Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 15: The Third Argument Is Answered: the Caroline Books
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 15. The Third Argument Is Answered
As to what they bring from the books of Charles, in which they set the chief support of their cause: I say that those books are neither Charles's, nor such that any faith can be had in them.
That they are not Charles's is proved, first, because there exists a book of Pope Adrian I to Charles in which those books are carefully refuted; from which book of Adrian it is clearly understood that those books were composed by some heretic and sent by Charles to the pontiff, that he might answer them. And that this book is Adrian's, which is found in the third volume of the councils, can be understood from other sources and also from Ivo, who carried over many things from this book, under the name of Adrian, into the fourth part of his Decree.
Second, it is certain from the histories of the Greeks and Latins, as of Zonaras and Cedrenus in the Life of Leo the Isaurian, and of Paul the Deacon in his life, that the Roman pontiffs Gregory III, Adrian I and Leo III fell away from the Greek emperors, excommunicated them, forbade taxes to be paid them from Italy, put themselves under the protection of the Franks, and at last transferred the empire to them; and for this cause chiefly, that the Greek emperors were patrons of the heresy of the Iconoclasts, while on the contrary the kings of the Franks stood firm in the ancient faith. How then is it likely that the Emperor Charles laboured under the same heresy, and wrote for the error of the Greeks against the Roman pontiff? But let us hear the words of Zonaras.
“So then,” he says, “Pope Gregory, abandoning obedience to the emperor because of his perverse opinion, made peace with the Franks, having often before tried by letters to call Leo back from his hatred of God and bring him back to the cult of the sacred images.” And below, in the Life of Irene: “When Adrian, pope of old Rome, had died, Leo was put in his place, a reverend and honourable man; who having betaken himself to Charles, king of the Franks, from that time the Franks were masters of Rome, Charles being crowned by Leo and called emperor of the Romans. For Pope Gregory would have nothing to do with the impious rulers of the church of Constantinople, and made peace with the Franks.”
Third, Jonas of Orleans writes, book 1 On the Cult of Images (and Jonas flourished in the time of Louis the Pious, the son of Charles), that Claudius of Turin, the patron of that heresy, never dared to mutter all the time that Charles lived; and in the same place he calls Charles Augustus a most godly man of holy memory. If then the Iconoclasts did not dare to preach their heresy while Charles lived; if the defenders of images venerated Charles as godly and holy; what shamelessness is it to attribute books against images to Charles?
Fourth, Paulus Aemilius writes, book 2 of the History of the Franks, and Regino too in the Chronicle, that in a certain council gathered at Gentilly King Pepin, the father of Charles the Great, refuted the error of the Greeks against the sacred images in the presence of the legates of the Greek emperor. From the same Paulus it is also certain that not long after Charles the Great sent twelve bishops, from the chief men of the kingdom, to the council which Pope Stephen held at Rome against the same error of the Greeks. With what boldness, then, do the adversaries try to turn a most Christian prince into an Iconoclast? especially since in this part the Magdeburgers agree with Paulus Aemilius, Century 8, chapter 9, column 570.
Fifth, it is certain from all the historians, and from the letters and poems of Charles himself, nay, from the deeds themselves, that Charles and Adrian were always most closely joined. There is still extant the epitaph of Adrian, written by the Emperor Charles no less elegantly than piously, in Platina, of which this is the beginning:
Here the father of the Church, the glory of Rome, the famed author,
Adrian, the blessed pope, has his rest:
a man whose life was God, whose law was piety, whose glory was Christ,
an apostolic shepherd, ready for every good.
And below:
Charles, weeping for his father, wrote these verses.
You were my sweet love; you now I mourn, my father.
Be mindful of me; my mind follows you always;
may you hold with Christ the blessed kingdoms of heaven.
Is it credible, then, that Charles was of another religion and faith than Adrian? and that he wrote so sharply against Adrian himself, when he honoured him so much, and praised him after his death?
