milnii siimiliic.ni Jil) ('llmicis vocnnmliir
Dii, iiiino ii('S(Ml, (im iiluiiiid in |i(iclis, vcl ciiinii
or.iliniliiis lc^!;(>ril.Scd iiim> liicus iiimc- siilllcirl i'\
Diimclis ."». Ililichanl. iiuiiul. riniim, ct laiulalninl.
hcoH snoH (iiirco.s' vt ariicnlcoH, aciros , (m/hcos-
(jiic cl /(f/)/(/i'os. Kl idlcr c\ liliro SiipiciiU cii|).l!J.
.l/i/»c//((cc;'it;i/ /^'(»s oiicra. inaniininsnarnin. Vo-
iiMiilnc cliiriiis Scripliira divina (lalvmi niendaciuiii
rcdiir^jncrc?
Scciiiidiim mciuliiciiim csl.qiiod .liuhici, ciim fc.-
ccriml viUilnm imrcnin , mm sinl oblili Dcnm vc-
rniii. Nam planc c diiinicln) pn^^Miiiiil vcrhii (liilviiii
cnm vcrhis Scriplmiu^ ('.idviims cnim lih. 1. cap.
11. § '.Ksic ail:.\cc lain incoiiilanlcs crant Jiidaci,
ut non mc niinixscnt DoAun CHSC,qui c.os (•dn.vt^rat
dc lcrra Acijiipli.M Scriplmii Dcnloron 'M.Dcum,
iiupiil, (lui lc ijcnuil , dcrcliiiuisli, et ohlilus cs
Ihmini crcatoris tni. VMw psiilm. 10.">. Fccerunt
rilulum in llorch, ctadorarcrunl sculptilc: cl o-
hlili sunt Dcum. qui salrar it cos , qui fccil m(i-
(inalia in .icijiiplo, mirahilia in tcrra Cliam, lcr-
rihUidin mari ruhro. Kt llicrcm. c. 2. Amhula-
vcruntpostvanilalcm.idcHt post idola, ct non
dixcrunl, uhi csl lhnninus,(;ui asccndcre nos fc-
cit dc tcrra .tCf/i/p/».^ U^id clarins?
Tcrlinm mciuliicium csl.(]uod .ludiioi in omnihus
suis idolis Dcnm unum cl vcrum colcre voluorint.
Sic cuim ait Cidviiuis lih. l. cap. 11. § 8. Dcum
quidcm csscnovcrant, cujus virlutcni cxperti e-
rant. Scd a praccunlc imagine volehant cogno-
sccre Dcumsihi itincris cssc ducem. El § 9. ait :
Dcum aclernum Judaci. ununi, verumque coeli
oc tcrrac Dominum sub talihus simalacris per-
suasi cranl sc colere.
Al lioc esse mendacium probabo. Primo, quia
siJudaei volehant tanlum siirumn corporeum. non
eral opus, ul faccrenl vitulum : nam bahcbant uu-
hom et columnain ignis . quae melins ducebanl ,
quani vilulus, qui porlari ncccssc babcbat:nou cr-
go signum corporeum,sed Dcum corporeura quae-
rebant.
Secundo, quia nulla caussa reddi potesl. cur po-
lius vilulum lccerinl, quam ovem , aul aliquid a-
liud.nisi quia assueli crant videre maximum Deum
Aegypliorum, qui est vilnlus nigcr albis maculis
i:isii;nis, quem ipsi vocant apim; de quo Cicero
lih. 1. dc nalura Dcorum; cl Augustinus lib. 18. de
Civil. Dcicap. 5. elscriptores omnes, Herodotus ,
Diodorus, Plularcbus, Plinius, Suidas , Eusebius
etc. Judaci ergo quia videranl in Aegyplo in sum-
iiio lioiiori^ viliilimi, pnlavfrutil ipsiiin Dcnm cocll
CHrti) vitiiliim illtmi, i'! id(M) illi iiniit^iiKMii «itull Hln»
lijcniiil.
icrlio, (|iiiii JoMUR c. iill. (hiliir oplio ili-lir.intK,
iiii vcliiil ni^rviro Diin nliuiilN, (|iilltiiH hcrviiuil Tlni'
rc cl .>.iclior hliildhilriic, aii uIoIih Amorrli.iciiriiiii,
iin Dco l.siiicl? iioii rrt^o lii idolis iidoriih.iiil. Vcl
puliihaiit, so iiiloran: Dciiiii iHtiicl. Niiin iiliO(|iii \in-
liiissciil nrNpoiidiMc, iiicpliim i;ssc oplioiiciii illuiii.
