Part I (Prima Pars) Part 142 (2/2)
(4) Whether the image of G.o.d is in every man?
(5) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man by comparison with the Essence, or with all the Divine Persons, or with one of them?
(6) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man, as to his mind only?
(7) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man's power or in his habits and acts?
(8) Whether the image of G.o.d is in man by comparison with every object?
(9) Of the difference between ”image” and ”likeness.”
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 1]
Whether the Image of G.o.d Is in Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is not in man. For it is written (Isa. 40:18): ”To whom have you likened G.o.d? or what image will you make for Him?”
Obj. 2: Further, to be the image of G.o.d is the property of the First-Begotten, of Whom the Apostle says (Col. 1:15): ”Who is the image of the invisible G.o.d, the First-Born of every creature.”
Therefore the image of G.o.d is not to be found in man.
Obj. 3: Further, Hilary says (De Synod [*Super i can]. Synod.
Ancyr.) that ”an image is of the same species as that which it represents”; and he also says that ”an image is the undivided and united likeness of one thing adequately representing another.” But there is no species common to both G.o.d and man; nor can there be a comparison of equality between G.o.d and man. Therefore there can be no image of G.o.d in man.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 1:26): ”Let Us make man to Our own image and likeness.”
_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): ”Where an image exists, there forthwith is likeness; but where there is likeness, there is not necessarily an image.” Hence it is clear that likeness is essential to an image; and that an image adds something to likeness--namely, that it is copied from something else. For an ”image” is so called because it is produced as an imitation of something else; wherefore, for instance, an egg, however much like and equal to another egg, is not called an image of the other egg, because it is not copied from it.
But equality does not belong to the essence of an image; for as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): ”Where there is an image there is not necessarily equality,” as we see in a person's image reflected in a gla.s.s. Yet this is of the essence of a perfect image; for in a perfect image nothing is wanting that is to be found in that of which it is a copy. Now it is manifest that in man there is some likeness to G.o.d, copied from G.o.d as from an exemplar; yet this likeness is not one of equality, for such an exemplar infinitely excels its copy.
Therefore there is in man a likeness to G.o.d; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect. And Scripture implies the same when it says that man was made ”to” G.o.d's likeness; for the preposition ”to”
signifies a certain approach, as of something at a distance.
Reply Obj. 1: The Prophet speaks of bodily images made by man.
Therefore he says pointedly: ”What image will you make for Him?” But G.o.d made a spiritual image to Himself in man.
Reply Obj. 2: The First-Born of creatures is the perfect Image of G.o.d, reflecting perfectly that of which He is the Image, and so He is said to be the ”Image,” and never ”to the image.” But man is said to be both ”image” by reason of the likeness; and ”to the image” by reason of the imperfect likeness. And since the perfect likeness to G.o.d cannot be except in an identical nature, the Image of G.o.d exists in His first-born Son; as the image of the king is in his son, who is of the same nature as himself: whereas it exists in man as in an alien nature, as the image of the king is in a silver coin, as Augustine says explains in _De decem Chordis_ (Serm. ix, al, xcvi, De Tempore).
Reply Obj. 3: As unity means absence of division, a species is said to be the same as far as it is one. Now a thing is said to be one not only numerically, specifically, or generically, but also according to a certain a.n.a.logy or proportion. In this sense a creature is one with G.o.d, or like to Him; but when Hilary says ”of a thing which adequately represents another,” this is to be understood of a perfect image.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 2]
Whether the Image of G.o.d Is to Be Found in Irrational Creatures?
Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is to be found in irrational creatures. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): ”Effects are contingent images of their causes.” But G.o.d is the cause not only of rational, but also of irrational creatures. Therefore the image of G.o.d is to be found in irrational creatures.
<script>