Lastly, it is certain that Charles was a man skilled in Greek and Latin, prudent and clever; while these books seem to be of a man barbarous, unlearned, light and almost foolish. For he says that Constantinople, a most famous city, is in Bithynia, when no one is ignorant that it is in Thrace; unless perhaps, because earthquakes happen there often, it has changed its soil. Then he asserts that the council for the cult of images was held at Constantinople, though there is no one who does not know that it was held at Nicaea, unless he has read nothing. And, what is more serious, these books attribute by slander and lies many things to the Nicene Fathers which they never said, and sometimes things which the adversaries had said; such as that, that the Eucharist is the image of the body of Christ; which the Nicene Fathers not only do not defend, as this author dreams, but even refute of set purpose. From which Calvin took the occasion of another lie. For because the Iconoclasts had said that only one image is to be adored, that is, the Eucharist, and the false Charles had attributed this saying to the Nicene synod, it pleased Calvin to change the whole thing and to say: “But that the fable may not lack its solemn ‘applaud,’ a closing clause is added” (namely by the Nicene council): “let them rejoice and exult who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Which is a most shameless lie. For the Nicene council is so far from wishing sacrifice to be offered to images that in the seventh action it declared expressly that not true latria, but only an adoration of honour, is paid to images.
Let there be added lastly that this book, like another Melchisedech, is without father, without mother, without genealogy. For it came out suddenly into the light, and it is not known when, or where, or how, or by whom it was found; it bears neither the name of an author nor of a printer, nor of the place where it was printed. All which are arguments and marks of fraud.
But let it be so: let it be the book of Charles the Great; what will it help the adversaries? Nothing at all. For the author of this book expressly attacks almost all the doctrines of the Calvinists. For he openly teaches that the last judgement of controversies of faith belongs to the Roman pontiff, and that he has his primacy not from councils but from God himself. The same would have exorcism used in baptism, churches dedicated with a fixed rite, prayer made for the dead, the saints invoked, relics venerated, the use of chrism, of blessed water and salt kept in the Church, the body of Christ truly in the Eucharist, and it adored and offered as a true and proper sacrifice; all which are well-known errors among the adversaries. If then they wish us to believe this author when he teaches that the Nicene synod erred, let them believe the same man when he asserts so many things which we have now counted up. [The top of page 497 is merged across columns in the scan; these two paragraphs are rendered from what reads.]
And even if it were certain that Charles himself wrote this book and agreed with the Calvinists in everything, what would they have but the testimony of one man, a layman and a soldier? To set which against a general council of bishops is manifest folly. For, as Damascene rightly says, oration 2 on images, “Christ did not commit the Church to kings and emperors, but to bishops and pastors.”
Chapter 16. The Fourth Argument Is Answered
To the fourth argument, from the testimonies of the Fathers, let us answer in order. Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 24, does not accuse Carpocrates of having an image of Christ, but of worshipping it in the way the heathens worship idols, namely with sacrifices, as Epiphanius explains more clearly, heresy 27, and Augustine, heresy 7; and besides, of keeping the image of Christ and of Paul in the same place as the images of Homer, Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. Epiphanius likewise, heresy 79, rebukes the Collyridians, not for honouring the image of the Blessed Virgin and the Virgin herself, but for holding her for a goddess and offering sacrifice to her.
Now Ambrose, when he says in the oration on the death of Theodosius, “Helena found the cross, she adored the King, not the wood surely, which is the error of the heathens,” and so on, means to say that the cross is not adored for its own sake, but for the sake of Christ who hung on it. For although we honour the wood itself, yet we do not honour it because it is wood, but because it represents Christ crucified. Hence Ambrose in the same place says thus: “Helena acted wisely, who raised the cross on the head of kings and set it there, that the cross of the Lord may be adored in kings.”
Further, Jerome on chapter 3 of Daniel, when he says that those who worship God ought not to adore statues, speaks of the statues of kings who were held for gods, and whose statues were given divine honours. For he rebukes those who do what the three young men would not do in Babylon.
To the place of Augustine in On the Morals of the Church, chapter [34?], I say, first, that perhaps he speaks there of idols, when he says, “I know adorers of pictures.”
I say, second, that perhaps he speaks of certain men who honoured the images of the saints superstitiously, so that they came near to idolatry. For that there were some Christians who adored images as gods Damascene testifies at the end of the book On Heresies.
