To our image and likeness.¹

Ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.

What the difference is between likeness and image is wont to be inquired: but here I do not see what difference he meant, unless either by those two words he signified one thing, or he called it a 'likeness' if (for example) there be made a statue or image having a human form, yet not that of any particular man—provided its fea-⁶

Quid intersit inter similitudinem et imaginem quaeri solet: sed hic non video quid interesse voluerit, nisi aut duobus istis vocabulis unam rem significaverit, aut similitudinem dixerit, si (verbi gratia) fiat statua vel simulachrum habens speciem humanam, non tamen alicuius hominis, exprimantur linea-

[its fea]tures be expressed, as painters or sculptors do, looking at those whom they paint or fashion: for that this is called an image, no one will doubt. According to which distinction, every image is also a likeness, but not every likeness is also an image. Hence if twins be like one another, the likeness of either may be said to be in the other, but not the image. But if a son be like his father, it is also rightly called an image, the father being the prototype from which that image is seen to be expressed: of which images some are of the same substance, as a son, others not of the same, as a painting. Hence that which is written in Genesis chapter one, God made man to the image of God, it is plain was so said that the image which was made is not of the same substance: for if it were of the same substance, it would be said not to be made but to be begotten. But as to his not having added 'and the likeness,' although above it had been said, Let us make man to our image and likeness, it has seemed to some that the likeness is something more than the image, which was to be preserved afterward for man, to be reformed through the grace of Christ. But I wonder whether he did not for this reason afterward will to mention the image alone, because where there is image, there is straightway likeness also. Hence here Moses vows [pronounces] that likeness and image are made, perhaps according to that reason which we have stated. Thus Augustine.⁷

[linea]menta, sicut pictores vel statuarij faciunt intuentes eos quos pingunt vel fingunt: hanc enim imaginem dici nemo dubitaverit. Secundùm quam distinctionem, omnis imago etiam similitudo est, non omnis similitudo etiam imago est. Unde si gemini inter se similes sint, similitudo dici potest alterius cuiuslibet in altero, non imago. Si autem patris filius similis sit, etiam imago rectè dicitur, ut sit pater prototypus unde illa imago expressa videatur: quarum aliae sunt eiusdem substantiae sicut filius, aliae non eiusdem sicut pictura. Unde illud quod in Genesi capite primo scriptum est, Fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei, manifestum est ita dictum ut non eiusdem substantiae sit imago quae facta est: si enim eiusdem substantiae esset, non facta sed genita diceretur. Sed quod non addidit et similitudinem, cùm superius dictum esset, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, quibusdam visum est similitudinem aliquid amplius esse quàm imaginem, quod homini reformando per Christi gratiam posteà servaretur. Miror autem si non propterea posteà imaginem solam voluit commemorare, quia ubi imago, continuò et similitudo est. Unde hic Moyses similitudinem et imaginem fieri votat, secundum eam fortasse rationem quam diximus. Haec Augustinus.

Image and likeness differ in this, that an image is the image of one, but a likeness is never the likeness of fewer than two. Now the image of God is the Son of the same God the Father, as the Apostle says of him, Who is the image of the invisible God. The image, I say, of the invisible God is the Son, equally invisible. Yet 'image' is said in many ways: for there is the image of a man or a horse, a painting on a wall, or a carving in wood or stone; the image of the sun or moon is seen in a well: not in this way is the Son called the image of God, but in such wise that (as the Apostle says in another place) he is the figure of his substance—because, namely, just as any substance is known from the appearance of its figure, so God the Father is known through his Word, which is the Son. Yet the image of a man is also called a property of his substance: in which sense that saying about the first man is necessarily understood, And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. The Son, then, is the image of the Father, and the Holy Spirit the likeness of the Father and the Son: for the common goodness or charity is of the Father and the Son. Therefore you would not think it could rightly be said, Let us ma[ke]—¹²

