Summa Theologica Part I (Prima Pars) Part 143

Obj. 2: Further, the more distinct a likeness is, the nearer it approaches to the nature of an image. But Dionysius says (Div. Nom.

iv) that "the solar ray has a very great similitude to the Divine goodness." Therefore it is made to the image of G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, the more perfect anything is in goodness, the more it is like G.o.d. But the whole universe is more perfect in goodness than man; for though each individual thing is good, all things together are called "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Therefore the whole universe is to the image of G.o.d, and not only man.

Obj. 4: Further, Boethius (De Consol. iii) says of G.o.d: "Holding the world in His mind, and forming it into His image." Therefore the whole world is to the image of G.o.d, and not only the rational creature.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. vi, 12): "Man's excellence consists in the fact that G.o.d made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field." Therefore things without intellect are not made to G.o.d's image.

_I answer that,_ Not every likeness, not even what is copied from something else, is sufficient to make an image; for if the likeness be only generic, or existing by virtue of some common accident, this does not suffice for one thing to be the image of another. For instance, a worm, though from man it may originate, cannot be called man's image, merely because of the generic likeness. Nor, if anything is made white like something else, can we say that it is the image of that thing; for whiteness is an accident belonging to many species. But the nature of an image requires likeness in species; thus the image of the king exists in his son: or, at least, in some specific accident, and chiefly in the shape; thus, we speak of a man's image in copper.

Whence Hilary says pointedly that "an image is of the same species."

Now it is manifest that specific likeness follows the ultimate difference. But some things are like to G.o.d first and most commonly because they exist; secondly, because they live; and thirdly because they know or understand; and these last, as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 51) "approach so near to G.o.d in likeness, that among all creatures nothing comes nearer to Him." It is clear, therefore, that intellectual creatures alone, properly speaking, are made to G.o.d's image.

Reply Obj. 1: Everything imperfect is a partic.i.p.ation of what is perfect. Therefore even what falls short of the nature of an image, so far as it possesses any sort of likeness to G.o.d, partic.i.p.ates in some degree the nature of an image. So Dionysius says that effects are "contingent images of their causes"; that is, as much as they happen (_contingit_) to be so, but not absolutely.

Reply Obj. 2: Dionysius compares the solar ray to Divine goodness, as regards its causality; not as regards its natural dignity which is involved in the idea of an image.

Reply Obj. 3: The universe is more perfect in goodness than the intellectual creature as regards extension and diffusion; but intensively and collectively the likeness to the Divine goodness is found rather in the intellectual creature, which has a capacity for the highest good. Or else we may say that a part is not rightly divided against the whole, but only against another part. Wherefore, when we say that the intellectual nature alone is to the image of G.o.d, we do not mean that the universe in any part is not to G.o.d's image, but that the other parts are excluded.

Reply Obj. 4: Boethius here uses the word "image" to express the likeness which the product of an art bears to the artistic species in the mind of the artist. Thus every creature is an image of the exemplar type thereof in the Divine mind. We are not, however, using the word "image" in this sense; but as it implies a likeness in nature, that is, inasmuch as all things, as being, are like to the First Being; as living, like to the First Life; and as intelligent, like to the Supreme Wisdom.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 3]

Whether the Angels Are More to the Image of G.o.d Than Man Is?

Objection 1: It would seem that the angels are not more to the image of G.o.d than man is. For Augustine says in a sermon _de Imagine_ xliii (de verbis Apost. xxvii) that G.o.d granted to no other creature besides man to be to His image. Therefore it is not true to say that the angels are more than man to the image of G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (QQ. 83, qu. 51), "man is so much to G.o.d's image that G.o.d did not make any creature to be between Him and man: and therefore nothing is more akin to Him." But a creature is called G.o.d's image so far as it is akin to G.o.d. Therefore the angels are not more to the image of G.o.d than man.

Obj. 3: Further, a creature is said to be to G.o.d's image so far as it is of an intellectual nature. But the intellectual nature does not admit of intensity or remissness; for it is not an accidental thing, since it is a substance. Therefore the angels are not more to the image of G.o.d than man.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. x.x.xiv): "The angel is called a "seal of resemblance" (Ezech. 28:12) because in him the resemblance of the Divine image is wrought with greater expression.

_I answer that,_ We may speak of G.o.d's image in two ways. First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of G.o.d is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 79, A.

8). Secondly, we may consider the image of G.o.d in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of G.o.d, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as G.o.d from G.o.d; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as G.o.d is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of G.o.d is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to G.o.d's image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of G.o.d than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of G.o.d than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine excludes the inferior creatures bereft of reason from the image of G.o.d; but not the angels.

Reply Obj. 2: As fire is said to be specifically the most subtle of bodies, while, nevertheless, one kind of fire is more subtle than another; so we say that nothing is more like to G.o.d than the human soul in its generic and intellectual nature, because as Augustine had said previously, "things which have knowledge, are so near to Him in likeness that of all creatures none are nearer." Wherefore this does not mean that the angels are not more to G.o.d's image.

Reply Obj. 3: When we say that substance does not admit of more or less, we do not mean that one species of substance is not more perfect than another; but that one and the same individual does not partic.i.p.ate in its specific nature at one time more than at another; nor do we mean that a species of substance is shared among different individuals in a greater or lesser degree.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 93, Art. 4]

Whether the Image of G.o.d Is Found in Every Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the image of G.o.d is not found in every man. For the Apostle says that "man is the image of G.o.d, but woman is the image [Vulg. glory] of man" (1 Cor. 11:7). Therefore, as woman is an individual of the human species, it is clear that every individual is not an image of G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 8:29): "Whom G.o.d foreknew, He also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son." But all men are not predestined. Therefore all men have not the conformity of image.

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.