Dist. 31, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 31
Quaestio II.
Utrum imago in divinis proprie de Filio dicatur.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).
Secundo quaeritur, utrum imago sit proprium Filii. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Per Hilarium1 in proposita appropriatione: «Aeternitas in Patre, species in Imagine, usus in Munere». Pater dicitur proprie, similiter Munus: ergo si recte ponuntur, ex aequo imago dicitur proprie de Filio.
2. Item, Augustinus sexto de Trinitate2: «Solus Filius est imago Patris», et expressius: «Eo filius, quo imago et verbum»: ergo secundum hoc, cum filius dicat personalem relationem, patet etc.
3. Item, imago est similitudo expressa, et in divinis similitudo expressissima3; sed similitudo expressissima non potest esse plurium distinctorum: si ergo Filius est ab uno, Spiritus sanctus aequaliter a duobus, ergo non poterit esse imago.
4. Item, imago in divinis attenditur secundum imitationem personae, non essentiae4, quia non est imago essentiae, sed personae: ergo ad hoc, quod una persona sit imago alterius, necesse est, quod illam imitetur in eo quod respicit personam ut personam; sed emanatio vel productio personae respicit personam ut personam; nam productio creaturae respicit substantiam. Cum ergo solus Filius imitetur Patrem in productione personae, solus Filius est imago.
Sed contra:
1. Damascenus5 dicit, quod «Spiritus sanctus est imago Filii»: ergo non est Filii proprium esse imaginem.
2. Item, hoc videtur per utramque definitionem Hilarii6. Et prima est: «Imago est eius rei, ad quam imaginatur, species indifferens»; sed hoc convenit Spiritui sancto: ergo et imago. Secunda est: «Imago est rei ad rem coaequandam imaginata et indiscreta similitudo»; sed hoc convenit Spiritui sancto: ergo etc.
3. Item, hoc videtur per rationem, quia ad imaginem ista duo sufficiunt, scilicet imitatio secundum similitudinem, et secundum aequalitatem7; sed haec duo est reperire in persona Spiritus sancti: ergo etc.
4. Item, sicut Filius procedit a Patre, ut exprimens Patrem, ita Spiritus sanctus a Filio, ut exprimens Filium: ergo quemadmodum Filius est imago Patris, ita Spiritus sanctus est imago Filii.
Conclusio.
Solus Filius, proprie loquendo, est imago.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod imago in divinis non tantum dicit expressionem personae, sed etiam in summo. Expressio autem duo ponit, scilicet quod sit unius ad unum, et in summo, quod sit secundum omnem modum. Quod sit unius ad unum, ponit per hoc, quod «illud quod per superabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit»8; et si sit essentiale, essentiae; si personale, personae. Nam unum in summo non potest exprimere plura vel plures9, unum inquam, in quo nulla est diversitas. Similiter unum summe non potest exprimi a pluribus, ut plures sunt, quia tunc omnino indifferentes essent. — Ponit etiam aliud, videlicet, ut sit expressio secundum omnem modum. Nam si ex aliquo respectu non habet exprimere, non exprimeret summe.
Propter primam rationem solus Filius est imago, quia solus ab uno procedit, Spiritus autem sanctus a duobus, et ideo aequaliter utrumque exprimit, et ideo neutrum in summo. Propter secundam rationem solus Filius est imago, quia secundum omnem respectum habet rationem exprimendi10, et in quantum comparatur ad illum a quo est, et in quantum comparatur ad illum qui ex ipso est. In quantum comparatur ad illum a quo est, quia exit per modum naturae, et ita per modum verbi et speciei et per modum similitudinis expressae. In quantum comparatur ad illum qui est ex eo, quia per omnia et eodem modo spirat Filius, ut Pater11. Spiritus sanctus autem in nullo horum convenit; ideo ratio imaginis est in solo Filio, quia ab uno tantum procedit, et quia per modum naturae, quia etiam consimiliter producit Spiritum sanctum. — Media tamen ratio, quia per modum naturae, est ratio propria, aliae vero faciunt ad congruitatem.