(piiiiiiloi|m(liMti III ipsiH idoliH Amorili.KMiriiiii, i;t
riiiiri! ac. iNiiclinr Dimiiii vimiiiii colcr(Mil.Idctii vou-
llriiiiiliir ox '.\. HnK. IH. iiiii Kliiis dicil: ln^iaiuinit
clandicalis in iliian pnrtcs; si lUtnxinnn chI Ih-uH,
sciiitiiiiint cuin: m llanl csl Dcuh , ,scf/ lu //i/»ti it-
Inm. IJhi cliiro o|)poiiitiir K.iiil Dimi vimo. Oiiiiiulo
(M'^'o Jiiihici c.ohdiiiiit iddlmn it.i;il, rcrti; iiiui coh;-
hiinl DiMiin vcriiiii. Addi: illiid Dciilcr. .'12. Iiiimo-
lavcrunt (lacinoniis, ctnon Dco, Diin.(inoH i(/iin-
raltanl. \i\i\c. cliiim.ipiod Tiilso iic(Mis!ir(Milur Jud.ici
scrvissc Diis iilicms.si m idolis siMiipcr ('oinissc:il
llcum vcrniii. Al, iiii|iiics: (piomodo cr(;o dc vilnlo
dicilnr Evod. 'M. Ilii sunt IHi tui, qni tc nduxn-
rnnl dc lcrra Aciiijpti. Onomodo c|i;im iliidcin i|c
vitiilo diciliir: Cras soLcinnitaH Doinini "Tjn"' csL''
Kt Judic. M.Sanctificavi hoc argcntuvt Domino,
ut faciamidnlnm:'* Ai\ Primnm rcspondco: Sigiii-
liciiri illis vorhis.|)iiliissc Judacos beiiclicium lihc-
ralionis dc Aogyplo sc ;iccc|)issc , noii a Dco .Moy-
sis, scd ab Api dco Acgy|)tioriiiii. Ad Sccuiidum
ctTorlimn, diiplcv solulio csl.rna Ciijclani in c;)(>.
'.\i. Cxod. ipiod vcrc noiniMi ipsuiii Doiniiii,lrii»Uii-
lur a Judiieis idololatris idolo, cl lioc fortc si;;ni-
ficarc Scripluriiin, Sa|). \'i. oiim ail: incomninni-
cahilc nomcn hipidihus ct lirjnis ini]>osucriLnt.
Kunum ciiiin Dci noincn esl incoiTimnniciibilc ,
pniclor boc •^*in'^1.nam cactcra Irihuuntur iili([uan-
do ctiam crealuris.
Diccs. al noineii ilhid *Tin^ cst proprium nomcn
Dei Isiiicl, nou crgo potuil cominunicari. Ilespon-
dco:Forlc Judaoos illos.qui plurcs veros Dcos cssc
credcbanl.non puliissc boc cssc nomen proprium,
scd appellativum. Forte eliam communiciisse il-
lud nouicn per simililudinem. Quomodo enim Ae-
gy[)tii vociirc solcnt .Niluin, snuni Jovem; ct nos dc
boiiiine strenuo dicimus, hic cst ncstcr Acbilles ;
de sapicnle, hic est nostcr Calo: Iia Judaci de vi-
tulo (iicchaul, bic cst nostcr lin' ; babcal sibi
.^loyscs suum.
Altcra s.olutio esl Abulensis, Cajelani,et aliornm
in ciip. IG. Jndicum, qui dicunt duo genera idolo-
rum liiissc apud Hchraeos.Unum sine nomine cerli
Dci, quolc iuit idolum Micliae , Judic. 17. cl forle
vilulus Jiureus, quem fecit .\aron. Exod. 32. cl re-
novavit Hieroboam. 3. Rog. 12. non enim Scriptu-
ra vocat vilulum Deum .Moloch , vei Baal eli:. scd
seniper Jiit: Hi sunt Dii tui Israel.
Allerum genus fuit cum cerlo nomine. ul Baal,
Moloch, Astarolh , Cbamos elc. ul vidcre est 3,
Regnm 11. et alibi. Igilur dicunt, nec improbabi-
liler.posse de primo genereadmitti,quod Judaei in
idolo putaverint,se colcre Deum vcrum.Caeterum in
hoc eliam eos errasse gravissime , tum quia idolo
sacrificiibanl. et in ipso idolo divinam vim inesse
credebanl: tum etiam quod imagiuabantur Deum
492
m IMAGINlCfS SAMCTQllUM
esse corporeum, el ipsi idolo similem. Ex quo se-
quebalur, ul pularent se colere Deum verum, sed
revera iion colerenl, nisi ligmenlum suum: Quem-
admoiiuin Mimichaei dicebant se coIereDeum Pa-
liem et Filium ejus Chrislum: sed quia perDeum
intelligebanl lucem corpoream, per Chrishim acci-
piebanl solem islum corporeum , nihil habebanl
Dei et Clirisli, nisi solum nomen.
Quod aiiiem Judaei Deum pularent corporeum
et idulo similem, secundura hanc senlenliam,patet
ex vilulo aureo. Nam ideo faciebant Deum in forma
viluli. quia viderant in Aegypto vilulum in summo
honore; indc enim exislimabant , summum Deum
csse vilulum illum, et hoc etiam modo Judaei vere
obMviscebantur Dei. licet non pularent se ejus o-
blivisci. In idolisaulem secundi generis adeo cer-
tum eslJudaeos neccoluisse, nec putasse se cole-
re Deum Isriiel, utid fateatur etiam Petrus Marlyr
Calvinisla in cap. 17. Judic.
Quarlum raendacium est: Elhnicos non pulasse
idola esse Deos. Sic eniraait Calvinus lib. 1. cap.
11.^9. Nec ilastupidi fiiisse elhnici credendi
sunt,ul non intelligerent Deum alium esse,quam
ligna et lapides. Haec ille.Licet autem aliqui non
fuerintila stupidi, ut putarent idola lignea, vel la-
pidea esse Deos; tamen plurirai ita slupidi erant ,
ut vere crederent ipsa idola vivere, et sentlre, et
Deos esse. Neque erat haec lanta slupidilas, quan-
tara Calvinus videri vult. Nara movebantur elhnici
ad credendura idola esse Deos propter quatuor
caussas. Prirao,quia id eis dicebatur a ponliGcibus
suis. Secundo: quia videbant lotura fere mundura
id credere. Tertio, quia diaboli opera interdura
idola raovebanlur, et loquebanlur, et futura prae-
dicebant, seu polius moveri. et loqui videbantur ;
nam revera diabolus ea movebat , et in eis loque-
balur, sed populus credebat ipsa vere moveri, et
loqui, Solita vero idola loqui, patet ex cap. 21. E-
zech. el cap. 10. Zachariae , et ex lib. 1. cap. uU.
