Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 20: With What Kind of Cult Images Are to Be Honoured
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 20. The Question Is Put: With What Kind of Cult Images Are to Be Honoured
I come now to the last question, namely with what kind of cult images are worthy. There are three opinions.
The first, that the image is not to be honoured in any way in itself, but only the exemplar is to be honoured before the image. So certain men hold, whom Catharinus reports and refutes. Alexander seems to have thought the same, third part, question 30, the last article; and also Durandus, book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 9, question 2; and Alfonso de Castro, under the word Image.
The foundation of this opinion is that, according to the saying of Basil often repeated in the seventh synod, the honour of the image passes to the exemplar. Therefore, say these doctors, it does not end in the image; and so the image itself is not what is honoured, but only the exemplar is honoured through it and in it. And it is confirmed from the verses which are said to have been composed in the time of the seventh synod, and which are seen at Venice in the golden church, cut in very ancient work, and are reported by Sabellicus, book 8 of Ennead 8:
For it is God whom the image teaches, but it is not itself God;
look at it, but worship in your mind what you discern in it.
And what is said of the image of Christ God could be said also of the images of the saints, namely: “For it is Peter whom the image teaches, but it is not itself Peter,” and so on.
The second opinion is that the same honour is owed to the image and to the exemplar, and so that the image of Christ is to be adored with the cult of latria, that of blessed Mary with the cult of hyperdulia, and those of the other saints with the cult of dulia. So Alexander, third part, question 30, the last article; blessed Thomas, third part, question 25, article 3, and Cajetan in the same place; blessed Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almain, the Carthusian, Capreolus and others on book 3, distinction 9. Henry too has the same, Quodlibet 10, question 6, though he adds that no image is to be adored with latria. For he thinks indeed that the honour of the image and of the exemplar is the same, but at the same time teaches that the image of Christ is not the image of Christ as Christ is God, but as he is man.
The foundations of these authors are these. First, because the Church sings of the cross: “Hail, O cross, our only hope; increase justice in the godly, and grant pardon to the guilty.”
Second, because the honour of the image passes to the exemplar, from Basil; therefore the honour of the image and of the exemplar is the same; wherefore, if the exemplar is honoured with latria, so is the image.
Third, from Ambrose, who says in the book On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation, chapter 7, that the divinity of Christ and his cross are honoured with the same adoration: “When,” he says, “we adore in Christ the image of God and the cross, do we divide him?”
Fourth, from Jerome, in the letter on the death of Paula: “Prostrate before the cross,” he says, “she adored, as if she saw the Lord hanging there.” But she would have adored the Lord hanging there with latria; therefore she adored the cross itself too with the cult of latria.
Fifth, from Aristotle, who says in the book On Memory and Recollection that the movement toward the image, as it is an image, and toward its exemplar is the same.
Sixth, the measure of the adoration of each thing is the reason or excellence for which it is adored; but the reason why the image is adored is nothing else than the excellence of the exemplar; therefore wholly the same honour is owed to the image as is owed to the exemplar.
Seventh, he who treats the image of a king with insult is held guilty of treason, as if he had insulted the king himself; therefore the reason of the image and of the exemplar is the same as regards honour and insult. [The top of page 499 is merged across columns in the scan; these four paragraphs are rendered from what reads.]
The third opinion goes in the middle, and is that of those who say that images themselves are to be honoured in themselves and properly, but with a lesser honour than the exemplar itself, and so that no image is to be adored with the cult of latria. So Martin Perez in the book On Traditions, the treatise on images; likewise Ambrose Catharinus in the treatise on images; Nicholas Sander, book 2, the last chapter, On Images. Gabriel too seems to have thought the same, who on book 3, distinction 9, the single question, and on the canon of the Mass, lecture [49?], says that the image is adored with the same adoration as the exemplar, yet not univocally but analogically. For this is to say that images are honoured with a lower cult than the exemplar itself.
