← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 202

Quaestio II. Utrum cultus latriae exhiberi debeat imagini Christi.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae exhiberi debeat imagini Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per Damascenum, quarto libro4: « Honor imaginis refertur ad prototypum »: ergo idem est adorare imaginem et eum cuius est imago: ergo si Christus colendus est cultu latriae, videtur, quod eius imago similiter. (Fundamenta.)

2. Item, Abraham adoravit tres viros5, et in his adoravit sanctam Trinitatem, secundum quod Glossae exponunt: si igitur illi tres viri non erant Trinitas summa, sed eam significabant; ergo latriae cultus non solum debetur rei significatae, sed etiam signo. Cum ergo imago Christi sit eius signum, videtur, quod ei sit cultus latriae exhibendus.

p. 203

3. Item, homo loquitur ad imaginem in suis petitionibus, ergo loquitur ad imaginem, sicut ad personam rationalis creaturae, igitur sic loquitur ad imaginem Christi, sicut ad Christum; et sicut loquitur, sic colit et adorat: ergo debet adorare imaginem Christi, sicut Christum.

4. Item, eandem reverentiam exhibemus et exhibere debemus imagini beatae Virginis quam ipsi Virgini, et sic de aliis Sanctis: ergo et eadem reverentia exhibenda est imagini Christi, sicut ipsi Christo; sed Christo exhibetur cultus sive honor latriae: ergo debet exhiberi imagini suae.

Sed contra: 1. Exodi vigesimo6, in primo mandato: Non facies tibi imaginem neque sculptam similitudinem: si ergo prohibitum est, imaginem fieri, multo magis et adorari. (Ad oppositum.)

2. Item, Damascenus, capitulo de Imaginibus7: « Magnae impietatis et insipientiae est figurari quod divinitatis est »: ergo maioris impietatis est adorare iam figuratum.

3. Item, melior est creatura vivens quam non vivens, quia similior est summae vitae: si ergo huiusmodi imagines non sunt viventes, minus sunt dignae honore quam talpae et vespertiliones. Si ergo impium est adorare vespertiliones et talpas, multo magis huiusmodi imagines8.

4. Item, nobilior et melior est imago divinitus impressa quam ab hominibus sculpta; sed si quis adoraret diabolum vel hominem peccatorem, in quo est imago Domini impressa, peccaret: ergo multo magis qui adorat huiusmodi imagines9.

5. Item, fortius fugiendus est ritus idololatriae quam legales caerimoniae; sed Ecclesia fugit ritum caerimoniae legalis, ne videatur iudaizare: pari ergo ratione debet fugere ritum idololatriae, ne videatur idololatrare. Ergo si cultus idololatriae consistebat in veneratione imaginum et picturarum, videtur, quod talia non sunt adoranda10.

6. Item, cum huiusmodi imagines nec per novum nec per vetus Testamentum approbentur, videtur, quod earum introductio fuerit novitatis praesumtio: si igitur talia sunt exstirpanda, videtur, quod talia non sunt colenda.

Conclusio. Imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod imaginum introductio in Ecclesia non fuit absque rationabili causa. Introductae enim fuerunt propter triplicem causam, videlicet propter simplicium ruditatem, propter affectuum tarditatem et propter memoriae labilitatem. — Propter simplicium ruditatem inventae sunt (Prima.), ut simplices, qui non possunt scripturas11 legere, in huiusmodi sculpturis et picturis tanquam in scripturis apertius possint sacramenta nostrae fidei legere. — Propter affectus tarditatem similiter introductae sunt (Secunda.), videlicet ut homines, qui non excitantur ad devotionem in his quae pro nobis Christus gessit, dum illa aure percipiunt, saltem excitentur, dum eadem in figuris et picturis tanquam praesentia oculis corporeis cernunt. Plus enim excitatur affectus noster per ea quae videt, quam per ea quae audit. Unde Horatius12:

Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus, et quae Ipse sibi tradit spectator.

