2
First. They rightly say that so far as the historical use of images is
concerned this may not simply be condemned, nor simply prohibited (leaving aside
the case of worship and adoration), and that Scripture itself interprets the
law about images (Ex. 20;4, 5) so that it is permitted to make and to have
images either for historical use or for the sake of decoration. For it is certain
that there images for the sake of history, of reminder, of signification, and
of ornamentation in the tabernacle and in the temple of Solomon (Ex. 25:17-22;
Hebr. 9:5; Num. 21:8-9; 1 Kings 6:18 ff.) And from between the cherubim God was
accustomed to speak (Num. 7:89). It is known that the cherubim had the visage
of a man (Ezek. 41:18-19).
What they say to this effect on the
basis of certain fathers either about the histories of Scripture or about the
sufferings of the martyrs, expressed and represented through pictures, should
not be faulted by those who judge fairly, provided they stay within historical
boundaries, as when Gregory says in the fourth action: “Would that it were
possible that heaven and earth and water, also all living beings and plants,
and if there be anything else, could inform us about the history of Christ and
of the saints, either through colors or through pictures, or through sounds.”
And Germanus says, “The things anyone has previously read or head, if he again
sees them represented in a picture, it recalls to his memory what he has previously
heard and read; however, when the ignorant see such things placed before their
eyes through pictures, they take occasion from it to inquire and investigate
the histories. But what a certain man says in Action 4, namely that the power
of images is greater than the power of the Word of God, is false, as we have shown
above.
3.
Second. They confuse the necessary distinction between the historical use of
images and their worship and adoration. And from the testimonies, if they
adduce any about the historical use of images, they at once either openly or obliquely
infer their worship and adoration. Some at that synod seem to have acknowledged
this, but the voices of the others prevailed. For in Action 4, Constantine,
bishop of Cyprus, says that there had indeed been images in the tabernacle, but
that, lest they be used for idolatry, the Lord had dais; “You shall not make
for yourself any likeness, lest the people worship it.” And in Action 5 there
is brought forward a certain comment on Exodus: “Although we make likenesses of
godly men, these are nevertheless not made in order to be adored as gods, but
that, seeing them, we may be spurred to imitation of their deeds. If we make
pictures of Christ, surely we do not adore them because of the similarity, but
that the mind may fly upward through what it has seen.” (Martin Chemnitz, Examination
of the Council of Trent, 4 vols. [trans. Fred Kramer; St. Louis, Miss.:
Concordia Publishing House, 2021], 4:110-11)
IV
Let us see further how faithfully they in this synod adduce the testimonies of
ancient writers for confirmation of the adoration of images. For it is certain
that the whole church for 600 years and more, as well have shown above, simply condemned
the adoration of images. But of such testimonies of antiquity no mention at all
is made in this synod, but the seek others. Of what kind these are we shall now
show. Indeed, from the fathers of the primitive church for 300 years and more
after the birth of Christ no testimonies at all are brought forward about
images, even as none can be brought forward. But let us consider how they deal
with the testimonies of those who lived after the 300 years!
They needed to teach that the
adoration of images is a Christian and catholic dogma, but they bring forward
certain testimonies of the fathers that speak about the historical use of
images. It is clear, however, that the worship and adoration of images is not
proved from their historical use. But you say: “They prove from Athanasius,
Basil, and Chrysostom that the honor which is shown images is referred to their
prototype. Likewise, that the image, and He whose image it is, are worshiped
with one and the same adoration.” With these testimonies, set forth with
trickery and in mutilated form, they disturb those who are not forewarned. But
if that which the fathers treat and are after in these statements is
considered, it will be manifest that these allegations of the synod are traps,
guile, and frauds.
For the fathers take a simile from
the political images of emperors, and from their civic veneration, namely that
whatever honor is shown to their images, or whatever disgrace is heaped upon
them, is judged to be done as the kings themselves, and that whoever had looked
on the image of the king is said to have looked upon the king himself. But they
by no means draw the conclusion from this: “Therefore the honor, worship,
invocation, and adoration which are due to Christ Himself are to be shown to
His material and lifeless image.” For this idea cannot be shown by even a
single syllable in the writings of these fathers.
But because it seemed absurd to
the heretics that Christ, the Son of God, should be treated with the same
worship and adoration as God the Father Himself, they pretended that it
followed form this that there are two Gods. This teaching of Christ (“I am in
the Father and the father in Me” [John 14:11]); “He who has seen Me has seen
the Father” [John 14:9]: . . . that all may honor the Son, even as they honor
the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father
[John 5:23]) these ancient writers
therefore wanted to make clear as best they could for the unlearned by a rather
coarse simile and sign taken from the images of kings as they were at that time
customary in the political realm, because Christ is called the Image of God
[KJV] “and bears the very stamp of His nature” [Heb. 1.3]. However, they say
absolutely nothing to the effect that the material images of Christ and of the saints
are to be worshiped and adored in the church with religion and piety. For this
cannot be shown by one letter, one syllable, one statement in these passages
from the fathers. They speak of images of worldly emperors and apply this
simile to Christ, who is the living and essential Image of the eternal Father. With
this meaning Basil said that honor shown the image, namely Christ, is referred
to the prototype, that is, the Father, as Christ says: “He who does not honor
the Son does not honor the Father” [John 5:23].
Thus the reader sees with that
good faith they distort this saying of Basil, which they are always mouthing,
about the image and its prototype, to mean that adoration and religious worship
should be shown to lifeless images. With the same honesty they also quote from
Ambrose that Christ is not divided when in Him we adore both the divine image
and the cross. For he explains himself when he says that he is speaking about
the adoration of the dignity of the flesh in Christ.
However, because they themselves
see that the adoration of images in the church is not proved by these testimonies
of the ancients, they take refuse in counterfeit and falsified testimonies. For
they cite Basil in the epistle to Julian, whom they falsely quote as saying: “I
accept the saints, who make supplication with God in my behalf, in order that
God may be favorable toward me through their mediation and may grant me
remission of sins. For this reason I also honor the histories of these images,
and I openly adore them. For this, which was delivered to us by the holy
apostles, must not be prohibited.” But in the genuine writings of Basil neither
this testimony nor one similar to it or of the same intent is found. And because
it militates against Scripture and against the unanimous opinion of all antiquity,
there is no doubt that it is spurious. (Ibid., 122-23)