Chapter I: Of what the Image of God, According to Which Man was Created, Consists
CHAPTER I: OF WHAT THE IMAGE OF GOD CONSISTS, AORDING TO WHICH MAN WAS CREATED
What the word “image” means.
§ 14. Flacius notes (Clavis Script., part 1, col. 541): “To Latins ‘image’ almost only means something shadowy and void that merely represents [a substance] in some aspect or other. However, to Hebrews this word also indicates a very real conformity with and very great likeness to a substance itself.” This observation has a place in several statements of Scripture, as when the Word is said to be the image of the eternal Father. Yet, at the same time, it is too broad a conclusion to say that when it says that man was created after the image of God this must refer to a likeness in essence. In Heb. 10:1, “shadow” and “the [true] form” are opposites of each other—the first is a sketch, a shadowy picture, a bare outline, while [the second] is the express picture, the finished likeness, the completed image. In Rev. 13:14–15 and 19:20 the image of the beast is meant to be some sort of external type of the Roman monarchy. Thomas ([ST,] part 1, q. 93, art. 6): “An image is said to be an imitation, because that which is made from the pattern [ratio] of the prototype is of its pattern.” It is also very proper that a substance formed by a workman after the likeness of another exists according to some conforming accidents. Second, it means something shaped, whether or not that be in imitation of another thing. Thus when two people are similar to each other, the one is said to be the image of the other. Finally, “image” is used univocally for everything produced from something else which is produced as alike according to the manner of its production. Thus a son is the image of his father.
What is meant by the statement “Let Us make man after Our own image.”
§ 15. Elohim[“God”] says, “Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness” [Gen. 1:26]. Pererius (In Gen., bk. 4, p. 472) points out that the meaning of this divine utterance is as follows: “ ‘Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness’ can be construed in two ways. It can be understood as a reference to the image which is in God so that the nature of God is set up as a model after whose likeness man was created. In this way the following meaning of this divine sentence emerges: ‘Let Us make man such as We are.’ Or it may be understood as a reference to the created image, which is in man, so that the meaning is: ‘Let Us make man like Us so that he is like the image and effigy of Us and represents Our nature, might, wisdom, etc.’ ” But both explanations end up the same, because goodness, wisdom, and justice are the very essence of God; and so man, who was created in goodness, wisdom, and justice, has been made after the image of God. Likewise, because the image of divine goodness, wisdom, and justice shines in man, therefore man is said and believed correctly to have been made after the image of God.
Whether the meaning of “image” and “likeness” is the same or different.
§ 16. Do the words “image” and “likeness” mean the same thing or something different? Many of the fathers claim that man was made after the image of God with regard to the essential faculties of the soul, such as the mind, will, memory, etc., but that the likeness concerns the qualities of the soul, because understanding is illumined by faith, memory is confirmed by hope, will by love. Bellarmine (De grat. primi hominis) follows them and consequently ascribes a mark of heresy to those who perceive that the image of God was lost and erased in spiritual matters through sin. (See [Bellarmine,] De notis eccles., bk. 4, ch. 9.)
§ 17. It is indeed a great error and heresy to relate the image of God in man to the very essence of the soul and say that it was lost then. In fact, if man had lost the very essence of his soul at the time of his fall, one would have to say that a new soul, subject to sin, was created in man after the fall. However, this could be attributed neither to the devil (because, according to the hypothesis, such a soul would be created), nor could it be attributed to God (because it would be subject to sin).
§ 18. We do not distinguish between image and likeness so as to refer the former to the essence of the soul and the latter to holiness, righteousness, knowledge of God, etc., in man. Instead, we claim that both words express the same thing and that the word “likeness” is to be understood as an explanation [ἐξηγητικῶς]. In this respect Pererius fights for our position, departing from the rest of the Papists on this point. His arguments are as follows (In Gen., bk. 4):
(1) As it says in Gen. 1:26 that man was made after the image and likeness of God, so in Gen. 5:3 we read that Adam begot Seth after his own image and likeness; and there that distinction is not possible. (2) Paul often uses the word “image” for “likeness,” which consists of gracious and supernatural gifts. 1 Cor. 15:49: “As we have borne the image of the man of dust, so will we also bear the image of the man of heaven.” Col. 3:10: “The new man is being renewed in the knowledge of God after the image of its Creator.” (3) Scripture is speaking indistinctly on this point. Sometimes it puts both words “image” and “likeness” in the same case, as Gen. 1:26: “Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness”; and sometimes it uses both words but in different cases, as in Wisdom 2:23: “God created man after the image of His likeness.” Sometimes it omits the word “likeness” and uses only “image,” as in Gen. 9:6: “Man was made after the image of God.”
Those are Pererius’s words.
§ 19. We add these statements from Scripture. When God was about to create man, He said, Gen. 1:26: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” Moses immediately added, v. 27: “And God created man after His own image; after His own image He created him.” There he omits the word “likeness.” From this we conclude that what was expressed first with the two words “image” and “likeness” is now being stated with only the word “image,” seeing that the prior statement was made by way of declaration that this image was going to be like its prototype.