Valerii Maximi. Quarto, quia crant forma huraana
praedila; etqui videt sua membra senlire ct vive-
re, facile persuadelur vivere et setitire eliam sibi
simllia, praesertim si id a sapientioribus affirmari
audiat. Sed quaecuraque fuerint caussae , probo
multos elhnicorum credidisse,ipsa idola esse Deos
et proinde menliri Calvinura.
Igitur credidisse idola esse Deos probo, Primo
ex Scriptura; nam omnes prophetae laborant, ut
doceanl idola aurea et argenlea non esse Deos. et
probanl. quia non loquuntur, non videntetc. Vide
Jsaiam 40. Davidem psalra. 113. etpsal. 134. et
llabac. 2. sed praecipuc epistolam Hieremiae Ba-
ruch G. ubi ad singula argumenta concludit: 1'nde
notum sii 'oobis, quia non sunl Dii.kt cerle slulti
cssenl prophetae, si id refellere conarentur quod
neino assercret. Praeterea Acl. 9. de Paulo dicunt
Elhnici: Paulus hic suadct.dicens,quia non sunl
Dii, qui manibus fiunt. Ergo ipsi pulabant esse
Deos eos. qui manibus fiunt. PraetereaHierem. 2.
etSap. 13. et 14. Scriptura dicil: Elhnicos solitos
invocare idola, et eis coramendare salulem suam;
nemo aulcm invocat, aul orat siraulacrum, inquit
Auguslinus in psal. 113. qui non pulet ab illo se
exaudiri.
Secundo ex Patribus; Augustinus lib. 3. de do-
ctrina cliristiana cap. 7. Faleor, U\qml,aUius de-
mersos esse qui opera hominum Deos putant,
quam qui opera Dei. El infra; Illi simulacra ve-
nerarilur, vel tamquam Deos, vel tamquam si-
gna etimagines Deorum. El epislol. 49. ac in
psalm. 113. dicil: Elhnicos mullos putasse ipsa
simulacra vivere, spirare et audire, et proinde es-
se Deos viventes, ct in hoc errore foveri ex ipsa
simililudine huinanorum raembrorum.
Tertullianus in Apologetico cap. 12. dicit, Deos
gentilium plura pali, dum fiunt, ab arlificibus,
quam palianlur Chrisliani cura occiduntur, quod
eos nolint adorare.
Eusebius lib. 3. praeparal. cap. 15. Triginta,
inquit, Deorum millia in terra esse censet Hesio-
dus. Ego autem multo plures lapideos, atque li-
gneos hominum creatores esse video. Denique
Cyprianus, Lactantius, Ariiobius, Minulius Felix,
Ciemens alexandrinus, Alhanasius, Theodoretus,
et alii. qui scribunt contra genles, rident etnicos,
quod ligna etlapides pro Deo colant. Et quid est,
quod ait Iloralius lib. 1. serm. Satyra 8.
Olim Iruncus erorn ficulnus, inulile licjnum.
Cum faber incMus faceret scamnum,anne Priamum.
Maiuit esse Deum.
Nec solum poetae, sed eliara viri sapienlissirai
hoc senserunt;n3raHerraesTrisraegistus apud Au-
gustinura lib. 8. de Civit. Dei cap. 23. dicit, alios
Deosfactosasummo Deo, alios autem ab homini-
bus: Deos autem ab horainibus faclos dicil esse
statuas, quibus arte quadam raagica alligantur
daemones, ita ut slalua sit quasi corpus Dei, spi-
ritus aulem inclusus sit aniraa, et lotum idolura
sit Deus, quomodo corpus el anima est homo. Et
Arnobius lib. 1. contra gentes: \enerabar. inquit,
0 caecitas. nuper simiilacra modo ex fornacibus
prompta, in incudibus Deos,et ex malleisi fabri-
catos. Et infra: Tamquam inesset vis praesens^a-
dulabar, affabar, et beneficia poscebam. Et in-
fra: Deos esse credebam ligna, lapides,ossa, aut
in hujusmodi rerum habilare materia.
Vide igitur, leclor, an non menliatur Calvinus,
curn negatethnicos habuisse idolapro Diis.
At inquil: Elhnici mutabant simulacra pro arbi-
Irio, nectamenDeosrautabant. Respondeo: Ethni-
cos eadera slullilia , qua pulabanl aliquos Deos
possefieri manibus hominum, potuisse etiam cre-
dereDeos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus homi-
num.
Sed rursum, ait Calvinus, uni Deo multa simula-
cra ponebant. Respondeo: Elhnicos babuisse alios
Deos in coelo, alios in terra: nec pulasse absur-
dura, si unusDeus coeleslis, ulJuppiter, vel Apol-
lo, haberet in terra mullos collegas minores,idest,
multa idola e)usdemnorainis.
Deniqueaddit Calvinus: Elhnici novas imagraes
sacrabant, nec tamen pulabant se novos Deos fa-
cere. Respondeo: Falsura esse, non putasse genti-
les, se novos Deos facere, saltera terreslres.