For the answer to the question and the reconciling of the opinions three distinctions are to be noted. For that which is honoured can be honoured in itself or by accident; for its own sake or for the sake of another; properly or improperly. That is honoured in itself in which the reason of the veneration is; that by accident which is joined to the thing that is adored, and is not itself the reason of the adoration. As when a king is honoured, that man who is king is honoured in himself; his purple is honoured by accident, and the other things joined to him, and all his accidents, except the royal dignity, which, though it is not that which is honoured, yet is that by which that man is honoured. And so the person is honoured in itself as that which; the royal dignity in itself as that by which; the rest is honoured by accident.
The second distinction: something can be honoured for its own sake or for the sake of another. That is honoured for its own sake which has in itself a reason of veneration not depending on something else; and in this way only a rational nature is venerable. That is honoured for the sake of another which has in itself indeed a cause of honour, but that cause depends wholly on another; and in this way the signs of sacred things are venerable. For they have in themselves a relation of likeness, or the representing of a sacred thing, and so a certain excellence; but that depends wholly on the sacred thing itself.
The third distinction: something can be honoured properly or improperly. That is said to be honoured properly which is truly honoured by reason of itself. That is said to be honoured improperly which is honoured in place of another. The legate of a king is sometimes honoured as legate, and then he himself is properly honoured, though he is honoured for another's sake. Sometimes he is honoured in place of the king, with the honour proper to kings, so that then he himself is honoured improperly, while the king is properly honoured in him. This appears more clearly when one man takes possession of something for another; or when a funeral is held in the absence of the body, around a statue, and all the things are done around the statue which would be done around the body. As when, on the witness of Sextus Aurelius [Victor], [Trajan] triumphed at Rome after his death, and his statue sat in his place in the triumphal chariot. For it cannot be said that the statue properly triumphed, but [Trajan], represented by the statue. [The name is damaged in the scan.]
Chapter 21. That Images Are to Be Honoured in Themselves and Properly
Now, according to the distinctions set down, let us explain some opinions of the matter. Let this, then, be the first opinion, or proposition. The images of Christ and of the saints are to be venerated not only by accident or improperly, but also in themselves and properly, so that they themselves are the end of the veneration, as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they stand in the place of the exemplar.
It is proved, first, because the seventh council, action 7, defined that the images of Christ are to be venerated, but not with latria. It means, then, that they are to be venerated in themselves and properly with some cult. For if the council only meant that images are adored by accident or improperly, so that the proper end of the adoration was not the image but Christ himself, it would not say that they ought not to be adored with latria; for Christ is adored with latria, since he is God.
Nor does it stand in the way that some say that the image of Christ does not represent Christ as God, but Christ as man, and so that in the image of Christ Christ cannot be adored as God, but Christ as man. For the image of Christ represents Christ himself, that is, the divine hypostasis clothed in human flesh; as the image of any man represents not only the shape and colour, but the person and the whole man himself. Otherwise the apostles, seeing Christ in the flesh, ought not to have adored him with latria; nor ought Thomas to have said, “My Lord and my God.” For they did not see Christ as God, but as man.
Second, it is proved: for if the image is not to be venerated except improperly, because, namely, the exemplar is adored before it, or in it, or through it, surely it will be lawful to deny simply that images are to be venerated. For what is not said except improperly can be denied simply, as is plain. But the seventh council, action 7, says anathema to those who deny that images are to be venerated.
Third, the same council in the same place defines that images are to be venerated in the way we venerate the Gospels and the sacred vessels. But these are honoured in themselves and properly, as all admit; for they do not stand in the person of anyone else. Therefore images too are to be venerated in themselves and properly.
Fourth, in the image itself there is truly something sacred, namely the likeness to a sacred thing, and the very dedication or consecration to divine worship. Therefore images in themselves, and not only as they stand in the place of the prototype, are worthy of honour.