Imago et similitudo hoc differunt, quod imago unius imago est, similitudo autem nunquam minus quàm duorum similitudo est. Est autem imago Dei, Filius eiusdem Dei Patris, sicut de illo Apostolus, Qui est, inquit, imago Dei invisibilis. Imago, inquam, Dei invisibilis est Filius aequè invisibilis. Multis tamen modis imago dicitur: est enim imago hominis vel equi, pictura in pariete, vel sculptura in ligno vel lapide; videtur in puteo imago solis vel lunae: non sic imago Dei dicitur Filius, sed ita ut (sicut in alio loco dicit Apostolus) figura substantiae eius: quia videlicet, sicut substantia quaelibet ex conspecta figura sua cognoscitur, sic Deus Pater per verbum suum quod est Filius cognoscitur. Dicitur tamen et imago hominis proprietas substantiae eius: quo sensu illud de primo homine dictum necessario intelligitur, Vixit autem Adam centum triginta annis, genuitque filium ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, et vocavit nomen eius Seth. Est ergo Filius imago Patris, sanctus autem Spiritus similitudo Patris et Filij: communis enim bonitas sive caritas est Patris et Filij. Ergo non rectè dici putes potuisse, Fa-

Let us make man to our image and likeness: because assuredly the Son, just as he is not the Son of the Father together with the Holy Spirit, but the Son of the Father alone, so he is not the image of the Father and of the same Holy Spirit, but the image of the Father alone. On the contrary, it was most rightly said, To our image and likeness: because, namely, the Holy Spirit, just as he is the common goodness or love of the Father and the Son, so he is the common likeness of the same.¹³

[Fa]ciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: quia profecto Filius, sicut non Patris simul et Spiritus sancti, sed solius Patris Filius est, sic non Patris et eiusdem Spiritus sancti, sed solius Patris imago est. E contrario rectissimè dictum est, Ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: quia videlicet Spiritus sanctus, sicut Patris et Filij communis bonitas vel dilectio, sic eorundem communis similitudo est.

What, in fine, is, Let us make man to our image and likeness, but, Let us make man who shall have in himself the evidence of our threefold operation? For look at some well-constituted man—for example, such as is the very one who wrote these things, nay, such as will be all the elect, by whom the blessed Trinity is to be beheld in its glory: they assuredly live, which is common to them with the beasts; and they discern, which is common to them with reprobate men or even with malignant spirits; and they are holy or just, which is proper to the sons of God. Therefore what he says, Let us make man to our image and likeness, is to say, Let us make a man living, rational, like to God. A little before, speaking of the brute animals, Let the earth bring forth the living soul in its kind: above a soul of that sort the condition of man excels in a twofold honor, when it is said, To our image and likeness. To the image, namely, that he be rational; to our likeness, that he be upright by following the justice of God. Of these he cannot lack the one, namely rationality; the other—that is, the likeness of divine rectitude or justice—he cannot attain except through grace. But that faculty of rationality which man cannot lack is an instrument, or a kind of eye, for seeking the likeness of God. He is therefore inexcusable when he has not attained to the likeness of God, because, namely, he was unwilling to use the good instrument for that for which it was given him. But when God first made man, he made him not only rational, but also flourishing in the honor of his likeness. For God, says Scripture, made man upright, but he himself entangled himself in many questions. Now, however, being seduced, he has lost the honor of the likeness of God, but the faculty of reason remained in him, by which he may be able to hear him who calls him back, and to follow him as leader and teacher unto his own restoration.¹⁵

Quid tandem est, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, nisi Faciamus hominem qui trinae operationis nostrae in semetipso habeat evidentiam? Nam aspice hominem quempiam benè constitutum, verbi gratia, qualis est is ipse qui scripsit haec, immò quales erunt electi omnes à quibus beata Trinitas in gloria sua videnda est: utique vivunt, quod commune illis est cum iumentis; et discernunt, quod commune illis est cum hominibus reprobis vel etiam malignis spiritibus; et sancti vel iusti sunt, quod proprium est filiorum Dei. Ergo quod ait, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, hoc dicere est, Faciamus hominem viventem, rationalem, Deo similem. Paulò antè de brutis animantibus loquens, Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo: eiusmodi animam duplici honore praecellit hominis conditio, dum dicitur, Ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Ad imaginem videlicet, ut sit rationalis; ad similitudinem nostram, ut rectus sit sectando iustitiam Dei. Horum altero, scilicet rationalitate, carere non potest; alterum, id est divinae rectitudinis vel iustitiae similitudinem, nisi per gratiam assequi non potest. Sed ea qua carere non potest homo facultas rationabilitatis, instrumentum est, sive oculus quidam, ad quaerendam similitudinem Dei. Est ergo inexcusabilis cùm ad similitudinem Dei non pervenerit, quia videlicet bono instrumento, ad hoc propter quod sibi datum est, uti noluit. Verùm cùm primùm fecit Deus hominem, non solùm rationalem, sed et similitudinis suae fecit honore pollentem. Deus enim, inquit Scriptura, fecit hominem rectum, ipse verò implicuit se multis quaestionibus. Nunc autem seductus perdidit quidem honorem similitudinis Dei, sed facultas rationis in eo remansit, per quam revocantem audire, et ad restaurationem sui ducem ac praeceptorem valeat sequi.