I say, third, that Augustine wrote that book in the first beginnings of his conversion, before he knew well the Catholic faith; and so, offended by certain rites, he thought they savoured of idolatry; which yet afterwards, better instructed, he wholly excused from idolatry. Which we showed when we treated of relics. For in the same place he says that those who set feasts on the tombs of the dead were wont to offer feasts to corpses, and therefore he calls them adorers of tombs; and yet in book 8 of the City of God, the last chapter, he says that those who do it do not offer feasts to the dead, but only set food on the tombs of the martyrs, hoping that it may be sanctified by God through the prayers of the martyrs.
To the places of Gregory I say that Gregory only rebukes a superstitious cult of images, that is, one by which images are worshipped as God; as is plain from the letter to Secundinus, book 7, letter 53: “I know,” he says, “that you do not ask for the image of the Saviour in order to worship it as God, but to grow warm in the love of him whose image you desire to see,” and so on. And that some veneration is owed to images in the judgement of Gregory himself is plain from book 7, letter 5: “The image and the cross being taken away,” he says, “with the veneration that is fitting,” and so on. [In the scan these two answers, on Augustine and Gregory, stand in the other column of page 497 and are printed before the chapter heading; they are placed here by sense.]
Chapter 17. The Fifth Argument Is Answered
To the fifth, of the bronze serpent broken by Ezechias, I answer that it is no wonder if Ezechias did this. For the Hebrews burnt incense to it as to God. For although to burn incense is not necessarily a sacrifice, since we see in the Church that even those who are not priests carry incense, and that not only to God but also to the people; yet in the old law it was not lawful for any but the priest to burn incense, and so it seems then to have been a sacrifice: see 3 Kings 12 and 2 Paralipomenon 26.
Besides, the Hebrews, forgetting the meaning for which Moses had set up the serpent, honoured it because of its matter, as they did the other idols; that is, they thought the benefits of healing came from the bronze serpent itself. For Ezechias wished to show this by calling the serpent Nechushtan, that is, a bit of brass, where a diminutive is put for contempt; or, as others read, nechushtam, that is, their brass.
Chapter 18. The Sixth Argument Is Answered
To Calvin's sixth argument, taken from experience: that Catholics frequent one image more than another of the same thing, and that those about to pray go to images, and that they go on pilgrimage to images when they have more beautiful ones at home; from which he gathers that they believe divinity to be in the images.
I answer that one image is frequented more than another for various causes. The first, because God works miracles through one and not through another; which is also the cause why we frequent one saint with prayers more than another. And why God does this is not ours to discuss.
The second cause is that certain images were painted by holy men, as by Luke, Nicodemus and others, others by profane men. And surely those images deserve a special devotion which are holy not only because of what they signify but also because of their maker. In which kind the image of Edessa excelled, which was believed to have been made by Christ himself; and also the image of St. Stephen, which is thought to have been formed and brought by an angel, of which Evodius speaks, book 2 On the Miracles.
The third cause is that some stir up more to piety than others, since they are more godly and devout, and so on. Further, we go to images when about to pray, not to invoke the image, but that the image may bring back to us the memory of him to whom we wish to pray. Pilgrimages to images are rarer in the Church; for pilgrimages are ordinarily made to relics and holy places, as to the sepulchre of the Lord, to the thresholds of the apostles, to St. James, to the house of the Virgin of Loreto, and so on. If some yet go on pilgrimage to images, they look to those three things which we have said.
Chapter 19. The Seventh Argument Is Answered
To the seventh argument. To the first reason, that an image is not capable of honour, since it is a lifeless thing and without sense and reason, I answer that from this it is only proved that an image is not capable of honour for its own sake; and so images are not honoured absolutely, but relatively to the prototype.
To the second I say that an image is holy for two reasons. First, because of the signifying and representing of a holy thing; and in this way any image of Christ or of the saints, even one still in the workshop, can be honoured.
Second, because of the institution of the Church. For as chalices and vestments, and men themselves, become sacred by the very fact that they are dedicated to divine worship and set apart from profane use, so too images become sacred when they are placed by the Church in churches or other sacred places, not to feed the eyes of the curious, but to stir up the memory and love of the saints, and to serve the worship of sacred things. As a sign of which images are sometimes wont to be blessed, and in a way consecrated by priestly prayers, before they are placed in churches.
