A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 15 – Chapter 16
CHAP. XV.
What is the difference betweene the image and the ſimilitude of God, according to which man is ſaid to be created.
SAint Auſtine in his queſtions vponupon Deuteronomie thinketh it no leſſe then blaſphemie, to auerre any thing to be ſuperfluous in the ſacred text: wherefore leſt we be enforced to contradict this ſo receiued a principle,Orig. lib. 3. Peri…rchon, cap. 6. Baſil. hom 6. in Gen. in hunc locum Ambroſ. li. 6. Exameron. c. 6. & 8 Nicenus homil. de creat. hom. Eucher. li. 1. commen. in Gen. in hunc locum. Victorin. in diſp…t. quam ſcripſit aduerſus Arrium. Theodoret. in quaeſt in Gen. q. 20. Rupert. li. 2. de Trinitate & operibus eius, c. 3. et 5 Aquin. prima parte quaeſt. 93. Magiſter ſent. lib. 2. diſtinct 26. & ibidem Scholaſtici. and manifeſt truth, wee are to ſearch what difference is betweene the image and likeneſſe of God, according to which man was created.
Origenes, Baſil, Nicenus, Eucherius, Victorinus, Theodoretus, Rupertus, Aquinas, the maſter of the ſentences, with many others, both moderne and ancient Writers, are of opinion, that man is ſaid to be made to the image of God, according to his nature and properties conſequent vntounto nature, as vnderſtanding, memorie, and free will, which he exerciſeth in his naturall actions, and in which he exceedeth all other inferiour creatures; the which image, though it may be, and is in ſome ſort defaced by ſinne, yet is it in no wiſe fully loſt and blotted out, becauſe as it is wholly of God, ſo it dependeth only of God, and therefore can be taken away only by God himſelfe; nay not euen by God himſelfe, man remaining a reaſonable creature or man. For though he may hauehave his ſenſes and other ſpirituall powers depraued, yea though he may alſo be depriued of the exerciſe of them all, yet in no wiſe can they be vtterly extinguiſhed, man (as I ſaid) remaining man.
Now as touching the ſimilitude of God according vntounto which man was created, wee are to conſider him, not according vntounto the naturall gifts which are neceſſarily conſequent vntounto nature, but according vntounto iuſtice, ſanctitie, and innocencie, and grace, which are gifts infuſed into nature, though aboue nature, the which as they are independent of nature, ſo alſo may they bee and are ſeparate from nature, according to the free diſpoſition and order of God, the Author of nature: but this certainly is alway for ſome ſinne, which in this ſenſe may be ſaid to be a deprauation of nature, ſeeing it depriueth nature not only of theſe ſupernaturall gifts, which are the chiefe ornaments and helpes of nature, but alſo becauſe it depraueth nature herſelfe euen in her ſelfe, and hindereth the due exerciſe of her naturall powers.
Rupertus in his ſecond booke of the Trinitie, and ſecond chapter, diſcourſeth very acutely of this point, of the difference betweene the image and ſimilitude, vntounto which man was created, giuing alſo the reaſon why the word image is prefixed before the word ſimilitude: in a word, his reſolution is this, that the Sonne of God is ſignified by the word image, and the holy Ghoſt by the word ſimilitude: for (ſaith he) the difference betweene ſimilitude and image is this, that the image is in regard of one only, but a ſimilitude is at leaſt of two: now the eternall Sonne of the eternall Father is the image of God, according to that of the Apoſtle, 1. Coloſſ. who is the image of the inuiſible God. The Sonne (I ſay) is the image of the inuiſible God, equally inuiſible. For the vnderſtanding of which, we muſt preſuppoſe that there bee many kindes of images, as the image of man, of a horſe, a picture in the wall, an image grauen in ſtone or wood, yea wee ſee euen the images of the Sunne and Moone in the water, yet wee may not thinke that the Sonne of God is ſo to be called the image of God, but rather, as the Apoſtle writeth in another place, Heb. 2.the figure of his ſubſtance; becauſe as eueryevery ſubſtance is knowne by his figure or ſhape, ſo God the Father by his word. Againe, the image of man is ſaid to be a propertie of his ſubſtance, in which ſenſe the ſacred text ſaith, that Adam begat his ſonne to his image and likeneſſe, Gen. 5.and called his name Seth. Hence wee may vnderſtand how the eternall Sonne is the image of his eternall Father, and the holy Ghoſt the ſimilitude and likeneſſe of the Father and Sonne, ſeeing the goodneſſe and louelove of the Father and Sonne is common to both Father, and Sonne. Hence it is, that it could not rightly be ſaid in regard of the Sonne only, let vsus make man to our image and likeneſſe; for as the Sonne is Sonne in regard only of the Father, not of the Father and the holy Ghoſt iointly, ſo alſo is hee not the image of the Father and of the holy Ghoſt iointly, but of the Father onelyonly. But it is rightly ſaid in regard of the holy Ghoſt, to our image and likeneſſe, becauſe as the holy Ghoſt is the infinite goodneſſe of the Father and Sonne, ſo is he likewiſe the infinite ſimilitude and likeneſſe common to both Father and Sonne. But this not by the force of his particular proceeding, as is the Sonne.