God, therefore, willing this creature to be rational and a partaker of his sanctity, says, Let us make man to our image and likeness. Scripture did not say (as it said, God said, Let there be light, and light was made), God said, Let man be made to our image and likeness, and man was made. Why? Because, namely, it was to be done not suddenly but laboriously, so that the completed man should stand to the image and likeness of his Creator. For the Angelic creature, once made, is now—at least in those who fell—not restored to its former estate. But man, who was to fall after his first making and to be renewed by the re-creation of the merciful one: for this reason the three Persons, as it were, mutually exhort one another, saying, Let us make.¹⁷

Igitur rationalem et sanctitatis suae participem Deus hanc esse volens creaturam, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Non dixit Scriptura, quia dixit Deus, Fiat homo ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et factus est homo, sicut dixit, Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Quare? videlicet, quia non repentè, sed operosè agendum erat, ut consummatus homo staret ad Creatoris sui imaginem et similitudinem. Angelica namque creatura semel facta, iam nec in illis qui ceciderunt in antiquum restituetur. At verò homo, post primam sui facturam casurus et miserantis recreatione erat innovandus: idcircò tres personae quasi mutuò se cohortantur, dicendo, Faciamus.

Yet it must be known that both those fewer words by which it was said, Let there be light, and light was made, and these more numerous ones, Let us make man to our image and likeness, signify an equal dignity or glory of the Angels and of the elect among men. For the elect Angel too, because he is light, was made and perfected to the image and likeness of God; and man, because he was made and remade to the image and likeness of God, is light. And because each is rational, he was made to the image of God; and because he is well-constituted and subject to God, he was made to the likeness of God. Accordingly, just as the former is called light, or an Angel of light, so this latter too is called light and a son of light. Nevertheless, just as that which was said, Let there be light, intimates that only the elect Angels are the Creator's care, and excludes the Angels of darkness (although he created these also), so too that saying, Let us make man to our likeness, embraces only those whom he predestined to life, and does not admit those who, beyond the number, were afterward to be born of the now-corrupted root. And so, if it be asked why Scripture brought in God saying thus, Let there be light, when he might have said, Let Angels be made, or Let spirits be made: let us ask why the same God said this whole thing, Let us make man to our image and likeness, when he might have said only, Let us make man, and it could have sufficed for the common understanding to indicate that he signified that substance which we are. For they are equal cases, so that you may rightly answer on both sides, that it did not pertain to the mouth of the Lord to give command concerning those whom he himself does not know. And by no name could he better have expressed only those who belong to him—the Angels or spirits—than by the name of light; nor, nonetheless, by any definition could he better have designated those men whom he had foreordained to eternal life than by this, Let us make man to our image and likeness. Therefore in each case, his own Angels and his own men, God expressed by fitting words in his Scripture, through this his interpreter, and distinguished them from others who do not belong to him by a sufficient sparingness of speech. Thus far are the words of Rupert.¹⁸