To the third I say, first, that man as the image of God is worthy of veneration, as we showed above from Cyril, catechesis 12, and Augustine, letter 203. I say, second, with Thomas Waldensis, volume 3 On the Sacramentals, title [19?], chapter 154, that man is not set forth by the Church to be honoured as the image of God, because there would be a danger lest man be thought to be honoured for his own sake; for man is capable of honour even for his own sake.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV.
SolvUiir argumenium tertmm.
Quod autcm cx libris Caroll adfcrunt, in quibus
praccipuuin firniamenlumcaussae suac consliluunt:
Dico cos ]il)ros neque esse Cnroli, ncque cjusraodi
quibus ulla Iides liaberi possit.
Quod Caroii non sint, probalur Primo, quia cx-
stat liber Adriani papae I. ad Carolum, in quo li-
bri isli accuratc rofclluntur; cx quo Adriani libro
pcrspicue intcUigitur libros istos ab aliquo baerctico
composilos , ct a Carolo ad ponlificem raissos, ut
cis respondcrci. Esse autem Adriani hunc librum,
qui cxstat in tcrlio tomo conciliorum,cum aliunde,
tum etiara ex Ivone inielligi potcst: qui raulta cx
lioc libro nominc Adriani in 4 parlem sui dccrcli
transtulit.
Secundo,constat ex historiis Graecorum etLali-
norum,ut Zonarae ct Ccdrcni in vila Leonis Isauri,
necnon Pauli diaconi in vita ejusdcm, romauos
ponliiices, Gregorium III. Adrianum I. el Leo-
ihcm III. defccisse a graecis imperaloribus, eos ex-
communicasse, vectignlia eis Iribui ex Italia prohi-
buisse, scque in tulelam Francorum contulisse,at-
que in eos landem imperium translulisse, ea de
caussa praccipi^e.quod graeci imperatores hacresi
Iconomacorum palrocinarenlur, cum e contrario
Francorum reges in fide anliqua constanles essent:
Quomodo crgo verisimile cst Carolum imperatorem
eadem haercsi laborasse, et pro crrore Graccnrum
conlia romanum pontificem scripsisse? Sed verba
Zonarae audiamus.
IfjilurMqnW.papa Gregorius deserta imperato-
ris obedienlia ob perversam illius opinionem, pa-
cem cum Francis fecit, cum prius saepe dedisset
operam, %U Leonem per Litcras ab odio Dei revo-
caret.alque adcultum sacrarum imaginum redu-
ceretJA infra in vila henas: Adriano veleris Romae
papa morluo Leo suffeclus est, vis revercndus et
honorabilis, qui cum se ad Carolum Francorum
regem contulisset,ab eo tempore Iloma Francipo-
tili sunt,Carolo a Leone coranoto,elRonianorim.
imperalore appellalo;nam papa Gregorius niliil
sibi rei essc voluit cum impiis ecclesiae constan-
tinopolilanaegubernaioribus;et pacem cum Fran-
cis fccil.
Terlio,scribit Jonas aurelianensis lib 1. de cultu
imaginum ( floruit autera Jonas lempore Ludovici
Pii. Caroli filii), Claudium taurinensem. ejus hae-
resis patronum, toto tempore quo vixit Carolus,
numquam fuisse ausum inutire.idemque ibidera,vi-
rum piissimum ac sanctae memoriae Cnrolum Augu-
stum appellat. Si ergo Iconomachi, vivente Caro-
lo,non audebant baeresim suam praedicarc;si defen-
sores imaginura Carolum. ut pium ac sanclum ve-
nerabunlur, (pianla impudcnlia est, libros contra
imagines Carolo allribuere ?
Qunrto, scribil Paulus Aemilius lib.2.hist. Fran-
corum, nocnon Riiegino iii chronico in concilio
quodam Gentiliaci coaclo. Pipinum rcgem, Caroli
Magni patrem, Graecorum crrorem contra sacras
imagines imperaloris Graeci legalis praesentibus
confulassc.Iix eodcm quoquePauloconslat,nondiu
postea ad concilium, quod Romae Slephanus papa
celebravit conlra cundem Graccorum errorera. mi-
sisse Caroluin Magnum episcopos duodecim, ex
praecipuis regni. Qua ergo audacia adversarii chri-
slianissimum principem ii\ Iconoclastam transfor-
raare nituntur? pfacscrlim cura Paulo Aemilio in
liac parlc assontianlur Magdeburgenses Cent. 8.
cap. D. col. 570.
