Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 22: That It Is Not to Be Said That Latria Is Owed to Images
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 22. That It Is Not to Be Said That the Cult of Latria Is Owed to Images
The second proposition. As regards the manner of speaking, especially in preaching to the people, it is not to be said that any images ought to be adored with latria, but on the contrary that they ought not to be so adored. It is proved, first. The councils do not affirm, but simply deny, that images are adored with latria; therefore we too ought to speak in the same way. For the manner of speaking of the councils is the manner of speaking of the Church, and so is to be followed by those who do not wish to err. And that the councils do not assert but deny that images are to be adored with the cult of latria is proved. For in the first place there is no council which asserts that the cult of latria is owed to images; then the second Council of Nicaea, action 7, cries out that images are to be adored, but not with latria. Likewise in our own time the Council of Sens, chapter 14, and the Council of Mainz, chapter [41?], say that the people ought to be warned by the preachers not to adore images; which without doubt is understood of the adoration of latria. They will say perhaps: Those councils speak of the latria which is shown to someone for his own sake, not of that which is shown to someone for the sake of another. But that is nothing to the point; for here we are treating not of the sense but of the words. It is enough for us that in the councils it is simply denied that latria is owed to images; for we ought to follow the councils' manner of speaking.
Second, there are no more exact formulas of speaking in matter of faith than those which are used by those who abjure a heresy. But in the seventh synod, action 1, Basil of Ancyra, and in action 3 Constantine, bishop of Cyprus, abjuring the heresy, say that they receive and honour images, yet not with latria.
Third, the Fathers again and again say that images are not to be adored, as is plain from Augustine, letter 119, chapter 11: “Any likeness of God,” he says, “in the inventions of men is forbidden, not because God has no image, but because no image of him ought to be worshipped except that which is what he himself is.” Likewise from Gregory, who in book 7, letter 109, and book 9, letter 9, warns Bishop Serenus to instruct the people not to adore images, and repeats several times that images ought not to be adored. But surely they speak of the adoration of latria; for otherwise they do not deny that images are venerable. Further, John Damascene, books 1 and 3 of the Apology, repeats several times that images ought to be honoured, but in no way with latria. Pope Adrian I, in the letter to Charles the Great, the last chapter (which letter is had in the volumes of the councils after the second Nicene synod, incomplete, but more whole among the letters of the pontiffs lately published at Rome), teaches and repeats in many words that images are to be honoured with the cult with which we honour the sacred Scriptures, but not to be worshipped with the cult with which we worship God. Jonas [the scan reads John] of Orleans has the same, in the book On the Cult of Images. Why then, I ask, do we not speak as our Fathers speak?
Fourth, to tell the people that the image of Christ or the cross is to be adored with the cult of latria, that very cult with which God is adored, is not without great danger. For those who defend that images are adored with latria are forced to use the subtlest distinctions, which they themselves hardly understand, still less the unskilled people.
Fifth, this manner of speaking offends the ears of Catholics and gives occasion to the heretics to blaspheme more freely.
Sixth, according to the truth of the matter (as I will show a little after), it cannot be said that images are adored with latria except by accident or improperly, but in themselves and properly in no way. And besides, that adoration by accident or improper is very rarely wont to be exercised; for the ordinary adoration is that which is shown to outward images in themselves and properly. But what is said simply is not understood of what fits a thing by accident or improperly and sometimes, but of what fits it in itself and properly and for the most part. Therefore, speaking simply, it is not to be affirmed but denied that images are adored with latria. And it is very credible that St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales and the other scholastic doctors of that time did not see the second Nicene synod, nor the eighth general synod, nor the letter of Pope Adrian I in defence of the Nicene synod. For all these lay hidden for a long time, and were first published in this our age; as can be known even from this, that in the somewhat older volumes of the councils none of these is found; and St. Thomas and the other older scholastics never make any mention of this Nicene synod.
Chapter 23. That Images of Christ Can Be Honoured with the Cult of Latria Improperly or by Accident
The third proposition. If the matter itself is in question, images can be honoured improperly, or by accident, with the same kind of cult with which the exemplar itself is honoured.
And first, that an image can be honoured improperly with the cult with which the exemplar itself is honoured is proved. For sometimes the image is taken for the exemplar itself, and the things which would be done around the exemplar, if it were present, are done around the image, the mind however being fixed on the exemplar. As when preachers address an image of the Crucified and say, “Thou hast redeemed us, thou hast reconciled us to the Father”; for these things are not said to the image, neither as it is wood nor as it is an image, but as it is taken in place of the exemplar; that is, they are said to Christ himself, whose place the image takes. As too on Good Friday, when the Crucifix is little by little uncovered and shown and set forth to be adored, all those things are understood to be shown through the image to the true Christ himself. And then properly no honour is paid to the image, but only to the exemplar; yet improperly the image itself too can be said to be honoured.