SCIENDUM tamen quòd et illa pauciora verba quibus dictum est, Fiat lux, et facta est lux, et haec plura, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, parem Angelorum et hominum electorum dignitatem vel gloriam significant. Nam et electus Angelus, quia lux est, ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus et perfectus est; et homo, quia ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus et refectus est, lux est. Et quia uterque rationalis est, ad imaginem Dei factus est; et quia bene constitutus ac Deo subditus est, ad similitudinem Dei factus est. Proinde sicut ille lux vel Angelus lucis, sic et iste lux dicitur et filius lucis. Nihilominus, sicut quod dictum est, Fiat lux, solos electos Angelos Creatori curae esse innuit, et Angelos tenebrarum excludit (quanquam et ipsos creaverit), sic et ista dictio, Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram, solos eos amplectitur quos praedestinavit ad vitam, nec illos admittit qui superfluè de vitiata postmodum radice super numerum nascituri erant. Itaque si quaeratur cur intulerit Scriptura Deum sic dicentem, Fiat lux, dum dicere posset, Fiant Angeli vel Fiant spiritus: interrogemus cur hoc totum dixerit idem Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, cùm dicere posset solummodo, Faciamus hominem, et intellectui communi sufficere posset ad indicandum quod eam qua nos sumus substantiam significaret. Paria namque sunt, ut utrinque rectè respondeas, quod ad os Domini non pertinuerit mandare de illis quos ipse nescit. Nullo autem nomine solos qui ad se pertineant melius exprimere debuit Angelos vel spiritus quàm nomine lucis: nulla nihilominus definitione illos homines quos praeordinasset ad vitam aeternam melius designasset quàm ista, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Igitur hic et ille, suos Angelos suosque homines, congruis Deus vocibus in Scriptura sua, per hunc interpretem suum, expressit, et ab aliis qui ad se non pertinent sufficienti sermonis parcitate distinxit. Hucusque sunt verba Ruperti.

This part of the divine utterance extends more widely than that which was foretold, Let us make man to our image and likeness. For this embraces every man. For whence is man set over the animals, except from this, that he is rational, but they are irrational? For he is not set over them in any chance way, merely so as to be worthier than they, but so also that he can tame the natures of them all. Therefore, for man to be set over them, it is enough that he be rational. And so that which was said, Let him rule over the fowls of the air, etc., extends more widely than that, Let us make man to our image and likeness: because, namely, all men are set over the cattle, but to the image and at the same time the likeness of God only the elect are made, nay, perfected. Let men, then, by nature be set over the cattle; but over men themselves let the men of God by grace be set. Thus Rupert.²¹

Haec divinae dictionis pars latius patet quàm illa quae praedicta est, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Omnem enim hominem haec complectitur. Unde enim animalibus homo praeest, nisi ex eo quod rationalis est, illa autem irrationalia sunt? Non enim quomodocumque illis praeest, ut tantummodo dignior illis sit, sed ita etiam ut omnium illorum naturas domare possit. Ergo ad hoc ut illis praesit homo, rationalem esse illum satis est. Itaque quod dictum est, Praesit volatilibus caeli, etc., latius patet quàm illud, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: quia videlicet iumentis omnes homines praesunt, ad imaginem autem simul et similitudinem Dei soli electi facti, immò et perfecti sunt. Praesint igitur natura homines iumentis: ipsis autem hominibus gratia praesint homines Dei. Sic Rupertus.

Knowingly, he says, Moses expressed in his words what God had intended, and what had happened he prudently observed in his own discourse. For when God said, Let us make man, he had indeed intended to make him to his own image and likeness. But when Moses was writing this, man had through sin lost the likeness of God. And he knew indeed that no one could overthrow that purpose of God: yet there had not then arisen a definite person in whom, that glory of the divine likeness which had perished in the person of the first man might be shown to be recovered without any contradiction. There were saints and just men—among the chief of whom was Moses himself—but only by the faith and hope of the man to come, who should so be made to the image and likeness of God, being born of a Virgin, that he might restore in the sons of Adam the lost likeness of God, and make his sons like to himself, the old origin abolished and a new one given. Accordingly, therefore, when he had written that God said, Let us make man to our image and likeness, he subscribed only this, God created man to his own image—that you may understand, as one who would one day re-create him to his own likeness: for he had in a manner not yet made to the image and likeness, but only to his own image, the man who had vanished and lost the glory of the divine likeness. Thus Rupert.²³