Propter memoriae labilitatem (Tertia.), quia ea quae audiuntur solum, facilius traduntur oblivioni, quam ea quae videntur. Frequenter enim verificatur in multis illud quod consuevit dici: verbum intrat per unam aurem et exit per aliam. Praeterea, non semper est praesto qui beneficia nobis praestita ad memoriam reducat per verba. Ideo dispensatione Dei factum est, ut imagines fierent praecipue in ecclesiis, ut videntes eas recordemur de beneficiis nobis impensis et Sanctorum operibus virtuosis.

Quoniam igitur imago Christi introducta est ad repraesentandum eum qui pro nobis crucifixus est, nec offert se nobis13 pro se, sed pro illo; ideo omnis reverentia, quae ei offertur, exhibetur Christo.

p. 204

Et propterea imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi. (Conclusio 3.) Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in libro tertio de Doctrina christiana14: « Qui veneratur tale signum divinitus institutum, cuius vim significationemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur, quod videtur et transit, sed illud potius, quo talia cuncta referenda sunt ». — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

Ad 1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod prohibitum est, ne quis faciat sibi imaginem; dicendum, quod pro eo tempore prohibitum est, in quo Deus humanam naturam nondum assumserat. (Solutio oppositorum. Notandum.) Tunc enim, cum Deus omnino spiritus esset, infigurabilis erat; et ideo ipsum figurare erat error et impietas. Et pro illo tempore loquitur Damascenus15, cum dicit, quod « insipientiae et impietatis est figurare quod divinitatis est »; verum est, secundum quod divinitatis est, quia est incircumscriptibilis et infigurabilis; sed non est sic quantum ad humanam naturam. Unde subiungit, quod « Deus propter viscera misericordiae suae factus est homo et cum hominibus conversatus est, miracula fecit, passus est, crucifixus est; haec ad memoriam hominum scripta sunt et ad doctrinam nostram. Quia vero non omnes noscunt litteras neque lectioni vacant, Patres decreverunt velut quosdam triumphos imaginibus describere ad velocem memoriam ».

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod creatura vivens nobilior est non vivente; dicendum, quod verum est de nobilitate reali, sed non oportet, quod hoc sit verum de nobilitate significationis (Notandum.), quia res parvi valoris rem nobilem significare potest. Cum ergo adoratur imago, non adoratur ratione nobilitatis, quam habet in se, sed ratione nobilitatis significatae in se16. Et si obiiciat, quod lapides et ligna ducunt in Deum; dicendum, quod non ducunt sic nec sunt principaliter instituta ad hoc, sicut imagines et picturae.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de imagine divinitus impressa, iam patet responsio: quia, cum talis homo sit creatura nobilis, offert se magis per modum rei quam per modum signi (Notandum.); et ideo honor, qui ei defertur, non omnino refertur ad primum exemplar, sicut honor, qui defertur imagini pictae vel sculptae. — Si autem aliquis coleret ipsam figuram tanquam rem, magis erraret, quam qui coleret creaturam rationalem. Unde Augustinus de Doctrina christiana17: « Fateor, altius esse demersos qui opera hominum pro Deo colunt, quam qui opera Dei », ut statuam quam stellam.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud videtur esse idololatrare; dicendum, quod verum est, si adorarentur ratione sui, ita quod crederetur, aliquid divinum ibi esse; nunc autem non est sic, immo omnino aliter mentes fidelium venerantur; et ideo non servant idololatriae ritum. Et si tu obiicias, quod sunt occasio erroris (Notandum.); dicendum, quod etsi litterae sacrae fuerunt et sunt usque in hodiernum diem, et etiam aliae creaturae quandoque occasio erroris18; non tamen propter hoc sunt litterae delendae, et creaturae destruendae, quia hoc divini iudicii est, ut bonis sint in bonum, malis autem in mala convertantur. Sic et in imaginibus est intelligendum.

