Summa Theologica Part I (Prima Pars) Part 56

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. lx.x.xiii, qu. 63), that "the name Word signifies not only relation to the Father, but also relation to those beings which are made through the Word, by His operative power."

_I answer that,_ Word implies relation to creatures. For G.o.d by knowing Himself, knows every creature. Now the word conceived in the mind is representative of everything that is actually understood.

Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things which we understand. But because G.o.d by one act understands Himself and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the Father, but of all creatures.

And as the knowledge of G.o.d is only cognitive as regards G.o.d, whereas as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so the Word of G.o.d is only expressive of what is in G.o.d the Father, but is both expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is said (Ps.

32:9): "He spake, and they were made;" because in the Word is implied the operative idea of what G.o.d makes.

Reply Obj. 1: The nature is also included indirectly in the name of the person; for person is an individual substance of a rational nature. Therefore the name of a divine person, as regards the personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is implied in what belongs to the nature. Yet there is nothing to prevent its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is included in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be the Son, so it properly belongs to Him to be G.o.d begotten, or the Creator begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the relations result from actions, some names import the relation of G.o.d to creatures, which relation follows on the action of G.o.d which pa.s.ses into some exterior effect, as to create and to govern; and the like are applied to G.o.d in time. But others import a relation which follows from an action which does not pa.s.s into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent--as to know and to will: such are not applied to G.o.d in time; and this kind of relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word. Nor is it true that all names which import the relation of G.o.d to creatures are applied to Him in time; but only those names are applied in time which import relation following on the action of G.o.d pa.s.sing into exterior effect.

Reply Obj. 3: Creatures are known to G.o.d not by a knowledge derived from the creatures themselves, but by His own essence. Hence it is not necessary that the Word should proceed from creatures, although the Word is expressive of creatures.

Reply Obj. 4: The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to signify relation to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural sense to G.o.d; and it is not said personally. But the name of Word is imposed chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation to creatures, inasmuch as G.o.d, by understanding Himself, understands every creature; and so there is only one Word in G.o.d, and that is a personal one.

Reply Obj. 5: G.o.d's knowledge of non-beings and G.o.d's Word about non-beings are the same; because the Word of G.o.d contains no less than does the knowledge of G.o.d, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 14).

Nevertheless the Word is expressive and operative of beings, but is expressive and manifestive of non-beings.

_______________________

QUESTION 35

OF THE IMAGE (In Two Articles)

We next inquire concerning the image: about which there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Image in G.o.d is said personally?

(2) Whether this name belongs to the Son alone?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 35, Art. 1]

Whether Image in G.o.d Is Said Personally?

Objection 1: It would seem that image is not said personally of G.o.d.

For Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i) says, "The G.o.dhead of the Holy Trinity and the Image whereunto man is made are one."

Therefore Image is said of G.o.d essentially, and not personally.

Obj. 2: Further, Hilary says (De Synod.): "An image is a like species of that which it represents." But species or form is said of G.o.d essentially. Therefore so also is Image.

Obj. 3: Further, Image is derived from imitation, which implies "before" and "after." But in the divine persons there is no "before"

and "after." Therefore Image cannot be a personal name in G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1): "What is more absurd than to say that an image is referred to itself?" Therefore the Image in G.o.d is a relation, and is thus a personal name.

_I answer that,_ Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign. In corporeal things the specific sign consists chiefly in the figure. For we see that the species of different animals are of different figures; but not of different colors. Hence if the color of anything is depicted on a wall, this is not called an image unless the figure is likewise depicted. Further, neither the similitude of species or of figure is enough for an image, which requires also the idea of origin; because, as Augustine says (QQ. lx.x.xiii, qu. 74): "One egg is not the image of another, because it is not derived from it." Therefore for a true image it is required that one proceeds from another like to it in species, or at least in specific sign. Now whatever imports procession or origin in G.o.d, belongs to the persons. Hence the name "Image" is a personal name.

Reply Obj. 1: Image, properly speaking, means whatever proceeds forth in likeness to another. That to the likeness of which anything proceeds, is properly speaking called the exemplar, and is improperly called the image. Nevertheless Augustine (Fulgentius) uses the name of Image in this sense when he says that the divine nature of the Holy Trinity is the Image to whom man was made.

Reply Obj. 2: species, as mentioned by Hilary in the definition of image, means the form derived from one thing to another. In this sense image is said to be the species of anything, as that which is a.s.similated to anything is called its form, inasmuch as it has a like form.

Reply Obj. 3: Imitation in G.o.d does not signify posteriority, but only a.s.similation.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 35, Art. 2]

Whether the Name of Image Is Proper to the Son?

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.

Obj. 2: Further, similitude in expression belongs to the nature of an image, as Augustine says (QQ. lx.x.xiii, 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.

Obj. 3: Further, man is also called the image of G.o.d, according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and the glory of G.o.d." 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 (Q. 36, A. 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 Obj. 1: Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude.

Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d is "to the image," because He is the perfect Image of the Father.

_______________________

QUESTION 36

OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY GHOST (In Four Articles)

We proceed to treat of what belongs to the person of the Holy Ghost, Who is called not only the Holy Ghost, but also the Love and Gift of G.o.d. Concerning the name "Holy Ghost" there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether this name, "Holy Ghost," is the proper name of one divine Person?

(2) Whether that divine person Who is called the Holy Ghost, proceeds from the Father and the Son?

(3) Whether He proceeds from the Father through the Son?

(4) Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost?

_______________________