§ 20. You see, because not every image is like its prototype and because the consideration [ratio] of the image of God in man can be thought of in many different ways (as the difference of opinions among the fathers testifies), God Himself showed the way to find the true meaning and by adding the word “likeness” taught that man was first created such that one saw in him an image alike to the Creator in all respects. Pererius says (In Gen., bk. 4, p. 472): “Zelem properly means a shadow or shadowy likeness, that is, fading and transient. Demuth means a similarity.”
§ 21. With “careful observation” Luther says that he found (on Genesis 5, p. 76) that they properly called zelem an image or figure, as when Scripture says, “Destroy the altars of your images” [cf. Num. 33:52]. Here the word means nothing else but figures or statues which are erected. On the other hand, demuth, which means “likeness,” is the perfection of an image. For instance, when we speak about a dead image such as we have on coins, we say, “This is the image of Brutus or of Caesar.” However, this image does not carry a likeness nor does it show all the outlines. So when Moses says that man was also made after the likeness of God, this shows that man not only represents God by having reason or understanding and will but also by having the likeness of God, that is, the sort of will and understanding by which he understands God and wills what God wills.1
§ 22. Hence it turns out that those two words “image” and “likeness,” used in Gen. 1:26, are later included in a single word in Gen. 5:1: “God created man after the likeness of Elohim.” This likeness, after which Adam was created, is distinguished later in v. 3 from that image and likeness which he propagated into his children by begetting them. “Adam begot Seth after his own image and likeness,” not after the image of God but after that image which was in him at that time, an image subject to sin, the wrath of God, the curse of the Law, and temporal and eternal death.
§ 23. We compare also these two passages of Scripture: Eph. 4:24: “Put on the new man, which was created according to God in true righteousness and holiness.” Col. 3:10: “You have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him.” In these statements there are equivalent terms: “after the image of God” and “according to God.” These expressions set forth the description of the new man who is called “new” not because of a change in his essence but because of his new qualities: the knowledge of God and the righteousness and holiness of truth, or true righteousness and holiness. In view of this, the image of God consists in that man was created according to God and is being renewed after the image of God. Moreover, he is being renewed in regard to the knowledge of God and righteousness and holiness. In these respects he has been created according to God and after the image of God. Therefore the primeval image of God in man consists in those things.
The opinion of the rabbinic scholars as to what the image of God in man properly was.
§ 24. From this proof we can confidently learn the true and proper meaning of the image of God in man. Here there is a wide variety of opinions among the ancient teachers, to say nothing of the rabbinic scholars, the Origenists, and Anthropomorphites. The rabbis seek the image of God in man in these comparisons: “Just as God fills the whole world, so the soul fills the whole body. Just as one God is in charge of all the world, so one soul is in charge of the entire body. Just as God is not befouled by the stains of the world in which He is, so the soul is not dirtied by any spot of the body. Just as God sees all things and is seen by no one, so the soul sees and is not seen. Just as God never sleeps but is always awake, so it is also with our soul.” But all these statements are clearly true of animals’ lives too. Therefore the best claim of all the rabbis is that of the Egyptian, Rabbi Moses: “The image of God is the form which perfects the substance of the soul.”
The opinion of the Origenists.
§ 25. In Epiphanius’s letter to Bishop John of Jerusalem, these opinions are attributed to the Origenists: “Some have said that the body which the Son of God was to assume from the virgin was the actual image of God after which man was created. Others have said that it was His senses; some, His power; others, His Baptism; others, His dominion over all creatures.”
The opinion of the Anthropomorphites.
Regarding the Anthropomorphites, it is widely known that they believed that the image of God is expressed by the contours of the human body. On the basis of John 4:24 and Luke 24:39, and by the invisible and spiritual nature of God, who is not subject to suffering [παθήμασιν] or alteration [ἀλλοιώσει], they are refuted by Augustine (De haeres., ch. 75; De Trinit., bk. 12, ch. 6; De Gen. ad lit., bk. 7, ch. 12), and by Socrates (Hist. eccles., bk. 6, ch. 7) and others. Epiphanius ([Adv. haeres.,] bk. 3, vol. 1, heresy 70) attributes this heresy to the Audians.
The opinions of the holy fathers: Tertullian.
§ 26. The fathers have various and differing opinions in this matter. Tertullian says (Contra Marc., bk. 2): “The image of God is that which has the same impulses and thoughts as God has.”
Basil.
Basil says (Hexaem., homily 10, vol. 1, p. 19): “The image is that very nature of the mind and will which could come only from God. However, the likeness is that which consists of virtue and uprightness, and which we must acquire purposely.”
[Gregory of Nyssa.]
Gregory of Nyssa thinks (Homily de creat. hom.): “Man was created after the image of God because just as God surpasses all things, so also man surpasses all living things in his dignity and rules them with his power and dominion.” The same (Hexaem.): “Man was created after the image of God because he was made capable of every good, for the fullness of goodness is divinity.”
Ambrose.
