Scotus Academicus, Tomus tertius: De adorando divinae Trinitatis mysterio

Note 1. Image is a likeness of something proceeding from it, so that two things necessarily concur to the notion of an image, namely, likeness, and Procession. Likeness, I say, either in species, that is, in the specific nature, or at least in a sign of the species, that is, in something specially representative of the specific nature, just as a painted image stands with respect to its prototype; for, as St. Augustine speaks in De Genesi ad litteram c. 16.: Every image is like that of which it is the image. Second, for the proper notion of an image there is required its procession from him of whom it is called an image: For, says St. Augustine, an image is such when it is expressed from something. By the lack of this procession the Father is not an image of the Son, although perfectly like to him, nor is a painting deemed an image of the object of which the painter did not make use as an exemplar, although otherwise the painting is like to that object; nor finally among men, although two are most like to each other, if however one does not proceed from the other, he is not called his image. Those two things, therefore, are necessary for an image, namely, Likeness, and Procession.

Note 2. That just as a threefold likeness expressed from another can be found — namely, either in an artificial thing, or in an intentional one, or in a natural one — so a threefold image can be given, namely, the Artificial, as a statue, or a tablet formed for the expression of someone; the Intentional, as the species impressed, and expressed by the object; and the Natural, as the Son with respect to the Father, whose specific likeness he bears. Hence it follows that an image is so much the more perfect, the greater is the likeness of that which proceeds from another: hence the artificial image is the most imperfect of all, because it only bears a likeness in a quality, namely, in the figure of that thing which the image represents: the intentional image is more perfect, because it imports a likeness not only in a sign of the species, but also in the species itself, or nature, under a mode of being, not indeed natural, but intelligible, or intentional: but the most excellent of all is the natural image, because it imports a likeness in the species, or nature, under a natural, and entitative mode of being.

Note 3. From St. Augustine, lib. 83. quaest. 74., that image, equality, and likeness are mutually distinguished:

Because, he says, where there is an image there is at once a likeness, not at once an equality: where there is an equality there is at once a likeness, not at once an image: where there is a likeness there is not at once an image, nor at once an equality: as in a mirror there is an image of a man, because it was expressed from him: there is also necessarily a likeness, yet not an equality, because many things are lacking to the image, which nevertheless are in that thing from which it was expressed. Where there is an equality there is at once a likeness, not at once an image, as in two equal eggs, because there is an equality in them, there is a likeness — for whatever things are present in one, are present also in the other — an image, however, there is not, because neither was expressed from the other. Where there is a likeness there is not at once an image, nor at once an equality: for indeed every egg is like to every egg, inasmuch as it is an egg; but the egg of a partridge, although inasmuch as it is an egg it is like to the egg of a hen, is yet neither its image, because it was not expressed from it, nor equal, because it is smaller, and of another kind of living creatures. Where, therefore, in something representing another there is not only a likeness, but also a perfect equality of the representing to the represented, then in like manner in it the notion of an image exists most perfectly.

These things being premised, two points are to be resolved: First, whether the true and perfect notion of an image belongs to the Son. Second, whether it befits him alone. Which two, that they may be defined together, let there be

The single conclusion. — The notion of an image belongs perfectly, and properly to the Son alone in divine things.

The truth of this Conclusion is evident from what has been said concerning the generation of the Son, and

it is gathered moreover from various texts of Sacred Scripture, by which the divine Son is called the Image of the Father; thus ad Colos. 1.: Who is the image of the invisible God: ad Hebraeos 1.: Who, being the Splendor of glory, and the Figure of his substance, or as St. Chrysostom renders it in the same place, homil. 3.: the Character of his substance, inasmuch as, he says, Just as the Father himself subsists in himself, needing nothing, so also the Son.

It is proved also by the holy Fathers: for first, Athanasius in the Epistola de decretis Nicaenae Synodi says: But if you call him an image, by that very fact you will have indicated that he is the Son; for what is like to God, except his own offspring? Nazianz. subscribes, Orat. 4. De Theologia: Brief, and compendious, and easy is the declaration of the Paternal nature, the Son: for everything that is begotten defines its begetter by a certain silent voice. Gregory of Nyssa agrees, in the book De Differentia essentiae, et hypostaseos: The hypostasis of the Son, he says, is as it were the form, and face by which the Father is known, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while that property which is considered in these remains for the distinction of the Persons.

It is proved moreover by theological reason: To the divine Son alone belong the two aforesaid conditions desired for the notion of an image, namely, likeness, and procession from him whose likeness he bears: therefore the Son alone is the image. The antecedent is evident from those things which we said to establish that the procession of the Word is a true generation, because it proceeds as like to the producing principle.

It is confirmed. Moreover, from the holy Fathers, who from this twofold condition gather that the Son is the image of the Father; thus St. Cyril of Alexandria, lib. 3. Thesauri cap. 1.: On this account, he says, the Son is the Word, and Image of God, because he was truly, and properly begotten from the Father himself. And Athanasius, Orat. 4. Contra Arianos:

Although, he says, he alone is the true image, and genuine offspring of his Father, no obstacle thence arises from the fact that we too are recounted as having been created to the image of God, and that we have been named the glory, and image of God; since that comes to pass not from our own nature, but on account of the image of God, and his true glory dwelling in us, which indeed is itself the reason, or Word of God, which afterwards for our sake was made flesh.

