Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

QUESTION I. In what thing especially the nature of the image of God consists, to which man is said to have been created

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. In what thing especially the nature of the image of God consists, to which man is said to have been created.1

QUAESTIO I. Qua potissimùm in re sit posita ratio imaginis Dei, ad quam homo creatus esse dicitur.

TOSTATUS refert hoc loco, quaestione 28., Iudaeos cur homo dicatur factus ad imaginem Dei hunc in modum explicare. Sicut Deus, inquiunt, replet totum mundum, sic anima totum corpus; sicut unus Deus praeest universo mundo, sic una anima praeest toti corpori; sicuti Deus non inquinatur sordibus mundi in quo est, ita nec ulla corporis labe inquinatur anima; sicut Deus videt omnia et à nullo videtur, sic anima videt et non videtur; denique sicut Deus nunquam dormit, sed perpetuò vigilat (Non enim, inquit David, dormiet neque dormitabit qui custodit Israel), sic etiam animus noster. Verùm hoc falsum est, si per somnum intelligatur vacatio ab omni functione sensuum exteriorum: quinimo somnus, si propriè ac philosophicè loqui volumus, animae potiùs quàm corporis affectio dicenda est. Et ista quae dicunt Iudaei, referente Tostato, non minus in animam asini quàm hominis verè dici et competere possunt.
Tostatus reports in this place, in question 28, that the Jews explain why man is said to have been made to the image of God in this manner. Just as God, they say, fills the whole world, so the soul fills the whole body; just as one God presides over the whole world, so one soul presides over the whole body; just as God is not defiled by the filth of the world in which he is, so neither is the soul defiled by any stain of the body; just as God sees all things and is seen by none, so the soul sees and is not seen; finally, just as God never sleeps, but is perpetually awake (For he shall not slumber, says David, nor sleep, that keepeth Israel), so also our soul. But this is false, if by sleep be understood a cessation from all functioning of the exterior senses: nay rather, sleep, if we wish to speak properly and philosophically, must be called an affection of the soul rather than of the body. And these things which the Jews say, on Tostatus's report, can be truly said and apply no less to the soul of an ass than to that of a man.2
FUERE nonnulli qui propterea existimarunt hominem factum esse ad imaginem Dei, quia persuasum habebant Deum esse corporatum, et humana forma et figura praeditum, in qua scilicet apparuisse eum Patriarchis et Prophetis proditum est in Sacris litteris. Cùm enim isti non possent cogitare aut animo suo repraesentare Deum nisi sub aliqua imagine corporali et sensibili, nec ulla esse videretur pulchrior et praestantior quàm humana, hanc Deo assignandam esse censuerunt. Isti damnati sunt ab Ecclesia ut haeretici, et ab errore opinionis suae appellati sunt Antropomorphitae. Legenda sunt quae de istis scripsit Nicephorus, libro 11. cap. 14. et lib. 13. cap. 10. Hanc verò suam opinionem illi probare contendebant, tum eo argumento, quòd Scriptura multifariam Deo tribuit omnia cor-
There were some who thought that man was made to the image of God for this reason: because they were persuaded that God is corporeal, and endowed with human form and figure, in which, namely, it is recorded in Holy Scripture that he appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets. For since these men could not conceive or represent to their mind God except under some bodily and sensible image, and none seemed more beautiful and excellent than the human, they judged that this was to be assigned to God. These were condemned by the Church as heretics, and from the error of their opinion were called Anthropomorphites. Worth reading is what Nicephorus wrote about them, in book 11, ch. 14, and book 13, ch. 10. This opinion of theirs they strove to prove, partly by this argument, that Scripture in many places attributes to God all the mem-3
[omnia cor]poris humani membra, eorúmque membrorum functiones et officia; tum etiam quòd Scriptura hic dicat non tantùm animam hominis, sed ipsum hominem factum ad imaginem Dei: non igitur animo tantùm, sed etiam corpore similis Deo est homo. Quasi verò non eadem Scriptura paulò infrà dicat Deum formasse hominem ex limo terrae, et Evam esse formatam ex costa Adae; et Adae dixit Deus, Pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris: quae quidem licet de toto homine dicta sint, attamen non nisi propter corpus ei conveniunt. Etenim usitatum est, tam in Philosophia et in Sacris litteris quàm in vulgari sermone, totum aliquod appellari tale vel tale ex eo quòd uni alicui parti eius principali conveniat.