Quintum raendacium est hb. 1. Inslit. cap. 11.
§ 10. Prophetae, inquit, passim Judaeis et Genti-
iii I ii si:i;iMtl8 4N
lihuf^ fovnu'alii>ni'ti i'U)n />;/m<> rl /ii;i»(/«t (M'/tr<> m ItloliH color»! «0 illr('lKiiil,«<'«l iiriiriins raruni (1 II
hrttronitn dcHinvhtint, Innliini »/> «>((. (/lidc (/liu- iiiiiii, iilc.sl, NdlJH. Iiiiiiiu, iRrnio rlcitl rnrcriiiil Kii
lidir. iih iin liinil, iiiii Cliri-^Unni hnhrri vnhinl, s<'liiiis lili. 11, ciii». .'l. |»ni('|)iir. cl \ '
VM'»i/i(' iiiJod liiiiin in /(«//lo vl /((/xt/f cnrnnlilrr ( ililo. .scd iiiiiiich Ish, iil |tiilcl,( ri .m... ■ ,., . i . . .,
rvnvrnhunliir. iiir(! coliicniiit: ihni ()iii% ilii (lcniiilnt, la lioiiilrn-M
lldC CSl lllilMIIIIIIII Ct liirillciosissiinillll lllrinliui- IIIUrtllOH, (liliMIIUIK^H, iMliiniMllll, NtcllllH , criMlln
iiiii. INiiiii iti pniMis .hnliici cl (icnlilcs iiiiiiKiliiliiiiit csso iic;(i'(. Ii| i^iliir .S('.ri|iliirti lit ctliiiicis r* ;
idoli.s, iil |iiili'l (lc .liiil.iois l'!\iiil. '.\1. cl iililii, il(i liciidit, ijiiiiil iiilitriivi^riiii ( rciiliiriiiii pro (irc.it
(ictililil)iis \. (loniilli. 1(1. cl nlilii; cl liaiic Scrijilii- Ouoil .s.iik! (■iitliolici iiiic. r.icliiiil , iicc rcciTiint iiii-
rii viiriil riiniii-iiliiMiiiir. (Ilirisli.iiii iiiilcin iininijiiiiiii (|ii:iiii, ciiiii initi^incs iic.c IIuoh |int<M)t, ik;c initi^i*
iiiiii><iiiil)n.s iiiinicl.niiiit. ncs l>riiniiii.
Priictcroii Jiiiliici ul (icntcs, vcl iilnl.i |inliil):int
])c(is. nl oslciitliinns, vcl ccrlc in nlolis trciiliKii.s CilMir \IV
pro l>co ciilcltiiiil, (|noil (lliri^liiini iion riiciniit.
Oiiotl iiiilcin (icnlilcs in iilolis colcrcnl c.rc:itiiriiH
jiro Diis. proh.itnr; iiiini pliiriini in snnuljicris co- Snlvilnr arijuwvntum Ho.cundiun.
Icliiiiil pro IMis liiuuincs innrlnos, (|n(is ct ipsi
inorluos cssi' trcilclniui, scil iion lncilc iiinlcliiiiil Ad .S(M;uniliiin iirt^Minicnluin c\ conciliis. flico
id populis dicoru. rrobal liou Laclanlius lil>. I. in priinis coiit ili:i dno coiisl:inlinopolil:ina Uiihsn
c:ip. 11. ct \'.i. ul)i cliiun rclVrl, (liccroucin 'lulli- illct,'iliiii;i. (}iiimI p;ilcl Priiiio, (juiii noii iiilfiiit ro-
oliiin siKini Ilcaiu l.iccrc coiwiliiin cssc, orcclo illi in;iiiiis poulilcx ncr pcr si;, iicc pcr lc^'iilos, iil c\
siniuliicro. Kt An^justinus lili. 8. ciip. 2(i. tleCivil. Zonarii, (lcdrciio, Pmilo diiicono, cl ox synodo ni-
Dci, prohal: l'ai,'iiiK)ruin Dcos litiiiiinos fuisso: ul caoiin II. ncl. (i. pal(!l. Porro rc^jnla csl occlcsiasti-
lil). IS. ciip. .*». doccl SiMiipidis siinuliicriun digilo ca concilii I. nicacni. sinc, scnlciiliii roniani ponli-
atl os adinotlo indiciue soliUiiu. nl Uiccrclur Sura- licis, iioii liccro coucilia }^oncriiIi;i cclidiriiri , iil
pidoin Inisse hominom, imnio ol pooiuim cajiilis pracler .'ilios rolcrl Socrnlos lib. 2.c. 13. Socnndo,
conslituliiiu ail lis, tpii Scrapidcm lioniincm hiisse tjiiia iion consciiscriint illi p:ilri;ircli;io iioc, pcr se,
dicorcut, cuin taiiion vimo homincm hiissc.cl mor- iioc jior Icj,'alos, ul(!\ iisdom auclorihns palcl.Tor-
tunm :ic scpullimi conslarcl. Mom prohal Cypriii- lio, <|ui.i omni!S auctorcs, qui dcconciliis j,'(!nora-
luis inilio lihri do ididornm vtinilalo, cl Eusohius lihns scnhiinl, ul Psollus, Photiiis, Zon;ir;is . Mco-
do praoparidiono ov;inj,'clic;» lih. 2. cap. 7. ol Tor- pliorus, Codronus, IVicolas, Piiulus diaconiis, Klio-
tulliaiuis .Vpoloj:;olici cap. II. iliiio, Ado , Sii,'chcrlus , Ahhas ursporj,'onsis ct
Alii non homiuos morluos, sod dacmoncs in alii . isla concilia conslanlmopolilana vcl non nu-
idolis pro Piis coloh;int. ul palol o\ llormolo apud mcr;iiil intcr concilia Ecclesiae, vol ;ipcrlc roprc-
Aui^uslinum lih. 8. doCivil. Doi cap.23.^)uamdam hoiulunl.