Ad 6. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod illud non habet auctoritatem ex Scripturis; dicendum, quod multa Apostoli tradiderunt, quae tamen non sunt scripta (Notandum.). Unde Apostolus19 laudabat eos qui tenebant suas traditiones, et Ecclesia servavit fideliter quae ab Apostolis accepit. Narrat tamen Damascenus20 duo, quae sunt ad imaginis confirmationem (Narratio Damasceni.). Unum est, quod « quaedam historia refert, quod Dominus Abgaro regi, qui pictorem miserat, imaginem Dei similiter picturare et figurare, nequeunte pictore

p. 205

propter coruscantes a facie claritates, ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae superimponens, in vestimento illo sui ipsius imaginem expressisset, et ita cupienti Abgaro misisset ». Et iterum: « Accepimus, Lucam, evangelistam, depinxisse Dominum et Matrem eius ». Et sic patet, quod non sunt adinventiones21 in huiusmodi imaginibus, sed divinae traditiones et apostolicae sanctiones.

Scholion

I. In hac quaestione egregie defenditur doctrina catholica de cultu imaginis Christi et Sanctorum contra Iconoclastas aliosque haereticos, iam a Concilio Nicaeno II. (an. 787), a Concilio oecumenico VIII. (can. 3.) et postea a Tridentino (Sess. 25, decret. de invocatione et veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum et sacris imaginibus) reprobatos; cfr. etiam Pius VI. contra Synodum Pistoriensem, thes. 69-71. — Quod cultus imaginum sit relativus, toties ab Ecclesia declaratum est a tempore Concilii Nicaeni II, quod dicit: « Imaginis enim honor ad prototypon transit; et qui adorat imaginem adorat in ea depicti subsistentiam ». Item Concilium Tridentinum: « Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum; vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honor, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant » etc. — Quod autem in Ecclesia occidentali praedictum decretum Nicaeni acri reclamatione impugnatum sit, praesertim quatuor « libris Carolinis » et Synodo Francofurdiensi (794); hoc ortum est praecipue ex mala interpretatione Latina falsaque intelligentia huius decreti Graece conscripti; de quo videsis recentiores auctores. Contra iconoclastam occidentalem, qui fuit Claudius, episc. Taurinensis († 840), egregie scripserunt episc. Aurelianensis Ionas, abbas Theodemir aliique. Contra impugnatores Nicaeni II. sincerum cultum imaginum defenderunt Summi Pontifices Hadrianus I. et Eugenius II.

II. Alex. Hal., p. III. q. 30. m. 3. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 25. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Solutio sequentis (3.) quaest. nullatenus potest esse dubia. De ea explicite tractant: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 4.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ.

Secondly it is asked whether the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ. And that it should, it seems:

1. First, through the Damascene, in the fourth book4: « The honor of an image is referred to the prototype »: therefore it is the same thing to adore an image and him whose image it is: therefore if Christ is to be venerated with the cult of latria, it seems that his image likewise. (Arguments.)

2. Likewise, Abraham adored three men5, and in them he adored the holy Trinity, according to what the Glosses expound: if therefore those three men were not the supreme Trinity, but signified it; therefore the cult of latria is owed not only to the thing signified, but also to the sign. Since therefore the image of Christ is his sign, it seems that the cult of latria is to be shown to it.

3. Likewise, a man speaks to an image in his petitions, therefore he speaks to the image as to the person of a rational creature, therefore he thus speaks to the image of Christ as to Christ; and as he speaks, so he venerates and adores: therefore he ought to adore the image of Christ, as Christ.

4. Likewise, we show and ought to show the same reverence to an image of the Blessed Virgin as to the Virgin herself, and so of the other Saints: therefore the same reverence too is to be shown to an image of Christ, as to Christ himself; but to Christ is shown the cult or honor of latria: therefore it ought to be shown to his image.

On the contrary: 1. Exodus twenty6, in the first commandment: You shall not make for yourself an image nor a graven likeness: if therefore it is forbidden to make an image, much more also to adore one. (To the opposite.)

2. Likewise, the Damascene, in the chapter On Images7: « It is of great impiety and folly to figure forth that which is of the divinity »: therefore it is of greater impiety to adore what is already figured forth.

3. Likewise, a living creature is better than a non-living one, because it is more like to the supreme life: if therefore images of this kind are not living, they are less worthy of honor than moles and bats. If therefore it is impious to adore bats and moles, much more images of this kind8.