Concedendum igitur, quod solus Filius, loquendo proprie, est imago, et eo quo filius, eo est imago, et eo ipso verbum. Sed filius dicit solum respectum ad Patrem, imago principaliter ad Patrem sed consequenter respectum ad aliam personam, verbum principaliter respectum ad Patrem, et consequenter respectum ad creaturam. Unde eadem notio sunt ipsius Filii, tamen alio et alio modo significata. Unde non est superfluitas.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Damasceno, dicendum, quod Damascenus fuit Graecus; Graeci autem non ita proprie accipiunt rationem imaginis, ut Latini, quia nec de origine personarum sic sane intelligunt. — Vel potest dici, quod sermo Augustini et Damasceni intelligitur causaliter, quia reformat nos ad imaginem Christi12.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod utraque definitio imaginis convenit Spiritui sancto; dicendum, sicut infra patebit13, quod species et similitudo, ut ibi accipitur, convenit soli Filio.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de assimilatione et aequalitate, dicendum, quod Filius non dicitur imago propter assimilationem in substantia, sed propter modum emanandi; et in hoc non habet Spiritus sanctus expressissimam similitudinem nec cum Filio nec cum Patre, ideo nullius est imago.
I. Quod nomen imago de Filio recte dicatur, constat ex sacra Scriptura (Col. 1, 15; II Cor. 4, 4; Hebr. 1, 3); quod sit proprium eiusdem nomen, contra Durandum et paucos alios a Latinis doctoribus communiter docetur, dum Graeci etiam Spiritui S. hoc nomen attribuunt. — Attamen de rationibus assignandis, quare hoc nomen proprie de Filio dicatur, doctores nostri non conveniunt. S. Thomas (S. I. q. 38. a. 2.) solummodo hanc approbat, quod «Filius procedit ut verbum, de cuius ratione est similitudo speciei ad id a quo procedit, non autem de ratione amoris» etc. Eandem rationem, quam immerito Aureolus aliique impugnant, etiam S. Bonav. affert tanquam rationem «propriam», et alias plures, quae ad duas reduci possunt, ut congruas adiungit (fund. 3. 4. et in corp.). Prima est: Filius est ab uno, et imago summe expressiva non potest esse nisi unius ad unum, vel (ut paulo aliter dicunt Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petrus a Tar.) imaginis non est imago. Hanc rationem S. Thom. (loc. cit.) nihil valere asserit. Secunda est, quia Filius convenit cum Patre in una spiratione, non vero Spiritus S., de qua ratione S. Thom. dicit: «Sed hoc non videtur sufficere». Hoc facile ex mente S. Bonaventurae concedi potest. Monet autem Dionys. Carth. (d. 28. q. 4.), etiam has duas rationes, ut congruas auctoritate Richardi a S. Victore, Alexandri, Alberti et aliorum commendatas, non penitus negligendas esse. — Quomodo differant filius, verbum, imago, in fine respons. tangitur; cfr. d. 27. p. II. dub. 2, et q. 2.
II. De quaestione ipsa: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 61. m. 3. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 28. q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 28. q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., I. Sent. d. 28. a. 3. q. 2. — Ægid. R., I. Sent. d. 28. princ. 2. q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 69. q. 4.
---
Question II. Whether 'image' is said properly of the Son in divine matters.
Secondly, it is asked whether image is proper to the Son. And that it is, seems [to follow]:
1. By Hilary1, in the appropriation set forth: "Eternity in the Father, beauty in the Image, use in the Gift." Father is said properly, likewise Gift: therefore if they are rightly assigned, equally image is said properly of the Son.
2. Likewise, Augustine, in the sixth book On the Trinity2: "The Son alone is the image of the Father," and more expressly: "He is Son by that whereby he is image and word": therefore on this account, since son expresses a personal relation, the matter is plain.
3. Likewise, an image is an expressed likeness, and in the divine [it is] a most expressive likeness3; but a most expressive likeness cannot belong to several distinct [entities]: if therefore the Son is from one [principle], and the Holy Spirit equally from two, therefore [the Holy Spirit] cannot be image.
4. Likewise, image in the divine is considered according to the imitation of a person, not of essence4, since it is not the image of essence but of a person: therefore in order that one person be the image of another, it is necessary that it imitate that [person] in that which regards the person as person; but the emanation or production of a person regards the person as person; for the production of a creature regards substance. Since, therefore, only the Son imitates the Father in the production of a person, only the Son is image.
On the contrary:
1. Damascene5 says that "the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son": therefore to be image is not proper to the Son.
2. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by both definitions of Hilary6. And the first is: "An image is, of that thing toward which it is imaged, an undifferentiated species"; but this applies to the Holy Spirit: therefore [he is] also image. The second is: "An image is, of a thing for the equating of a thing, an imaged and undivided likeness"; but this applies to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason, since for there to be an image these two suffice, namely imitation according to likeness and according to equality7; but these two are found in the person of the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, just as the Son proceeds from the Father as expressing the Father, so the Holy Spirit [proceeds] from the Son as expressing the Son: therefore just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.
