|
Objection 1: It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to
the Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18),
"The Holy Ghost is the Image of the Son." Therefore Image does
not belong to the Son alone.
Objection 2: Further, similitude in expression belongs to the
nature of an image, as Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu.
74). But this belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from
another by way of similitude. Therefore the Holy Ghost is an
Image; and so to be Image does not belong to the Son alone.
Objection 3: Further, man is also called the image of God,
according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his
head, for he is the image and the glory of God." Therefore Image
is not proper to the Son.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): "The Son
alone is the Image of the Father."
I answer that, The Greek Doctors commonly say that the Holy Ghost
is the Image of both the Father and of the Son; but the Latin
Doctors attribute the name Image to the Son alone. For it is not
found in the canonical Scripture except as applied to the Son; as in
the words, "Who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of creatures" (Col. 1:15) and again: "Who being the
brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb.
1:3).
Some explain this by the fact that the Son agrees with the Father,
not in nature only, but also in the notion of principle: whereas the
Holy Ghost agrees neither with the Son, nor with the Father in any
notion. This, however, does not seem to suffice. Because as it is
not by reason of the relations that we consider either equality or
inequality in God, as Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6), so
neither (by reason thereof do we consider) that similitude which is
essential to image. Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be
called the Image of the Son, because there cannot be an image of an
image; nor of the Father, because again the image must be immediately
related to that which it is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related
to the Father through the Son; nor again is He the Image of the
Father and the Son, because then there would be one image of two;
which is impossible. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost is in no
way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and the Son are
one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain further on
(Question 36, Article 4). Hence there is nothing to prevent
there being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they
are one; since even man is one image of the whole Trinity.
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the
Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of
the Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to
be "born"; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father,
He is not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and
it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it
proceeds; whereas this does not essentially belong to love, although
it may belong to that love which is the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He
is the divine love.
Reply to Objection 1: Damascene and the other Greek Doctors
commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the Holy Ghost is like to the
Father and the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image,
as above explained.
Reply to Objection 3: The image of a thing may be found in
something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same
specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In
another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the
king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image
of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God;
and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine
image in man, man is not simply called the image, but "to the
image," whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to
perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is "to the
image," because He is the perfect Image of the Father.
|
|