Nor do the objections brought above convince. To the first I say that images, whether they are honoured properly, or in themselves, or by accident, are always honoured for the sake of the exemplar, and their honour always passes to the exemplar, but in one way and another. For when an image is adored improperly, because, namely, the honour does not end in it but passes through it to the exemplar, then the honour of the image passes to the exemplar immediately and formally. But when the image is honoured in itself and properly, so that the honour truly ends in it, then its honour passes to the exemplar not immediately but mediately, and as a consequence. For he who honours someone's image without doubt honours it for the sake of him whose image it is, and so the honour truly shown to the image overflows onto the prototype. As he who gives alms to a poor man is said to have given it to Christ, not because the alms do not go immediately to the poor man, but because he who gives alms to a poor man does it for Christ's sake, and honours Christ in the poor man.
To the second I say that those little verses teach only that the same honour is not owed to the image as is owed to the exemplar, as is plain from the reason which is given in the verses themselves: because, namely, the image is not God but the image of God. For from that it follows that the honour owed to God is not owed to the image, but a lesser one. But we do not here assert that the same honour, but that some honour, is owed to the image. And perhaps the authors of the first opinion meant only to say this, namely that the honour proper to the exemplar cannot be shown to the image except improperly; and said nothing of a lower honour. If it is so, we do not disagree with them.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX.
Proponilur quaestio: Quo generc cultus
imagines sint lionorandae.
Venio nunc ad postremam quaeslioncm,quo ge-
nere videlicet cultus dignae sint imagincs. Tres
suiil si-nlcnliac.
Prima. quod im;igo non sit ullo modo in sc co-
len(l;i. sed solum corom iinagine colendum excin-
plar: ila quidain, quos referl et refellil Catharinus.
Idem vidclur sensisse Alexander 3. parl. quaest.
30. art. ult. necnon Durandus lib. 3. senl. dist. 9.
quaest. 2. et Alphonsus a C;islro vcrbo, Imago.
Fundamendum hujus sententiae est, quia secun-
dum Kasilii sententiam in VII. synodo sacpius re-
petiiam, honor imaginis Iransilad exemplor; noii
ergo inquiunt hi doctores, in imaginem termiiia-
tur: promde ipsa imogo non cst quoe honoralur,
sed soliim per illain,el in illa honorotur exemplar.
El cotifirmalur cx versibus, qui dicuntur composi-
ti lcmpore VII. synodi, quique visuntur Venctiis
in aede aurea anliquissimo opere incisa, et rcfe-
runlur a S;ibcllico lib. 8. Aeneadis 8.
N(tm IMis est quod imago docct, se non Deus i/)sa;
Ilanc videas, sed menle colas quod cernis in ipsu.
Qiiod aulem dicilur de imagine Christi Dei, dici
cti;im possct de imaginibus sanclorum, nimirum;
Nam Petrus cst quod imago docet, sed non Pelrus
ipsa elc.
Secunda opinio est, quod idem honor debealur
imagini cl exemplari, et proinde Ciirisli iraago sil
adoianda cultu latriae, b. Marioe cullu hyperduli-
ac, sanctorum aliorum cultu duliae. Ita Alexander
3. par. quaest. 30 art. ult. b. Thom. 3. part.
quaest. 2"). art. 3. et ibidem Cajelanus, b. Bona-
ventur;i, 3Iarsilius, Almayn, Carihusianus, Copre-
olus.et alii in 3. dislinl. 9. idem eliam hobel Hen-
ricus quodlib. 10. quaesl. G. quomvis addal. nul-
lain imaginem adorondam essc lolria;nom ipse pu-
tal quidem eundem esse honorcm imaginis, et
exemploris, sed simul docet,imaginem Christi non
csse imaginem Chrisli , ul Chrislus Deus, sed
ul liomo cst.
Fundamenla horum auclorum haec sunt. Primo,
quia Ecclesia canil da cruce:0 crux ave spes uni-
ca, Auge piis justitiam, Reisque dona veniam.
Secundo, quia honor imaginis transil ad exem-
plar exBasilio, igilur idem est honor imagiriis et
exemplaris; qu;ire, si excmplar colilur lalria ct
imago.
Terlio, ex Ambrosio, qui libro de incarnationis
dominicac sacramenlo cap. 7. ail, cadem adoratio-
ue coli divinitalcm Cliristi, ct cjuscrucem: i\um,
inquil, cumin Christo imnginem Dei, el crucem
adoramus, dividimus eum?