Conclusion.
The Son alone, properly speaking, is image.
I respond: It must be said that image in the divine expresses not only the expression of a person, but also [an expression] in the highest [degree]. Now expression posits two things, namely that it be of one to one, and, in the highest [degree], that it be according to every mode. That it be of one to one is established by this, that "what is said by superabundance applies to one alone"8; and if it be essential, [it applies] to the essence; if personal, to the person. For the one in the highest [degree] cannot express many or several9 — the one, I say, in which there is no diversity. Likewise the supremely one cannot be expressed by several, insofar as they are several, since then they would be entirely undifferentiated. — He posits also another [requirement], namely that it be expression according to every mode. For if from some respect it does not [serve] to express, it would not express in the highest [degree].
By the first reason, only the Son is image, since he alone proceeds from one, but the Holy Spirit from two, and therefore expresses each equally, and therefore [expresses] neither in the highest [degree]. By the second reason, only the Son is image, since according to every respect he has the account of expressing10, both insofar as he is compared to him from whom he is, and insofar as he is compared to him who is from him. Insofar as he is compared to him from whom he is, [it is] because he goes forth by way of nature, and so by way of word and species and by way of expressed likeness. Insofar as he is compared to him who is from him, [it is] because the Son spirates in all things and in the same mode as the Father11. But the Holy Spirit agrees in none of these; therefore the account of image is in the Son alone, since he proceeds from one alone, and since [he proceeds] by way of nature, since likewise he produces the Holy Spirit. — Yet the middle reason, namely that [he proceeds] by way of nature, is the proper reason; the others contribute to the fittingness.
It must therefore be conceded that only the Son, speaking properly, is image; and by that whereby he is son, by the same he is image, and by the very same he is word. But son expresses only a regard to the Father; image [expresses] principally [a regard] to the Father but consequently a regard to another person; word [expresses] principally a regard to the Father, and consequently a regard to a creature. Whence they are the same notion of the Son himself, yet signified in one mode and another. Whence there is no superfluity.
To the arguments on the opposite side:
1. To that which is objected from Damascene, it must be said that Damascene was a Greek; but the Greeks do not take the account of image as properly as the Latins, since neither do they understand the origin of the persons in the same sound way. — Or it can be said that the discourse of Augustine and of Damascene is understood causally, since [Christ] reforms us toward the image of Christ12.
2. To that which is objected, that both definitions of image apply to the Holy Spirit; it must be said, as will appear below13, that species and likeness, as taken there, apply to the Son alone.
3. 4. To that which is objected concerning assimilation and equality, it must be said that the Son is not called image on account of assimilation in substance, but on account of the mode of emanating; and in this the Holy Spirit has neither with the Son nor with the Father a most expressive likeness, and therefore is the image of nothing.
I. That the name image is rightly said of the Son is established from sacred Scripture (Col. 1:15; II Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3); that it is the proper name of the same [Son] is taught commonly by the Latin doctors, against Durandus and a few others, while the Greeks attribute this name also to the Holy Spirit. — Yet concerning the reasons to be assigned why this name is said properly of the Son, our doctors do not agree. St. Thomas (S. I, q. 38, a. 2) approves only this: that "the Son proceeds as a word, of whose account is the likeness of species to that from which it proceeds, but [this is] not of the account of love" etc. The same reason, which Aureolus and others undeservedly attack, St. Bonaventure also brings forward as the "proper" reason, and several others, which can be reduced to two, he adjoins as fitting (fund. 3, 4, and in the body). The first is: the Son is from one, and a supremely expressive image cannot be except of one to one, or (as Alex. Hal., B. Albert, Peter a Tarantasia put it a little differently) [there] is not an image of an image. This reason St. Thomas (loc. cit.) asserts to have no value. The second is that the Son agrees with the Father in one spiration, but the Holy Spirit not, of which reason St. Thomas says: "But this does not seem to suffice." This can readily be conceded according to the mind of St. Bonaventure. But Dionysius Carthusianus (d. 28, q. 4) warns that these two reasons also, as fitting [reasons] commended by the authority of Richard of St. Victor, Alexander, Albert and others, are not entirely to be neglected. — How son, word, image differ is touched on at the end of the response; cf. d. 27, p. II, dub. 2, and q. 2.