Ambrose (Hexaem., bk. 6, ch. 7): “The image of God is strength, not weakness. The image of God is wisdom, and the image of God is righteousness,” etc. “The soul is filled with wisdom, filled with piety and righteousness, because every virtue comes from God. The soul, which has within itself the glowing grace of virtues and the splendor of piety, is painted by God. The soul in which glows the effigy of divine workmanship is well painted. The well-painted soul has the splendor of the Father’s glory and the image of His substance. According to this shining image, the image before sin, the soul is a precious picture.” Chapter 8: “It is not our flesh but our soul which can be after the image of God. It is free and wanders here and there with its diffuse thoughts and ideas, and looks at all things as it considers them.”
Augustine.
Augustine writes (De quant. anim., ch. 2): “The immortal God created the soul immortal after the likeness of Himself.” Lib. imperf. de Gen. ad lit., ch. 16:
Man is made according to the excellence of God’s reason and after His image and likeness, etc. Every image is similar to that of which it is an image, and yet not everything which is similar to something is also its image. As in a mirror or a picture, they are also similar because they are images. Yet if the one were not born of the other, neither could be called the image of the other. For an image is that which is modeled from something. Why, then, after it had been said “after His image” was “and likeness” [Gen. 1:26] also added, as if there could be an unlike image? Would it not be sufficient to say “after His image”? Or is “like” one thing and “likeness” another, the way “chaste” is one thing and “chastity” another? An image of us is not quite properly said to be our likeness, though it is properly said to be like unto us, so that there exists in God “likeness” by which all similar things are alike, etc. Therefore the meaning perhaps is that [“and likeness”] was added to “after His image” to show that what was called “image” is not so similar to God as if sharing some likeness, but that this is “likeness” itself, which all things that are said to be alike share, etc.
And later: “The likeness of God after which man was created can be taken as the very Word of God, that is, as the only-begotten Son.” De Trinit., bk. 10, ch. 12: “The human mind is an inadequate image of the very great and lofty” (divine) “essence, but yet it is its image.” De Trinit., bk. 11, ch. 10: “We also strive to search out in the exterior man some sort of trace of the Trinity, not because he is the image of God in the same way” (as is the inner man). “In fact, the statement of the apostle is clear, that the inner man is being renewed in the image of God, according to the image of his Creator [cf. Col. 3:10].” De Trinit., bk. 12, ch. 7:
Does not the blessed apostle say, “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man who is created according to God” [Eph. 4:23–24]? And does he not say elsewhere more clearly: “Put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man who is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of Him who created him” [Col 3:9–10]? If we are renewed, then, in the spirit of our mind, and if this is the new man who is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of Him who created him, there is no doubt that man was made after the image of Him who created him, not according to the body nor according to any part of the mind [animus], but according to the rational mind [mens] where a knowledge of God can exist. Therefore, according to this renewal, we also become the children of God through Baptism into Christ. As we put on the new man, we are surely putting on Christ by faith.
De Trinit., bk. 14, ch. 4: “If the soul is made after the image of God in that it can use reason and intellect to understand and to contemplate God, then surely from the beginning when that nature so great and miraculous began to exist—whether this image has been so worn away that it is almost nothing, or whether it is obscure and deformed, or whether it is clear and beautiful—it certainly always is.” Augustine again (De spiritu et anima, ch. 10): “That spirit is said to have been made after the image and likeness of God in which there is a knowledge of the truth and a love of virtue. In fact, the image is in knowledge and the likeness is in love—the image, because it is rational; the likeness, because it is spiritual.” Qu. super Deut., q. 4: “To some it has seemed that ‘likeness’ is something more than ‘image,’ because it was reserved for man who was to be reformed later through the grace of Christ.” QQ. V. ac N. T., q. 21: “ ‘Man was made after the image of God’ means that one made one, so that just as all things come from one God, so the entire human race comes from one man. ‘Likeness’ means that as the Son comes from the Father, so also the woman comes from man, that the authority of the one originator might be preserved.”
Chrysostom.
Chrysostom (commentary on Genesis) places the divine image in man’s superiority and dominion over other creatures.
Epiphanius.
Epiphanius writes ([Adv. haeres.,] heresy 70): “Just as it is certain that the image of God is in man, so in what2 part or what quality of man that image is located is unsearchable and incomprehensible, known to God alone.” According to this proposition, he believed that it denoted here the perfect likeness of God.
Theodoret.
Theodoret (commentary on Genesis, q. 200), after he mentions various ways of explaining the image of God, says that none of them was fully satisfying to him. He thought: “When man is said to have been created after the image of God, this applies only to the man, the male; it does not pertain to angels nor to the woman.”
John of Damascus.
John of Damascus (Orth. fid., bk. 2, ch. 12): “ ‘Man was created after the image of God’ means that he is intellectual and has the power of free choice of himself.”
Bernard.