And that an image can be adored with the adoration of the exemplar itself, properly indeed but by accident, is proved. For sometimes we do not take the image for the exemplar, nor consider the image alone or the exemplar alone, but consider the exemplar as it shines objectively in the image, and venerate it so represented and as it were clothed with the image. And then we necessarily adore the image with the same cult as the exemplar itself, but by accident. For he who adores someone adores also all the things which are joined with him; as he who adores a king clothed adores at once the king and his clothes. But the image is conceived at that time as joined with the exemplar which is adored; therefore it too is adored, yet by accident, because it is neither the subject which is adored nor the reason of the adoration, but something added.
And this seems to have been the mind of the authors of the second opinion. For all of them, when they explain how the image is adored with the same adoration as the exemplar itself, always come at last either to an improper adoration or to an adoration by accident. Alexander and Bonaventure show clearly enough that they speak of improper adoration. For they say that the image of Christ is adored with the cult of latria for this reason, because not so much it as Christ in it is adored.
Further, blessed Thomas, and those who follow him, are to be understood of adoration by accident. For in the first place their argument about the one movement toward the image and the exemplar proves this. For the movement toward the image and toward the exemplar is then the same, when the exemplar is considered as shining objectively in the image, as we have said. [The top of page 503 is merged across columns in the scan; the rest of this paragraph is rendered from what reads.] Then Capreolus teaches most expressly that this [adoration of latria] is by accident. And blessed Thomas, article 4, says that the cross is honoured as the king's garments are honoured; and it is certain that the garments are not honoured with the king's honour except by accident.
Lastly [another of these authors] tends to the same, when he says that the image of Christ is adored with latria not by reason of the matter, nor by reason of the form or shape, but by reason of the actual representation. For he does not mean to say that that actual representation is the reason why the image is adored with latria, but that that representation is the condition by reason of which the image is conceived as joined with the exemplar, and so is adored by accident.
Chapter 24. That Images Are Not to Be Honoured in Themselves and Properly with the Cult with Which the Exemplar Itself Is Honoured
The fourth proposition. An image in itself and properly is not to be adored with the same cult as the exemplar itself; and so no image is to be adored with the cult of latria in itself and properly.
It is proved, first, from the seventh council, action 7, where we read that the image of Christ is not to be adored with latria. And this would be false if the same cult which is owed to the exemplar were owed to the image in itself and properly; for Christ is to be adored with the cult of latria.
You will say: The council speaks of the adoration which is shown to a thing for its own sake; but the image is adored with latria, but for the sake of another. On the contrary: for the council says that images are adored no otherwise than the book of the Gospels and the sacred vessels are adored; which the eighth synod repeats, the last action, canon [3?]. But no one ever said that the book of the Gospels or the sacred vessels are adored with latria in any way.
Second, it is proved from Augustine, Gregory and Damascene, and from the Councils of Sens and Mainz cited above, where it is had that images are not to be honoured with divine cult.
You will say: They speak of the divine cult which is shown to someone for his own sake. On the contrary: because of this there could be no doubt; and councils define those things which come into controversy.
Third, latria is the cult proper to God; but no image in itself and properly is God, whether it is considered by reason of its matter, or of its shape and colours, or of its relation; therefore in itself and properly the cult of latria is owed to no image.
Someone will perhaps say that latria is the cult proper to God when it is shown for his own sake, but not when it is shown for the sake of another. On the contrary: for it belongs to the essence of true latria to be shown for his own sake. For latria is called the highest cult, which is owed to the true God as the first beginning of all things; and it implies a contradiction for the highest cult to be shown to the first beginning and for the sake of another. For if to the first beginning, then not for the sake of another; if for the sake of another, then not to the first beginning. Therefore either the cult of latria is shown to the image for its own sake, and this is true idolatry; or it is not shown for its own sake, and then that is not the cult of true latria.
Besides, either that latria which is shown to the image for the sake of another is the same cult as that which is shown to God, or another, lesser one. If the same, then the creature is honoured equally with God himself; which surely is idolatry. For idolatry is not only when an idol is adored and God left, but also when an idol is adored together with God: Exodus 20, “You shall not make gods of silver, nor gods of gold with me.” If it is a lesser cult, then it is not latria; for latria is the highest cult.
A fourth reason. Neither the inward nor the outward cult of true latria befits an image. For the inward cult is the grasping of a thing as the first beginning, and a prostration of the will answering to that grasping; and the proper outward act is sacrifice. But surely we neither grasp the image as the first beginning, nor sacrifice to it; therefore we do not adore it with the cult of latria.
A fifth reason. The image, as image, is set over against the exemplar, and is lower than it; therefore it cannot be honoured with the same cult, but with a lesser. For each thing is to be honoured according to its dignity; and surely it is far greater to be Christ than to be the image of Christ.
A sixth reason. Those who honoured the image of Christ with divine honours are counted among the heretics by Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 24; Epiphanius, heresy 27; Augustine, heresy 7; and Damascene, the book On a Hundred Heresies, at the end. But these, since they honoured Christ, without doubt honoured his image for his sake. It is not lawful, then, to honour images with divine honours, that is, with the cult of latria, even if someone says that he does it for the sake of God or of Christ, not for the sake of the images. For by the very fact that he honours them with divine honours, he is convicted of honouring them for their own sake, not for God's, whatever he may say in words.