daomonos non soluni iuvitali maj:;icis arlihus, ul Dico Sccundo, eliamsi lcfrilima fuisscnl , tamon
llcrmcs dicit, sod oliam spoiuli! siia in idcdis Iia- cis derofratum ossc pcr conciliam plonarium el ve-
hilahanl, ol se suppouohaul pro niorluis homiiii- rc t:jencralc. idcsl, sccuudum nicaenura.
bus, ul loco ooruiu adoraroiiUir. ul doeoul hoalus Est aulem hic nolanduni . concilium istud con-
Cyprianus iuilio lihri dc iilolorum vanilalc. ol bea- slanlinopolilanum falso vocariephesinum Hl.a mul-
tus Augusliiuis lih. 8. dc Civitale Doi cap. 2-t. cl tis rocculioribus. utabco, qui cdidil concilia in
lih. 22. coulra Fauslum cap. 17. el idem patet ex quadam admonilionc pracmissa VII. synodo, ct ab
eo quod daemoiies assumpscrunt sibi nomina vel auctore summae conciliorum in principio TII. sy-
idolorum. iu qnihus rosidehant.vel honiinum mor- nodi, a Sixlo senensi lib. o. bibliolhecac sanclac
tuorum, quorum vice colohantur. Adjurali cnim, annotat. 217. el ob aliis. Caussa erroris fuil. quia
et rogali nomon. quidam dicunt, se vocari iieelze- concilio isli profano praesedit Theodosius cpisco-
bub, quidiim Jloloch, quidam Chamos etc. alii Jo- pus epliesinus. !\am quod vcre non Ephesi, sed
vem. aul Mcrcuriuni. aul Apollinom elc. ut obser- Conslantinopoli babilum sit, palct c.\ oinnibus an-
varunl Origcncs lib. 6. conlra Colsum paulo ante liquis historicis, et ex ipso cnnciIio,quod insertum
niedium. Euscbius lib. 4. praepac. cap. 0. Lactan- habctur act. C. nicaeni concilii.
lius hb. 2. cap. 16. cl Sulpilius in vila b. 3Iarliui. Kolandum Secundo; Calvinum et 3Iagdeburgen-
IIoc idom Scriplura tcslaiur, cum Deuter. 32. di- ses impudenlcr laudare concilium conslanlinopo-
cil: Iinmolaverunl daemoniis, et non Deo. Et litanura pracdiclum; nam ilhid concilium etiarasi
psalm. \Ki. Dii gcntium dacmonia ctc. Ei 1. Co- de imaginihus impie scnsit, lamcn de cullu et in-
rinth.lO.()itoe immolant gentes, daemonibus im- vocalione sancloruin , ct de meritis opcrum rccle
mohmt. ct non Deo. sensit, et analhema dixil iis, qui id docent quod
Alii nec simulacrum. nec homines morluos, nec nunc Galvinus et Macdeburgenses docent. Nam
'B^
daemonesin idolis colerc se dicebaut, sed partes can. 1o. analhemalizat eos, qui non invocant b.
niundi; nani in idolo ApoUinis colebant solcm, in Mariam; cau. 17. eos qui non colunt, et non invo-
idoloNepluni mare, in idolo Jovis aelherem etc. cant s-inctos caeteros; cau. 18. eos, qui non cra-
ut r(}ferunl Eusebius lib. 3. praepar. cap. 2.et Au- dunt Deura redditurum vitam aelernara pro merilis
guslinusia psalm. 113. et hb. i-.de Civit.Dei cap. operum secundura juslam judicii sui libram. Ifa-
10. et lib. 7. de Civit. Dei cap. 3. et seq. benlUT autera hi canones inserli in concilio nicae-
Alii denique nec ipsas corporeas mundi partes no II. actor. 6. et eosdera Cdcliler recitant Magde*
l}Eii*roii.M. Voi, u, 63
in
DE IMAGIMBUS SANCTORLM
biirgenses Ccnlur. 8. cap. 9. cx quo sane perspici
potcst coruni incredibilis vel slupidilas , vel im-
puilenlia , qui id laudant , a quo analhemalizan-
lur.
Dc concilio auleni francofordiensi , quo praeci-
puenilutUur adversarii, dico tria. Primo, quidquid
illud conciliuui dcHnioril, nou esse magni 1'acien-
dum; uam snic dubio illi anleponendum est conci-
lium nicacnum 11. quod cerlum csl fuisseuniver-
salius, auliquius, et sine controversia a summo
punlilice approbatum; nam conslat c\ ipso contii-
lio abfuissc legatos papae Adriani,et rursus appro-
balum a Leone III. palct ex Ivone 4. parte cap.
147.
Dico Secundo, si verum cst quod dicunt Ccnlu-
riatorcs,Cenlur. 8. cap. 9. col.(i39.niliil nobis cam
synodum obcsse; nam ipsi dicunt, synodo franco-
fordieusi non consensisse, scd repugnasse Adria-
nuni, el lcgalos ejus. At ccrtum csl synodum, cui
repugnal romanus pontifex nuUius csse auclorila-
tis, ul [)atct tuia ex (ielasio in tomo dc vinculo a-
nalhcmalis, lum expericntia. Nulla cnim synodus
nnquam babita est legitima , cui romanus pontifex
repugnaverit.
