Dist. 16
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/2/d/16/q/bon-sent-II-d16-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XVI.

### Chapter I.
### *On the creation of man.*

Having gone through these matters which we set out above on man's creation, we now undertake to put them into effect and to expound them in order, where the following points seem to need consideration, namely, *why man was created, and how he was constituted, and of what sort or in what manner he was made; then how he fell; and lastly, in what way and by what means he was repaired.* The first and second of these — that is, the cause of human creation and the manner of his institution — we have treated above according to the measure of our ability.

### Chapter II.
### *Of what sort man was made.*

It remains, then, that we should discuss of what sort or in what manner he was made. In Genesis we read: *Let us make man to our image and likeness* etc. In that he says *let us make,* one operation of the three persons is shown; *Dubium 1.* whereas in that he says *to our image and likeness,* one and equal substance of the three persons is shown. For this is said from the person of the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit, not, as some think, to the Angels, because the image and likeness of God and of the Angels is not the same *Dubium 2.*.

### Chapter III.
### *On the image and likeness, to which man was made.*

The "image" and "likeness" in this place is 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 is itself con-created with man. For Bede seems to have understood the uncreated image, which is God, when he says, "the image of God and of the Angels is not one, but of the three persons"; and therefore the discourse is addressed to the persons, not

to the Angels. Yet *image* is said *improperly,* *Image properly.* because *image* is named relatively to another, whose likeness it bears and to represent which it has been made, like the image of Caesar, which carried Caesar's likeness and in a certain manner represented him; *Improperly.* improperly, however, *image* is said of that to which something else is made; just as an *exemplum* is properly that which is taken from something, and *exemplar* that from which something is taken. Yet sometimes the one is used loosely for the other; and so the essence of the Trinity is called *image* in a *less proper* sense, if indeed under the name of image it is understood in this place.

But the Son is properly called the image of the Father, as we said above in the treatise on the Trinity. Hence there have been some *Dubium 3. and opinion 1.* who so distinguished as to understand the *image* in this place as the Son; but to say that man was not made as the *image* but *to the image.* The Apostle refutes them when he says: *The man indeed is the image and glory of God.* For this image — that is, man — when he is said *to be made to the image,* is not said to be made as it were to the Son; otherwise it would not say: *To our image.* For how would he say *our,* since the Son is the image of the Father alone? — *Opinion 2.* But there have been others, treating these matters more acutely, who by *image* understood the Son, and by *likeness* the Holy Spirit, who is the likeness of the Father and the Son. And so they thought that *our* was said in the plural, referring it to *likeness* alone, while in *image* one must understand *my.* They handed down that man both is image and is made *to image* and likeness, and is the image of the image and of the likeness.

Yet although this distinction may not appear altogether to be rejected, since nevertheless it does not flow *from the midst of the mountains,* that is, from the authorities of the Saints, it is more fitting *Opinion 3.* that image and likeness of God should be sought and considered in man himself. Man therefore was made to the image and likeness of God according to *mind,* by which he surpasses the irrational creatures; but *to image* according to memory, understanding and love; to *likeness* according to innocence and justice, which are naturally in the rational mind. — Or *image* is considered in the knowledge of truth, *likeness* in the love of virtue; or *image* in all the rest, *likeness* in essence, because it is immortal and indivisible. Hence Augustine in his book *On the Quantity of the Soul*: *The soul has been made like to God, because God made it immortal and indissoluble.* The image, then, pertains to form, the likeness to nature. Therefore man was made, according to the soul, to the *image and likeness* not of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, but of the whole Trinity; and thus also according to the soul man is said to be the image of God, because the image of God is in him. Just as an image is said to be both the *tabula* (the panel) and the *pictura* (the painting) which is on it; *Example.* but on account of the picture, which is in it, the panel also together is called an image: so on account of the image of the Trinity, that also in which this image is, is called by the name of image.

### Chapter IV.
### *Why man is called image and to the image, but the Son not to the image.*

Wherefore man is called both image and *to the image,* but the Son image, not *to the image,* because he is born, not created, equal and in no way dissimilar; man was created by God, not begotten, not equal by parity, but approaching him by a certain likeness. Hence Augustine in *Augustine.* the seventh book of *On the Trinity*: "In Genesis we read: *Let us make man to our image and likeness. Let us make* and *our* he said in the plural, and these cannot be taken except from relatives, so that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are understood to make to the image of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in order that man might subsist as the image of God. But because that image was not made altogether equal, *Dubium 4.* as not born from him but created by him; therefore he is called image in such a way that also *to the image,* because he is not equalled in 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 therefore was said to be *to the image* on account of the unequal likeness; and for this reason *our,* so that man might 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 according to what man is like to God, namely according to the soul. But also "in the body he has a certain property which indicates this, in that he is of erect stature, according to which the body is fitting to the rational soul, because it is erect toward heaven".

---