Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (92).

On the creation of man: where we must consider why man was created and how he was constituted—these two matters have been treated above—as well as what he was made like, how he fell, and finally how he was restored; these matters remain to be examined. Having pursued these matters, we now undertake to carry out and explain in order what we promised above concerning man’s creation. The matters to be considered seem to be these: why man was created and how he was constituted, what he was made like and how; then how he fell; finally, how and by what means he was restored. We have treated above, to the extent of our ability, the first and second of these, namely, the cause of human creation and the manner of his constitution. It therefore remains to discuss what he was made like, or how he was made.

Chapter 2 (93).

How we should understand, “Let us make man to our image and likeness.” In Genesis we read: Let us make man to our image and likeness. — Bede: “In the word let us make, the one operation of the three persons is shown; in the words to our image and likeness, the one and equal substance” of the three persons is displayed. This is spoken by the person of the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit, not—as some think—to the angels, since the image or likeness of God and of the angels is not one and the same.

¹ quem MWX. 20 hoc] hic BCOP.]

1 In Dist. 15, c. 5 (p. 402). 2 In Dist. 1, cc. 4–6 (pp. 332–336). 3 Gen. 1, 26. 4 In Gen. 1, 26 (PL 91, 29 B; CCL 118A, 25), unde et reliqua potius ad sensum. 5 Gen. 1, 26.

Chapter 1 is composed almost entirely from Summa sententiarum III.2 (PL 171, 1118 A; 176, 91 A), and especially from Hugh, De sacramentis I.6.1 (PL 176, 263 B).

Chapter 2: Ordinary Gloss on Gen. 1:26 (Lyra I, 28a; v 11b); Bede. Chapter 3: Peter Lombard, Gloss on 1 Corinthians 11:7 (PL 191, 1631 C–D); Sermon on the Trinity and Penance (PL 171, 435 C, 436 [sic]); Bernard of Cluny, Instruction for Priests I.1 (PL 184, 774 C). No. 1: Ordinary Gloss on Gen. 1:26.

Chapter 3 (94).

1. That “image” and “likeness” are understood in different ways here: by some as uncreated, by others as created; and the uncreated image is either the essence of the Trinity or the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this passage, “image” and “likeness” are understood either as uncreated—that is, the essence of the Trinity, to which man was made—or as created, in which man was made and which was concreated with man. For Bede seems to have understood the uncreated image, which is God, when he says that the image of God and of the angels is not one and the same, but that of the three persons; and thus the passage is addressed to the persons, not to the angels. — Yet “image” is used improperly, since image is said relationally with respect to something else, whose likeness it bears and which it was made to represent; for example, the image of Caesar, which displayed his likeness and in a way represented him. But it is improper to call that an image to which something else is made: “example” properly means what is taken from something, while “exemplar” is that from which something is taken. Yet sometimes one term is used loosely for the other; so too “image” is used less properly to mean “the essence of the Trinity,” if that is what is understood by “image” here.

2. The opinion of those who thought that here “image and likeness” means the Son. The Son, however, is properly called the image of the Father, as we said above in our treatment of the Trinity. — Augustine in Book VII of The Trinity. Hence there were some “who made this distinction, understanding the Son as the image here, and saying that man is not the image but was made to the image. The Apostle refutes them when he says: A man is the image and glory of God. For when this image—that is, man—is said to be made to the image, the meaning is not that he was made to the Son; otherwise it would not say to our image. For how could it say our, when the Son is the image of the Father alone?”

3. The opinion of others who said that the Son is the image and the Holy Spirit the likeness. There were also others who treated this matter more acutely, understanding the Son by “image” and the Holy Spirit by “likeness”— the latter being the likeness of the Father and the Son. Therefore they thought the plural our was used with reference only to the likeness, while my should be understood with reference to the image. They taught that man is both an image and was made to the image and likeness, and that he is the image of the image and of the likeness.

Apparatus: 6 concreta] concreata LNRV, quod corr. R. 19 hic om. BCMX. 28 similitudinem] similiter MNOP. 29 haec] hoc LWX.

1 Supra, in fine cap. 2. 2 Lib. I, dist. 27, c. 3, nn. 4–6 (pp. 206s). 3 Cap. 6, n. 12 (PL 42, 946; CCL 50, 266s). 4 I Cor. 11, 7. 5 Rupertus Tuitiensis, De Trinit. et operibus eius: In Genesim, II, c. 2 (PL 167, 248); cf. S. Otto, Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes in der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts (BGPTMA XL, Heft 1, Münster 1963), 203, et 279–282.

4. He does not approve their view, but teaches that God’s image and likeness must be sought and considered in man, so that the image and likeness are understood as created. Nevertheless, although this distinction does not seem wholly unreasonable, since it does not come from the midst of the mountains—that is, from the authorities of the saints—it is more fitting that God’s image and likeness be sought and considered in man himself.