Illll li SKCIKNDIS
Qiiardi, i>\ llioroDyuio U|iisUi|a *ln nliilii PiiiiI.m;:
/»/'(>s/n/<(i, iii(|iiili ""•'" crurcin, iiiiaHi itctulmtvm
Ihtiiiinnin ('(>nu'i'i'l.(uli>riilutl, Scd liiiiiiiiiniii |irii-
(IniliMii iiilonissiU laln.i.i^Mliir r[ \\\sm\\ rniriMii l.i-
iiiiio ciilUi iiilonili.il-
<)iiiiilo, ox \i'i^U)loli\ i|iii lihni ilo iiiriiiiiriii, <;l
n-iiiiiiist'('iiUii ilii'il. (■tiiiili-iii ('ss(^ iiiiiliiiti iii itiiiij^M-
iiciii,'iil iiii.i^',») «'sl, ("l iii i|iMiiit fMMiiiil.ir.
Su.sU), iiuMisiira iiiliiriiUoiiis iiiiiiisi'iijiisi|iii^ rci
<>si nilio, sivo (ixccllrtili.t, |it'(i|)t('i' (|ii.iiii iiddi.iUir;
si'(l riiUo, c.ur iKlonilur iiiia^o. ikui csl iilm, (|iiiiiii
<«\c(>llcuUa (>\(Miipliiris,(M';;o i(l(Mii (uiiiiiiio dclxUur
luuuir iiiiiu^iiii, (|ui dcliciiir cvciuiiliiri.
Scpliino, (|ui ittiii^^iiictii rc;(is iinicil coiiUiiiicUii,
IkiIicUii' rciis lacMic iii.iicsliiUs, iu^ si ipsuiii r(;;;ciu
('.oiiUiiiicliii iilVccisscl, cadciii i;,MUir rulio cst iiiiii-
yiiiis. cl c\(Miipliiris (iiiod alliiicl iid lioiioro.iii cl
c.ouUitiK^lii.in.
TorUa opinio vcrsiilur in incdio, csUpio coruiii,
ipii dicuiil. ipsas ittta;;iucs iii sc, cl pnipiie Ikiihi-
niri delicrc, scd lioiiorc iiiition. ipiiuii ipsuiti c-
\ciiiplar. cl proindc niillain iiiia;<:iu('.iii adiMaiidain
cssc oiillu lalriiic. Ila HliirUiitis lNM'csiiis iu liUro
dc IradiUouihus. U';iclaUi iir iiua^^iiiiluis. ilctn Ant-
lirosius r..iUiarinus iu U'aclitUi dc. iiiiii;,Mitil)us. .\i-
colaus Sandcrus liU. 2. cap. ull. dc iina^iinihus. 1-
ticiu vid(!Uir sciisissc ("lahricl. (pii iii ;{. disl. '.).
(piiiosl. unica, cl in cauonoin itiissac lci;l. '<!>. ail,
ituii^^iucin adorari cadcm adoraliouc cuin c\cinpla-
ri, non Uiincn uuivocc, scd aualo^jicc. Iloc ciiiiii
(^sl dicorc, coli ituaiMiics ciillu inlcriore, (puun i|)-
suin excmplar.
l*ro soluUonc (piaesliouis, cl opiiiionuin conci-
lialiouc nolandiic sunl Ircs disliucUoucs. Id ciiim,
(piod lionoralur.polcsl hoiiorari pcr sc vel per ac-
cidens: proplcr sc, vel proplcr aliud: propric vel
impropric. l'or sc lionoralur siipoosilam, in (]uo
iiK!si fiiUo voncraliouis, por accidens id, ("luud cst
couiuuclum rci. (piac adoraUir, ncc cst ipsa ralio
adoiiiliouts: ul cuiii lioiuiriiUir rcx. pcr sc liouura-
Utr hoino illc, (pii csl rcx.pcr accidcns houoraltir
purpura, cl rcli(iua illi iuljuncla, cl accideuUao-
ninia cjns, excepUi regia (lignilalc, quae licct non
sit id, (inod honoralur, csl tiuncu id, quo homo il-
lc honoraUir. lUKpic pcrsona liouoralur pcr se, ut
quae; regia diguilas hoiioralur per se, ut qua; re-
liquii honor.Uurper accidens.