[all the mem]bers of the human body, and the functions and offices of those members; and also because Scripture here says that not only the soul of man, but man himself, was made to the image of God: man, therefore, is like God not only in soul, but also in body. As though the same Scripture did not say a little below that God formed man from the slime of the earth, and that Eve was formed from Adam's rib; and to Adam God said, Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return: which things, although they are said of the whole man, yet befit him only on account of the body. For it is customary, both in Philosophy and in Holy Scripture as in common speech, for a whole to be called such-and-such from the fact that it belongs to some one principal part of it.4
Theodoretus in q. 20. in Genesim laudat Melitonem adversus istos haereticos hoc argumento utentem: Si propterea existimatur Deus habere corpus quale habet homo, quia Scriptura describit eum tanquam instructum et praeditum membris humanis, simili ratione concluderetur hominem non esse similem Deo, nec ad eius imaginem et similitudinem factum. Etenim Zacharias cap. 4. describit Deum septem oculos habentem, cùm nos duos tantùm habeamus; et Psal. 90. inducitur Deus habens pennas et alas, quibus nos caremus; et multa alia per metaphoram Deo attribuit Scriptura, quae si propriè et ad veritatem exigerentur, Deum facerent enormem atque monstrosum, et longè dissimillimum hominis. Non igitur, ait Melito, imago Dei quaerenda est in hominis corpore, sed in animo, qui, ut Deus, sic ipse rationis, consilij, et sapientiae compos et capax est.
Theodoret, in question 20 on Genesis, praises Melito for using this argument against these heretics: If God is thought to have a body such as man has, because Scripture describes him as furnished and endowed with human members, by like reasoning it would be concluded that man is not like God, nor made to his image and likeness. For Zechariah, chapter 4, describes God as having seven eyes, whereas we have only two; and in Psalm 90 God is brought in as having feathers and wings, which we lack; and Scripture attributes many other things to God by metaphor, which, if they were exacted strictly and according to the truth, would make God enormous and monstrous, and far most unlike a man. Therefore, says Melito, the image of God is not to be sought in man's body, but in his soul, which, like God, is itself possessed of and capable of reason, counsel, and wisdom.5
THEODORETUS hoc loco vehementer laborat, investigando quae sit et in quo sit ista imago Dei ad quam factus est homo: et cùm varias commemoret explicandi vim et naturam huius imaginis rationes, nullam tamen earum sibi animum explere et omninò satisfacere prae se fert. Cur autem tantam in hoc difficultatem senserit Theodoretus, causa fuit quòd putaret id quod dicitur esse factum ad imaginem Dei, soli homini et viro convenire, nec ad Angelos nec ad foeminam pertinere: quod tamen falsum esse infrà ostendemus. Epiphanius, tractans haeresim 70., eadem de re cùm multa disputasset, tandem in eam devenit opinionem, ut arbitretur (sicut certum est imaginem Dei esse in homine) ita qua in parte hominis, vel qua in re ea imago sit posita, incompertum esse atque incomprehensibile, solíque Deo notum: quod propterea Epiphanio cótigit, quia putavit ipse per imaginem Dei hoc loco significari perfectam Dei similitudinem, sine admistione ullius dissimilitudinis, quam mirum non fuit in homine non potuisse ab eo reperiri.