5. The respects in which image and likeness are considered. Man was therefore made to God’s image and likeness according to the mind, by which he surpasses irrational creatures; to the image according to memory, understanding, and love; to the likeness according to innocence and justice, which are naturally in the rational mind. — Or, the image is considered in the knowledge of truth, the likeness in the love of virtue; or the image in all the other respects, the likeness in essence, because it is immortal and indivisible. — Hence Augustine in On the Quantity of the Soul: “The soul was made like God because God made it immortal and indissoluble.” The image, then, pertains to form, the likeness to nature. Thus man was made according to the soul to the image and likeness, not of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but of the whole Trinity.

Apparatus: 12 Rubrica omitted MRVW. || Quibus] In prefixed LN, added in the margin V. 17 virtutis] vel veritatis added BCT, added in the margin V. 19 est omitted BCMOPW. 20 et omitted CLORW, added in the margin P.

1 Resp. Ps. 103, 10: Inter medium montium pertransibunt aquae; cf. Glossa Magistri in h. l.: «Si quis aliud dicit, de suo dicit, non de medio. Et hic talis mons non est audiendus» (PL 191, 932 A); ex August., Enarr. in h. l., n. 11 (PL 37, 1356s; CCL 40, 1497s). 2 August., De Genesi ad litt., III, c. 20, n. 30 (PL 34, 292; CSEL 28-I, 86); Beda, In Gen. 1, 26 (PL 91, 30 A; CCL 118A, 26). 3 Vide supra, Lib. I, dist. 3, c. 2 (pp. 71–74); et August., Sermo 52, cc. 6–9 (PL 38, 360–364). 4 Cap. 2, n. 3 (PL 32, 1037).

For no. 5, see the Ordinary Gloss on Genesis 1:26 (in Lyra I, 28b; v 12b), and the sentence perhaps belonging to Anselm of Laon: “He made him rational with respect to the image; with respect to the likeness, because he endowed him with holiness and innocence” (in O. Lottin, Psychology and Morality, V, 123, no. 169). Then (“Or … indivisible”; and below, “The image, therefore … pertains to nature”), see Hugh, On the Sacraments I.6.2 (PL 176, 264 D). Augustine’s words are taken from Summa sententiarum III.2 (more likely in the form found in PL 171, 1119 A than in PL 176, 92 A); the same source also supplies his words in no. 6.

6. That “image of God” is said both of the image itself and of that in which it is. — Augustine in Book XV of The Trinity: So too man is said to be the image of God according to the soul, because God’s image is in him, “just as both the tablet and the painting on it are called an image. But because of the painting on it, the tablet too is called an image; so, because of the image of the Trinity, that in which this image is also bears the name ‘image’.”

Chapter 4 (95).

1. Why man is called “image” and “to the image,” while the Son is called “image” and not “to the image.” Accordingly, man is called both image and to the image, but the Son is image, not to the image, because he is born, not created, equal and in no respect unlike. Man was created by God, not begotten; he is not equal by parity, but approaches God by a certain likeness. Hence Augustine in Book VII of The Trinity: “In Genesis we read: Let us make man to our image and likeness. He said let us make and our in the plural; and unless these are understood relationally, we must understand the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as making man to the image of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that man might subsist as the image of God. But because that image was not made wholly equal, as though born of him rather than created by him, it is called both image and to the image, since it is not made equal by parity but approaches by a certain likeness. The Son, however, is image, but not to the image, because he is equal to the Father. Man, then, is called to the image because of his unequal likeness; and our is used so that man may be understood as the image of the Trinity, not equal to the Trinity as the Son is to the Father.” Behold, it has been shown in what respect man is like God: namely, according to the soul.

2. That according to the body he can be said to have been made to the likeness of God. — Bede: But even “in the body he has a certain property that indicates this: its stature is upright, by which the body is suited to the rational soul, since it is raised toward heaven.”

Apparatus: 8 Quare] Quod LNRTV. 12 et om. LRX. 16 et om. OPW. 18 eo] illo BCL. 21 aequalis] est add. LNTV. 25–26 Rubricae om. NVW, 26 et om. MN, interl. V. 27 est erecta trp. LRV.

1 Resp. Ps. 103, 10; cf. Glossa Magistri in h. l. 2 August., De Genesi ad litt., III, c. 20, n. 30. 3 Vide supra, Lib. I, dist. 3, c. 2. 4 Cap. 2, n. 3. 5 Gen. 1, 26. 6 In Gen. 1, 26 (PL 91, 29 D; CCL 118A, 26).

Chapter 4, no. 1: Summa sententiarum III.2 (PL 171, 1118 B; 176, 91 B); Master’s Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:7 (PL 191, 1631 C–D); Augustine.

— No. 2: From the Ordinary Gloss on Genesis 1:26 (in Lyra I, 28a; v 11b).