Quid, quod ipsa synodus francofordiensis lioc
ipsum docel? nam ( ut ex Carolinis libris palet)
syuodus francofordiensis decrevit , judicium ulti-
mum cunlroversiarum ad romanuin pontificcm pcr-
Imcre, cl hoc praecipuo argumento refellit syno-
duin VII. quia cxislimavit sine auctoritale romani
ponliRcis celebratam : Ergo synodus francolur-
<liensis, tcstimonio Magdeburgensiuni.seipsum de-
struil.
Praelerea ibidem Magdeburgenses dicunl, syno-
dum nicaenam ab Adriano conIu'matam;concilium
autem IVancofordicnse reprobatsyiiodum factam si-
ne papac auctoritale, ergo judicio Magdcburgen-
sium non est nicaena nostra, sed aliqua alia, quae
reprobatur in concilio fiancofordiensi. Deniquc i-
bidcm docent Mugdcburgcnses , in synodo franco-
fordicnsi non esse deiiuitum,ut imagiues lollantur
a teuiplis, sed ut in templis quidem maneant , at
non adorcntur. Cur ergo ipsi e lemplis imagines
tollunf? cur irangunl? cur non servant francofor-
diense dccretum? Ex quo ctiara rcfcllitur mciida-
cium apologiae Anglorum , quac docel, in concilio
Irancofordicnsi dccretum, ul imagines delerenlur.
At e conlrario synodus francofordiensis teslimonio
iibrorum Carolinurum, Hincmari, et ipsorum Mag-
debuigcnsium, anallicma dixit iis , qui imagines
delerc vulunt. Praelerea res ipsa idem osteudit ;
uam si ea synodus id statuisset, cur non essc fa-
clum? Quis cnim rcsisteret in occidcntali Ecclcsia
dccrclo cpiscoporum omnium et regis polentissi-
mi?Non esse autem factum, ccrlo certius esl: nulli
enim historici id refcrunl. Immo Jonas aureliamm-
sis lamquain rem novam et sacrilcgam refert,quod
Claudius taurinensis in sua dioeccsi imagines dc-
lerc voluerit.
Tcrtio dico, rem essc incerlissimam , quid sta-
lutum sit de imaginibus in synodo francofordiensi.
Nam antiqui auclores non sibi constanl,nam in^pri-
inis ipsum decrclum francofordiensc, quod citalur
in praefatione librorum Garolinorum, lestatur in
synodo francofordicnsi damnalam synodum, quao
Constantinopoli convencrat , et imagincs adorari
jusscrat.Ubi cum nomiual Constantinopolim, vidc-
tur loqui dc synodo haerclicorum conlra imagincs;
at cum dicit, ibi decrclum, ut imagincs adorcntur,
vidclur loqui dc synodo calholicorum.
Pari ralione libri ipsi Carolini dicunt, in synodo
francofordiensi damnalam synodum.quaefacta fue-
rat Conslanlinopoli in Dilhynia sine auctoritalc
papac pro imaginibus a Jorandis.Ubi cum nominat
Conslanlinopolim,el dicit a synodo abfuisse papae
aucloritalcm. vidclur loqiii de synodo hacretico-
rum: Cum aulem dicit in Hithynia, el pro imagini-
bussynodum illain celcbralam , videtur loqui de
nostra Nicacna. i\ani .Nicaena est nictro|)olis Bithy-
niac, Conslantinopolis autcui in Thracia cst.
Jam vero Ilincmarus remensis cap.20.1ibro con-
tra llincmarum laudunenscm,qui ipso fcrc lcmpo-
re noruerat, dicit insynodo francofordiensi dam-
natam synodum, quac Nicaeae convenerat sine pa-
pacauctoritale.Ubi eliam duo conlraria conjungit,
ut palet. Aimonius lib. 4. cap. 8D.de gestis Fran-
corum, et Abbas nrspergensis in Chronico anni
793. scribunt in synodo francordicnsi damnataiii
VII. synodum Graccorum, quae convenerat Coii-
slanlinopoli sub Conslantino et Irene , ubi etiam
ipsi contraria jungunt inler se.
Mulli autem hisiorici rccenliores dicunt.io syno-
do Irancofordiensi damnatam synodum dc tollcn-
dis imaginibus, (juam Graeci VII. geucralem dicc-
bant. Ita Plalina in vita Adriani, Blondus decadis
secundae lib. 1. Sabellicus lib. S.Enneadis 8.Pau-
lus Acmilius lib. 2. de gestis Francorum. Propler
hanc confusionem Alanus Copus dialogo 4. el .">.
ducel, in synodo francofordiensi solum damnatam
synoduiD conslanlinopolitanam haerelicam: Nicae-
nam autem non solum non damnatam, sed eliam
confirmatam, quam sentcntiara optarem essc ve-
ram, sed tameii suspicor esse falsam.
Primo. quia libri illi Carolini, licet falso inscri-
banlur Carolo, ut dicemus, tamen sinc dubio scri-
pti sunt tcmpore Caroli, ut palet ex refutalione co-
rundem librorum, quam edidit Adrionus I. et scri-
pti videntur in roncilio francofordiensi , et acta
continere synodi francofordiensis. Id enim asserit
Ilincmarus ejus temporis auctor, el ipsi libri hoc
praeferunt: quod autcm synodus , quae in his li-
bris refutatur, sit vere nicacna II. dubitari nnn po-
test, si Icganlur vcl ipsi libri , vel Adriani re-
sponsio.