Let there be added lastly those most ancient little verses: “For it is God whom the image teaches, but it is not itself God,” and so on. For they signify plainly enough that the cult owed to God is not owed to the image.
From these the arguments set out can easily be answered.
To the first: “Hail, O cross, our only hope,” and so on. I answer: either the cross is taken there for Christ crucified himself, as we have said; or it is a rhetorical prosopopoeia, by which the Church addresses the cross in the way that Moses addresses heaven and earth when he says, Deuteronomy 32, “Hear, O ye heavens, the things I speak,” and so on; and as blessed Andrew addressed the same when he said, “Hail, precious cross,” and so on. And by this prosopopoeia we signify that we desire the fruit of the cross, that is, to be saved through the merit of Christ, who suffered on the cross.
To the second it will be said below, in the answer to the fifth.
To the third I say that Ambrose by the cross understands the passion of Christ, or the suffering flesh, as by the image of God he understands the divinity. For he means to say that Christ God and crucified is one, and so when Christ God is adored the humanity is not separated from him, and when Christ crucified is adored the divinity is not separated.
To the fourth I answer that Jerome does not say there that the cross was properly adored by Paula, but that, prostrate before the cross, she adored Christ, whom she saw represented on the cross.
To the fifth, of the one movement toward the image and toward the exemplar, various answers are given. Perez answers that it is not true that we are carried by the same movement toward the image and the exemplar, since these are opposed, and cannot be known except by two knowings. He says too that what blessed Thomas brings forward is nowhere had in Aristotle. But surely Aristotle, in the book On Memory and Recollection, chapter 2, seems to say it openly. For wishing to give the cause why memory knows absent things, he says that the cause is that in the memory there are forms of things, which are as it were certain pictures; and if a man looks at those phantasms as certain things in themselves, he will not know past things, but will think of a present thing; but if he looks at the same phantasms as they are images, then he will know the past things of which they are the images; because, namely, an image cannot be known as an image without the thing of which it is the image being known at the same time. Nor is it true, what Perez says, that relatives, because they are opposed, cannot be known by one knowing; for they are so opposed that one depends on the other, and one can neither be defined nor known without the other.
Durandus answers otherwise. For he admits that there is one movement of the mind toward the image and the exemplar, but denies that therefore there is also one adoration. For although the mind knows both at once, yet it does not say that one is the other, but understands that they are distinct and unequal, and so does not adore them with one and the same adoration.
Others confirm this answer, because although there is one movement of the mind, that is, of the intellect, toward the image and the exemplar, yet there can be contrary movements of the will. For he who sees an image of Christ badly painted hates the image, as it is an image, and yet loves Christ; and on the contrary he who sees an image of Judas beautifully drawn loves the image and hates the exemplar.
This answer does not satisfy. For blessed Thomas does not say that the movement toward the image, as it is an image, is also toward the exemplar; but says that the movement toward the image, as it is the image of another, is also toward the exemplar; and this is true both of the movement of the intellect and of the will. For he who loves the image of Christ, not because it is an image, but because it is the image of Christ, cannot but love Christ at the same time, since Christ is the reason why he loves the image. And he who loves a beautiful image of Judas and hates Judas does not love that image as Judas's, but as a beautiful image simply; that is, he delights in the proportion that is between the image and the exemplar, not caring what the exemplar is.
I think, then, that it must be answered otherwise. And first, I admit that there is the same movement of the will too toward the image and the exemplar. But then either the exemplar is conceived and adored as the principal object, or not; that is, either Christ himself is conceived and adored as shining objectively in the image, or the image itself is conceived and adored as the image of Christ, so that Christ is put in the oblique case, not in the direct. If the first, then the adoration is indeed of latria, but is carried to Christ in himself, and to the image only by accident; this Capreolus and Cajetan seem to have meant. If the second, then the adoration is carried to the image in itself, and as a consequence to Christ; but it is not the adoration of true latria, but far lower. [The top of page 505 is merged across columns in the scan; this paragraph is rendered from what reads.]
You will say: But the adoration of true latria befits Christ; if then this adoration ends also in Christ, it is true latria. I answer: The true latria befits Christ when he is adored as he is in himself, but not when he is adored as he is in the image by participation. As he who honours the tomb of a king surely honours the king himself; and yet he honours the king far otherwise in his own person than in his tomb, as is well known. And from this the answer to the second is plain. For when the image is honoured, its honour passes to the prototype; but that honour is not such as is owed to the prototype in itself, but such as is owed to it as it is shared by the image.
To the sixth I say in the same way that the reason why the image is honoured is the exemplar itself, yet that the exemplar ought to be honoured in one way as it is in itself, and in another way as it is shared by the image.