Quinto,conslat ex istoricis oranibus,et ex ipsius
Caroli epislolis et carminibus,immo ex ipsis rebus
gestis, Carolum ct Adrianura seraper conjuHCtissi-
mos fuissc.Exslat adhuc Adriani epitaphiura ab ira-
peratore Carolo non rainus eleganler,quam pie de-
scriplura apud Plalinara, cujus hoc est inilium:
Uic patel Ecclesiae, Romae decus, inclylus auclort
Jdrianvs requicm papa beatus habet.
Fir cui vita, Deus: pietas, lex: gloria, Christus:
Pastor aposlolicus, promplus ad omne bonum.
Et infra:
Poft palrem Carolus lachrymans haec carmina scripsit,
Ta mihi dulcis amor, te modo plango pater.
Tu mcmor eslo mei, sequitur mem mea semper,
Cum Christo tencas regna beata poli.
Nura credibilc est igitur Carolura alterius religio -
nis ac fidei fuisse, quara Adrianuin ? et in ipsum
Adrianum tam acriter scripsisse,cum eum tantope-
re colueril, et post obitum laudarit?
Denique cerlum est Carolum horainem graece et
laline peritum , prudentem et ingeniosum fuisse,
libri autem isti, hominis barbari, imperili, levis,
ac pene stulti esse videntur. Nam Constantinopolim
urbem nolissimam in Bilhynia esse, dicit, cum ne-
mo nesciat csse in Thracia,nisi forte,quia frequen-
lcs ibi terraemotus fiunt, solum mutaverit. Deinde
concilium pro cultu imaginum Constanlinopoli ce-
lcbratum asserit, cum tamen Nicaeae celebratum
nemo sil qui nescial,nisi qui nihil legil:el quod gra-
vius cst, per caluraniara et raendacium multa tri-
buunt isti libri Nicaenis Patribus, quae nunquam
dixcrunt, et interdum, quae adversarii dixerant:
quale est iliud.quod eucharislia sil iraago corporis
Christi: quod non solum Patrcs nicaeni non defen-
dun.t, ut istc auclor somniat, sed etiam ex profes-
so refollunt. Unde accepit Calvinus alterius raen-
dacii occasioncra. Quia enim Iconoraachi dixerant
uuam solum iraaginem adorandam, idesl, euchari-
sliam. alque hoc dictum Pseudocarolus nicaenac
synodo attribuerat, Calvino placuit ita rem tolam
immulare ac diccre: Caeterum ne suo solemni,
plaudite, fabula careat, addilur clausula (nimi-
rum a concilio 7iicae7io ) gaudeant et exulteni,
qui Clirisli habenles imaginem, sacrificium illi
offerunt: Quod cst mendacium impudcntissimum:
Conciliumenim nicaenura tanlum abest, ut volue-
rit imaginibus sacrificium ofTerri^ut diserte in actio-
ne seplima declaraverit non verara latriam, sed ho-
norariam lantum adorationeni imaginibus dcferri.
Acccdat noslremo.quod liber isle tamquam alter
Melchisedech, esl sine patrc, sine malre, sine ge-
nealogia; prodiit cnim repenle, in lucera, nec sci-
iiiui M:i:LMti'S
4U7
titr (|ti:intl(), nttl llti, iitll i|tiiitti()ili),:tttt :i (|tt(i irpnr-
lti>:ii('(' litil)(>l tioiitcit :iiti'liiris.ii(*(- itiiiircssoris.niT
lo(M ul)i itii|)r()ssiis fsl. (.Miiii! sitiil oiiiiitii iiri^tiincri-
l;i :it(|(i(' itt(li('i:i li':iiiiliiiii.