Bernard says (Song of Songs, sermon 80): “The Word is the image; the soul is after the image. The Word is truth. He is wisdom; He is righteousness. He is this image. The image of what? Of righteousness, wisdom, and truth. For this image is righteousness of righteousness, wisdom of wisdom, truth of truth, light of light, and God of God. The soul is none of these, because it is not the image. It is only receptive of these things, and it desires them, and from this, perhaps, comes ‘after [ad] the image.’ Creation is lofty in its receptivity of majesty, noteworthy in its hunger for uprightness,” etc. Because Bernard (in his treatise De libr. arbitr.) distinguished three freedoms in man—first, of the will; second, of counsel; and third, of good-pleasure—he concludes that the image of God consists of these three, for he writes:
I think that the actual image and likeness of the Creator after which we have been created are contained in these three freedoms, and that the image is sealed in the freedom of choice and that a two-part likeness is sealed in the other two [freedoms]. Hence it perhaps is the case that the free choice alone suffers no failing or diminution of itself at all, because especially upon it there appears to have been impressed an eternal and unchangeable image of the substance3 of divinity. You see, though it has a beginning, it knows no end nor does it increase in righteousness and glory nor suffer loss from sin and wretchedness. Surely, in the case of those other two freedoms, because they not only can be diminished partly but also can be lost completely, rather an accidental likeness of wisdom and power is understood to have been added to the divine image.
Bernard again (Medit. de hum. cond. cognit., ch. 1): “We have been made after the image of God, that is, after an understanding and knowledge of the Son, from whom we perceive and know the Father and have access to Him. Such great kinship is between us and the Son of God because He is the very image of God, and we have been created after His image.”
Lombard.
Lombard writes (Sent. 2, dist. 16, letter B): “ ‘Image’ and ‘likeness’ in this passage are understood either as uncreated—that is, the essence of the Trinity after which man has been created—or as created, in which man was made, and the actual concrete for man. In his commentary on Genesis, Bede seems to have understood ‘image’ as uncreated,” etc. Letter C: “There have been some who made the distinction that they took ‘image’ in this passage to mean the Son, but they say that man was not made as His image but after His image. However, these are refuted by the apostle when he says, ‘The man is the image of God’ [1 Cor. 11:7],” etc. “Moreover, there have also been others who treated this with more insight. They took ‘image’ to mean the Son and ‘likeness’ to mean the Holy Spirit, who is the likeness of the Father and the Son.” Letter D: “Although this distinction may not appear to be totally worthy of rejection, nevertheless it is more fitting to place the image and likeness of God in man himself. Man was created after the image of God according to memory, intelligence, and love; after His likeness according to the innocence and righteousness which exist naturally in the rational mind. Either the image is considered in the knowledge of the truth and the likeness in the love of virtue, or the image is in everything else while the likeness is in his essence because it is immortal and indivisible.” Those are Lombard’s words, from Hugh.
The conclusion deduced from these varieties of opinions.
§ 27. From these diverse opinions, it is clear that Bellarmine’s declaration is too bold (De grat. prim. homin., ch. 2, col. 6): “We are forced by the authority of the fathers to admit that ‘image’ is related to our nature, while ‘likeness’ is related to our virtues.” Yet: (1) Lombard admits and the experience itself shows that the fathers do not at all agree with one another nor stand with one another on this subject. Whom, then, shall we follow? (2) It is on the basis of Scripture that discussion is to be held on the nature of the divine image; we must follow it as our leader. Augustine (Letter 19): “We have learned to confer the honor of unhesitating assent on the canonical books alone. Other books we read in such a way that, regardless of how distinguished they may be in sanctity and doctrine, we do not think they are true simply because they think so, but because either through the canonical authors or through sound reasoning they were able to convince us that [their position] is not inconsistent with the truth.” (3) How is it that some of the fathers approve of our opinion, since they look for the image not in the essence but in the powers of the soul? (4) We are not wrong to emphasize that the power of the truth has forced the Jesuit Pererius to claim with us that the word “likeness” was used as explanatory and descriptive.
The opinions of recent authors regarding the proper nature of the image of God in man.
§ 28. We could go into excessive detail in listing the various opinions of more recent authors; we shall list only some. Pererius (In Gen., bk. 4, p. 488):
The principal nature of the image consists in this: that man according to his nature may attain the highest level of nature in which God exists, for he has within himself a nature capable of reason and intelligence. Moreover, six properties achieve this level of nature: (1) Our mind is noncorporeal and undivided. (2) It is immortal. (3) It is endowed with understanding, will, and memory. (4) It is powerful in free choice. (5) It has the capacity for wisdom, virtue, divine grace, and eternal blessedness. (6) It has dominion over living things. The less principal nature [of the image] is manifold. Just as all things are in God eminently and causally, so also somehow all things are in man through participation and understanding. Just as God can actually do all things, so also in some way man can do all things, namely, either through his skill in imitating nature or by thinking with his imagination. Just as God is the end of all things, so also man in some way is the end of all physical things. Just as the mind is in charge of the body, so God is in charge of the entire world.
Zacharias Ursinus (Catechesis, part 1, p. 39): “The image of God includes: (1) The actual incorporeal and immortal substance of the soul along with its powers to understand and to will. (2) All natural knowledge of God and of His will and works, that is, perfect wisdom in the mind. (3) The just and holy activities and impulses of the willing part, that is, perfect righteousness and holiness in the will, heart, and all external actions. (4) Happiness, blessedness, and glory along with the greatest joy in God, and an abundance of all honors without their related misery and corruption. (5) The dominion of man over all creatures.”
