Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) vs. Various Arguments used by the Second Council of Nicea (787) in Favour of Icon Veneration

  

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)