Secunda disliucUo, polcsl aliquid houorari i)ro-
j)lcr se, vol propler aliud. Id honoralur propUif
se, quod hahcl in se ralioticm veneralionis, non
(lopcndcnlcm aliunde:ct hoc modo sola naUira ra-
lionalis cst voiiorabilis. Proplcr aiiud houoralur
id, qiiod liabel quuiem in se caussain honoris, sed
jlla caussa tola pendet ab alio, et hoc modo signa
reruni sacraruni sunt vcnerabilia: habenl cnim iu
se relaiionem simililudinis, sive repraesentalio-
neni rci sacme, et proindc quandara excellentiam,
sod iila lola pendct ab ipsa rc sacra.
Tcrlia disUiiclio, polcst aliquid honorari pro-
pric, vol impropric. Id propric dicilur honorari,
quod vetc liiUonc siii ipsius honoralur. Impropric
diciUir honorari.ipiod hunoralur loco allerius. Le-
galus rcgis aliquando honoralur ul legatus,ct tuuc
ipse propric huuoralur, iicot proplcr alium hono-
rcliir: iilupiuiuhi lioiioraUir luro rcnli lionori- pro-
prlo rci{il)iiH, nl Iiiik' ipc^; liiiproprin liiiiKiriiUir;
propric iiiilciii rc\ iii ipso Uiiic iKKiomlur. Id cln-
I iiis iippiiicl ipiiiiidi) iiiiiis pro iillo iiccipii possi^H-
Moiicui iilKpi.iiii; vid ciiiii ruuiH cclirliraiiir cliNnn-
t(! corporc, rirr.il Hliiliiiiiii. cl lliiiit crprii siiiio.itii o-
iiiniii, ipiiK; circa rorpiis llirrcnl.iil ciiiii iilupi uido,
U">lc. Sc.vlo Aiircl. Nicldrc.Uouiiic lriiiiii|)lKiMl rr»-
i.iiiiis iiKiriuus, cl sliiliiii i^jiiH pni no Kndil in ciirni
lnti(ti|ili:ili. .><!<'. <'niiii pdlcsi dici. sliiUiafti propri<;
Inuiiiph.KSSC, sttd Trii|iiiiiM: :i sl.ilu.i rcpr:i"s( iil.i •
tuiii.
r\iM'T \\i
lindninoi ikt hi: ct indjiric cnli-nilii^.
Niiiic jiisla posilas ilislinctioncs aliquol Hciilcn-
liis rtMii Uilitiii c\plic.diiitiii>. Sit i'^Mltir liaoc 1'riiii.»
smilciilia, sivc, propoMtfj. Inuuji^ncs Cliristi, cl
siinc.loniin vcncramUia annlnnn sdIuvi pcr ac-
ciilcn.^i. vcl iiniirdiiric sc.d cliuiii pcr sc cl prn-
pric. ilii nt ip-mc lcnnineiU vcncratiinic.nx, nt in
sc, considcranlnr, cl nnn s(tLiiinut viccm (fcritni
cxcniplaris. Prohiilur l*riiiio, (piia conciliiim VII.
aclor. 7. dcliuivil iina;.Mucs r.lirisli cssi; vcncran-
das, scd nou laliia; viiil igilur cssc vcncrandiis.
pcr sc. ct [iropriii ali(pio cuiiu: Uiim si conciliiiui
soluin vc.llcl imiigiucs ador.iri pcr iiccidcns.vcl iiii-
proi^ric. ila ul lcniiiuus proprius adoralionis iioii
csscl iiiiagQ, scd (]hrislus ipsc non dicc.-ol. nui»
dobcrc adorari latria; Cliristus cnim lalria ndora-
lur, cum sil Dcns.
