|
Objection 1: It would seem that the image of God 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 Godhead 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 God in man
is of the Divine Essence, and not of the Trinity of Persons.
Objection 2: Further, it is said (De Eccl. Dogmat.) that the
image of God in man is to be referred to eternity. Damascene also
says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that the image of God in man
belongs to him as "an intelligent being endowed with free-will and
self-movement." Gregory of Nyssa (De Homin. Opificio xvi)
also asserts that, when Scripture says that "man was made to the
image of God, it means that human nature was made a participator of
all good: for the Godhead 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 God in man
regards, not the Trinity of Persons, but the unity of the Essence.
Objection 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
God 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 (Question 32, Article 1).
Objection 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 God 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 God."
I answer that, as we have seen (Question 40, Article 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 God 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
God, both as regards the Divine Nature and as regards the Trinity
of Persons; for also in God Himself there is one Nature in Three
Persons.
Thus it is clear how to solve the first two objections.
Reply to Objection 3: This argument would avail if the image of
God in man represented God 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 God is Trinity."
Reply to Objection 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 God," the sense is not that the
Father made man to the image of the Son only, Who is God, 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 God "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 God is the very Essence of God, 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.
|
|