Scienter, inquit, Moses quid Deus intendisset in verbis eius expressit, et quia accidisset ipse in suo sermone prudenter observavit. Cùm enim diceret Deus, Faciamus hominem, ipse utique illum ad imaginem et similitudinem suam facere intenderat. Cùm autem hoc Moses scriberet, homo per peccatum similitudinem Dei amiserat. Et quidem noverat ille quod illud Dei propositum nullus evertere posset: verumtamen certa non tunc persona consurrexerat, in qua, absque ulla contradictione recuperata, monstraretur illa divinae similitudinis gloria quae in primi hominis persona deperierat. Erant sancti et iusti, quorum ex praecipuis erat ipse Moses, sed non nisi ex fide et spe venturi hominis, qui sic ad imaginem Dei et similitudinem fieret nascendo de Virgine, ut in filiis Adae perditam Dei similitudinem refunderet, sibique consimiles suosque filios efficeret, abolita vetere, reddita nova origine. Proinde ergo cùm scripsisset dixisse Deum, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, hoc solummodo subscripsit, Creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam, ut subaudias, recreaturus aliquando ad similitudinem suam: nam illum quodammodo nondum fecerat ad imaginem et similitudinem, sed tantùm ad imaginem suam, qui evanuerat et perdiderat divinae similitudinis gloriam. Haec Rupertus.

[to] the image and likeness of God, but only to the image of God: because, namely, man was then made only to the image of God. But the likeness was being reserved for him afterward, to be bestowed in the resurrection of the dead. As though, forsooth, there could be any image in which there is no likeness. For if a thing is not at all like, undoubtedly it is not an image either. Nevertheless, lest we seem to do this by reason alone, the authority of the Apostle James must also be brought in, who, when he was speaking of the tongue of man, says, With it we bless God, and with it we curse men, who are made to the likeness of God. Thus Augustine.²⁵

[ad] imaginem et similitudinem Dei, sed tantùm ad imaginem Dei: quia verò tunc homo tantummodo ad imaginem Dei sit factus. Similitudo autem illi posteà servabatur, in resurrectione mortuorum donanda. Quasi verò possit esse imago aliqua in qua similitudo non sit. Si enim omnino similis non est, proculdubio nec imago est. Verumtamen, ne sola ratione id agere videamur, et auctoritas Iacobi Apostoli adhibenda est, qui cùm de lingua hominis loqueretur, ait, In ipsa benedicimus Deum, et in ipsa maledicimus homines qui ad similitudinem Dei facti sunt. Sic Augustinus.

From the very creation I straightway obtained that, To the image; but to that other, To the likeness, I am advanced by a purpose set and freer in mind. In some part, therefore, the grace is your own, wherefore you will deservedly enter crowned. For if the Maker had bestowed the whole on you beforehand, by what grace, then, would the gates of the heavenly kingdom have been unlocked for you, who had earned nothing? But now he has conferred one thing and left another to be perfected, so that in your own self, when you have advanced to perfection, you may be pronounced not unworthy, as one who receives the reward of the work expended, God repaying it. By what means, then, are we fashioned to the likeness of God? Surely through the Gospels. What is Christianity? An assimilation to God, so far as the frailty of human nature can attain to it. Have you vowed and pledged that you will be a Christian? Do not delay to become like to God: put on Christ. And by what means will you put on Christ? He who has not received baptism, who has not yet clothed himself with the incorruptible garment, has surely shaken off and put away from himself the likeness of God. If, then, I had said to you, Come hither, be made like to a king: would you judge that you had deserved gloriously of yourself? But when I myself eagerly desire to compose you and fashion you to the likeness of God, do you, shunning it, set yourself against the teaching that could make you a rival of divine virtue, and at once block up your ears, lest my saving discourse find entrance and penetrate? Thus Basil.²⁷