To the seventh I say that he who harms the statue of a king is punished as guilty of treason because he truly harmed the king, but is not punished so gravely as if he had harmed the king himself. And if someone should be punished equally gravely, that would happen because it was certain that he had harmed the statue not as the statue of the king, but taking the statue for the king himself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII.
Non esse dicendum, imaginibus dchen
cuLlum latriae.
Secunda propositio. Quantum ad modum lo-
quendipracsertim in concione ad populum,non
esl dicendum imagines ullas adorari debere la-
tria, sed c contrario non debere sic adorari. Pro-
balur Primo. Concilia non afiirmanl , scd simpli-
ciler ncgant imagines adorari lalria , igiiur et
nos codem modo loqui debcmus •, nam modus
loquendi conciliorum est modus loquendi Ec-
clesiae , et proinde sequendus ab iis, qui nolunt
errare.Porro concilia non asserere,scd negarc irna-
gincs adorandas esse cultu latriae.probalur nam in
primis nullura est ooncilium,quod asserat imagini-
bus deberi cultum latriae, deinde concilium nicac-
num II. act. 7. clamat imaginesadorandas,sed non
latria. Simililer nostro tempore concilium senonen-
se c. 14. et concilium moguntinum c. 'il. dicunl.a
concionatoribus dcbcrc moneri populum ne iuiagi-
nes adorel; quod sine dubio inlelligitur de adora-
tione lalriae. Diccnt fortasse. Concilia ista loquun-
tur de latria, (luac exhibelur alicui proplcr sc,nrru
de ea quae cxhibctur alicui proptcr aliud.Al id ni-
hil facit ad rcm; hic cnim non dc sensu, sed de
vcrbis agiums. Satis nobis cst, iu conciliis simpli-
cilcr ncgari, imaginibus deberi lalriam: nos enim
modum loqucndi couciliorum scqui debcmus.
Secuudo,nuIlae sunt exaclioros rormulae loquen-
di in materia lidci, quam eac, quibus utuntur, qui
bacrrsim abjuraute:Atqui in Vll.synodo act. I.Ba-
silius aucyranus, ol actor. 3. Conslanlinus Gypri
cpiscopus abjurantcs haeresim dicunt, se recipere
ct colcre imagines, non tamen lalria.
Tcrlio, Palres passim dicunt imagines non essc
adorandas. ut patet ex Auguslino cpist. 111). c. 11.
Prohibetur, inquil.coii aliqua in tigmentis liomi-
num Dci simititudo, non quia non habel ima.gi-
nem Deus, sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet,
nisi illa. qiuie hoc cst, quod ipse. llem ex Grcgo-
rio, qui lib.7. epist. 109. et lib. 9 epist. 9. monet
Serenuui episcopum,ut populum instruat^neimagi-
ncs adoret, et sacpius repelit , non debcrc imagi-
ncs adorari. At ccrle loquuntur dc ffdorationc la-
Iriac; nam alioqui imagiucs venerabiles esse non
negant. Porro Joan. Damascenus lib. 1. et 3. a-
pologet. sacpius repetit . imagines honorari de-
bcrc , sed nullo modo lalria. lladrianus pnpa I.
in cpistol. ad Garolum Maguum can.ult quac epist.
habetur in tomis conciliorum posl nicaenam II. sy-
nodum imperfecla,magis aulem integrahabelur in-
ler epislolas pontificum nuper editas Romae.mul-
tis verbis docet et rcpetit, imagincs esse honoran-
das cultu,quo honoramus sacras Scripluras,sed non
colendas cultu quo colimus Deum.Idem habetJoan-
ncs auruliancnsis lib.de cultu imaginum.Gur ergo
quaeso, non loquimur , ut Patres noslri loquun-
lur?
Quarlo,dicere populo,imagincm Christi vel Cru-
cem adorandam csse lalriac cullu, illo ipso, quo a-
doralur Deus, non carel magno periculo; Kam qui
dcfendunl imagincs adorari lalria:cogunlur uti sub-
lilissimis dislinctiouibus, quas vix ipsimct intelli-
gunl, nedum populus imperitus.
Quinto,iste modus loquendi oITendit aures calho-
licorum, et praebei occasionem haerelicis liberius
blasphcmandi.
Sexto, secundumrei veritatcm(ut ostendam pau-
lo post) non potcst dici,adorari latria imagines,nisi
per accidcns. vcl improprie, per sc autem, et pro-
prie nullo modo.El practerea illa adoratio pcr acci-
dens, vel irapropria rarissime exerceri solct. Ordi-
naria cnim adoralio est ilia,qua6 cxibetur imagini-
bus externis per se,et proprie. At quod simpliciler
dicitur, non intelligitur de eo, quod per accidens.