Theodoret labors vehemently in this place, investigating what that image of God is, and in what it consists, to which man was made: and although he rehearses various ways of explaining the force and nature of this image, yet he shows that none of them satisfies and altogether contents his mind. And the reason why Theodoret felt so great a difficulty in this was that he thought that what is said to have been made to the image of God belongs to man and the male alone, and pertains neither to the Angels nor to the woman: which, however, we shall show below to be false. Epiphanius, treating of heresy 70, after he had disputed much about the same matter, at length came to this opinion: that he judges (just as it is certain that the image of God is in man) that in what part of man, or in what thing, that image is placed, is undiscovered and incomprehensible, and known to God alone: which befell Epiphanius for this reason, that he himself thought that by the image of God in this place was signified a perfect likeness of God, without the admixture of any unlikeness—which it is no wonder he could not find in man.6
S. BASILIUS hom. 10. in Genesim, Nyssenus homilia de Creatione hominis, et Chrysostomus super hoc loco Geneseos, propterea censent hominem esse factum ad imaginem Dei, quia, sicut Deus omnibus rebus, ita et homo cunctis animantibus dignitate praecellit, et potestate atque imperio dominatur. Augustinus in libro de
St. Basil, in the 10th homily on Genesis, Gregory of Nyssa in the homily On the Creation of Man, and Chrysostom on this place of Genesis, judge that man was made to the image of God for this reason: that, just as God excels over all things, so man too excels all living creatures in dignity, and has dominion over them by power and command. Augustine, in the book On7
[de] Quantitate animae capit. 2. scribit animum nostrum eò dici similem Deo, quòd sit immortalis atque indissolubilis. Idem extremis verbis eius libri qui inscribitur de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus (qui licèt non videatur esse Augustini, cuiuscumque sit, magnae tamen est apud Theologos auctoritatis) ita scribit: Propter novellos Legislatores, qui ideo animam tantùm ad imaginem Dei creatam dicunt, ut, quia Deus incorporeus rectè creditur, etiam incorporea anima esse credatur, liberè confitemur imaginem in aeternitate, similitudinem in moribus inveniri. Idem Augustinus tractatu octavo in primam Epistolam Ioannis sic ait:
[On] the Magnitude of the Soul, chapter 2, writes that our soul is said to be like God for this reason, that it is immortal and indissoluble. The same writer, in the closing words of that book entitled On Ecclesiastical Dogmas (which, although it does not seem to be Augustine's, whosoever it be, is nonetheless of great authority among the theologians), writes thus: On account of certain newfangled Lawgivers, who say that the soul alone was created to the image of God, in order that, because God is rightly believed incorporeal, the soul too may be believed incorporeal, we freely confess that the image is found in eternity, the likeness in morals. The same Augustine, in the eighth tractate on the first Epistle of John, says thus:8

Wherein was man made to the image of God? In the understanding, in the mind, in the interior man; in this, that he understands truth, distinguishes justice and injustice, knows by whom he was made, can understand his Creator, can praise his Creator. Therefore, when many, through evil desires, were wearing away in themselves the image of God, and in a manner extinguishing by perversity of morals that very flame of intelligence, Scripture cries to them: Do not become like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding: that is to say, I have set thee above the horse and the mule, I have made thee to my image, I have given thee power over these things. Why? Because the beasts have not a rational mind; but thou with a rational mind apprehendest truth, understandest what is above thee: be subject to him who is above thee, and below thee will be those things over which thou art set.9

Ubi factus est homo ad imaginem Dei? In intellectu, in mente, in interiore homine; in eo quod intelligit veritatem, dijudicat iustitiam et iniustitiam, novit à quo factus est, potest intelligere Creatorem suum, laudare Creatorem suum. Ideo multi, cùm per cupiditates malas detererent in se imaginem Dei, et ipsam quodammodo flammam intelligentiae perversitate morum extinguerent, clamat illis Scriptura: Nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus: hoc est dicere, Praeposui te equo et mulo, te ad imaginem meam feci, potestatem tibi super ista dedi. Quare? Quia non habent ferae rationalem mentem; tu autem rationali mente capis veritatem, intelligis quod supra te est: subdere ei qui supra te est, et infrà te erunt illa quibus praepositus es.

Denique in libris de Trinitate, multifariam disputans Augustinus de hac Dei imagine ad quam factus est homo, docet ea re hominem referre imaginem Sanctae Trinitatis, quòd intelligat seipsum, et intelligendo se producat in corde suo verbum intelligibile sui ipsius expressivum, et hinc procedat amor: quod mirificè adumbrat duas in Sancta Trinitate processiones, unam Filij per modum verbi intelligibilis, alteram Spiritus sancti per modum amoris. Gregorius Nyssenus in Hexameron, Homo, inquit, eò factus est ad imaginem Dei, quod factus est omnis boni capax: bonitatis enim plenitudo divinitas est. Damascenus libro secundo Orthodoxae fidei, capite duodecimo, Hominem ait ad imaginem Dei esse significat ipsum esse intellectualem, et liberi arbitrij, et per se potestativum. Magister sententiarum, distinctione decimasexta: Factus est, inquit, homo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei secundùm mentem, qua irrationalibus antecellit: sed ad imaginem, secundùm memoriam, intelligentiam, et dilectionem; ad similitudinem autem, secundùm innocentiam et iustitiam; vel, imago in aliis omnibus, similitudo in essentia, quia immortalis et indissolubilis est, et caetera.