II. On the question itself: Alex. Hal., S. p. I, q. 61, m. 3. — St. Thom., I Sent. d. 28, q. 2, a. 3; S. at the place cited. — Petr. a Tar., I Sent. d. 28, q. 3, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., I Sent. d. 28, a. 3, q. 2. — Ægid. R., I Sent. d. 28, princ. 2, q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 69, q. 4.
---
- Lib. II. de Trin. n. 1, ubi in originali sic legitur: In Patre... infinitas, in aeterno, species etc. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi et haec appropriata exponuntur.Book II On the Trinity, n. 1, where in the original the text reads thus: "In the Father... infinity; in the eternal, beauty" etc. See here the Master's text, c. 2, where these appropriations are also expounded.
- Cap. 2. n. 3. — Textus subsequens habetur ibid. libr. VII. c. 2. n. 3: Eo quippe Filius quo Verbum, et eo Verbum quo Filius... Et haec duo cum dicuntur, id est nata sapientia, in uno eorum, eo quod est nata, et verbum et imago et filius intelligatur, et in his omnibus nominibus non ostendatur essentia, quia relative dicuntur etc. Cfr. supra d. XXVII. c. 4. circa finem.Chapter 2, n. 3. — The text following is found at the same place, book VII, c. 2, n. 3: "He is Son indeed by that whereby he is Word, and Word by that whereby he is Son... And when these two are said — that is, born wisdom — in one of them (namely, in that he is born) Word and Image and Son are understood, and in all these names essence is not shown, since they are said relatively" etc. Cf. above d. XXVII, c. 4, near the end.
- Cfr. August., libr. 83 Qq. q. 74. Quomodo propositio immediate sequens intelligenda sit, explicatur in corp. quaest. — Plures codd. ut AH LM (Q T in marg.) Z cum ed. 1 post potest esse interserunt nisi; mendose.Cf. Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 74. How the immediately following proposition is to be understood is explained in the body of the question. — Several codices, such as AH LM (Q T in margin) Z, with edition 1, insert nisi after potest esse; erroneously.
- Vat. addit persona.The Vatican [edition] adds persona.
- Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 13: Imago Patris est Filius, ac Filii Spiritus.Book I, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 13: "The image of the Father is the Son, and [the image] of the Son [is] the Spirit."
- Libr. de Synod. n. 13. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. Secundam definitionem, a Vat. et plurimis codd. nec non ab ed. 1 indebite omissam, supplevimus ex codd. PQ; cod. T eam in margine exhibet.Book On the Synods, n. 13. See here the Master's text, c. 2. The second definition, unduly omitted by the Vatican [edition] and by very many codices, and also by edition 1, we have supplied from codices PQ; codex T exhibits it in the margin.
- Cfr. August., lib. 83 Qq. q. 74, ubi conceptus imaginis, aequalitatis et similitudinis exponuntur et inter se comparantur.Cf. Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 74, where the concepts of image, equality and likeness are expounded and compared among themselves.
- Aristot., V. Topic. c. 2. et 3. (c. 5.): τὸ γὰρ καθ' ὑπερβολὴν ἑνὶ μόνῳ ὑπάρχει [?]. Verba καθ' ὑπερβολήν, quae a Boethio Latine redduntur per superabundantiam, ab aliis in excellentia, habent eandem vim, quae a grammaticis superlativo vindicatur.Aristotle, Topics V, c. 2 and 3 (c. 5): "For what is according to superabundance belongs to one alone." [?] The words kath' hyperbolēn, which by Boethius are rendered into Latin as per superabundantiam, by others as in excellentia, have the same force which by the grammarians is claimed for the superlative.
- Sic Vat. cum ed. 1. Codd. cum ceteris edd. post plures adiungunt unum, qua voce adiuncta, propositio fit disiunctiva, et ponitur illud membrum divisionis, quod in constructione passiva exprimitur verbis Similiter unum etc. Tunc autem necessario supplendum esset: Non unum plura (in summo exprimere potest); quae verba fortasse a librariis omissa sunt. — Paulo inferius pro differentes, quod Vat. exhibet, ex codd. FI P Q T X restituimus indifferentes, contextu hanc vocem requirente.So the Vatican [edition] with edition 1. The codices with the other editions add unum after plures; with this word added, the proposition becomes disjunctive, and that member of the division is set down which in the passive construction is expressed by the words Similiter unum etc. But then this would need to be supplied: "Not one [can express] many (in the highest [degree])"; which words perhaps were omitted by the copyists. — A little below, in place of differentes, which the Vatican [edition] exhibits, we have restored indifferentes from codices FI P Q T X, the context requiring this word.
