Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/9/q/bon-sent-III-d9-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 book: « 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 men, 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 twenty, 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 Images*: « 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 kind.

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 kind.

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 adored.

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 Scriptures, 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 Horace:

> 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 us 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 Doctrine*: « 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 speaks, 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 it*. 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 Doctrine*: « 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 sometimes; 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 Apostle praised those who held to their traditions, and the Church faithfully kept what it received from the Apostles. The Damascene, 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 inventions, but divine traditions and apostolic sanctions.