Guilielmus Bucanus (Loci theol., locus 9, p. 84): “The image of God is considered in man: (1) With regard to man’s substance and especially that of his soul. (2) With regard to his gifts or qualities, which nevertheless differ from his essence. (3) With respect to his attributes or worth, the superiority of his dominion and preeminence over the rest of creation.” For this reason, he also distinguishes original righteousness from the image of God in man as part from the whole.
Modern Photinians argue (Catech. Racov., p. 23): “The image of God is to be defined only in the dominion which man has over the rest of creation.”
Conclusion and judgment.
§ 29. We willingly concede that one can neatly think up various ways in which man has some likeness with God and that all of these can be tolerated. Nor is there any doubt that Christ is the substantial image of God as far as His divine nature is concerned, and in Him, as He is man, there shone and does shine perfectly the image of God, that is, perfect righteousness and holiness, wholly acceptable to God. But that in the creation of man God considered this image of Christ who was to become incarnate in time—this is concluded without the foundation of Scripture.
The position of Scripture.
§ 30. Here we must especially investigate what Holy Scripture teaches about the image of God in man and how the Holy Spirit defines His own idea of this image. As a basis for this point, we take up those two statements of the apostle cited earlier, Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:23. From these we shall construct two theorems.
§ 31. Let this be first: The apostle teaches that in the regenerate a new man is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him [Col. 3:10]. Therefore the image of God is not in men unless they are being renewed by the Holy Spirit, for what one must acquire through renewal he does not have through his old flesh. What one obtains through the gift of regeneration (which renewal presupposes) he does not have through carnal birth. If indeed that alone is spirit which is born of the Spirit, then that which is born of the flesh is merely flesh (John 3:6). Tertullian (Apol., ch. 7): “Christians are made, not born.” Augustine (De peccat. merit. et remis., ch. 9): “It is not birth but rebirth which makes Christians.”
§ 32. The consequence of this theorem is that the image of God, if we wish to imitate the wording of Scripture, is not the actual substance of the rational soul, seeing that this, too, exists in the unregenerate. Moreover, we must be renewed after the image of God, because the image of God is restored in the soul when the soul is renewed “in knowledge” [Col. 3:10]. Surely, then, the substance of the rational soul must be one thing and the image of God in it must be something else.
Ephesians 4.
§ 33. Let this be the second theorem: The image of God according to which the reborn are renewed through the Holy Spirit occurs “by renewal in knowledge” [Col. 3:10; cf. Eph. 4:23]. Therefore the image of God must not be defined with those things which are essential to the soul of even one who is not reborn. In fact, that knowledge which develops in the reborn as a result of the illumination of the Holy Spirit is not a concreated property of the human soul after the fall but is a light from another source, namely, one kindled through the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the light of the Word. Eph. 5:8: “Once you were” (by nature) “darkness, but now, light in the Lord” (through the benefit of regeneration and renewal). Eph. 1:17–18: “Through the Spirit of wisdom and revelation God gives enlightened eyes of the heart.” John 8:12: “Christ is the light of the world.” John 1:9: “The true light which illumines everyone who comes into the world.” John 9:39: “He came into this world that those who do not see might see.”
§ 34. The consequence of this theorem is that the image of God, if we wish to imitate the expression of Scripture, must neither be sought nor established in the soul according as it is spiritual, nonphysical, immortal, endowed with the ability to understand and will, free as concerns choice in external and civil matters, according as it commands the body, surpasses living things in dignity, ponders the world in a moment, etc. For all these things describe the soul of the unregenerate too.
2 Corinthians 3.
§ 35. To these two statements of Scripture must be added also a third from 2 Cor. 3:18: “We all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory as from the Spirit of the Lord.” Note that the restoration of the divine image takes place in us according to a transformation [μεταμόρϕωσιν], in such a way that we put aside our old form and put on the new. Therefore one should not look for the nature of the divine image in the very essence of the soul. Likewise, this transformation takes place in us by the Spirit of the Lord. Therefore one must not place the image of God in any characteristic which can be observed in the soul of one who is unregenerate.
§ 36. Therefore we draw a conclusion in this way: The image of God in man at first was the righteousness and holiness of truth [Eph. 4:24], that is, true righteousness and holiness, according to the Hebrew idiom. After the fall, men must be renewed in accordance with this. Therefore, if we wish to follow the wording of Scripture, we must not say that the soul is the image of God with regard to its substance or with regard to anything which even after the fall is in it by nature or has a place in the unregenerate. The apostle says, Eph. 4:23[–24]: “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man who has been created according to God in the righteousness and holiness of truth.” The new man is said to have been created—both with respect to the first origin of Adam, who was created after the image of God, that is, in true righteousness and holiness (according to the apostle’s interpretation); and with respect to the second creation, so to speak, of a new man through the Holy Spirit and the ministry of the Word and Sacraments. You see, regeneration is like a new and second creation with which renewal is connected. Through it the lost image of God is restored in the reborn, albeit incompletely in this life, but completely in the next.