Finally, in the books On the Trinity, Augustine, disputing in many ways about this image of God to which man was made, teaches that man bears the image of the Holy Trinity in this, that he understands himself, and by understanding himself produces in his heart an intelligible word expressive of his own self, and from this proceeds love: which wonderfully shadows forth the two processions in the Holy Trinity, one of the Son after the manner of an intelligible word, the other of the Holy Spirit after the manner of love. Gregory of Nyssa in the Hexameron says: Man was made to the image of God in this, that he was made capable of all good: for the fullness of goodness is divinity. Damascene, in the second book of On the Orthodox Faith, chapter twelve, says that for man to be to the image of God signifies that he is intellectual, and of free will, and self-determining of himself. The Master of the Sentences, in distinction sixteen: Man, he says, was made to the image and likeness of God according to the mind, by which he excels the irrational creatures; but to the image, according to memory, intelligence, and love; and to the likeness, according to innocence and justice; or, the image in all other respects, the likeness in essence, because it is immortal and indissoluble, and so forth.10
[in] libertate arbitrij, in reliquis autem duabus bipertitam quandam consignari similitudinem. Hinc est fortassis quòd solum liberum arbitrium sui omnino defectum seu diminutionem non patitur, quod in ipso potissimùm aeterna et incommutabilis divinitatis substantia quaedam imago impressa videatur. Nam etsi habuerit initium, nescit tamen occasum, nec de iustitia vel gloria capit augmentum, nec de peccato sive miseria detrimentum. Quid aeternitati similius, quod non sit aeternitas? Porrò in aliis duabus libertatibus, quoniam non solùm ex parte minui, sed et ex toto amitti possunt, accidentalis quaedam magis similitudo sapientiae atque potentiae divinae imagini superducta cognoscitur.
[in] the freedom of choice, but in the other two a certain twofold likeness is marked. Hence it is, perhaps, that free choice alone suffers no failure or diminution of itself, because in it especially the eternal and unchangeable substance of the divinity seems to be impressed as a kind of image. For although it had a beginning, yet it knows no setting, nor does it take increase from justice or glory, nor detriment from sin or misery. What is more like eternity, that is not eternity? But in the other two freedoms, since they can be not only partly diminished but also wholly lost, a certain more accidental likeness of the divine wisdom and power is recognized as superadded to the image.11

The same Bernard, in the book On the Soul, or in the Meditations on the knowledge of the human condition, chapter one, says thus: We were made to the image of God, that is, to the understanding and knowledge of the Son, through whom we understand and know the Father, and have access to him. So great is the kinship between us and the Son of God, that he is the image of God, and we were made to his image; which kinship the likeness too attests, since we were made not only to his image, but to his likeness. It is fitting, therefore, that what is to the image should accord with the image, and not share the name of image in vain. Let us therefore represent in ourselves his image, in the desire of peace, in the contemplation of truth, and in the love of charity. Let us hold him in memory, carry him in conscience, and everywhere venerate him as present. For our mind is his image in this very thing, that it is capable of him and can be a partaker of him. It is not his image because the mind remembers, understands, and loves itself, but because it can remember, understand, and love him by whom it was made. And when it does this, it becomes wise. For nothing is so like that supreme wisdom as the rational mind, which through memory, intelligence, and will consists in that ineffable Trinity: and it cannot consist in it unless it remember it, and understand and love it. Let it therefore remember its God, to whose image it was made, and understand him, love him, and worship him, with whom it can be forever blessed. Thus far St. Bernard.12

Idem Bernardus, in libro de Anima seu in Meditationibus de humanae conditionis cognitione, capite primo, sic ait: Ad imaginem Dei facti sumus, hoc est, ad intellectum et notitiam Filij, per quem intelligimus et cognoscimus Patrem, et accessum habemus ad eum. Tanta cognatio est inter nos et Dei Filium, quòd ipse imago Dei est, et nos ad imaginem eius facti sumus; quam cognationem etiam ipsa similitudo testatur, quoniam non solùm ad imaginem, sed ad similitudinem eius facti sumus. Oportet itaque id quod ad imaginem est cum imagine convenire, et non in vacuum nomen imaginis participare. Repraesentemus ergo in nobis imaginem eius, in appetitu pacis, in intuitu veritatis, et in amore caritatis. Teneamus eum in memoria, portemus in conscientia, et ubique praesentem veneremur. Mens siquidem nostra eo ipso eius imago est, quo eius capax est, eiúsque particeps esse potest. Non propterea eius imago est, quia sui meminit mens, séque intelligit ac diligit, sed quia potest meminisse, intelligere ac diligere à quo facta est. Quod cùm facit, sapiens ipsa fit. Nihil enim est tam simile illi summae sapientiae, quàm mens rationalis, quae per memoriam, intelligentiam, et voluntatem in illa Trinitate ineffabili consistit: consistere autem in illa non potest, nisi eius meminerit, eámque intelligat ac diligat. Meminerit itaque Dei sui ad cuius imaginem facta est, eámque intelligat, diligat, atque colat, cum quo potest semper esse beata. Hactenus Sanctus Bernardus.