4. Likewise, an image divinely imprinted is nobler and better than one graven by men; but if anyone were to adore the devil or a sinful man, in whom the image of the Lord is imprinted, he would sin: therefore much more he who adores images of this kind9.

5. Likewise, the rite of idolatry is more strongly to be fled than the legal ceremonies; but the Church flees the rite of the legal ceremony, lest it seem to judaize: by parity of reason, therefore, it ought to flee the rite of idolatry, lest it seem to idolatrize. Therefore if the cult of idolatry consisted in the veneration of images and pictures, it seems that such things are not to be adored10.

6. Likewise, since images of this kind are approved neither by the New nor by the Old Testament, it seems that their introduction was a presumption of novelty: if therefore such things are to be rooted out, it seems that such things are not to be venerated.

Conclusion. The cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ.

I respond: It must be said that the introduction of images into the Church was not without a reasonable cause. For they were introduced on account of a threefold cause, namely on account of the rudeness of the simple, on account of the slowness of the affections, and on account of the slipperiness of memory. — On account of the rudeness of the simple they were devised (First.), so that the simple, who cannot read the Scriptures11, may in sculptures and pictures of this kind, as in scriptures, more openly read the sacraments of our faith. — On account of the slowness of the affections they were likewise introduced (Second.), namely so that men, who are not stirred to devotion in those things which Christ did for us when they perceive them by the ear, may at least be stirred when they behold the same in figures and pictures, as though present, with the bodily eyes. For our affection is more stirred by the things it sees than by the things it hears. Whence Horace12:

Less keenly do things let in through the ear stir the mind, Than those which are set before faithful eyes, and which the spectator himself reports to himself.

On account of the slipperiness of memory (Third.), because those things which are only heard are more easily handed over to oblivion than those which are seen. For it is frequently verified in many that which is wont to be said: a word enters through one ear and goes out through the other. Moreover, there is not always at hand one who would recall to memory through words the benefits bestowed on us. Therefore by God's dispensation it was brought about that images should be made especially in churches, so that, seeing them, we may be reminded of the benefits bestowed on us and of the virtuous works of the Saints.

Since therefore the image of Christ was introduced to represent him who was crucified for us, and does not offer itself to us13 for itself, but for him; therefore all the reverence which is offered to it is shown to Christ.

And therefore the cult of latria ought to be shown to an image of Christ. (Conclusion 3.) And this is what Augustine says in the third book On Christian Doctrine14: « He who venerates such a divinely instituted sign, whose force and signification he understands, does not venerate this which is seen and passes away, but rather that to which all such things are to be referred ». — The reasons, therefore, which show this are to be conceded.

To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that it was forbidden that anyone make for himself an image; it must be said that it was forbidden for that time in which God had not yet assumed human nature. (Solution of the opposites. Note.) For then, when God was wholly spirit, he was unfigurable; and therefore to figure him forth was error and impiety. And for that time the Damascene speaks15, when he says that « it is of folly and impiety to figure forth that which is of the divinity »; this is true, according as it is of the divinity, because it is uncircumscribable and unfigurable; but it is not so as regards the human nature. Whence he adds that « God, on account of the bowels of his mercy, was made man and conversed with men, did miracles, suffered, was crucified; these things were written for the memory of men and for our instruction. But because not all know letters nor are at leisure for reading, the Fathers decreed to describe, as it were certain triumphs, by images, for ready remembrance ».

To 3. To that which is objected, that a living creature is nobler than a non-living one; it must be said that this is true of real nobility, but it need not be that this is true of the nobility of signification (Note.), because a thing of little worth can signify a noble thing. When therefore an image is adored, it is not adored by reason of the nobility which it has in itself, but by reason of the nobility signified in it16. And if one objects that stones and wood lead to God; it must be said that they do not lead thus, nor are they principally instituted for this, as images and pictures are.