.Snl c^lo. sll lilxT 4l:it()ll .M:i^tit. (|iit(l litndciit
:i(lvi>rs:irii ohlitH^ltitiil? |ir(irsiis iiiliil. Aiiclor «'iiiiii
littiiis liliri (liscrtn ()|i|iti;;ti:il otittii:i lcrc (lo;^'iiiiil:i
(!iiiviiiist:irtiiii ; :i|)citc citiiii docct :i(l roiti:itttiiti
poiitilicciii pcrtiiicrc itlliiiiiitii pidicitiiii dc cotitKi-
vor.sis lldci. ct ciiiii ttoii !i (Miiicilns, scd n Dco ipso
priiiKiltitit liidicrc. Idciii viilt f^vnrcisiiititit iidlillicri
III lciptisiiio. tciiipl:i dc(lic:iri ccito rilii, oriiidiiiti
08S0 pro dcriiticlis, snnclus invocandos , ndi^pitiis
voii('r:iii(l:is, cliriMiuitis. :i(pi.ic, s:ilis(pic liciicdicti
iistini iti K('clcsi:i rcliiicttdiitit, iii ('iicli:iristi:i vck^
(>sso ('(n'piis (lliristi: idipK! ii(lor:itidiiiii,i'l t:itn(|ti;itii
voriitn nc propriiitii s:irriliciiitii olVcrciidtitti , (pt:io
siinl (iiiiiics c\pl()r;iliii' lcicrcscs :i|)iid :idvcrs:in()s,
Si cr^o voliiiil iios crcdcrc liuic ^iitctori.ciiin doccl,
nicnoniim synodiiin crriissc, crcdiiiil cidcni ipsi,
ciiiii ;isscril liiiii tiutll;i. (pi:ic j;iiii ciiiimcr;ivimtis.
Onod si cti:ini coiisliircl (l^irolum ipstiiu lniuc li-
brutn srripsisso.cl in omiiihus ctiin r.:ilviiiistis ron-
Yonirc. (piid li;il)cr(Mil ;iliiid (pKiin lcslimiiiiinni u-
nius liomuis hiici cl mililis ? (hiod oppoticrc vtdlo
concilio ;;cncr:di opiscoporuiii sUillili:i csl m;iiiiro-
sln. N;im, ul roclo ;iil Danutscoims or;it. 2. do ima-
j,Mnil)us:(,Viri's/?/s 710?? vonmii^il F.cclo^itmi rcyibus
cl ///tj)cni/()/'/7)i(s. s('(/ (i^i/scopis cl pasturibu^.
CAPUT XVI.
(\(l lociim Aii^Mistlnl do morilnin Kr> ! • • • c:ip.
.'tCt. (Ik^o 1'iiitio, forlc coiii lo<pii i\*' kI<' iiiiiii.
ciiin iill: l\(ni piclHrnrinn iKlornluri'!-
Hico .^ccitndo: l'!(iiii foric l(i'pii dc ipiiiniid.im,
(pii imii|;incH Hniiclorniii siipcr>(itioH(; colcli.inl, ii'i
iit iicccd(>r(Mit ad idololiilriain: iiuin riii<«««c. iilKpios
('.lirisliiiiios.tpit iiiiiit;in('s (piiif>| Hcoh ndoriircnl. to-
lcslitltir hitni.iscciiiiH iti lliK! Iiliri dc li:icrc»il»iiH.
Hico Tcrlto: Att^Mislititim srripsisnc ('11111 libriiin
in iiriiiiordiisconvcrslonisyuticiKilldf^nK ntliolicnin,
ct idiNi olTciismii (piilmsdom ritil)tiH.piii;iss«' cos sii-
pcrc idolol,ilri.mi.(|tKis t^ditcn posicii iiiclitis iiislru-
cliis oxousavit oninino :il) idololalriii.ld (juod ostcn-
diitiiis ctim ajjcrcitms (l(! rcliipiii-^: n:iin in oodcn»
loco dicit cos. (|tii poticliiiiil (^piil.is stjpcr tmmilus
morltiortim, olTcrri; soltlos cptilas ca^liivcrilms, cl
iti(l(^ vociil oos scptilcliroriim :id(iriiloros: (!l laincfi
lil). H.dc rivit.hci c;t|).tilt.dicil.cos. ipii id r;icitint,
iioit ollcrr^! mortuis cpiil,is,s»!d solditi poncr^! cilius
sup( r litmulos in:irlyrutii. spcr^tnlcs cos a hoo san-
c.lilic;iri pcr iicirlyrtim procos.
