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 VI. Whether any distinction is to be made between being the image of God, and being to the image of God

LatineEnglish

QUESTION VI. Whether any distinction is to be made between being the image of God, and being to the image of God.1

QUAESTIO VI. An discrimen aliquod constituendum sit, inter esse imaginem Dei, et esse ad imaginem Dei.

PLERISQUE Theologis et nonnullis Patribus visum est ea differre inter se. Siquidem Filius Dei dicitur esse imago Dei (sic eum appellat Paulus ad Collossenses primo), nusquam autem dicitur esse ad imaginem vel secundùm imaginem Dei factus. Putant igitur isti, esse ad imaginem vel similitudinem Dei denotare imperfectam divinae similitudinis participationem, qualis nempe reperitur in homine; quoniam autem Filius Dei perfectissima est paternae substantiae imago, idcirco non potest dici esse ad imaginem Dei: illud enim Ad significat accessum ad aliquid, à quo tamen distat. Audi Ambrosium super vigesimumsecundum caput Lucae ita scribentem:
To most of the Theologians and to some of the Fathers it has seemed that these differ from each other. For the Son of God is said to be the image of God (so Paul calls him in the first chapter to the Colossians), but is nowhere said to have been made to the image, or according to the image, of God. These men, then, think that to be 'to the image' or likeness of God denotes an imperfect participation of the divine likeness, such as is found in man; but since the Son of God is the most perfect image of the paternal substance, he cannot therefore be said to be 'to the image' of God: for that word 'To' signifies an approach to something from which one nevertheless differs. Hear Ambrose, writing thus upon the twenty-second chapter of Luke:2

Christ alone is the full image of God, on account of the unity of the paternal brightness expressed in himself. But the just man is 'to the image' of God, if, in order to imitate the likeness of the divine manner of life, he despises this world through the knowledge of God.3

Solus Christus est plena imago Dei, propter expressam in se paternae claritudinis unitatem. Iustus autem homo ad imaginem Dei est, si propter imitandam divinae conversationis similitudinem mundum hunc Dei cognitione contemnat.

[Augusti]nus verò in libro Octoginta trium quaestionum, quaest. 51., significat filium Dei, quia substantialiter et perfectissimè refert Deum Patrem, propterea verissimè appellari imaginem Dei, non autem ad imaginem Dei; hominem autem, quoniam imperfectè refert similitudinem Dei, ideo non dici imaginem Dei, sed ad imaginem Dei. Verùm hoc posteà correxit Augustinus in lib. 1. Retractationum, cap. 26.: quippe legerat apud Paulum prioris epistolae ad Corinthios cap. 11. virum appellari imaginem Dei; quocirca et illo loco, et disertiùs lib. 7. de Trinitate cap. ultimo, docet hominem, quia similitudinem gerit Dei, appellari imaginem Dei; quoniam autem ea similitudo imperfecta est, ad id ostendendum dici eum ad imaginem Dei esse factum: quod tamen nunquam in filio Dei dictum invenimus. ATQUE haec sententia Augustini adeo placuit scholasticis Theologis, ut ferè ab omnibus probata sit et in scriptis prodita. Lege Magistrum in secundo sententiarum, distinctione decimasexta, et super eam distinctionem scholasticorum Theologorum disputationes, necnon et sanctum Thomam in prima parte quaestione nonagesimatertia. Verùm hoc quod diximus appositione verborum Augustini fiet illustrius. In septimo igitur libro de Trinitate, capite ultimo, sic habet:
But Augustine, in the book of Eighty-Three Questions, q. 51, signifies that the Son of God, because he substantially and most perfectly represents God the Father, is therefore most truly called the image of God, but not 'to the image' of God; whereas man, because he imperfectly represents the likeness of God, is therefore not called the image of God, but 'to the image' of God. Yet Augustine afterward corrected this in book 1 of the Retractations, ch. 26: for he had read in Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 11, that man is called the image of God; wherefore both in that place, and more expressly in book 7 of On the Trinity, last chapter, he teaches that man, because he bears the likeness of God, is called the image of God; but, because that likeness is imperfect, to show this he is said to have been made 'to the image' of God: which, however, we never find said of the Son of God. And this opinion of Augustine so pleased the scholastic Theologians that it has been approved by almost all and set forth in their writings. Read the Master in the second book of the Sentences, distinction sixteen, and the disputations of the scholastic Theologians upon that distinction, and also St. Thomas in the first part, question ninety-three. But what we have said will be made clearer by setting down Augustine's words. In the seventh book On the Trinity, then, in the last chapter, he has thus:4

But because that image of God was not made altogether equal, as not born of him but created by him, to signify this it is so an image that it is 'to the image,' that is, it is not made equal by parity, but approaches by a certain likeness. For one approaches God not by intervals of place, but by likeness, and recedes from him by unlikeness. For there are those who distinguish in such a way that they would have the Son to be the image, but man not the image, but 'to the image.' But the Apostle refutes them, saying, A man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God. He did not say 'to the image,' but 'image.' Yet this image, when elsewhere it is said 'To the image,' is not said as though to the Son, by which image he is equal to the Father: otherwise he would not say, To our image. For how 'our,' since the Son is the image of the Father alone? But, on account of the unequal likeness, as we said, man is called 'to the image,' and therefore 'our,' so that man might be the image of the Trinity—not equal to the Trinity as the Son is to the Father, but approaching (as has been said) by a certain likeness, just as among things distant a certain nearness is signified, not of place but of a kind of imitation. Thus Augustine.5