To 4. To that which is objected concerning a divinely imprinted image, the response is already plain: because, since such a man is a noble creature, he offers himself rather after the mode of a thing than after the mode of a sign (Note.); and therefore the honor which is shown to him is not wholly referred to the first exemplar, as is the honor which is shown to a painted or sculpted image. — But if anyone were to venerate the figure itself as a thing, he would err more than he who would venerate a rational creature. Whence Augustine On Christian Doctrine17: « I confess that those who venerate the works of men for God are more deeply sunk than those who venerate the works of God », as a statue rather than a star.

To 5. To that which is objected, that this seems to be idolatrizing; it must be said that this is true, if they were adored by reason of themselves, so that it were believed that something divine was there; but now it is not so, rather the minds of the faithful venerate altogether otherwise; and therefore they do not keep the rite of idolatry. And if you object that they are an occasion of error (Note.); it must be said that, although the sacred letters were and are an occasion of error even unto the present day, and also other creatures sometimes18; nevertheless the letters are not on this account to be destroyed, nor the creatures abolished, because this is of the divine judgment, that they be turned to good for the good, but to evil for the evil. So too it must be understood in images.

To 6. But to that which is objected, that this has no authority from the Scriptures; it must be said that the Apostles handed down many things which nevertheless are not written (Note.). Whence the Apostle19 praised those who held to their traditions, and the Church faithfully kept what it received from the Apostles. The Damascene20, however, relates two things which serve for the confirmation of the image (Narration of the Damascene.). One is that « a certain history relates that the Lord, to king Abgar, who had sent a painter to portray and figure forth the image of God in like manner — the painter being unable

propter coruscantes a facie claritates — himself, laying his garment over his own divine face, expressed in that garment the image of himself, and so sent it to Abgar who desired it ». And again: « We have received that Luke, the evangelist, depicted the Lord and his Mother ». And so it is plain that in images of this kind there are no inventions21, but divine traditions and apostolic sanctions.

Scholion

I. In this question the catholic doctrine concerning the cult of the image of Christ and of the Saints is excellently defended against the Iconoclasts and other heretics, who were reproved already by the Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787), by the Eighth ecumenical Council (can. 3), and afterward by Trent (Sess. 25, decree on the invocation and veneration and relics of the Saints and on sacred images); cf. also Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia, theses 69-71. — That the cult of images is relative has been so often declared by the Church from the time of the Second Council of Nicaea, which says: « For the honor of an image passes to the prototype; and he who adores an image adores in it the subsistence of the one depicted ». Likewise the Council of Trent: « Not that it is believed that there is in them any divinity or power, on account of which they are to be venerated; or that anything is to be asked of them; or that confidence is to be fixed in images, as was once done by the gentiles, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent » etc. — But as to the fact that in the Western Church the aforesaid decree of Nicaea was assailed with sharp protest, especially in the four « Caroline Books » and the Synod of Frankfurt (794); this arose chiefly from a bad Latin interpretation and a false understanding of this decree written in Greek; concerning which you may consult the more recent authors. Against the Western iconoclast, who was Claudius, bishop of Turin († 840), the bishop of Orléans Ionas, the abbot Theodemir, and others wrote excellently. Against the assailants of the Second Council of Nicaea the Supreme Pontiffs Hadrian I and Eugenius II defended the sincere cult of images.