Ad loc:i (ir('^,'()rii dico: (ir('t,M)riiim soluiti rcpn!-
li(!n(lorociilttiiii im:i^'iiiittii supcrslitiostirn.idosl (jiio
im;i;;incs colitiitiir til iMi.ll p;ilcl cx cpislol:) :id Sc-
ciiiidittiim lil). 7. cj)ist. ."»!{. Nrio, iti(|ittl.(/iiO(Z innuii-
7IC//1 Siilvdloris 71071 iilco in'lis.iil (jHiisi Ucuiaco-
l(is,scd ob rcconliilioncm Filii Dni in rjus (nnorn
rcciiloscns o/c.()ti()d iiuliim ;ili(pt;t vciicr;ilio dchca-
lur imnijMni ox soittijuliii ('ir(?^,'oiii. p;tl(!l cx lib. 7.
cpisl. 5'. Sublata. inqiiil,r/ua difjnum csl vcncra-
lionc, imtifjinc, alquc criice elc.
SolvHur argumcnlum quarlum.
M QuarUim argumonlum cx loslimoniis Palrum,
ordinc rospondcamus. Ircncus lib. I. cap. 21. non
nrguil Carpocralom. fiuod ima<:;incm Cltrisli liabc-
rct, sod quod oain colcrcl oa modo.quo ^'onl^s co-
lunl idola, niiuirum sacriliciis, ul clarius cxplicant
Epiplianius liacrcsi 27. ol Au.cjuslinus hacrcsi 7. cl
praclorca quod imagincm Clirisli. cl Piitili oodem
loco habcrct , quo imacrincs llomcri. Pylhasorac,
Plalonis el Arislolclis. Kpiphanius simililcr iiaere-
si 71).rcprehcnditCollyridianos.non quod imaiiinem
b.Yirginis cl ipsam Virgineni honorarcnt.scti quod
habcrenl pro Doa, eique sacrilicium offerrent.
Jam Ambrosius quando ait, oralione dc obilu
Thcodosii: HcJcna cruccm invcnit. rcgom adora-
vit. non Ugnum ulique qui csl eiror genlilium
clc. VuU diccrc.cruccm non adorari propter sc.scd
proplcr Chrislum, qui iu ea pcpcndil. Liccl enim
ipsum lignum hoiiorcmus. non tamcn honoramus,
quia ligiium cst, sed quia Cltristum crucilixum re-
pracsentanl. Undc Ambrosius ibidem sic ail: Sa-
pienlcr Uclena cgit.quae crucem in capite regum
ievavil ct collocavU, ut crux Domini in regibus
adorelur.
Porro llieronyinus in cap. 3. Daniel. cum dicit,
eos, qui Deum colunt.non debere staluas adorare,
loquiUir deslaUiis rcgum.qui habcbantur pro Diis,
cl quorutn slaluac divinis honoribus aniciebantur.
Kcprehcndil enim cos, qui id raciunl, quod trcs
pueri facerc nolucruul in Dabylone.
CAPUT XVII.
Solvilur argumenlum quintiim.
Ad (luinlum de scrpcnte acneo confracto ab K-
zocliia: rcs|)onilco nou nurum cssc, si id Ezcchiitc
fcccrint. Ilcbraci cnitn. illi adolchanl inccnsum.ut
Dco; n;im ctiiiinsi adolerc inccnsiim non sil ncccs-
*ario s;icrirtcium, cum vidcamus in Ecclcsia ctiam
iion Siiccrdolcs inccnsum cffcrre.idquc non soluiit
Dco, sed eliam popiilo: lamen in Icgc vcteri nou
liccbal.nisi saccrdoti adolerc inccnsum.ct proindc
sacrilicium vidclur lunc fuisse: vide 3. llegum 12.
ct 2. Paral. 2G.
Praclcrca Hcbraci ol)lili significalionis, proptcr
quaniscrpcnicm crcxcral Moyscs.honorabanl illuni
proptcr malcriam. quomodo cactcra idola, hoc cst,
pulabiinl bcnelicia sanilaUim ab ipso scrpcntc ae-
nco profccla. Id cnim indic;ire voluit Ezechias ap-
pcllaudo scrpcntem ?nc-*ri2 idcst, acnulum , iibi
diminutivum ponitur per conlcmptum: vel, ul alii
legunt, Cn*i)n;2 idest, aes eorum.