- Cod. K sic prosequitur: Exprimit enim, in quantum comparatur ad Patrem, a quo est, et in quantum comparatur ad Spiritum sanctum, qui ex ipso est, et in quantum comparatur ad illum a quo, quia exit etc.Codex K continues thus: "For he expresses, both insofar as he is compared to the Father, from whom he is, and insofar as he is compared to the Holy Spirit, who is from him, and insofar as he is compared to him from whom [he is], since he goes forth" etc.
- Cod. K adiicit ut Pater.Codex K adds ut Pater.
- Quam sententiam Damascenus verbis, quae supra in prima obiectione citantur, subnexis sic exprimit: Per quem Christus, in homine habitans, ad imaginem Dei esse eidem impertit. — Paulo superius consentiens omnium codd. et edd. lectio, quam et nos cum Vat. retinuimus, est quod sermo Augustini et Damasceni etc. At cum S. Doctor in prima ex praecedentibus obiectionibus mentionem Augustini non faciat, sed tantum Damasceni, non intelligitur, cur hic etiam Augustinum appellet. Quare recte coniciendum videtur, verba illa sermo Augustini per errorem librariorum irrepsisse, loco quorum verborum in originali fortasse verba exstabant: quod secundum Augustinum verbum Damasceni etc. Huic coniecturae favet illud Alexandri Hal., S. q. 61. m. 3. a. 2: «Ad illud Damasc., quod: Spiritus sanctus est imago Filii; dicendum, quod Filius dicitur esse imago Patris multipliciter. Uno modo quasi effective; sicut enim artifex, habens imaginem Herculis in mente, per illam facit eam in materia; sic Pater per Filium imaginem dicitur operari imaginem creatam. Unde August. ad Ianuarium: Imago invisibilis Patris Salvator noster est: quantum ad Patrem veritas est, quantum ad nos, quibus revelat, imago est. Sed sicut Pater per Filium imaginem operatur imaginem creationis, ita per Spiritum sanctum imaginem recreationis; et ita Spiritus sanctus imago est, sicut Filius, scil. quasi effective. Secundum hoc ergo dicendum de Spiritu sancto, quod dicitur imago non simpliciter, sed quasi effective, scilicet respectu imaginis recreationis. Unde imago de Spiritu sancto duo importat: quod est a Filio, et quod est ab ipso donum, secundum quod in nobis est imago recreationis; sed absolute non est imago, sicut Filius, quia non est a Patre ut habens conformationem in productione personae ex se».Damascene expresses this judgment in the words cited above in the first objection, with these subjoined: "Through whom Christ, dwelling in man, imparts to him being toward the image of God." — A little above, the reading on which all codices and editions agree, which we too with the Vatican [edition] have retained, is quod sermo Augustini et Damasceni etc. But since the Holy Doctor in the first of the preceding objections makes no mention of Augustine, but only of Damascene, it is not intelligible why he here also names Augustine. Wherefore it seems rightly to be conjectured that those words sermo Augustini crept in by error of the copyists, in place of which words there were perhaps in the original the words: quod secundum Augustinum verbum Damasceni etc. To this conjecture is favorable that [passage] of Alexander of Hales, S. q. 61, m. 3, a. 2: "To that of Damascene, that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son; it must be said that the Son is said to be the image of the Father in many ways. In one way as it were effectively; for as the artisan, having the image of Hercules in mind, by it makes it in matter, so the Father is said through the Son to work the created image. Whence Augustine to Januarius: The image of the invisible Father is our Savior: as regards the Father he is the truth; as regards us to whom he reveals, he is the image. But just as the Father through the Son works the image of creation as image, so through the Holy Spirit [he works] the image of re-creation; and so the Holy Spirit is image, as the Son [is], namely as it were effectively. According to this, then, it must be said of the Holy Spirit that he is called image not simply, but as it were effectively, namely with respect to the image of re-creation. Whence image with respect to the Holy Spirit imports two things: that he is from the Son, and that he is from him as gift, according to which there is in us the image of re-creation; but absolutely he is not image, as the Son [is], since he is not from the Father as having conformation in the production of the person from himself."
- In quaest. seq. — Vat., quae in ipsa obiectione plura omisit, hic cum plerisque codd. omittit utraque ante definitio, nec non et similitudo ante ut ibi. Suppressa verba supplevimus ex codd. PQ.In the following question. — The Vatican [edition], which in the objection itself omitted several things, here with most of the codices omits utraque before definitio, and likewise similitudo before ut ibi. We have supplied the suppressed words from codices PQ.