II. Alexander of Hales, p. III, q. 30, m. 3, a. 3. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; Summa III, q. 25, a. 3. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4, quaestiuncula 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 3. — The solution of the following (3rd) question can in no way be doubtful. On it treat explicitly: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2, § 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 5. — Petrus a Tarantasia, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 4. — Aegidius Romanus, loc. cit. a. 4.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. August., I. contra Maximin. Arian. c. 9. similem huic obiectionem quoad Spiritum sanctum prolatam (quia Rom. 8, 26. legitur: Ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus) resolvit dicens: Aliud est interpellare vel orare, aliud adorare. Omnis qui orat, rogat; non omnis qui adorat, rogat; nec omnis qui rogat, adorat. Recole consuetudinem regum, qui plerumque adorantur et non rogantur; aliquando rogantur et non adorantur. Ac per hoc a Spiritu sancto adorari Patrem nullo modo demonstrare potuisti. — De prototypo cfr. Basilium, de Spir. S. c. 18, cuius verba Damasc. allegat loc. cit., et Orat. 1. de imaginibus, circa finem. [p.202 footer 1]
    Augustine, Against Maximinus the Arian I, c. 9, resolves an objection like this one, raised concerning the Holy Spirit (because at Rom. 8:26 it is read: The Spirit himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings), saying: To intercede or to pray is one thing, to adore another. Everyone who prays asks; not everyone who adores asks; nor does everyone who asks adore. Recall the custom of kings, who are for the most part adored and not asked; sometimes they are asked and not adored. And by this you were in no way able to show that the Father is adored by the Holy Spirit. — On the prototype cf. Basil, On the Holy Spirit c. 18, whose words the Damascene cites in the place cited, and Oration 1 on images, near the end. [p.202 footer 1]
  2. Gen. 18, 2. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum hunc locum in sensu morali explicat secundum Gregor., IX. Moral. in fine. Aliter August., qui Serm. 7. (alias 6.) n. 6. Abraham sanctissimam Trinitatem adorasse, expresse docet. Cfr. Ambros., 1. de Fide, c. 13. n. 80. Ita et Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum, ubi legitur: Ita affectibus manifestatur fides Trinitatis. [p.202 footer 3]
    Gen. 18:2. — The Ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyranus expounds this passage in the moral sense, following Gregory, Morals IX, at the end. Otherwise Augustine, who in Sermon 7 (alias 6), n. 6, expressly teaches that Abraham adored the most holy Trinity. Cf. Ambrose, On the Faith I, c. 13, n. 80. So too the interlinear Gloss in Lyranus, where it is read: Thus by the affections the faith of the Trinity is made manifest. [p.202 footer 3]
  3. Vers. 4. Cfr. Lev. 19, 4. et Deut. 5, 8. [p.203 footer 1]
    Verse 4. Cf. Lev. 19:4 and Deut. 5:8. [p.203 footer 1]
  4. Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. Oratio I. de imaginibus, n. 4. et 7; II. n. 5, nec non III. n. 2. [p.203 footer 2]
    Book IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16. Cf. Oration I on images, nn. 4 and 7; II, n. 5, and also III, n. 2. [p.203 footer 2]
  5. Obiectio huic similis iam facta est a Claudio, Taurinensis ecclesiae episc., contra cuius blasphemias Ionas, Aurelianensis episc. († 813), mandato Ludovici Caesaris tres libros scripsit de Cultu imaginum, in quorum primo inter alias istius episcopi propositiones etiam hanc refellit: Certe si adorandi [Sancti] fuissent, vivi potius quam mortui adorandi esse debuerunt etc. Vide Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 106. col. 326. Cfr. S. Agobard., Lugdun. episc. († 840 vel 841), de Imagin. Sanct. c. 28: Certe si adorandi fuissent homines, vivi magis quam picti etc. (Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 104. col. 222). Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 113. serm. 2. n. 2. — Pro honore cod. K honorari. [p.203 footer 3]