vcl improprie, et aliquaudo convenit rei, sed de
eo, quod per sc, et proprie,et ut in plurimum con-
vcnit, ergo simpliciter loquendo non est aflirman-
dum,sed negandum imagines adorari latria.Est au-
tem valde credibile s. Thomam, Alexandrum alen-
sem, et alios doctores scholasticos illius lemporis
non vidisse nicaenam synodura secundam, neque
octavam synodum gcneralem, neque episl.IIadria-
ni papae I. pro defensione synodi nicacnae. Nam
haecomnia longo tempore lalucrunt, cthocnostro
saeculo priraum edita sunt,ut vel cx co cognosci po-
i.iui:ii si.i.i ,Mii's
ik>i
losl, i|ui)tl iii loiDJs coi)oi|ii)Miiii |iiiti|o iiii(ii|iiiori
Itiis iiiliil liiiiuin ivvdil: lU sanrliis Tliitniiis, iiliiijiir
srlioliistiri vujriTS iiiilhiin iiiii|iiiiin di; liii» iiiriiciiii
syiKidii iiiiiiiWiiHiii riiriiinl.
CAPIT Wlll.
Iiiutiiinc^ r/in.sV/ iiiipro}>rie, rvl pvr (iti-iilcnn
/KAs.sc hdnornri vulla lalriai'.
Tniiii pi'(i|Hisiti(i : Si (/c rc //).<(/ (KjiilurjiiiiiiiliL
jioN'.s/,i;;i(j.(///i('s /lo.s.sc fiili n;i/i;(»/);'<c,rc/ prr ti>'i'i-
drnH, votirin iicnc.ro (•«//»«, <iuoexi'iiiplar ipsuni,
(Uililnr.
,\c piiin(iiii.(|ii(i(l iniiij^Mi possil coli inipro|M'ic co
ciiltii, ()iio ipsiiiii cvciiipliir, proliiilnr; Ninii iili-
(Idiiiiilo 111111^0 r.ccipildr pro ipso cMMiipliiri, cl cii,
ipiiic llcrciit circii ipsiim cxcinplur.si iidcsscl pnic-
sciis, tiiinl circii im.i;j;iiicin, incnlc tiimcn (lclixii iii
o\cmpl;iri. Si coiicioniitorcs iilloipmiiinr im;i!.;iiicni
criicilixi.ciipM' (liciint.lu iios rcilcmisti. Iii iion Tii-
Iri rcconciliiisli;istii cnim non (licinitiir iiniifiini.ncc
iil litjmmi csl. iuh". ul iiniij^o csl, sod iil iiccipilnr
loc.o oxcinpliiris, idcsl. (liciinltir ipsi C.lirislo,c(ijiis
tiimon iniiif?.) viccm },'cril. Oiiciniidmodiun cliiim in
dio piuiisccvcs ciiin crncilixns pimlnlim dctcirilnr
ol oslonditnr, ol juloraiulus propoiiitnr, illii omnia
pcr imiij.;im'm ipsi Cliristo vcro cxliihcri intclli;,'iiii-
liir. Tiiiic luilcm propric niillns lioiuir dctcrliir ima-
ftiiii, scd soli o\cmpliu-i: lnmcn improprio dici po-
tosl i|)sa ctiam ima^M) lionorari.
Quod aiilcm possit miv^o adorari adoraliono ip-
sius oxomplaris, proi^rio (piidciu.sod pcr accidons,
probatur; nam arupiaudo uou accipinuis imapinem
pro cxcmplari. uoc cousidcramus solam iuuiizinoiu,
vcl solum oxomplar. scd considcramus oxcnipliir.
ul ohjcclive rolucel in iiuagiuo.ol ipsum sic roprao-
sontalmu. cl tpiasi veslilmn ima-^iuo vcnoramur:
tunc aulom ncoossario adoramus imagiuoin oodcm
cultu, ([\\o ipsum cxomphir, scd pcr accidous:uam
(jui adoral ali(|iiom, adorat cliam omnia.quac oum
illoconjuncla suut.Siout(]ui adorol rcgom vcslilup.i.
adoral siuuil rcgoiu ct vcstos ; scd 'imapo conci-
pitur co tcmporc conjuucla ouin c\emplari . quod
iidoralur; igilur ctiam ipsa adoralur . por acci-
dons tamou , quia ipsa ncc esl supposilnm qund
adoralur. nec ralio adorationis , sed quiddam ad-
juuclum.
Vidcluraulom hacc fuisse mcns auclorum sccun-
(]ac opiuionis:uain illi omncscumcxplicanl.quomo-
do imago adorclur eadcm adoratiouo . qua ipsum
cxemplur, sempcr dovcniuul tandcm vcl ad impro-
priam adoralioncm,vel ad adoralionem per accidens.
Alcxandcr elBonaventnra satis clareindicant sc lo-
qui dc r.doraliono impropria. Dicunl cnim idoo i-
uiaginoni Chrisli adorari lalriac cuUu.quia uou tam
ipsa, quara Chrislus iu ipsa adoralur.
Porro b. Tlicmas, ct qui eum scquunlur. intelli-
gendi sunl dc adorationc per accidons:uam iii pri-
mis hoc prob,'.t argumenlatio corum dc unilnlo mo-
lus in iniaguicm et in cxcmplar. Tunc cnim est
idein moius in imagincra ct in excraplar , quando
I!ELlil..1U.M. Vol ii.