Secundo , quia auclores onliqui omnes conve-
niunt in hoc, quod in concilio francofordicnsi sit
rcprobala synodus VII. quac decreverat imagines
adorandas. Ita llincmarus, Aimoinus, Rhcgino, A-
do, et alii passira docent.Dicere autem hos oinnes
mcnliri, vel libros eorum csse corruptos, ut Copus
dicit, videtur mihi paulo durius.
Tcrtio, quia si isti auctores loqucretur de falsa
V:i. synodo, idesl. de synodo conslanlinopolitana
conlra imagincs, cerle meminisscnl etiam in suis
histuriis synodi nicacnac vere scplimac. Al non
racmincrunt ullius concilia VII. nisi istius, quod
rcprobalum dicunl.
Ncquc obstat, quod libri Garolini, et Abbas ur-
1.1111:11 SKci .M)is
m
spcfyonsis, (>l Aiiiioiiiiis iIk-iihI ir|iriili.il.iiii syiio-
«Idiii (',(iiiNliiiillii()|**il* liiiltiliiiii; iiiMii Abliiis sci|iiu-
tiis »sl librus CaiuliiiDS , iil rtiinii Aiiiioiiiiis: nii-
«lor iiiitiMii ooniMi liliriirtitii \cl I;i|)mi iiiriiiiiriin' ,
vcl cN iiii|M'ritiii |i<iMiil (!iiiisl.iiiliiiii|i(i|iiii |irii i\i-
(■uciiii;niiiii iiliiii|iii ('iiiiiilicnl syiiiKltini ('('lciuiilinii
III provi 111*111 Itilliyiiiin'. iilii i>i(Mi>ii csi, iioii (!«iit-
slaiiliiiopiills, siilis iinliriil, sc ilii Niciicii |oi|iii. |'il
siiiiilitcr Aliliiis i;l Aiimiiiiii.s ciiiii (liciiiiliSyiioiliiin
('ulcltriiliitii siih ('.oiistiitiliiio cl lrciic,( liir(; ilcittoii-
striiitl. sc loipii (lc iiiriiciiii syiiinlo, cli.iiiisi pi^r
crrorciii iiotiiiticl ('.ottNliiiititiopolitn. iNcipic cliinn
olisliit. i|UO(l lliiiciiiiiriis. ct liliri Ciirolini (licittil .
sytioiliitti rcproliatiitii in cotirilio liiiitcororiliciisi
fitissc coiutaiit sitic iiuctoriiiili' iiiipiic , (ptod csl
fiilsutti (lo nictKMiii, ul veriiin dc cuiistiitiltiio|iolilii-
iiii : N;im llincmiinis scipiiiltis csl lihros Ciiro-
linos , ut ipsi^ imliiiit. Aiictor iuitciii cornm li-
Imunm lioc imMuliiciutn tittxil cnin aliis imiltis,
iit imponcrcl synodo rriiiiculordicnsi, ul ino.\ di-
ccmus.
Nc(|no olistal nlttmo (ptod IMiitinii, ISIondus Sii-
bcllious cl Paulns Acmilius dicanl, rcprobalam sy-
itoditm ilc lollondis imii^iiiiliiis; tiiim iti primis isti
omncs rociMitioros suiil. Doindo (piod ipsi diotint,
mm pui^iiiil cum anlKpionim liislorioorum diotis ;
iiam in symuio rraiioolonlionsi diiiio syiiodi ropro-
batao fuonttU. niminim otHisliiiilinopolitana coiilra
iiitiij,Mtios, ol iiioaotui pro imatiinibus , ut palct cx
libris Ciirolinis, cl ox llinomaro. Kl forta.ssc liacc
osl oaussii. oiir ;mlii]uoniiti liislorioorum iill(|iti iio-
mincnl Moaoam. aliiiui Constiinlinopoliin, cum di-
cunl synodum (iraccorum rcprolialam in conoilio
fiMiu-oronlionsi.Vidclur ii:;iUir milii.in syiuido rraii-
colbrdionsi vcro roprobatam moaonam 11. syno-
dum. scd per crrorem (>l niatorialitcr, co niodo
prorsiis (]oo olim synodus arimincnsis damnavil
/io?»oi/,sM'o?i.[Nam auotor libnMiim Carolinorum im-
posuit synodo. diioquc mcmkicia ilii oblrusil: U-
num mcndacium fuil, iii synodo nicacna dclinitum
fuisse, iil ima-^incs adorarcnUtr onllii lalriae. Alle-
rum.dccrclum illud faotum a Graccis sine conscn-
sii papae romani.
His duobus mendaoiis pro vcritale Iiabilis.syno-
dus franoofordionsis roprobavit. ct iiicrilo, nicao-
niim synodum lanuiuam proranam ct illcgilimam.
