|
THIS article is intended to explain the words of Holy
Scripture I about the Second Person of the Holy
Trinity: "The unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and
the image of His goodness";[394] "that the light
of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not shine unto them";[395] "who is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature";[396] "who being the brightness of His
glory, and the figure of His substance,... sitteth on
the right hand of the majesty on high."[397]
Reply. The name Image 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," ne sheep 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.
|
|