('MMiipliirconhldcrntor nf nlilrrllvp rrlorr t lii lii .-i!l'I-
lic, lll (lUilllllH.
hcilidc Cliprciillls di III
islillll llli I) p< 1 .iMii*
riiiiliir v< riiiii i i . Imi'
1110 li. '1 lioiii iirl. 4. <)•
cil, llii liondiiui icioon! Toyu i fl
vi^Hlcs rc^iis. (•(•rliiiii aiilcin c n
lioiioriirl rcyji» lionorr*, nini por nrchh-iin.
I>cnii|ii() cihIciii ti'iidil '•i ' ■ lii, nilil
illo (licil, iriiii^iiiciii <ilirisii ..;...,, '..... ..i, iioii ru«
liotio iiiiitoriiio, iiuo ralioin; rurni;iR, ftrii llgiiriic,
S(>d raliouc arliuilis rcprm *;ciil;ilioni8; nori ciiiiii
vtilt diccrc, rcpracsciiliitioiioiii illiim iicltiulcrn v.ssn
riitioncm, cnr imut/o adorclur liilria: sod vtill dicc-
rc, illiim rcpriioscnliiiioiioiii chso rondilioiuMii. rn»
liiMic ciijiis imat;orotici(dliir coniunclii cuiM c.xrjm.
pliiri. ct pro'!id(! pcr iic.i^idc.ns ihldi.iiiir.
r.wvT x\iv.
lmni]ino^ per sc, cA prnpric Jinn cssc colcndu><
co cuUii, qun cxcniplnr ipsuni colilur.
Oiiarlii proposilio: Iiiukio pcy xc.rl prnpric nnn
dil (iiloriin.ivii. codcni riillu.qiio ipsiini. c.rr.inplar,
ct proinilc nulla iinafio csl adoninda cullu la-
Iriac /)(■;• sr. rl proprir.
Probatnr primo cx concilio VII. a( l. 7. iibi lcgi-
mus imagincm Christi non cssc adoraudiim la-
tria. Id luilcm falsuin cssct , si ima<,dni per se,
ac propric dobcrclnr idom cullus , qui dchetur
cxcmplari , Chrislus cnim cullu latriae adoran-
dus esl.
Diccs: Cnncilimu loquitur dc adoratifuic (]uao
oxliibettu' rci proptcr sc; imago autcm aduratur
lalria, scd proptcr aliud. Conlra;nam concilium di-
cil. imagiuos non nlilcr adorari, qiiam ndorclur li-
bcr oviuigoliorum cl sacra vasa: Quod idem rcpc-
tit VIIl. synodusncl. ull. can. W. Al nemo unquam
dixit librum evangcliorum, vcl sacra vasa adorari
latria ullo inodo.
Sccundo probalur ex Auguslino , Grcgorio ct
Damasccno, ot exconciliis senonensiel mogunlino
supra citalis.ubi habetur imagincs nuu esse cuien-
das cullo diviuo.
Dices, loquunlur de cullu divino, qui exhibelur
alicui propler se. Oontra; quia de hoc non polerat
ossc dubilalio. Concilia autem de his rchus defi-
uiuut. quae iu coulrovcrsiam veniunt.
Tertio latria est cultus proprius Deo, sed nulla
imago per sc, ctproprie csl Dcus, sive (onsidcre-
tur ratione materiac , sive ralionc figurae et colo-
rum. sive ratioue rclalionis, ergo per sc, et pro-
prie non dcbclur ulli imagini cullus latriae.
Dicet, aliquis furlasse, lalriam esse cultum pro-
prium Deo, quando cxhibelur proptcr se, non au-
lem quando proplcr aliud. Contra: nam de cssen-
lia vcrao latriao esl c.xhiberi proplcr ?,'.■: lalria e-
nim dicilur summus cullus, qiii debclur vero Deo,
utprimo prlncipio omnium reruin; Implicat autem
conlradictionem. cxhiberi summum cultura primo
C-l
m
DE IMAGIMBUS SA^CTORLM
principio. cl propler aliud; INam si primo princi-
pio, non orgo propler aliiul: si propler aliiul, non
piimo principio. Krgo vel imagini cxbibolur cullus
lalriac propler se, cl haec csl vera iilololalria, vel
non exhibetur propler se , cl lum ille non est cul-
Uis verae laUiae.
Praelerea vel isla lalria. quae exhibclur imagini
propler aliud, esl idem culUis cum eo, qui cxhibe-
Uir Deo, vel aUus minor : si idcm, crgo aeque co-
lilur crealura, alque ipsc Deus: quae cerle idolo-
lalria est; nam idololalria non solum esl, cum ado-
ralur idulum rchclo Deo. sed cliam cum adoratur
idolum sinuil cum Deo, Exod. 20. Dcos aureos, el
Dcos ar(jeuleos non faciclis mecum. Si est cullus
ininor, non ergo est lalria: Nam lalria est suramus
cullus.