Quod tlla duo fuerinl persuasa concilio. patet ex
ipsis libris Carolinis; nam in praefalione diserte
babetur boc modo:.Uia/rt cst in mediiim (scilicet
iii synodo Francofordiae) quacstio de nova Gre-
corum siinodo, quam de adorandis imaginibus
Constanlinopoli fcccrunt , in qu.a scriptum liabe-
baturAil qui imaginibus sanctorum ita ut dcili-
cae Trinitati serntium , aut adorationem noh
wipendercnt. anathcmajudicarcntur: qui supra
sanclissimi Patres nostri omnimodis orationem ,
et servitutem eis impendcre renuenlcs conteuipse-
runt. atquc consenticntes condcmnanint. Hacc
ibi. In ipso cliam opero iulroducilur Constantinus
episcopus Conslantiae Cypri in concilio nioacno
anathema dicens iis, qui non adorant iraagines eo
cullu. quo adoralur sanolissima Trinilas. En cUirc
prinium mcndacium. Idem auclor clare docct, ad
summum ponlificcmperlinerc judiciuiu conlrover-
siiirom lidri, ct idi^o Hynodiiiii ill.nii pio ndortuidii
imii|^iiiihiis iiiliil \ah'ii', (piod poiilillois aucluiilulu
o.irciit.
PraiMcic.i iiijciori". illi oiiiMpn.ipii i.icunl rcpro-
hiiliim csM' fidsiiiii syiioditiii. ipi.ic «lccrcvTiil Inm-
piii(*H rMSf^ iKtoriiniltiK.Hiii'^ diihio piT il\\n\, (nturnn'
d(iH, iiilclli^iiiil iidonnKhis ciillii l.ilri.K-: niiiii ipsi
(pioipic dui ciit iiiiii^Mlics I'Sm: MMlcraiidas.iM liiii' n
cxccrniiliir illam syiKKliiin, ()iiii(' jiihci \wi\v,^t\'
(lorari. Ado iii clironicu iiiuii (''.Mt. «tiiit, Ituiii.K: iri
dic cMiltiiliotiis CriKMs.a lolu popidu (tuociii oscii
liiri cl iidor.iri sulitam. Ml iii chruntou :iiiiii 717.
vooiil iina^iiKMn vcncraiKhim, (ptiim cvcrtcrul IMii-
lippiciis hiiorcliciis. ct rislitiicnil TIickIhskis ca-
tliultciis iiii|)crator. l(lict;iiio hh. 1. cbroriici siih
liiKMn, ii(;iiosoii, criiois iidoraliuncm , cl dclurha-
lioiicm iniiu/iiiitm |icr l.concni Icoriomarhiiiii fa-
(1.1111 sccliis appcllat. Joantios Avcnliiiiis lih. i. aii-
naliiim dioil. Ciindo .Mii^mio ittt|)craturo (lcsi^Mintu
inia^Mncm cjns in tcmploiihomnt pofiulo vcnfTalam
ipsu priicsoiilc. Ahhas tirs|)cr^'ciisis iii ohroriiru,
invcliiltir I.coikmii Isaiiritiii.ot Cotislatititiitm Cojiru-
nyinttm jiroplcr imajriiium dcjcctioncm.eosquo vo*
cat impios. ct Anticlirisli pracoitrsorcs, cl i: coit-
Irario (Ircgorium |)iti)iitit l.iudat , ct siiiictiKn vi-
rum fuissc dioit , (|ui iirojilor imit^,'incs Cbri-
sli cl sanclorum . impcraturcm cxcommunicavil
clc.
(Juod aiitcm vcrc mcndacia sint , quod synodiis
nicacna carucrit papae auotoritate. cl qtiod decrc-
vcrit imagincs adorandas cultit lalriac.ocrtissimiim
cst;nam in ipsoconoilio nic; ('iioll.iiol.2.rcoiliinlur
cpistolac papae Adriani pro imaginibus.ct in omni-
hus arlionibus scmpor|)rimi siihscribunt lcpali ru-
mani.Deindc qnod ad ciilliim allinct in primaactio-
ne Basilius Ancyranus qui anlca fticrat bacrcticns,
resipiscerct el confcssionom calltolicam edercl. to-
lo ooncilio audicnte ct probiintc dixit, sc imagincs
quidem colcre , non tamcn latria , cum ea sidi
dcbcatur Deo. Similiter Constanlinus cpiscopiis
Conslantiac Cipri in VII. synodo act. 3. loquu-
tus cst. Simililcr loquunlur etiam cacleri aot. 1.
el7.
Ncquc minmi vidcri dcbet.quod auclor librorum
Carolinorum tam manifcsta mcndacia oblruscril sy-
nodo francofordiensi de nicacna synodo paulo anlc
babita: nam si nunc Jlagdeburgenses, el Calvinus
scribcrc audenl.nos colere imagines divinis honori-
bus planc ul Dcos, cum tot libri calbolicorum, cl
ipsum generale conciliura lalinum.el in Gennaniae
finibus Tridcnli celebratum, diserlc olamenl oon-
traiium: quid mirum si idem coniictum sil dc sy-
nodo graeca, qiiam paucissimi legere poleranl, et
quae in orienle celebrata fuerat?
Si dicas, ergo saltem concilium francofordiense,
quod frcqucntissimum fnil.ct IegilirauiTt,errare po-
luit. Respondco: Potuit errare el erravil, non in
juris, sed in facli quaestionc. Et praelerca non mi--
rum si errare potuil: nam non consensere legati
romani.ut Magdeburgenses dicunl:Papa autcm non
solum non oonsensil. sed etiara rcfulavit franci)-
fordiensG decrelum. ut patet ex libro Adriani dc i-
maginibus od Carolum, ubi rctutantur omnia men-
dacia illoruni librorum Carolinorum.
m
Dli IMAGl.MDLS SAiNCTOUUM