those whom they call hermaphrodites, al-
THE WORKS OF ST, AUGUSTIN. [Book XII.
in the loins of his father, as the woman was in his side. Or was it perhaps that the woman also had been already made, and that Scripture had combined in a short and comprehensive statement, that of which it was going to explain afterwards more carefully, how it was done; and that therefore a son could not be mentioned, because no son was yet born? As if the Holy Spirit could not have comprehended this, too, in that brief statement, while about to narrate the birth of the son afterwards in its own place; as it narrated afterwards in its own place, that the woman was taken from the side of the man, ? and yet has not omitted here to name her.
else. For what is meant by the Son of God declared by the resurrection of the dead of
Jesus Christ, except of the same Jesus Christ who was declared to be Son of God with power? And as then in this passage, when we are told, ''the Son of God with power of Jesus Christ," or ''the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness of Jesus Christ,'' or
''the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ,'' whereas it might have been expressed in the ordinary way, In His own power, or according to the spirit of His own holiness, or by the resurrection of His dead, or of their dead: as, I say, we are not compelled to understand another person, but one and the same, that is, the person of the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ; so, when we are told that *'God made man in the image of God," although ft might have been more usual to say, after His own image, yet we are not compelled to understand any other person in the Trinity, but the one and selfsame Trinity itself, who is one God, and after whose image man is made.
CHAP. 7.—HOW MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. j WHETHER THE WOMAN IS NOT ALSO THE IM-
AGE OF GOD. HOW THE SAYING OF THE | APOSTLE, THAT THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF | GOD, BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE
MAN, IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD FIGURATIVELY AND MYSTICALLY.
g. We ought not therefore so to understand that man is made in the image of the supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of God, as that the same image should be understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '' For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man." What then shall we say to this? If the woman fills up the image of the trinity after the measure of her own person, why is the man still called that image after she has been taken out of his side? Orif even one person of a human being out of three can be called the image of God, as each person also is God in the supreme Trinity itself, why is the woman also not the image of God? For she is instructed for this very reason to cover her head, which he is forbidden to do because he is the image of God.3
8.) And since the case stands thus, if we / are to accept the same image of the Trin-
2 te Ti|
ity, as not in one, but in three human beings, father and mother and son, then the man was not made after the image of God before a wife was made for him, and before they procreated a son; because there was not yet a trinity. Will any one say there was already a trinity, because, although not yet in their proper form, yet in their original nature, both the woman was already in the side of the man, and the son in the loins of his father? Why then, when Scripture had said, **God made man after the image of God,'' did it go on to say, '' God created him; male and female created He them: and God blessed them'??? (Or if it is to be so divided,
And God created man,'' so that thereupon is to be added, *' in the image of God created He him,'' and then subjoined in the third place, *' male and female created He them; '"' for some have feared to say, He made him male and female, lest something monstrous, as it were, should be understood, as are those whom they call hermaphrodites, although even so both might be understood not falsely in the singular number, on account of that which is said, '' Two in one flesh.'') Why then, as I began by saying, in regard to the nature of man made after the image of God, does Scripture specify nothing except male and female? Certainly, in order to complete the image of the Trinity, it ought to have added also son, although still placed
10. But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, ''God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.'? For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete [only] in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after
I Gen i, 27, 28.
2 Gen. ii. 24, 22. 3° Cor. xi. 7,6,