Part I (Prima Pars) Part 143 (2/2)

Obj. 3: Further, likeness belongs to the nature of the image, as above explained (A. 1). But by sin man becomes unlike G.o.d. Therefore he loses the image of G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 38:7): ”Surely man pa.s.seth as an image.”

_I answer that,_ Since man is said to be the image of G.o.d by reason of his intellectual nature, he is the most perfectly like G.o.d according to that in which he can best imitate G.o.d in his intellectual nature. Now the intellectual nature imitates G.o.d chiefly in this, that G.o.d understands and loves Himself. Wherefore we see that the image of G.o.d is in man in three ways. First, inasmuch as man possesses a natural apt.i.tude for understanding and loving G.o.d; and this apt.i.tude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common to all men. Secondly, inasmuch as man actually and habitually knows and loves G.o.d, though imperfectly; and this image consists in the conformity of grace. Thirdly, inasmuch as man knows and loves G.o.d perfectly; and this image consists in the likeness of glory.

Wherefore on the words, ”The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us” (Ps. 4:7), the gloss distinguishes a threefold image of ”creation,” of ”re-creation,” and of ”likeness.” The first is found in all men, the second only in the just, the third only in the blessed.

Reply Obj. 1: The image of G.o.d, in its princ.i.p.al signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman.

Hence after the words, ”To the image of G.o.d He created him,” it is added, ”Male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). Moreover it is said ”them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both s.e.xes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of G.o.d is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as G.o.d is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that ”man is the image and glory of G.o.d, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: ”For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”

Reply Obj. 2 and 3: These reasons refer to the image consisting in the conformity of grace and glory.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 5]

Whether the Image of G.o.d Is in Man According to the Trinity of Persons?

Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d does not exist in man as to the Trinity of Persons. For Augustine says (Fulgentius De Fide ad Petrum i): ”One in essence is the G.o.dhead of the Holy Trinity; and one is the image to which man was made.” And Hilary (De Trin. v) says: ”Man is made to the image of that which is common in the Trinity.”

Therefore the image of G.o.d in man is of the Divine Essence, and not of the Trinity of Persons.

Obj. 2: Further, it is said (De Eccl. Dogmat.) that the image of G.o.d in man is to be referred to eternity. Damascene also says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that the image of G.o.d in man belongs to him as ”an intelligent being endowed with free-will and self-movement.” Gregory of Nyssa (De Homin. Opificio xvi) also a.s.serts that, when Scripture says that ”man was made to the image of G.o.d, it means that human nature was made a partic.i.p.ator of all good: for the G.o.dhead is the fulness of goodness.” Now all these things belong more to the unity of the Essence than to the distinction of the Persons. Therefore the image of G.o.d in man regards, not the Trinity of Persons, but the unity of the Essence.

Obj. 3: Further, an image leads to the knowledge of that of which it is the image. Therefore, if there is in man the image of G.o.d as to the Trinity of Persons; since man can know himself by his natural reason, it follows that by his natural knowledge man could know the Trinity of the Divine Persons; which is untrue, as was shown above (Q. 32, A. 1).

Obj. 4: Further, the name of Image is not applicable to any of the Three Persons, but only to the Son; for Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2) that ”the Son alone is the image of the Father.” Therefore, if in man there were an image of G.o.d as regards the Person, this would not be an image of the Trinity, but only of the Son.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. iv): ”The plurality of the Divine Persons is proved from the fact that man is said to have been made to the image of G.o.d.”

_I answer that,_ as we have seen (Q. 40, A. 2), the distinction of the Divine Persons is only according to origin, or, rather, relations of origin. Now the mode of origin is not the same in all things, but in each thing is adapted to the nature thereof; animated things being produced in one way, and inanimate in another; animals in one way, and plants in another. Wherefore it is manifest that the distinction of the Divine Persons is suitable to the Divine Nature; and therefore to be to the image of G.o.d by imitation of the Divine Nature does not exclude being to the same image by the representation of the Divine Persons: but rather one follows from the other. We must, therefore, say that in man there exists the image of G.o.d, both as regards the Divine Nature and as regards the Trinity of Persons; for also in G.o.d Himself there is one Nature in Three Persons.

Thus it is clear how to solve the first two objections.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument would avail if the image of G.o.d in man represented G.o.d in a perfect manner. But, as Augustine says (De Trin.

xv, 6), there is a great difference between the trinity within ourselves and the Divine Trinity. Therefore, as he there says: ”We see, rather than believe, the trinity which is in ourselves; whereas we believe rather than see that G.o.d is Trinity.”

Reply Obj. 4: Some have said that in man there is an image of the Son only. Augustine rejects this opinion (De Trin. xii, 5,6). First, because as the Son is like to the Father by a likeness of essence, it would follow of necessity if man were made in likeness to the Son, that he is made to the likeness of the Father. Secondly, because if man were made only to the image of the Son, the Father would not have said, ”Let Us make man to Our own image and likeness”; but ”to Thy image.” When, therefore, it is written, ”He made him to the image of G.o.d,” the sense is not that the Father made man to the image of the Son only, Who is G.o.d, as some explained it, but that the Divine Trinity made man to Its image, that is, of the whole Trinity. When it is said that G.o.d ”made man to His image,” this can be understood in two ways: first, so that this preposition ”to” points to the term of the making, and then the sense is, ”Let Us make man in such a way that Our image may be in him.” Secondly, this preposition 'to' may point to the exemplar cause, as when we say, ”This book is made (like) to that one.” Thus the image of G.o.d is the very Essence of G.o.d, Which is incorrectly called an image forasmuch as image is put for the exemplar. Or, as some say, the Divine Essence is called an image because thereby one Person imitates another.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 6]

Whether the Image of G.o.d Is in Man As Regards the Mind Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is not only in man's mind. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:7) that ”the man is the image ... of G.o.d.” But man is not only mind. Therefore the image of G.o.d is to be observed not only in his mind.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Gen. 1:27): ”G.o.d created man to His own image; to the image of G.o.d He created him; male and female He created them.” But the distinction of male and female is in the body.

Therefore the image of G.o.d is also in the body, and not only in the mind.

<script>