Dist. 31, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/31/q/bon-sent-I-d31-p2-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether 'image' is said properly of the Son in divine matters.*

Secondly, it is asked whether *image* is proper to the Son. And that it is, seems [to follow]:

1. By Hilary, in the appropriation set forth: "Eternity in the Father, beauty in the Image, use in the Gift." *Father* is said properly, likewise *Gift*: therefore if they are rightly assigned, equally *image* is said properly of the Son.

2. Likewise, Augustine, in the sixth book *On the Trinity*: "The Son alone is the image of the Father," and more expressly: "He is *Son* by that whereby he is *image* and *word*": therefore on this account, since *son* expresses a personal relation, the matter is plain.

3. Likewise, an image is an expressed likeness, and in the divine [it is] a most expressive likeness; but a most expressive likeness cannot belong to several distinct [entities]: if therefore the Son is from one [principle], and the Holy Spirit equally from two, therefore [the Holy Spirit] cannot be image.

4. Likewise, *image* in the divine is considered according to the imitation of a person, not of essence, since it is not the image of essence but of a person: therefore in order that one person be the image of another, it is necessary that it imitate that [person] in that which regards the person *as* person; but the emanation or production of a person regards the person as person; for the production of a creature regards substance. Since, therefore, only the Son imitates the Father in the production of a person, only the Son is image.

**On the contrary:**

1. Damascene says that "the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son": therefore to be image is not proper to the Son.

2. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by both definitions of Hilary. And the first is: "An image is, of that thing toward which it is imaged, an undifferentiated species"; but this applies to the Holy Spirit: therefore [he is] also image. The second is: "An image is, of a thing for the equating of a thing, an imaged and undivided likeness"; but this applies to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason, since for there to be an image these two suffice, namely imitation according to likeness and according to equality; but these two are found in the person of the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, just as the Son proceeds from the Father as expressing the Father, so the Holy Spirit [proceeds] from the Son as expressing the Son: therefore just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.

### Conclusion.

> *The Son alone, properly speaking, is image.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *image* in the divine expresses not only the expression of a person, but also [an expression] in the highest [degree]. Now expression posits two things, namely that it be of one to one, and, in the highest [degree], that it be according to every mode. That it be of one to one is established by this, that "what is said by superabundance applies to one alone"; and if it be essential, [it applies] to the essence; if personal, to the person. For the *one* in the highest [degree] cannot express many or several — the *one*, I say, in which there is no diversity. Likewise the supremely *one* cannot be expressed by several, insofar as they are several, since then they would be entirely undifferentiated. — He posits also another [requirement], namely that it be expression according to every mode. For if from some respect it does not [serve] to express, it would not express in the highest [degree].

By the first reason, only the Son is image, since he alone proceeds from one, but the Holy Spirit from two, and therefore expresses each equally, and therefore [expresses] neither in the highest [degree]. By the second reason, only the Son is image, since according to every respect he has the account of expressing, both insofar as he is compared to him from whom he is, and insofar as he is compared to him who is from him. Insofar as he is compared to him from whom he is, [it is] because he goes forth by way of nature, and so by way of *word* and *species* and by way of expressed likeness. Insofar as he is compared to him who is from him, [it is] because the Son spirates in all things and in the same mode as the Father. But the Holy Spirit agrees in none of these; therefore the account of *image* is in the Son alone, since he proceeds from one alone, and since [he proceeds] by way of nature, since likewise he produces the Holy Spirit. — Yet the middle reason, namely that [he proceeds] by way of nature, is the proper reason; the others contribute to the fittingness.

It must therefore be conceded that only the Son, speaking properly, is image; and by that whereby he is *son*, by the same he is *image*, and by the very same he is *word*. But *son* expresses only a regard to the Father; *image* [expresses] principally [a regard] to the Father but consequently a regard to another person; *word* [expresses] principally a regard to the Father, and consequently a regard to a creature. Whence they are the same notion of the Son himself, yet signified in one mode and another. Whence there is no superfluity.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

*1.* To that which is objected from Damascene, it must be said that Damascene was a Greek; but the Greeks do not take the account of *image* as properly as the Latins, since neither do they understand the origin of the persons in the same sound way. — Or it can be said that the discourse of Augustine and of Damascene is understood causally, since [Christ] reforms us toward the image of Christ.

*2.* To that which is objected, that both definitions of *image* apply to the Holy Spirit; it must be said, as will appear below, that *species* and *likeness*, as taken there, apply to the Son alone.

*3. 4.* To that which is objected concerning assimilation and equality, it must be said that the Son is not called *image* on account of assimilation in substance, but on account of the mode of emanating; and in this the Holy Spirit has neither with the Son nor with the Father a most expressive likeness, and therefore is the image of nothing.