What does true righteousness and holiness include?
§ 37. That true righteousness and holiness in which the apostle establishes the image of God includes the true knowledge of God and the light of wisdom in the mind, full conformity with the Law of God in the will, and uprightness of all the powers of the soul. Therefore man was created in the greatest of innocence, in the greatest purity of soul and body, so that the image of God might shine in him as in a living mirror. Thus the image of divine wisdom used to shine in man’s intellect; the image of God’s goodness, patience, gentleness, and tolerance used to shine in man’s soul; the image of divine charity and mercy used to shine in the affections of the human heart; the image of divine righteousness, holiness, and purity used to beam in man’s will; the image of His friendliness, kindness, and truth, in man’s words and actions; the image of divine power, in the dominion granted man over all living creatures.
The consequence of that uprightness.
§ 38. Hence it happened that man, being happy, blessed, and at peace, rejoiced in God, his Creator. No fear, no terror, no sadness had any place in him. In short, through this image man’s reason was subject to God, his will was subject to reason, his inclination and all the rest of his powers were subject to his will, so that in man there was the most beautiful harmony of all his powers and abilities.
§ 39. God had manifested His power, wisdom, and goodness in His creation such that the world truly was the school and academy of the knowledge of God [διδασκαλεῖον καὶ τῆς θεογνωσίας παιδευτήριον]. But so that man would not be forced to seek his knowledge of God outside himself and far away, God placed His image within man himself so that he might look upon it and know what sort of God He is: just, holy, merciful, pure, etc. Later, because no living creature was found like Adam with whom he could have company, friendship, and familiarity, God created Eve as a helper alike to Adam [cf. Gen. 2:18–23]. In the same way, because among all the created physical things there was nothing alike to God with which God might be able to initiate a fellowship and familiarity, He created man alike to Himself to be someone whom God could love and make a partaker of His blessedness, and by whom in turn He would be acknowledged, praised, and loved. That is why we read in Prov. 8:31: “It is My pleasure to be with the sons of men.”
The matter and the form of the divine image.
§ 40. There are some who, for the sake of a clearer explanation, teach that there are two parts of the divine image in man, namely, the matter and the form [materiale et formale]. “The matter” they call that inborn and concreated wholeness of all powers, the good arrangement of all abilities, and the uprightness of the entire human nature in perfect harmony with the Law of God. With regard to this, they set up four levels of subjects: (1) In his mind there was the brilliant light of divine wisdom, namely, clear knowledge of the essence and will of God, free from all darkness and doubt. (2) In the will there was a free turning to God, a desire for the highest good, and full conformity with the will of God, who was like the original pattern, expressed in the Law. (3) In the heart there was the sweetest harmony of all his inclinations with the Law, especially a burning love for God and perfect love for his neighbor. (4) In the rest of the powers of his soul and in all the members of his body there was true uprightness and the greatest conformity between the realm of reason and the divine Law.
They claim that the form, or the relation,4 of the divine image was the acceptance of the person who is pleasing to God, the gracious indwelling of God, and the generous sharing of the greatest goods.
§ 41. Johann Arndt, our friend, whom we regard as a father, shows this with a com
parison (De vero Christian., bk. 1, ch. 2):
Absalom was the king’s son. He was very handsome, and there was no spot or blemish on him from the top of his head to the soles of his feet [2 Sam. 14:25]. He was also very dear to his father, as the tears of David demonstrate, but he refused to be content with that honor but instead sought the royal crown of his father. In the same way, Adam was God’s son through creation and was the handsomest of physical creatures. There was no blemish of body or soul on him, no spot, no unsightliness. He was the beloved child of God, the temple and dwelling place of God. Yet he refused to be content with that honor and was obedient to the seduction of Satan. He took those words which were the cause of death: “You will be like gods” [Gen. 3:5], into the field of his heart like serpent’s seed and stripped himself of his concreated uprightness and glory.
Pererius on the image of God.
§ 42. Pererius discusses this image of God in man in no ignorant fashion (In Gen., bk. 4, p. 488ff.):
Man bears the image of God as a child bears the image of his father to whom he owes his love and devotion; as a servant bears the image of his master whom he ought to fear and hold in reverence; as a soldier bears the image of his general and commander to whom he ought to be faithful and obedient; as a minister and steward of goods bears the image of the owner and lord to whom he must some day give an account.
Again:
If someone excels in any way, such as in riches, power, nobility, high office, and wisdom, he would not want anyone else to be his equal or like him in this area. Yet how great is the goodness of God and so lacking in envy that in whatever areas He excels, He made man a partaker of it.
Again:
When a king founds a city, he places in the middle of a well-known place a statue of himself made of a precious and expensive material, so that it is evident to all who see it who the founder of this city is. In the same way, after God created the world, He placed His likeness in the middle of it, that is, in man, who is a midpoint among the things which God created, so that, from looking upon him and contemplating him, it may be clear to all what sort of Creator this world has.