Others are of opinion, that this word ad imaginem, to our image, doth ſignifie vntounto vsus the ſecond perſon of the bleſſed Trinitie, as he was to be incarnate, or to take our nature vponupon him.
But if we marke the phraſe of the ſacred text, we ſhall eaſily finde that the Sonne of God was incarnate rather according to the ſimilitude of man, then that man was created according to his ſimilitude, Rom. 8. Philip. 1. Heb. 2.
Eugubinus in his Coſmopoeia, and Oleaſter vponupon the firſt of Geneſis, are of opinion, that God therefore ſaid, let vsus make man to our image and likeneſſe, becauſe when hee created man, hee tooke vponupon him the ſhape and forme of man, to the end that he might the better conuerſe with man.
But this ſeemeth rather to bee an inuention of their owne, then grounded in Scripture, becauſe it is moſt probable (that which the Schoolemen doe commonly hold with Dionyſius) that all thoſe apparitions, which we reade in the old Teſtament, were not immediately of God, or by God himſelfe, but by the mediation of Angels, who taking vponupon them airie or other apparant bodies, appeared vntounto men in the ſhape and forme of men; but ſo neuertheleſſe, that they ſo appearing and ſpeaking, did alwayes repreſent the maieſtie of their maker, repeating for the moſt part Gods owne words, which hee had immediately infuſed into their vnderſtanding.
Againe, if the aforeſaid opinion of the aſſuming of our humane nature is to bee vnderſtood by a perſonall vnion betweene God and man, then queſtionleſſe God hath beene twice incarnate, and twice vnited to our humane nature, which is contrary to the holy Scriptures. Or if there was no reall vnion, or aſſumption of our humane nature, but only a ſhade or ſimilitude of the ſame, as wee reade that Angels hauehave oftentimes aſſumed humane bodies, how then was it truly ſaid, let vsus make man to our image and likeneſſe, ſeeing that ſimilitude of humane nature could not in any wiſe be the image of God? neither could it be truly ſaid, that Adam was made to the image of God, if ſo be that we vnderſtand by the image of God not any true humane nature, but the ſhade only and ſimilitude of mans nature.
Hence I conclude the firſt opinion to be the beſt, as which is moſt grounded in the ſacred text, and moſt followed of the holy Fathers and other expoſitours.
CHAP. XVI.
Whether the woman be made to the image of God, or no.
IT might ſeeme raſhneſſe to doubt of this, if S. Paul did not giuegive vsus ſome ground, denying (as ſome thinke) that woman was made to the image and likeneſſe of God, auerring her onelyonly to be the image of man, in that he contrapoſeth woman, as the glory of man, to man as the image and glory of God. His words be theſe:1. Cor. 11. & 6. Man ought not to couer his head, foraſmuch as hee is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man; for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. The woman therefore is not the image and glory of God, but immediately only the glory of the man, otherwiſe there could be no difference in this, betweene the man and the woman, contrary to the inference which S. Paul maketh in the precedent verſe.
Neuertheleſſe, euen the text it ſelfe doth clearly confute this opinion: for after that it had beene ſaid, let vsus make man to our owne image and likeneſſe, preſently it is added, hee made them, both man and woman. Wherefore as man was made to the image of God, ſo likewiſe was the woman made to the ſame.
Aug li. 12. de trinitate cap 7.S. Auſtine is very large in giuing the reaſon of this concluſion; but briefly this is the anſwer: If wee conſider the principall reaſon, why man is ſaid to be the image of God, to wit, as hee is an intellectuall creature, and as he is indued with the properties therevnto annexed; ſo is it euident, that this word image doth equally ſignifie, and may be equally attributed both to man, and woman: ſeeing that they both participate of reaſon, and vnderſtanding, both bee indued with an immortall ſoule, both partakers of free will, both capable of ſupernaturall gifts, both of grace and glory.
But againe, if this word image be taken in a more large, and improper ſignification (as hath beene already explicated) we may well ſay, that man was made to the image of God, & woman framed to the image of man. Becauſe, as God is the end to whom man is immediatly referred: ſo likewiſe man in ſome ſort is in regard of the woman, becauſe man is the head of the woman, by whom ſhee ought to be directed vntounto God. This explication ſeemeth to be grounded in the afore-ſaid place of Paul, 1. to the Corin. 11. chap. for when hee had ſaid, that man was the image of God, and woman the glory of the man, he preſently giueth the reaſon. ver. 8. For man (ſaith he) is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. ver. 9. for the man was not created for the womans ſake, but the woman for the mans ſake.
Neuertheleſſe, if the ſimilitude of God in man and woman be conſidered, not according to their naturall gifts, but to the ſupernaturall of grace and glory, then queſtionleſſe it hapneth often-times, that ſome women are more adorned with theſe ſupernaturall graces, and gifts, and conſequently are more like vntounto God then many men. As wee piouſly beleeue of the bleſſed Virgin, who as ſhee was pronounced by the Angell of God to bee bleſſed amongſt all women, ſo no doubt, but ſhee hath receiued an eternall bleſſing aboue all Angells and men, our Sauiour only excepted both God and man.