Skip to the text
Ember
PT

Chapter IX. Question 35

THE IMAGE ses eS SS DS SS SS SD SD DS DD DD DD Dh hhh hh hhh ehhh

First ARTICLE

WHETHER “IMAGE” IN GOD IS PREDICATED PERSONALLY

HIS article is intended to explain the words of Holy Scripture about the Second Person of the Holy Trinity: “The unspotted mirror of God’s majesty, and the image of His goodness”; * “that the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them”;® “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”; * “who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance, . . . sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.” *

Reply. The name /mage is a personal and not an essential name. The reason is that for something to be a true image it must proceed from another similar to itself in species or in the sign of the species. But that which implies procession or origin in God is personal. Therefore the name “Image” is a personal name.

To explain his reason St. Thomas shows that two conditions are required for an image: 1. that it be similar not only analogically, generically, or even specifically, but in the sign of the species, for example, according to the features of the face; 2. that this likeness have its origin from that being of which it is the image by virtue of some procession. Here we can see the validity of common sense. No one is said to be like his image, but we do say that the picture of this man is perfectly like him. Similarly, as St. Augustine says, “One sheep

THE IMAGE 217 is not said to be the image of another, because it was not expressed by it.” In this observation we see the hidden wealth in common sense and in natural reason, which contain the beginnings and rudiments of ontology just as the earth contains metals, like gold and silver, and precious stones, like diamonds.

A book could be written about the riches hidden in common sense, particularly with regard to the verb “is,” its different tenses and modes, its various persons; all this is a reflection of metaphysics cast on the elements of grammar.

Images are of three kinds.

  1. The artificial image, which is similar only in the sign of the species, for example, in features or figure, as a picture or statue. This is an imperfect image.

  2. The intentional image, which is the expressed intelligible species implying a likeness not only in the sign of a specific nature but also in the specific nature itself, not in the mode of natural being but in intelligible being. This image is more perfect than the first.

  3. The natural image, which denotes likeness both in the specific nature and in the mode of natural being, as the son is sometimes the living image of his father. This is the perfect image. In God it is most perfect because it is likeness in a nature numerically the same. The first and third kinds of image are presented as the thing that is known; the second kind of image itself is not properly known but that in which another thing is known. In God the Word is at the same time the intentional and the natural image.

Reply to the first objection. That from which the image proceeds is properly called the exemplar and improperly the image. Thus it is said that man is made to the image of God, but God is properly the exemplar and man is the imperfect image of God.

Reply to the third objection. Imitation in God does not signify posterity but only assimilation. All words retain a certain amount of imperfection from their original human application, according to which they apply first to creatures.1

WHETHER THE NAME “IMAGE” IS PROPER TO THE SON

State of the question. The Greeks applied the name Image to the Holy Ghost as well, while the Latins use it only for the Son.

Reply. The name Image is proper to the Son.

  1. Proof from Scripture. In Sacred Scripture the word “image” refers only to the Son, as for instance, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”; and “Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance.” °

  2. Proof from theological reason. Only the Son by reason of His procession formally possesses that which is similar to the Father because He proceeds as the expressed Word. The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, proceeds as love, but love is not a likeness of that from which it proceeds but rather an inclination after the manner of a weight or an impulse.

Out of respect to the Greek Fathers it may be said that the Holy Ghost is like the Father and the Son in nature and thus the Holy Ghost may be said to be the image of the Father and the Son in a broad sense, but not formally by reason of His procession.’ For the same reason we said above that the second procession is not generation because of itself it does not produce something similar to that from which it proceeds.

Durandus objected that the Son is not similar to the Father by reason of essence, because here there is identity, nor by reason of relation because here there is opposition. We reply that the Son is like the Father by reason of essence and relation at once, that is, by reason of person, for like things agree in some things and differ in others. Thus the Father and the Son agree in nature and differ by relation.

Note on the third objection. Man is said to be in the likeness of God rather than the image of God, that is, man tends toward the likeness of God.

Recapitulation. “The Word” is the proper name of the Son, for the Word in God is both substantial and incommunicable, that is, He is a person, something subsisting and incommunicable. The Word implies a reference to creatures inasmuch as He proceeds from the comprehensive knowledge of the divine essence, which is the cause of creatures. Again, the Son of God is properly the Image, an image that is natural and intentional at the same time, as a son is the living image of his father. Only the Son has this derived likeness of an

THE IMAGE 219 image by reason of His procession because He proceeds as the expressed Word of the Father.

Therefore we read in the Scriptures, “the image of the invisible God,” “the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty,” and “the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance.” ®

8 Bossuet, Elévations sur les mystères, VII, VIII, IX, X.

Footnotes

  1. Wisd. 7:26. II Cor. 4:4. 3 Col. 1:15. * Heb. 1:3. 216 ↩

Chapter 10 of 46