Ab ipsa mox creatione obtinui illud, Ad imaginem; destinato autem ac liberiore animo proposito, ad id provehor, Ad similitudinem. Tua igitur aliqua ex parte est gratia, quare meritò ingredieris coronatus. Totum enim si tibi praerogasset opifex, qua tandem gratia tibi, nihil commeritò, caelestis regni fores reseratae fuissent? Nunc verò quiddam contulit, quiddam reliquit perficiendum, ut id in te ipso, cùm ad perfectionem promoveris, pronunciere nihil indignus, qui mercedem insumptae operae, Deo repignerante, recipias. Quo igitur pacto effingimur ad similitudinem Dei? nimirum per Evangelia. Christianismus quid est? Assimilatio Dei, quatenus eam assequi potest humanae fragilitas naturae. Votine reus es te Christianum fore? ne cunctere Deo fieri similis: Christum indue. Quo nam pacto indues Christum? Baptisma qui non accepit, qui indumento incorruptibili se nondum amicuit, utique is à se excussit et ablegavit Dei similitudinem. Tibi proinde si dixissem, Huc ades, Regi assimilis esto: mene censeres de te praeclarè meritum? Cùm verò ipse percupiam componere te, et effingere ad similitudinem Dei, eam vitabundus adversaris doctrinam quae te possit aemulum reddere divinae virtutis, aurésque mox tuas obsepis, ne salutaris sermo meus aditum inveniat ac penetret. Haec Basilius.

What was said above sufficiently explains these words of Scripture according to this sense, in which we read that God said, Let us make man to our image and likeness: namely, that the likeness of God, to which man was made, may be taken to be the very Word of God, that is, the only-begotten Son; not, of course, so that man himself is the same image and likeness equal to the Father. Yet man too is an image of God, as the Apostle most clearly shows when he says, A man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God. But this image, made to the image of God, is not equal and coeternal with that of which it is the image, nor would it be even if it had never sinned at all. But that sense is rather to be chosen in these divine words, whereby we understand it to have been said not in the singular but in the plural, Let us make man to our image and likeness: because man was made not to the image of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, nor of the Holy Spirit alone, but to the image of the Trinity itself; which Trinity is so a Trinity that it is one God, and is so one God that it is a Trinity. For he does not say, speaking to the Son, Let us make man to thy image, or to my image, but he says in the plural, To our image and likeness: from which plurality who would dare to separate the Holy Spirit? And since this plurality is not three gods, but one God, therefore it is to be understood that Scripture afterward brought it in and said in the singular, And God made man to the image of God: that it be not so taken as though God the Father made him to the image of God, that is, of his Son; otherwise, how is that true which was said, To our image, if man was made to the image of the Son alone? And through this, because that is true which God says, To our image, it was said thus, God made man to the image of God, as though it were said, To his own image, which is the Trinity itself. Thus Augustine.³⁰

Satis quidem quae superius dicta sunt secundùm id exponunt haec verba Scripturae, in quibus legimus dixisse Deum, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: ut similitudo Dei, ad quam factus est homo, ipsum Dei Verbum, hoc est unigenitus Filius, accipi possit; non utique ut ipse sit eadem imago et similitudo aequalis Patri. Est tamen et homo imago Dei, sicut apertissimè ostendit Apostolus dicens, Vir quidem non debet velare caput, cùm sit imago et gloria Dei. Sed haec imago, ad imaginem Dei facta, non est aequalis et coaeterna illi cuius imago est, nec esset etiam si nunquam omnino peccasset. Ille autem sensus est potiùs in his divinis verbis eligendus, ut ideo non dictum intelligamus singulariter, sed pluraliter, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: quia non ad solius Patris, aut solius Filij, aut solius Spiritus sancti, sed ad ipsius Trinitatis imaginem factus est homo; quae Trinitas ita est Trinitas ut unus Deus sit, ita est unus Deus ut Trinitas sit. Non enim ait Filio loquens, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem tuam, aut ad imaginem meam, sed pluraliter ait, Ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: à qua pluralitate Spiritum sanctum separare quis audeat? Quae pluralitas, quoniam non tres dij, sed unus est Deus, ideo intelligendo est posteà Scripturam singulariter intulisse atque dixisse, Et fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei: ut non sic accipiatur tanquam Deus Pater ad imaginem Dei, hoc est Filij sui; alioquin quomodo verum est quod dictum est, Ad imaginem nostram, si ad Filij solius imaginem factus est homo? Ac per hoc, quia verum est quod ait Deus, Ad imaginem nostram, ita dictum est, Fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei, tanquam diceretur, Ad imaginem suam, quod est ipsa Trinitas. Sic Augustinus.