§ 43. After the fall, it is the inborn power and quality of the human mind to be ignorant of the essence and will of God, as it is the inborn impetus of the will to flee from God, as it is the inborn property of the human heart with all its affection to strive after the things which displease God. In the same way also, before the fall it was natural for man to know and fear God as his Creator and to cling firmly to Him and with all his might and without any wrestling or fighting of either a superior or an inferior part to move toward the things which pleased God. By way of a rough comparison, we compare man before the fall with the unicorn, whose inborn disposition, they say, is to be complaisant toward man and to follow him. We compare man after the fall with the wolf, whose inborn disposition is to flee from man and to hate him. In the same way it was the inborn disposition of man before the fall to love God and to follow Him, and it was his inborn disposition after the fall to flee from Him and to hate Him.
A summary of the preceding points.
§ 44. So that is the description of the image of God in the first man as gathered from Scripture, namely, that it was true righteousness and holiness. These words (as we have said) denote the highest uprightness, integrity, and conformity of every power of soul and body with the divine Law; the greatest perfection, innocence, and spotlessness of the whole person, which the nakedness of man and his living in Paradise also prove. The first humans were naked, for what would make them ashamed? For they felt no law in their members which was at work against the law of their mind [cf. Rom. 7:23]. There was no impulse in their body which would occasion shame. Augustine (De Gen. ad lit., bk. 11, ch. 1): “They did not think there was anything to conceal, because they did not feel anything which they had to restrain.”
§ 45. Accordingly, the very nature of Adam was totally whole and upright, for “God made man upright” (Eccl. 7:[29]). There was no weariness in it, no obliquity, no crookedness, no struggle between superior and inferior powers, no inclination toward vice. What the Holy Spirit declared universally in reference to the handiwork of the entire universe—“God saw all that He made, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31)—should be asserted especially about the nature of the first man and all the things which naturally were inherent in him.
The antithesis of Bellarmine.
§ 46. Compare this description of the divine image with what Bellarmine argues (De gratia primi hominis, chs. 5, 6, and 7), that the first man created by God in his purely natural state was so constituted in flesh and spirit that there resulted in man a conflict born from contrary propensities, and because of this it was difficult for him to act since one propensity impeded another. Hence he attributes to the first created human nature an illness and weakness stemming from the condition of his nature, and he says that there is an obedience of the inferior part to the superior and of the superior to God. This obedience comes not from the uprightness and wholeness of his nature but from a supernatural gift. He argues that the corruption of man’s nature comes from neither the absence of any natural gift nor the addition of any new quality, but only from the loss of the supernatural gift because of sin. He asserts that death and the other human frailties which we incur through sin are [not] from the nature of itself but from fault, as from a cause that removes a gift [causa removente perhibens].5 He claims that the concupiscence of the human flesh in its purely natural state was without doubt a natural condition, not as something good in his nature but as a defect of his nature, like an illness resulting from the condition of its material. Furthermore, the headlong inclination to sin arose from the condition of matter as considered in its purely natural state in man, etc.
§ 47. This is the source of these comparisons of theirs, for they compare “original righteousness to clothing which is put on one’s body. When man is divested of it, he still remains whole but nevertheless is made naked.” Likewise: “When the garland that is put on a maiden’s head is lost, nonetheless she remains a maiden.” Bellarmine (De grat. primi hominis, ch. 5, col. 23) offers “the example of Samson, who it says became weak after he lost that tremendous strength which he had received from God, after his hair was cut. This was not because he was weaker than those men in general but because he was weaker than he had been before.” He writes (ch. 6, col. 22): “The gift of righteousness not only covered and equipped him but also cured and healed that weariness which otherwise would have developed from the condition of matter.” Here he is comparing original righteousness to a strong antidote which represses and drives out a disease inherent to his inner parts, lest it erupt actively and kill him. This is the source of that notorious statement of the Scholastics: “The natural qualities in man remained intact after the fall.” This is the source of those flowerets: “The concupiscence which remains in the reborn is not sin”; “The Law can be fulfilled”; “Man has a free will even in spiritual matters”; “Good works are truly and properly meritorious of eternal life”; etc.
What sort of adornment original righteousness was.
§ 48. Surely original righteousness was the gift of God, but not the kind which is like an external trapping that covers one’s nature which is weakening because of a conflict between superior and inferior parts, as fancy clothing covers the body of a leper. Rather, it was the intrinsic adornment of the entire nature in Adam and the concreated power and ability of the human soul so that Adam’s mind was filled naturally with the knowledge of God, his will was in complete agreement with the divine Law imprinted upon his nature, and the impulses of all his inclinations were ordered, hallowed, and pure. It says that man was created after the image of God; therefore his nature was elevated to this lofty position in and through that very [act of] creation.
§ 49. Therefore when they say that concupiscence stems from the condition of matter, one must ask what concupiscence and what desire [appetitus] they intend this to mean. There is, after all, a good desire, but also an evil one. The first is an ordered impulse of nature and is pleasing to God, but the latter does not originate from the condition of matter (which was created good by God); that is, the body and soul of man in their purely natural state were not created so that by nature they burned with the flames of this concupiscence.
Whether there was evil concupiscence in the first man.