It is confirmed again. That the Son is the true image of the Father, from the other names, which differ from image only in the mode of signifying, but in the thing signified express altogether the same thing as image; the first of which is the name face, which is sometimes used by Sacred Scripture to signify the divine Son; thus Ps. 138.: Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from thy Face? For, says the praised Gregory of Nyssa: The hypostasis of the Son is as it were the form, and face by which the Father is known: whence the ancient Patriarchs, beseeching the incarnation of the divine Word, said, Ps. 79.: Show us thy Face, and we shall be saved. To which name the appellation Countenance also befits. Whence Cyril, lib. 3. in Ioan. cap. 29.: In this way, he says, we understand even that: the light of thy Countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us: for he calls the Son the Countenance of God the Father, that is, the Character of the Father. — The second name is Form: whence Christ himself, Ioan. 5.: The Father bears testimony of Me, and you have never heard his voice, nor seen his Form, and you do not have his Word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent: which Athanasius weighing, in the praised Oration 4., says: Beautifully did he thus join the Word to the form, so as to make plain that he is the Word of God, and the Image, Character, and Form of his Father. Hence it is said in Danielis cap. 3. that the Form of the fourth was like to the Son of God: from which the same St. Athanasius in the sermon Contra omnes haereses infers, that the Arians are worse than Nabuchodonosor, because they will that the Son be neither like, nor consubstantial to God. — Thirdly, he is called Seal, and Character: and it is gathered from the words of Ioan. 6.: Him hath God the Father sealed. Which words Basil so weighs, in his single book De Spiritu sancto cap. 6., saying: Christ is the splendor of glory: him hath God the Father sealed, and expressed his whole self in him. With which the above-praised Gregory Nazianzen agrees, where he teaches that the Son is called the Character, as the pure, and by no means lying seal of the Father: of which St. Ambrose gives this reason in the book In Prooemio lib. 2. De fide: The Son of God, he says, is called image, and splendor, and character, because these have revealed the incomprehensible, and unsearchable majesty of the Paternal Divinity in the Son, and his expressed likeness. The other appellations of this kind you will be able to read in Ruiz, disp. 64. sect. 8.

You will say 1. Man is said to have been made to the image, and likeness of the divine Trinity, according to that of Genes. 1.: Let us make man to our image, and likeness: whence Chrysostom in the sermon De Trinitate: Signifying, he says, that Scripture is one image of the Holy Trinity, it said: and God made man, to the image of God he made him: and Hilary, lib. 5. De Trinitate: To the image, he says, of the Father and of the Son man is formed; the name does not differ, the nature does not differ, for one is the species of the image to which man was created: and Fulgentius in the book De Fide ad Petrum: One is, he says, the Divinity, and image of the holy Trinity, to which man was made: therefore the notion of an image does not belong to the divine Word personally, but also to the Divinity itself, nay even to the Trinity.

I answer. The name of Image is taken in two ways, namely, either for the exemplar, and prototype to whose likeness something is formed, or for the likeness produced to the imitation of another. In the former way the name of image is taken both by Sacred Scripture, and by the Fathers cited in the objection; for the Divinity is indeed the exemplar, to the imitation of which man was made, not, however, the image properly so called.

You will say 2. The Holy Spirit is in reality also called an image: therefore this notion does not belong to the Son alone. The antecedent is proved from that ad Romanos 8.: Whom he foreknew, and predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son: whence Cyril in the Dialogue De Trinit. lib. 7.: But that the Spirit is the likeness of the Father, he says, he hears the blessed Paul writing, because those whom he foreknew, these he predefined conformable to the image of his Son: whence Damascene, lib. 1. De Fide cap. 18., says: The image of the Father is the Son, and of the Son the Holy Spirit, through whom Christ dwelling in man gives him, according to what he is, the image: therefore, etc.

I answer. With our De Bassoli, in 1. dist. 27. q. 3. art. 3., the aforesaid Fathers used the name of image improperly, and extended it with so great a latitude, as to comprehend any perfect likeness in nature of the proceeding Person with the principle from which he proceeds; although he does not proceed from it as from an exemplar; nor consequently proceeds as like formally by force of the procession: which they did for this reason, that they might more evidently prove the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father no less, than the Son; since the Holy Spirit in reality is not less like, and equal to the Father, nor can less lead into the knowledge of the Father, than the Son himself.

You will insist. The Holy Spirit is infinitely more like to the Father, and the Son, than creatures are to God: but spiritual creatures, namely men, and Angels, are truly perfect images of God: therefore much more is the Holy Spirit a perfect image of the Father, and of the Son.

I answer first. By denying the minor: for creatures are not images of God except very imperfect ones, because they do not have the same species, or the numerically same nature, nor any perfect sign of the divine nature; although they have some imperfect likeness with it, namely, according to the spirituality of the substance, and the operation of the intellect, and of the will.

I answer second. That although those creatures are imperfect images of God, nevertheless the notion of the divine image belongs more properly to them, than to the Holy Spirit, because they have that imperfect likeness with God formally by force of their production: since they are formed by him as artifacts by the artisan; and thus, just as the artisan forms the work to the likeness of the idea which he preconceived in his mind, so God founded creatures by looking to himself, as to their exemplar: but the Holy Spirit has not a likeness with the producing principle formally by force of his procession; but only identically, and by reason of infinity; and therefore the notion of image does not equally properly belong to him, as to creatures¹.

Gather from these. That the divine Son is the image of the Father in two ways: first, the Natural, inasmuch as he proceeds from him really into an all-round likeness of the divine nature. Second, the Intentional, inasmuch as by force of his production he proceeds as Word, and knowledge; and so proceeds as intentionally expressing the Father: and thus he is his image, not only inasmuch as he is of the same nature, and substance with him; but also inasmuch as he is the produced knowledge of the Father himself; which latter notion of image is most proper to the divine Son; for he alone proceeds as Word, and as knowledge perfectly expressing his principle.