Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to the Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18), "The Holy Ghost is the Image of the Son." Therefore Image does not belong to the Son alone.

Objection 2: Further, similitude in expression belongs to the nature of an image, as Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 74). But this belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from another by way of similitude. Therefore the Holy Ghost is an Image; and so to be Image does not belong to the Son alone.

Objection 3: Further, man is also called the image of God, according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and the glory of God." Therefore Image is not proper to the Son.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): "The Son alone is the Image of the Father."

I answer that, The Greek Doctors commonly say that the Holy Ghost is the Image of both the Father and of the Son; but the Latin Doctors attribute the name Image to the Son alone. For it is not found in the canonical Scripture except as applied to the Son; as in the words, "Who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creatures" (Col. 1:15) and again: "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1:3).

Some explain this by the fact that the Son agrees with the Father, not in nature only, but also in the notion of principle: whereas the Holy Ghost agrees neither with the Son, nor with the Father in any notion. This, however, does not seem to suffice. Because as it is not by reason of the relations that we consider either equality or inequality in God, as Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6), so neither (by reason thereof do we consider) that similitude which is essential to image. Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Image of the Son, because there cannot be an image of an image; nor of the Father, because again the image must be immediately related to that which it is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related to the Father through the Son; nor again is He the Image of the Father and the Son, because then there would be one image of two; which is impossible. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain further on (Question 36, Article 4). Hence there is nothing to prevent there being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one; since even man is one image of the whole Trinity.

Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be "born"; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds; whereas this does not essentially belong to love, although it may belong to that love which is the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He is the divine love.

Reply to Objection 1: Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above explained.

Reply to Objection 3: The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but "to the image," whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is "to the image," because He is the perfect Image of the Father.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nomen imaginis non sit proprium filio.

Quia, ut dicit Damascenus, spiritus sanctus est imago filii.

Non est ergo proprium filii.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, de ratione imaginis est similitudo cum expressione, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest..

Sed hoc convenit spiritui sancto, procedit enim ab alio secundum modum similitudinis. Ergo spiritus sanctus est imago.

Et ita non est proprium filii quod sit imago.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, homo etiam dicitur imago dei, secundum illud I ad Cor. XI, vir non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria dei est.

Ergo non est proprium filio.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., quod solus filius est imago patris.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod doctores Graecorum communiter dicunt spiritum sanctum esse imaginem patris et filii.

Sed doctores Latini soli filio attribuunt nomen imaginis, non enim invenitur in canonica Scriptura nisi de filio.

Dicitur enim Coloss. I, qui est imago dei invisibilis, primogenitus creaturae; et ad Hebr. I, qui cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius.

Huius autem rationem assignant quidam ex hoc, quod filius convenit cum patre non solum in natura, sed etiam in notione principii, spiritus autem sanctus non convenit cum filio nec cum patre in aliqua notione.

Sed hoc non videtur sufficere. Quia sicut secundum relationes non attenditur in divinis neque aequalitas neque inaequalitas, ut Augustinus dicit; ita neque similitudo, quae requiritur ad rationem imaginis.

Unde alii dicunt quod spiritus sanctus non potest dici imago filii, quia imaginis non est imago. Neque etiam imago patris, quia etiam imago refertur immediate ad id cuius est imago; spiritus sanctus autem refertur ad patrem per filium. Neque etiam est imago patris et filii, quia sic esset una imago duorum, quod videtur impossibile. Unde relinquitur quod spiritus sanctus nullo modo sit imago.

Sed hoc nihil est. Quia pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, ut infra dicetur, unde nihil prohibet sic patris et filii, inquantum sunt unum, esse unam imaginem; cum etiam homo totius trinitatis sit una imago. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod, sicut spiritus sanctus, quamvis sua processione accipiat naturam patris, sicut et filius, non tamen dicitur natus; ita, licet accipiat speciem similem patris, non dicitur imago. Quia filius procedit ut verbum, de cuius ratione est similitudo speciei ad id a quo procedit; non autem de ratione amoris; quamvis hoc conveniat amori qui est spiritus sanctus, inquantum est amor divinus.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Damascenus et alii doctores Graecorum communiter utuntur nomine imaginis pro perfecta similitudine.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet spiritus sanctus sit similis patri et filio, non tamen sequitur quod sit imago, ratione iam dicta.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod imago alicuius dupliciter in aliquo invenitur. Uno modo, in re eiusdem naturae secundum speciem, ut imago regis invenitur in filio suo. Alio modo, in re alterius naturae, sicut imago regis invenitur in denario. Primo autem modo, filius est imago patris, secundo autem modo dicitur homo imago dei. Et ideo ad designandam in homine imperfectionem imaginis, homo non solum dicitur imago, sed ad imaginem, per quod motus quidam tendentis in perfectionem designatur. Sed de filio dei non potest dici quod sit ad imaginem, quia est perfecta patris imago.