§ 50. Bellarmine’s argument, then, is odious: that in the first man, considered in his purely natural state, there was an evil concupiscence in primary actuality6 worthy of the hatred of God, but that it was repressed as if by the bridle of original righteousness, lest it erupt into secondary actuality.7 You see, one must distinguish between natural desires and the disordering [ἀταξία] of desires. The object of sensory desire [sensitivi appetitus] is not contrary to the object of rational desire [rationalis appetitus].8 Therefore neither is the impulse of sensory desire as such contrary to rational desire, but becomes contrary only when it transgresses its boundaries.
There are two kinds of desires.
§ 51. In Christ there was a desire for food (Matt. 4:2), for drink (John 4:7), and for sleep (Matt. 8:24). Just as these desires were in Christ without any sin, so also the desire of the rest of the organs would have been well ordered in people before the fall. Thus Adam had a love for his wife before the fall (Gen. 2:23). On the other hand, if we are discussing the disordered impulses of sensory desire (as when someone hungers for more food and drink than is in harmony with nature, or when he burns with the flames of illicit lust, or when an impious greed for gold or an insatiable love of money seizes him, etc.), then we respond that these and similar desires are evil and deserve the hatred of God. But we deny that they spring from the condition of matter. That is, we assert that they originate not from the very nature of man as God created it but as it has been corrupted by sin.
Whether evil concupiscence originates from the condition of matter.
§ 52. What Bellarmine argues is monstrous, namely, that evil concupiscence worthy of the hatred of God originates from the condition of matter; for if this concupiscence springs from the condition of matter—that is, from the nature of man as it is considered in its purely natural state—then surely it will not be evil because the nature of man was created by God, who “saw all that He had made, and, behold, it was very good” [Gen. 1:31]. Wisdom 11:[24]: “God hates none of the things He made.”
§ 53. (I) There is no refuge in saying: “Such concupiscence originates from the condition of matter and yet is not of God but is worthy of the hatred of God.” For that which springs from nature of itself must be attributed to God, the author of nature. But if man was created in his purely natural state such that evil concupiscence sprang from the condition of matter, then the finest work of the finest Creator is reprehensible and deformed.
§ 54. (II) Nor is there refuge in saying: “Such rebellion of the flesh against the spirit, or that evil concupiscence, followed not from the intent of the Creator of nature but arose outside His intent from the condition of matter.” This robs God of His omniscience and omnipotence, as if God were not capable of effecting the finest order, harmony, and uprightness between the matter and the form, the body and the soul of man. If anyone knows of the infinite power and wisdom of God, how could he claim that anything happens and exists in the actual work of God apart from His intent? Certainly it is not characteristic of a wise man to say, “I had not thought of that.”9 Therefore it will not be characteristic of a wise man to attribute this to Wisdom itself.
§ 55. (III) Nor does the analogy that Bellarmine likes succeed. He says: “The blacksmith who fashions a sword from metal is not the cause of any rust the sword developed later from the condition of matter. In the same way, that rebellion of the flesh against the spirit arose apart from His intent.” But here is the big difference: the blacksmith finds the material of his art; he does not create it. If he were able, he would surely make a sword that would not rust. God does not find the material for His handiwork; He creates it. Nothing can emerge from His work apart from His intent.
§ 56. (IV) Nor is there refuge in saying, “The work of God is holy and pure because a bridle was superadded by which their inclinations should have been restrained.” Certainly that corrupt rebellion remains wicked in itself and remains sin, as the apostle so often expressly calls it, even though it be curbed by accident [ex accidente]. A horse is still wild and disobedient even though it be controlled by a bridle and prevented by bars from breaking out onto the open field.
1 Cf. Lectures on Genesis (1535–45/1544–54), AE 1:337 (WA 42:248).
2 Read qua in parte with Cotta instead of quam in parte.
3 Read substantiae with Cotta instead of substantia.
4 That is, the relation of the image to its prototype, God.
5 Perhaps read causa removente prohibens, “a cause that removes a hindrance.” According to this view, sin removes what prohibits death and human frailties: the supernatural gift of God. See below, §§ 63, 90; and above, On Election and Reprobation (Commonplace X), § 188 (3).
6 actu primo. This term can be taken in two ways. Sometimes it means “potentiality,” which is contrasted with “actuality.” For example: “The boy is a grammarian in primary actuality,” because as time passes he can become a grammarian, though he is not actually one now. But sometimes it means an inherent quality or habitus that one possesses but that does not exert itself. “Primary actuality” in this sense is contrasted with “secondary actuality” or “operation.” For example: “Priscian, even in his sleep, is a grammarian in primary actuality, though he is not exerting this grammatical knowledge in secondary actuality.” In both cases, primary actuality refers to a power or potential that is not currently actualized.
7 in actum secundum. The actual operation of a thing. For example: “Priscian, when exercising his grammatical knowledge, is a grammarian in secondary actuality.”
8 rationali appetitui. “Rational” or “intellective desire” is the desire by which one either wishes for something good or avoids something bad. It is always joined with freedom.
9 Cicero, De officiis 1.81 (LCL 30 [1928], p. 82).