Beda, in expositione allegorica libri Geneseos, refert secundùm Origenem rationem imaginis consistere in aeternitate et in moribus; secundùm verò Faustinum, sex modis animum nostrum esse similem Deo, videlicet quia est immobilis, velocissimus, invisibilis, incorporeus, subtilis, aeternus. CAETERUM, ut ego quóque breviter, distinctè ac dilucidè dicam quod hac de re sentiendum existimo, equidem puto duplicem tradi posse rationem cur dicatur homo ad imaginem Dei factus. Et una quidem ratio praecipua et principalis est, altera verò minus principalis. Ac principalis quidem ratio in eo est, quòd homo, secundùm naturam suam, supremum naturae gradum attingit, in quo gradu Deus est: habet enim in se naturam rationis et intelligentiae compotem. Etenim quatuor sunt generales gradus naturae, et quatuor summa rerum genera: aliae namque res tantùm habent esse, ut lapides et metalla; quaedam praeterea vitam nactae sunt,
Bede, in the allegorical exposition of the book of Genesis, reports, according to Origen, that the nature of the image consists in eternity and in morals; but according to Faustinus, that our soul is like God in six ways, namely because it is immovable, swiftest, invisible, incorporeal, subtle, and eternal. But, that I too may say briefly, distinctly, and clearly what I think is to be held on this matter, I for my part think that a twofold reason can be given why man is said to have been made to the image of God. And one reason is chief and principal, the other less principal. And the principal reason is this: that man, according to his nature, attains the supreme grade of nature, in which grade God is; for he has in himself a nature possessed of reason and intelligence. For there are four general grades of nature, and four highest kinds of things: for some things only have being, as stones and metals; some, besides, have obtained life,13
[vitam nactae sunt], ut stirpes; nonnullae super haec motum et sensum obtinent, ut animalia; denique sunt aliae in supremo naturae fastigio collocatae, quae praeter haec mente, ratione et sapientia pollent, in quo gradu Deus est, itémque Angelus, atque homo. Ac licèt in eodem gradu sit homo atque Deus, attamen quantum ad eius gradus perfectionem attinet, infinito intervallo immensísque spatiis homo distat à Deo. Hic autem gradus naturae intelligentis eximias et admirabiles sex proprietates secum naturaliter et necessariò coniunctas habet, quas omnes in animo nostro cernere licet. Una est, esse animum nostrum incorporeum et individuum; altera, esse immortalem; tertia, intellectu, voluntate ac memoria esse praeditum; quarta, pollere libero arbitrio; quinta, capacem esse sapientiae, virtutis, divinae gratiae, et felicitatis aeternae, quae est in clara Dei visione collocata; sexta, cunctis animantibus non solùm dignitate praecellere, sed etiam potestate dominari. Propter hunc igitur gradum naturae intelligentis, et praedictas sex proprietates quae eum gradum naturaliter consequuntur et perpetuò comitantur, verissimè dictum est hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei esse factum. Nec diversa est haec nostra sententia à sanctis Patribus et auctoribus quos paulò suprà memoravimus, nisi eo tantùm, quòd illi unam aut alteram de supradictis proprietatibus ad rationem imaginis declarandam attulerunt, cùm omnes illae proprietates ad constituendam atque complendam propriam et perfectam imaginis rationem concurrant.