Quarta ralio, imagini non convenil cullus inler-
nus, nec exlernus verae lalriae; nam inlernus cul-
tus eslapprehensio rei, ulprimi princi|)ii, cl pro-
stralio vokmtalisconveniens illi apprehensioni: a-
ctusaulem exlernus proprius cst sacrificium.Certc
autem nec apprelicndimus imagincm, ut primum
principium. ncc ilH sacrificamus: non igilur illam
adoramus cuUu laUiac.
Quinla ralio, imago ut im.ago, opponilur exem-
plari, ct (.'slillo inferior. ergo non potcst coli eo-
dem cullu, sed minori; i>'am unumquodquc hono-
randum est pro sua dignilale. Cerlc autem longe
niajus esl, esse Christum, quam esse imaginem
Chris.li.
Sexla ralio, qui colebant imaginera Chrisli divi-
nis bunoribus,inler haerelicos numerantur ab Ire-
naeo lib. 1. cap. 24. Epiphanio haeresi 27. Augu-
siino haeresi 7. el Damasceno lib. dc ccnlum hae-
rcsibus in fine: Alqui isli cum Chrisluin colercnt,
sine dubio imaginem ejus propler ipsum colcbant;
non igitur licet imagines colere divinis honoribus,
idest, cuilu latriae, eiiamsi quis dicat, id se facc-
re propler Deum, vel Christum, non propter ima-
gines; nam lioc ipso, quod eas colit divinis hono-
ribus, convincilur eas colere propter ipsas, non
proplcr Dcum, qnidquid ipse verbis dical.
-Accedant poslremo illi antiquissimi versiculi:
Nam Dcus esl, quod imago docel, iion Oeus elc.
SaUs enim aperte significant, non deberi iniagini
cultum Deo debituin.
Ex his ad argumcnta proposita facile responderi
polest.
Ad |)rimum:0 crux ave spes unica efc.Rcspon-
deo:\'el ibi accipi crucein pro ipso Chrislo crucifi-
xo, ut diximiis: vel illam esse prosopopejam rlic-
loricam,qua Eccle.<ia alloquilur crucein eo modo.
quo Moyses alloquilur coelum el terram, cum ait
Deuteron. Ii2. Audile coeli, quae loquor clc. et
quando b. Andreas eandem alloquebalur. cum di-
ceret:.Sa?i;e crux 'preLiosa etc. significamus autem
hac prosopopeja nos desidcrare Iructum crucis,
idest, salvari per mcritum Christi.qui in crucc pas-
sus esl.
Ad secundum dicelur infra in rcsponsione ad
quintum.
Ad lerlium dico: Ambrosium per cracem inlel-
ligere passionem Christi sivc carnem palientem,
sicul per imagiuem Dei intelligil divinilaiem. Vult
enimdiccrc, unum esse Chrislnm Deum. et cruci-
fixum, et proptercii cum adoralur Christus Deus.
non separari ab illo humanilalem ; el cum ado-
ratur Clirislus crucifixus , non separari divinila-
lem.
Ad quartum respondeo : nicronymum ibi non
dicere.a Paula proprie adoralam cruccm.sed quod
prostrala anle cruccm adorabat Christum, quem in
cruce repraesenUiri vidcbal.
Ad quiiitumdeunomotu inimaginem.ct in exem-
plar, variae d:mlur soluliones. Peresius respon-
del, id non essc vcrum.quod eodem motuferamur
in imaginem, el cxempiar, cum illa sint opposita,
ncc possint cognosci,nisi duabus cognilionibus:Ait
eliam nusquam haberi in Arislolcle id.quod b.Tbu-
mas adducit.Al certe Arisloteles Iib.de raemoria et
rcmiiuscentia cap. 2.id aperlc dicore videlur:i\'am
reddcrevolenscaussam,cur memoria cugnoscat ab-
senlia, dicil, caussam esse, quia in memoria sunt
specics rcrum.quae sunt quasi picturiie quaedam.et
si quidem iiomo speculetur illa phanlasmata.ul ros
quaeihmi suul in sc, non cognoscel praclerila.sed
rem praesenleni cogitabit: At si speculelur e>idem
phanlasmala.ut imagines sunt.lunc cognoscctprao-
terila, quorum illae sunt imagincs, quia nimirum
non polest cognosci imago ut imago.quin simul co-
gnoscalur rcs.cujus illa est imago. Nec verum est,
quod dicit Peresius.relativa quia sunt opposila.non
posse cognosciuna cognilione;narn ila suntopposi-
ta, ut uuum ab allero pendeat, ct unum sine altc-
ro nec dcfiniri, nec cognosci possit.
Durandus aiiler respondet, admillil enim essc
unum niotum menlis in imaginem. et in cx(;m-
plar; scd negal proplerea esse eliam unamadora-
tionenr.nam licet mens ulrumque simul cognoscat,
lamen non dicil, unum esse alterum, sed inlelligil
esse dislincta et disparia, el proinde non adorat
iila una ci eadem adoralione.