CAPUT XVIII.
Solvilur argumentum sexlum.
Ad Scxluiii argumcnlum Calvini, sumptum db
cxpcricntia.quia catholici magis frequentant unaui
imasiucm,quani oliam cjusdem rei, cl quia prcca-
m
DE IMAC.IiMBLS SAACTORUM
luri ;ul imagincs acccdiinUcl qiiia pcrcgrinonlur ad
un;igincs,cum luibcanl (lonii pulchriorcs.Ex (]uil)us
ille colligil, non crcdcre in iniaginibus inesse divi-
niliilcni.
Uospondco; Unom imogincni magis frcqucnlari,
quam aliam, proplcr varias causs;is. Prima, (]uia
Dcus pcr un;uii 0()er;itur miracula. cl non pcr a-
Iium:quae cliamcaussa esl,cur magis frcquenlemus
])recibus unum sanclum. quam alium. Cur aulem
Deus lioc laciat, non csl noslrum disculere.
Sccunda caussa esl. quia (]uacdam im;igincs pi-
clae snnl a sunclis viris, ul Luca. Nicodcmo cla-
liis, ciliae a profanis. Ccile aulem pecuiiarcm de-
volionem merenlur imagincs.quae non solum sunt
sancl;ic iiropter signincalionem.scd eliam propter
arliHcem. Iii quo gcnere excellebat imago Edcsse-
na, quae Jib ipso Cliristo facta credcbatur: nncnon
iniago s. Stcpliani, quae ab ;ingclo forniala cl alla-
la fuissc pulatur, de qua Evodius lib. 2. de mira-
culis.
Terlia caussa est, quia ali;iquae magis excilant
;id pietatem, quam aliae. cum sinl magis piae et
religiosae etc. Porro precalnri ad imagines accedi-
mus, non ul invocemus imogincm, sed ul memo-
riam ejus, quem orare volumus.nobis imago relVi-
cet. Peregrinaiiones ad imagines rariores sunl in
Ecclesia: orditiari(i enim percgriniitiones ad reli-
(juias, cl loca sancta fieri solenl,ul ad sepulchrum
Domini, ad limina aposlolorum, ad s. Jacobum,ad
(lomum Virginis Lauretanae clc. si qui tamen pc-
regrinantur ad imagines, illa tria spectant, quae
dLximus.
CAPLT XIX.
Solviiur argumentum septimum.
Ad Seplimum argumenlum, ad primam ralio-
iiem, quod imogo non sit capax lionoris, cum sit
res inanima, ct sensus.ac ralionis expers. Respon-
dco: Inde solum probari, imaginem non esse ho-
iioris capacem propler se,el i(Jeo imagincs non ho-
norari absolulc, sed relative ad prololypum.
Ad Secundom dico: Imaginem esse sancl;im pro-
ptcrduo. Primo , propter significationem el re-
praesenlationem rei sanclae: el hoc modo qnaeli-
l)cl imago Chrisli. vel sanctorum etiam in olTicina
cxislcns, polesl honorari.
Secundo, propter Ecclesiae instilulionem. Nam
(luemadmodum calices et vesles, et ipsi homines
eo ipso fiunl sacri, quod dedicanlur cullui divino,
el separanlur a piofano usu; ila etiam imagines fi-
unt sacrae. cum ponunlur ab Ecclesia in templis,
vel aliis locis sacris, non ul pascont oculos curio-
sorum, sed ul excilent memoriam el amorem san-
ctorum, et serviant cultui rerum sacrarnm. In cu-
jus rei signum solent aliqnando imagines benedi-
ci, el prccibtis sacerdotalibus qnodiimmodo sacra-
ri, antcqujim in templis collocenlur.
Ad Tcrtium dico. Primo, homincm ut imaginem
Dei csse dignum veneralionc,ul supra ostendimus
(^x Cyrillo calechcsi 12. et Auguslino episl. 203.
Dico Secundo cum Thoma Waldensi tom. 3.desa-
cramcnlalibus tit. 10. cap. 154. homincra non
proponi ab Ecclesia colendum ut imaginem Dei,
quia periculum essct, ne homo propter se coli
pularelur; nam eliam propler se homo capax esl
houoris.