Sed quia non omnino aequalis fiebat illa imago Dei, tanquam non ab illo nata, sed ab eo creata, huius rei significandae causa ita imago est, ut ad imaginem sit, id est, non aequatur parilitate, sed quadam similitudine accedit. Non enim locorum intervallis, sed similitudine acceditur ad Deum, et dissimilitudine receditur ab eo. Sunt enim qui ita distinguunt, ut imaginem velint esse Filium, hominem verò non imaginem, sed ad imaginem. Refellit autem eos Apostolus dicens, Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, cùm sit imago et gloria Dei. Non dixit ad imaginem, sed imago. Quae tamen imago, cùm alibi dicitur Ad imaginem, non quasi ad Filium dicitur, qua imago aequalis est Patri: alioquin non diceret, Ad imaginem nostram. Quomodo enim nostram, cùm Filius solius Patris imago sit? Sed propter imparem, ut diximus, similitudinem dictus est homo ad imaginem, et ideo nostram, ut imago Trinitatis esset homo: non Trinitatis aequalis sicut Filius Patri, sed accedens (ut dictum est) quadam similitudine, sicut in distantibus significatur quaedam vicinitas, non loci sed cuiusdam imitationis. Sic Augustinus.

AT enim non videtur ea distinctio perpetuò servari in Scriptura; quinimo alicubi legimus in Sacris litteris aliquid esse ad imaginem alterius quod habet illius perfectissimam similitudinem, eíque adaequatur. Siquidem in capite quinto libri Geneseos scriptum est Adam genuisse filium Seth ad imaginem et similitudinem suam: constat autem filium esse substantialem perfectámque Patris imaginem. Cur igitur Filius Dei nunquam in Scriptura dicitur esse ad imaginem Patris? Credo equidem esse ad imaginem alicuius significare idem quod habere illius similitudinem (sive perfectam sive imperfectam), sed habere tamen eam in diversa natura expressam: diversam dico vel secun-
But that distinction does not seem to be perpetually observed in Scripture; nay rather, somewhere in Holy Scripture we read that something is 'to the image' of another which has its most perfect likeness, and is made equal to it. For in the fifth chapter of the book of Genesis it is written that Adam begat his son Seth 'to his own image and likeness': and it is agreed that a son is the substantial and perfect image of the father. Why, then, is the Son of God never in Scripture said to be 'to the image' of the Father? I, for my part, believe that to be 'to the image' of someone signifies the same as to have his likeness (whether perfect or imperfect), but to have it nevertheless expressed in a different nature: different, I say, either accord-6
[diversam dico] vel secundùm speciem, ut est inter hominem et Deum, vel secundùm numerum, uti est inter patrem et Filium. Quoniam autem Filius Dei eandem omnino naturam habet atque Pater, propterea nunquam dicitur esse ad imaginem Patris, sed dicitur tantummodo esse imago Patris.
[different, I say,] either according to species, as it is between man and God, or according to number, as it is between a father and a son. But since the Son of God has altogether the same nature as the Father, therefore he is never said to be 'to the image' of the Father, but is said only to be the image of the Father.7

Translator’s notes

  1. Sixth question of the disputation, set centered beneath a rule. ↩
  2. The Son = 'image' (Col 1:15); man = 'to the image' (imperfect participation); 'Ad' connotes distance. Introduces the Ambrose (on Luke 22) quote. ↩
  3. Ambrose, Expositio in Lucam (on Luke 22). The full image (Christ) vs. the 'to-the-image' (the just man). Page breaks; catchword 'Augusti' (= Augustinus). ↩
  4. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 384.' Margins: 'Sententia D. Augustini de proposita quaestione quam ipse retractavit'; 'Theologi Scholastici.' Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus 83, q. 51, corrected at Retractationes 1.26 (because of 1 Cor 11:7); Peter Lombard Sent. II d.16; Aquinas ST I q.93. Introduces the De Trinitate 7 quote. ↩
  5. Augustine, De Trinitate 7.6 (last chapter). 'Vir non debet velare caput...imago et gloria Dei' = 1 Cor 11:7 (margin '1. Corinth. 11'). Man is 'to the image' because the likeness is unequal; he is the image of the whole Trinity by approach, not equality. ↩
  6. Margin: 'Iudicium Auctoris, quid sit esse ad alterius imaginem.' Pererius's own judgment: the distinction is not consistent in Scripture (Gen 5:3, Seth, who is the father's perfect image, is yet said to be 'ad imaginem'); 'to be to the image' = to have the likeness expressed in a different nature. Page breaks at 'secun-' (secundum). ↩
  7. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 385.' Conclusion of Quaestio VI: the Son, having the very same nature, is 'image' but not 'to the image.' A rule closes the question. ↩