    An objection like this was already made by Claudius, bishop of the church of Turin, against whose blasphemies Ionas, bishop of Orléans († 813), at the command of the emperor Louis wrote three books on the Cult of images, in the first of which, among other propositions of that bishop, he also refutes this one: Surely if [the Saints] were to be adored, they ought to have been adored alive rather than dead etc. See Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 106, col. 326. Cf. St. Agobard, bishop of Lyons († 840 or 841), On the Images of the Saints c. 28: Surely if men were to be adored, alive rather than painted etc. (Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 104, col. 222). Cf. Augustine, Enarrations on Ps. 113, sermon 2, n. 2. — For honore, codex K reads honorari. [p.203 footer 3]
  6. Hanc quoque obiectionem Claudius iam protulit, et quidem secundum Ionam loc. cit. his verbis: Si opera manuum Dei non sunt adoranda et colenda, quanto magis opera manuum hominum adoranda et colenda non sunt! Prorsus nec in honore eorum quorum similitudines esse dicuntur. [p.203 footer 4]
    This objection too Claudius already put forward, and indeed, according to Ionas in the place cited, in these words: If the works of God's hands are not to be adored and venerated, how much more are the works of men's hands not to be adored and venerated! By no means even in the honor of those whose likenesses they are said to be. [p.203 footer 4]
  7. Similis obiectio occurrit in Conc. Nicaen. II. act. 6. tom. 4. Claudius Taurinensis loc. cit. apud Ionam: Si imago, quam adoras, Deus non est, nequaquam veneranda est honore Sanctorum, qui nequaquam divinos sibi arrogant honores. — Pro legales caerimonias edd. cum nonnullis codd. legalis caerimoniae. Pro consistebat Vat. consistit, edd. 1, 2 consistant. [p.203 footer 5]
    A similar objection occurs in the Second Council of Nicaea, act. 6, tom. 4. Claudius of Turin, in the place cited in Ionas: If the image which you adore is not God, it is by no means to be venerated with the honor of the Saints, who in no way arrogate divine honors to themselves. — For legales caerimonias the editions, with some codices, read legalis caerimoniae. For consistebat the Vatican edition reads consistit, editions 1, 2 consistant. [p.203 footer 5]
  8. Vat. omittit scripturas. Cfr. Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. — Mox pro Propter affectus codd. a l. ib. Propter affectuum. [p.203 footer 6]
    The Vatican edition omits scripturas. Cf. the Damascene, IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16. — Presently, for Propter affectus, codices a, l. etc. read Propter affectuum. [p.203 footer 6]
  9. In Epist. ad Pisones sive de Arte poetica, v. 180. seqq. — Pro demissa in multis codd. legitur dimissa, in codd. P bb immissa. Deinde loco per aurem plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 contra text. origin. exhibent per aures. [p.203 footer 7]
    In the Epistle to the Pisos, or On the Art of Poetry, v. 180 ff. — For demissa many codices read dimissa, in codices P, bb immissa. Then in place of per aurem most codices, with editions 1, 2, against the original text, present per aures. [p.203 footer 7]
  10. Cod. Z supplet imago illa. [p.203 footer 8]
    Codex Z supplies that image. [p.203 footer 8]
  11. Cap. 9. n. 13, ubi textus origin. pro tale signum habet utile signum. Deinde pro cuius vim Vat. cum edd. 1, 2 substituit eius vim et paulo inferius ad quod talia pro quo talia. [p.204 footer 1]
    Chap. 9, n. 13, where the original text has utile signum (a useful sign) for tale signum (such a sign). Then for cuius vim the Vatican edition, with editions 1, 2, substitutes eius vim, and a little below ad quod talia for quo talia. [p.204 footer 1]
  12. Loc. cit. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16: « Atque hinc est, quod in veteri Testamento minime tritus erat imaginum usus » (ed. Migne). Affert Damasc. ibid. etiam eandem rationem ac Bonaventura: « Praeterea quisnam est, qui invisibilis et incorporei, incircumscriptique ac figura vacantis Dei simulacrum effingere queat »? Testimonium seq., ex eodem cap. cit. delibatum, plenius ibi habetur. — Nomini Damascenus codd. A E I N T V bb praefigunt etiam. Proxime post testimon. allatum Vat., partem propositionis seq. cum praecedenti coniungens, pro verum est exhibet quod verum est; in cod. A legitur verum etiam. Subinde pro secundum quod divinitatis est, quam lectionem ceu clariorem et congruentiorem cum Vat. retinuimus, multi codd. secundum quod divinum est. [p.204 footer 2]