Confirmanl alii hanc solulionem. quia licct sil
unus motus meulis, idest, inlelleclus in imagi-
nem el excmplar, lamen possunt esse conlrarii
molus voluutatis. iNam qui videl iraaginem Christi
malc depiclam. odil imagmem, ut imago esl, el
lamen diligit Christum: et econtrario, qui videt
imagiuem Judae pulclu-e expressam, diligit iinagi-
nem, et odil excmplar.
Ilaec solulio non satisfacii: nam b. Thomas non
dicit, raolum in imagiocm, ut imigo e^l, esse et-
iam in exemiiiar, scd dicil, molum in imaginem,
ut imago allerius esl, esse eliam in exemplar; et
hoc est verum lam de molu intellectus, quam vo-
lunlalis. Nam qui amat imaginein Christi,non qiiia
imago est, sed quia iinago esl Cliristi, impossibilc
cst quin simul diligat Chrislum. quandoquidom
Clirislus eslralio, cur diligal imaginem.Qui autem
diligil imaginem pulchram Judae, el odil Judam,
non diligit imaginem illam ut Judac, sed ut pul-
chram imaginem simpliciter, idesl. deleciaUir illa
proportionc.quae est intcr imaginom et exeraplar,
nou curans quale sit cxcinplar.
Exislimo crgu alit'ir respondendum.Ac primum.
admilto esse cuudcm molum otiam volunlalis in
I iiiiJi sucrNiu;!!
m
iinn^iiKMii cl (U('iii|il;ii : '.cd liiuc vil i-si;iii|il.ii' ('oii
('l|iitiii' i>l ikIuiiiUii liiiiii|ii;itii |iiiii('l|iiili' ithjccliilii,
vcl 11(111, iilrsl, vi'l ri)ii('i|iiii, »1 iiiliini i|)Niiin Clirl-
^tiiiii III iiiiiit,'iii(' olijcclivi' rclncciiii iii; \clcoiici-
|iiii, (■[ iiiIdk) iiiiii^;iiiciii ips.iin. iil (ilin^li iiii;ii;i-
iiciii, il.i nl ('.liiisliiN iii nlili(|ni) |iniiiilni', nnii iri
rocto. .si |ii'iiiliiiii,liiiic. iiiloiiilio (|iiiil('in cnI hiln.ic,
scil ferlni' iii (IIiihIiiiii pcr sc, iii iiiiii^incni .siiinin
|)i!r iic.cidcns: lioc viilciiUii' siln volnisso Ciiprcolns
til ()iiJ(Uiiiiits. Si siHniitlniii, Iniic. iidotMtio fciliir
()iiiilcm in iiii;it,'iiiciii pcr s(i. el conscipiciilci' iii
(iliri^liiin, scil iioii csl iiilonilio v(M'iii; l;ilri;ic, scd
lon^i) inlcnor.
IMc.cs: Al (lliiislo coiivciiil iidor.ilio hiln.ic vc-
r;io, si cr;'o iNiii ;idoriilio lcniiin.ilni cliiiin iid «diii-
.slnin, ciil voriin liilriiio. Uespondeo: (.lirislo cnn-
vciiini vuriiiit liiliiinn, ipi;iiido iidoiiilnr nl csi iii
sc, non initcin (piiindo iidor.itnr iil cst in iniii^inc.
pcr |);irli(-i|);ilioncni. (^tnciiiiidinodinn ipii lionor.il
tutnnlntn rc^jis, ccrlo liotiorid ipsnin rcj;cni; cl lii-
nicn loii^ii idilcr lioiior;il rcj;i;in ipsniii in propri;»
porsotiii, (p.iiiiii iii riiniulo sno, iil iiotuni csl. Kl
liiiK; piilol rcspnnsin iid sccnndiiin: N;itn ciiin lio-
noridur ini:ij.,'o, lioiuir oiiis lr;iiisil ;id prulolypiiiii.
scd lioiioi ilio ixni osl lidis, (pnilis dcliolur prolo-
ty|)0 in so, sod (iu;ilis oi doboliir, ul ab im;ii,'iiio
p;irlicip;dur.
,\d scxlnin (lioo oodcm modo, r.ilioncni cur lio-
norolur itn;i^'o, osso ipsnni o.\cuipl;ir, oxcniplar la-
nien nlilcr lionorari dclicro, ul esl in se, alilor ul
parlicipalur ;)!* iitia^inc.
Ad scplinuiiu dico: Kimi, (lui lacdil slaluatn ro-
t^is puniri ui routii miijoslalis, (|tiia verc liicsil ro-
goin, scd nc},n) l;iin }:!;ravilcr piiniii, ao si liiosisssl
ioj|[oni. Quod si iilupiis ;uHpio ^ravilcr puiiirolur,
id (lcrol . quia cousUirol noii laosisso slaliKitn ut
sliiUuun rcgis , sed acccpisso sUiluain pro ipso
roi>o.