[have obtained life], like plants; some, above these, have motion and sense, like animals; finally, there are others placed at the supreme summit of nature, which, besides these, are strong in mind, reason, and wisdom—in which grade is God, and likewise the Angel, and man. And although man is in the same grade as God, yet, as far as concerns the perfection of that grade, man is distant from God by an infinite interval and immense spaces. Now this grade of intelligent nature has joined with it, naturally and necessarily, six excellent and admirable properties, all of which may be discerned in our soul. The first is, that our soul is incorporeal and indivisible; the second, that it is immortal; the third, that it is endowed with understanding, will, and memory; the fourth, that it is strong in free choice; the fifth, that it is capable of wisdom, virtue, divine grace, and eternal happiness, which is placed in the clear vision of God; the sixth, that it not only excels all living creatures in dignity, but also has dominion over them by power. On account, therefore, of this grade of intelligent nature, and the aforesaid six properties which naturally follow and perpetually accompany that grade, it was most truly said that man was made to the image and likeness of God. Nor does this our opinion differ from the holy Fathers and authors whom we mentioned a little above, except in this only, that they adduced one or another of the aforesaid properties to explain the nature of the image, whereas all those properties concur to constitute and complete the proper and perfect nature of the image.14
ALTERA ratio, propter quam dicitur homo ad imaginem Dei factus (sed minus tamen quàm quae dicta est principalis), multiplex est. Etenim propterea homo dicitur similis Dei, quòd sicut in Deo omnia sunt eminenter et causaliter, ita sunt in homine quodammodo omnia: tum per participationem (habet enim communem cum rebus inanimatis existentiam, cum stirpibus vitam, cum animalibus sensum ac motum, cum Deo et Angelis mentem atque intelligentiam); tum etiam propter intellectionem, siquidem intelligendo omnia fit quodammodo omnia. Etenim intelligens actu et intelligibile actu, auctore Aristotele, unum sunt; quapropter idem Philosophus dixit animam nostram esse quodammodo omnia. Deinde, sicut Deus reverà potest omnia facere, sic homo potest quodammodo facere omnia, vel per artem imitando naturam et similia veris faciendo, vel imaginatione fingendo, vel cogitatione mentis informando. Posteà, sicut Deus finis est omnium rerum, ita videtur et homo quodammodo finis esse rerum omnium corporatarum. Si enim caelestes globos et astra, quae in rebus corporatis principatum dignitatis obtinent, in ministerium et servitium hominis esse à Deo condita gravissimus auctor in 4. cap. Deuteronomij scriptum reliquit Moses, quantò veriùs idem de aliis rebus corporeis existimari et dici poterit? Ad haec, sicut animus hominis praeest ac praesidet corpori, ipsum vivificans, movens ac regens, et est totus in toto corpore, et totus in qua-
The second reason for which man is said to have been made to the image of God (yet less so than the one called principal) is manifold. For man is said to be like God in this, that, just as in God all things are eminently and causally, so in man all things are in a manner: both by participation (for he has existence in common with inanimate things, life with plants, sense and motion with animals, mind and intelligence with God and the Angels); and also by reason of understanding, since, by understanding all things, he becomes in a manner all things. For the actually-understanding and the actually-intelligible, on Aristotle's authority, are one; wherefore the same Philosopher said that our soul is in a manner all things. Next, just as God can truly make all things, so man can in a manner make all things—whether by art, imitating nature and making things like the true, or by feigning with imagination, or by informing with the thought of the mind. Further, just as God is the end of all things, so man too seems in a manner to be the end of all corporeal things. For if Moses, a most weighty author, left it written in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy that the heavenly globes and stars, which hold the chief dignity among corporeal things, were created by God for the ministry and service of man, how much more truly may the same be thought and said of other corporeal things? Besides, just as the soul of man presides over and governs the body, vivifying, moving, and ruling it, and is whole in the whole body, and whole in eve-15
[totus in qua]libet eius parte, sine ulla sui divisione, diminutione aut inquinatione: sic Deus habet se ad universum mundum. Denique, sicut in Deitate credimus esse Patrem qui est ingenitus, et Filium qui est ex Patre genitus, et Spiritum sanctum qui ex Patre Filióque spiratur atque procedit, ita et in genere hominum simile quippiam animadvertere licet: Adam enim à nullo generatus est, Eva ex solo Adam formata est, Seth autem ex Adam et Eva procreatus est.