i\C(iuc obslal. (piod quidam dicunl, imagincm
Olirisii non repracscnlarc Chrislum ut Deuni, scd
(^.lirislum utliomiiicm. (;l pniindc in imaginc Ciiri-
sli non possc adorari Chrislum ul Dcum. scd Cliri-
slum ulliomiucm: Nam imago Chrisli ipsuin Chri-
stum. idesl, hyposlasim divinitm, liumaua carnc
veslilain rcpracscutiil: sicut imago cuiuslibel lio-
miuis nou solum liguritiii et colorcm. sed cliam
pcrsonam el lotum ipsum homiucm repraescnlat.
Alioqiii apostnli vidoutcs Christum in carnc non
(icl)uisseul adorarc l.itria: nec Tiioinas diccrc dc-
huissel: Dominus meus, el Deiis meus. Nara non
videbanl Chrislum ul Dcum, scd ul homincm.
Soctindo probatur, nam si itiiago non cst venc-
randa nisi impro|)ric, (luia nimirum coram illa.vel
iu illa. aut pcr illamadoralur cxemplar, cerlc lice-
])il simplicilcr nogiirc. imagiues essc veneriinilas.
Quod ciiim non dtciturntsi improprie. simpliciler
negari polcsl. ut palct: at coucilium VII. actor. 7.
analhcma dicil iis, qui neganl iraagines esse vc-
nerandas.
Terlio. concilium idcm ibidem. dcQnit imngines
vcucraudas eo modo, quo vcncramur evangclia et
sacra vasa:\tqui isla honoranlur persect proprie,
ut omnes ralcutur,nec enim porsonam alicujus al-
tcrius gerunt: igitur et imagines per se propric ve-
ncriindac sunt.
Quarlo. in ipsa iraagine vere inest aliquid sa-
cruin. nimirum similitudo ad rcm sacram, cl ips.i
dcdicatio,sive consecratio divino cuUui;ergo ipsae
-f^
iiOO
Dl' IMACIMBUS SANCIORIM
in se. el non solum ul piololypi viccin geruiil, lio-
nore dignao sunt.
Keque objectioues supra adduclac couvincunl.
AdPriuiaui dico:Imagines sivc lionfirentur proprie,
sive per se. sive per accidens, semper lionorari
proplerexemplar.clsemper lionorem earum trans-
ire ad excmplar. sed alio atque alio modo ; nam
quando imago adoratur impropric quia videlicet
lionor in ipsam non (erminatur, sed per ipsam in
cxcmplar.lunc immediale.et rormaliler honor ima-
ginis Iransit ad excmplar. At quando imago hono-
ratur per se et propric, ila ut in ipsara vere lcr-
minetur honor.tunc honor cjus transit ad cxcu)plar
non immediate, sed mcdiate, et quasi consequen-
lcr; nam qui honorat imaginem alicujus, sine du-
l)io honorat proptcr cum.cujus cst imago.ct proin-
de honor iiuagini vere cxhibilus rcdundat iu pro-
tolypum. Ouemadmodum qui lacit elecmosyuam
paupcri, Clirislo illam fecisse dicitur , non quod
clecmosyna inmiediatc non tendat in pauperem ,
scd quia qui eleemosynam facit pauperi , pro-
pter Christum facit, et Christum honoral in pau-
pere.
Ad Secundam dico ; lllis versiculis solura doce-
ri, noa debcri imagini eundcm honorem , qui de-
belur exemplari, ut patct cx ralionc, quac in ipsis
versiculis redditur. Quia vidclicet imago non cst
Deus, scd imago Dei. Inde enim scquitur non de-
beri imagini honorcm, qui dcbclur Deo,sed mino-
rem. Nos autem hic non asserimus, cundem hono-
rem, scd aliquem honorem debcri imagini. Et for-
tasse auclores primaeopinionis hoc solum dicere
voluerunt, nimirum honorem propriumexemplaris
non posse exhiberi imagini, nisi proprie: de ho-
nore aulem inferiorc nihil dixerunt.Quod si ita est,
ab eis non disscntiuius.