Part I (Prima Pars) Part 56 (1/2)

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. lx.x.xiii, qu. 63), that ”the name Word signifies not only relation to the Father, but also relation to those beings which are made through the Word, by His operative power.”

_I answer that,_ Word implies relation to creatures. For G.o.d by knowing Himself, knows every creature. Now the word conceived in the mind is representative of everything that is actually understood.

Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things which we understand. But because G.o.d by one act understands Himself and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the Father, but of all creatures.

And as the knowledge of G.o.d is only cognitive as regards G.o.d, whereas as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so the Word of G.o.d is only expressive of what is in G.o.d the Father, but is both expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is said (Ps.

32:9): ”He spake, and they were made;” because in the Word is implied the operative idea of what G.o.d makes.

Reply Obj. 1: The nature is also included indirectly in the name of the person; for person is an individual substance of a rational nature. Therefore the name of a divine person, as regards the personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is implied in what belongs to the nature. Yet there is nothing to prevent its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is included in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be the Son, so it properly belongs to Him to be G.o.d begotten, or the Creator begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the relations result from actions, some names import the relation of G.o.d to creatures, which relation follows on the action of G.o.d which pa.s.ses into some exterior effect, as to create and to govern; and the like are applied to G.o.d in time. But others import a relation which follows from an action which does not pa.s.s into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent--as to know and to will: such are not applied to G.o.d in time; and this kind of relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word. Nor is it true that all names which import the relation of G.o.d to creatures are applied to Him in time; but only those names are applied in time which import relation following on the action of G.o.d pa.s.sing into exterior effect.

Reply Obj. 3: Creatures are known to G.o.d not by a knowledge derived from the creatures themselves, but by His own essence. Hence it is not necessary that the Word should proceed from creatures, although the Word is expressive of creatures.

Reply Obj. 4: The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to signify relation to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural sense to G.o.d; and it is not said personally. But the name of Word is imposed chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation to creatures, inasmuch as G.o.d, by understanding Himself, understands every creature; and so there is only one Word in G.o.d, and that is a personal one.

Reply Obj. 5: G.o.d's knowledge of non-beings and G.o.d's Word about non-beings are the same; because the Word of G.o.d contains no less than does the knowledge of G.o.d, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 14).

Nevertheless the Word is expressive and operative of beings, but is expressive and manifestive of non-beings.

_______________________

QUESTION 35

OF THE IMAGE (In Two Articles)

We next inquire concerning the image: about which there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Image in G.o.d is said personally?

(2) Whether this name belongs to the Son alone?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 35, Art. 1]

Whether Image in G.o.d Is Said Personally?

Objection 1: It would seem that image is not said personally of G.o.d.

For Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i) says, ”The G.o.dhead of the Holy Trinity and the Image whereunto man is made are one.”

Therefore Image is said of G.o.d essentially, and not personally.

Obj. 2: Further, Hilary says (De Synod.): ”An image is a like species of that which it represents.” But species or form is said of G.o.d essentially. Therefore so also is Image.

Obj. 3: Further, Image is derived from imitation, which implies ”before” and ”after.” But in the divine persons there is no ”before”

and ”after.” Therefore Image cannot be a personal name in G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1): ”What is more absurd than to say that an image is referred to itself?” Therefore the Image in G.o.d is a relation, and is thus a personal name.

_I answer that,_ Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign. In corporeal things the specific sign consists chiefly in the figure. For we see that the species of different animals are of different figures; but not of different colors. Hence if the color of anything is depicted on a wall, this is not called an image unless the figure is likewise depicted. Further, neither the similitude of species or of figure is enough for an image, which requires also the idea of origin; because, as Augustine says (QQ. lx.x.xiii, qu. 74): ”One egg is not the image of another, because it is not derived from it.” Therefore for a true image it is required that one proceeds from another like to it in species, or at least in specific sign. Now whatever imports procession or origin in G.o.d, belongs to the persons. Hence the name ”Image” is a personal name.

Reply Obj. 1: Image, properly speaking, means whatever proceeds forth in likeness to another. That to the likeness of which anything proceeds, is properly speaking called the exemplar, and is improperly called the image. Nevertheless Augustine (Fulgentius) uses the name of Image in this sense when he says that the divine nature of the Holy Trinity is the Image to whom man was made.