[whole in eve]ry part of it, without any division, diminution, or defilement of itself: so does God stand toward the whole world. Finally, just as in the Godhead we believe there is the Father, who is unbegotten, and the Son, who is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who is breathed forth and proceeds from the Father and the Son, so also in the race of men something similar may be observed: for Adam was begotten by no one, Eve was formed from Adam alone, and Seth was procreated from Adam and Eve.16

Translator’s notes

  1. First question of the disputation, set centered. Margin: 'In qua potissimùm re consistat ratio imaginis.' ↩
  2. Margins: 'Sententia Tostati'; 'Sententia Hebraeorum'; 'Psalm 120' (Ps 121:4, 'qui custodit Israel'). Tostatus, q. 28. The rabbinic soul:body :: God:world analogy, and Pererius's refutation (it would fit any animal soul). ↩
  3. Margin: 'Error Antropomorphitarum.' The Anthropomorphite heresy (God corporeal/human-shaped). Nicephorus Callistus, Historia ecclesiastica 11.14; 13.10. Page breaks at 'cor-' (corporis membra); catchword 'poris'; signature 'A A 3'. RESUME next batch at PDF 415 with '[omnia cor]poris membra...'. ↩
  4. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 374.' Continues the Anthropomorphite argument (Scripture ascribes bodily members to God) and begins its refutation. 'Pulvis es' = Gen 3:19. ↩
  5. Margin: 'Melito apud Theodoretum.' Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim q. 20, citing Melito of Sardis. Zech 4:10 (seven eyes); Ps 91:4 (Vulg. 90, wings). ↩
  6. Margin: 'Falsa existimatio Theodoreti et Epiphanij.' Theodoret's perplexity (and his error: image fits only man-the-male, refuted later); Epiphanius, Panarion, heresy 70 (the Audians/Anthropomorphites), concluding the seat of the image is known to God alone. ↩
  7. The dominion-account of the image (Basil, Hom. 10; Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio; Chrysostom on Genesis). Page breaks at 'de'; catchword 'Quanti' (= Quantitate animae). ↩
  8. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 375.' Augustine, De quantitate animae 2; Ps.-Augustine, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus (Gennadius). Introduces the Augustine block-quote on 1 John. ↩
  9. Augustine, In epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos tractatus 8. 'Nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus' = Ps 32:9 (Vulg. 31; margin 'Psal. 31'). ↩
  10. Augustine, De Trinitate (the trinitarian image: mind–word–love mirroring the two processions). Gregory of Nyssa, Hexameron/De hominis opificio; John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.12; Peter Lombard, Sententiae II, dist. 16. ↩
  11. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 376.' Continuation of Bernard, De gratia et libero arbitrio (the three freedoms: of choice, counsel, pleasure; the image in free choice as image of eternity). ↩
  12. Bernard (Ps.-Bernard), Meditationes de cognitione humanae conditionis / Liber de anima, ch. 1. The Augustinian memory–intelligence–will image of the Trinity. ↩
  13. Margins: 'Sex modis animam nostram Deo similis dicitur, secundùm Faustinum'; 'Auctoris sententia, in quo propriè sit ratio imaginis.' Bede, In Genesim (after Origen and Faustinus). Pererius now gives his own twofold account; the principal reason: man at the supreme (intelligent) grade of being. Page breaks at 'vitam nactae sunt,'. ↩
  14. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 377.' Margin: 'Sex proprietates naturae intelligentis.' The four grades of being (being / life / sense+motion / intelligence) and the six properties that make up the image; Pererius's synthesis of the patristic accounts. ↩
  15. Margins: 'Altera imaginis ratio minus principalis'; 'Aristoteles 3. de anima' (De anima III.4–8: the soul is 'in a manner all things'). The microcosm-account: man contains all by participation and by intellection, can make all, and is the end of corporeal things (Deut 4:19). Page breaks at 'qua-' (qualibet); catchword 'libet'; signature 'B B'. RESUME next batch at PDF 419 with 'totus in qua[libet parte]...'. ↩
  16. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 378.' Conclusion of Quaestio I (the soul:body and the human-race analogies to the Trinity: Adam unbegotten / Eve from Adam / Seth from both). A rule closes the question. ↩