    In the place cited, IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16: « And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was least in vogue » (Migne ed.). The Damascene there adduces also the same reason as Bonaventure: « Moreover, who is there who could fashion a likeness of God, who is invisible and incorporeal and uncircumscribable and devoid of figure »? The following testimony, drawn from the same chapter cited, is found more fully there. — To the name Damascenus the codices A, E, I, N, T, V, bb prefix etiam. Immediately after the testimony adduced, the Vatican edition, joining part of the following clause with the preceding, presents for verum est the reading quod verum est; in codex A is read verum etiam. Then for secundum quod divinitatis est, which reading, as clearer and more fitting, we have retained with the Vatican edition, many codices read secundum quod divinum est. [p.204 footer 2]
  13. Edd. per se. [p.204 footer 4]
    The editions read per se (by itself). [p.204 footer 4]
  14. Libr. III. c. 7. n. 11: Fateor tamen, altius demersos esse qui opera hominum deos putant, quam qui opera Dei. — Paulo superius pro ad primum exemplar cod. Z ad ipsum exemplar. [p.204 footer 5]
    Book III, c. 7, n. 11: I confess, however, that those who think the works of men to be gods are more deeply sunk than those who think the works of God. — A little above, for ad primum exemplar, codex Z reads ad ipsum exemplar. [p.204 footer 5]
  15. Verba quandoque occasio erroris in plurimis codd. et edd. 1, 2 non congrue desunt. In codd. bb (K a secunda manu) legitur sic: fuerunt et sunt [cod. K hic inserit multis] erroris occasio usque in hodiernum diem, et etiam aliae creaturae. Aliquanto superius post crederetur edd. addunt in eis, omisso dein ibi. In fine solut. pro in imaginibus cod. H de imaginibus. [p.204 footer 6]
    The words quandoque occasio erroris are unfittingly absent in most codices and editions 1, 2. In codices bb (K by a second hand) it is read thus: they were and are [codex K here inserts for many] an occasion of error even unto the present day, and also other creatures. Somewhat above, after crederetur, the editions add in eis, omitting then ibi. At the end of the solution, for in imaginibus, codex H reads de imaginibus. [p.204 footer 6]
  16. Epist. I. Cor. 2, 2; II. Thess. 2, 14. Cfr. Ioan. 20, 30; 21, 25. Vide Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. [p.204 footer 7]
    Epistle I Cor. 2:2; II Thess. 2:14. Cf. John 20:30; 21:25. See the Damascene, IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16. [p.204 footer 7]
  17. Primum factum (quod iam refert Evagrius, IV. Hist. c. 27.) prodit IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. et in Oratione 1. de imagin. n. 27. Cfr. etiam Nicephor., II. Eccles. hist. c. 7. et Euseb., I. Hist. eccles. c. 13. Secundum factum, quod memorant Theodor. Lector, I. Excerpt. ex eccles. hist. n. 1, et Nicephor., XIV. eccles. hist. c. 2. et XV. c. 14. [qui etiam asserunt, Lucam solum B. V. Mariam coloribus expressisse], Damasc. refert in Oratione adversus Constantinum Cobalinum, n. 6, nec non in Epist. ad Theophilum imperatorem, n. 3. seq. — In testimonio Damasceni hic allegato Vat. ante picturare omittit similiter, quod codd. exhibent et necessario addendum fuit, cum in textu Graeco legatur τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ὁμοιογραφῆσαι εἰκόνα. Deinde pro ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae... [p.204 footer 8]
    The first fact (which Evagrius, History IV, c. 27, already relates) comes forth in IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16, and in Oration 1 on images, n. 27. Cf. also Nicephorus, Ecclesiastical History II, c. 7, and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History I, c. 13. The second fact, which Theodorus Lector, Excerpts from Ecclesiastical History I, n. 1, and Nicephorus, Ecclesiastical History XIV, c. 2, and XV, c. 14, record [who also assert that Luke alone expressed the Blessed Virgin Mary in colors], the Damascene relates in the Oration against Constantine Cabalinus, n. 6, and also in the Epistle to the emperor Theophilus, n. 3 f. — In the testimony of the Damascene here adduced, the Vatican edition omits similiter before picturare, which the codices present and which had necessarily to be added, since in the Greek text is read τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ὁμοιογραφῆσαι εἰκόνα. Then for ipse vestimentum propriae faciei divinae... [p.204 footer 8]
  18. Voci adinventiones edd. praemittunt novae. [p.205 footer 1]
    To the word adinventiones the editions prefix novae (new). [p.205 footer 1]
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3→