Illyricus. See Flacius (Matthias).
Image (prop. D5iJ, ?se7cw; tltcwv ; but also desig- nated by various other Hebrew terms; often rendered "graven image," "molten image," etc.). See Idol. For the interpretation of the colossal statue of Nebu- chadnezzar's dream (Dan. ii, 31), see Daniel, Book of.
Image-breakers. See Iconoclasts.
Image of God. The notion of the " image of God in man" is one of the fundamental conceptions of Christian theology. It takes its root in the Mosaic ac- count of creation, where we find God saying (Gen. i, 26), "Let us make man, *13^b:sa and iizn^^is, in our im- age, after our likeness." ' This first expression is again used in the next verse, where the act of creation is re- corded, and subsequently also, ix, 6, after sin had en- tered the world. There is consequently no further dif- ference between 'cb'Z and D^l'S^ than that the one is the concrete, the other the abstract expression of the same idea. This is also seen in comparing v, 3 and ix. C. The two synonymes are in fact used for the sake of emphasis, q. d. in exact resemblance of us.
" No one doubts that the phrase ' image of God' de- notes in general a likeness of God; but the opinions of theologians have always been different respecting the particular points of resemblance which Moses intended to express by the phrase. Nor is this strange, since Moses does not explain what he means by it, and it is used in very different significations in the Bible, a fact that has not been sufficiently noticed. The common opinion is, that this i)hrase denotes certain excellences which man originally possessed, but which he lost, in part at least, by the fall. The principal texts cited in behalf of this ojiinion are Gen. i, 26 ; compare ii, 15 sq. ; and from the N. Test., Col. iii, 19; compare Eph. iv, 24, where a renewal after the image of (iod is mentioned, which is understood to mean a restoration of this image, implying that man must have lost it; also 2 Cor. xi, 3. Against this common opinion it may be objected that the image of God is described in many passages as ex- isting after the faU, and as still discoverable in men ; as Gen. ix, G ; James iii, 9 ; 1 Cor. xi, 6, 7 , and especiaUy Gen. V, 1-3, from which it appears that Seth, being made in the likeness of Adam, must have had the same im- ago of God, whatever it was, which Adam possessed" (Knapp, Christian Theology, bk. i, art. vi, sec. 53, p. 168).
In the works of tiie fathers we find great diversity of opinion concerning this image of God (Gregor. Nyss. De homin. opif c. iv, v, or. xvi). Some of the early Latin fathers also maintained a bodily likeness to God (Irenteus, Adr.II(sr.v,6). The Aud;eans (q. v.) admitted only the physical resemblance (T'heodoret, Hist. Eccles. iv, 9), while Augustine and the Church of Alexandria rejected it altogether (Clemens, (S^rom.ii, 19). They also agreed in making the divine image, in a moral point of view, to consist in uprightness before God, and in the harmony between the higher and the lower faculties of the soul ; as also physically in the immortality of the hoAj, and the mastership over all other creatures. Others admit a confirmation and strengthening of the image of God in man by the indweUing of the Holy Spirit, which they consider not only as a gift of free grace, but also as nec- essary to the completeness of man (Cjt. Alex. Thes. xxxiv, dial. vi). These different parties make great use of the distinction between the two expressions im- ago and similitudo ; the scholastics maintaining that by the imago (which, though weakened by the fall, was still extant) is to be understood the essence of the in- nate, natural attributes of tlic spirit, especially reason and liberty; and by the simUitudo (which was obliter- ated by the fall) the moral nature of man, which was agreeable to God, or, in other words, the thorough uni- son with the divine will origmating in the di%ine grace (Hugo Vict. De Sacram. 1. i, p. 6, c. ii ; Petr. Lomb. Sent. 1. ii, dist. 16, D.). The creed of Trent makes no posi- tive mention concerning the image of God, but the Ca/e- chismus Rovianus considers it as consisting in the pecul- iar inherent dispositions of the human soul, for after its definitions concerning Adam's body it says, " Quoil au- tem ad animam pertinet, eum (hominem) ad imaginem et similitudinem suam formavit liberumque ci arbitrium tribuit," which, however, does not satisfactorily explain in what relation this liberum arbiti-ium (free will) stands with regard to the imago dei (image of God) in tlie soul. It also leaves undecided the question whether the con- sequent submission of the desires to the dictates of rea- son is also to lie considered as forming part of this im- age of God. From the word addidit we can only infer that the originalisjuslitice admirable donum is something independent, not inherent {Cat. Rom. i, 2, 19). Tlie Ko- mish theologians stiU endeavor to maintain the distinc- tions made by the scholastics between imago and simili- tudo. "The 'original justice' is further considered as a supernatural gift, which man possesses by a special grace, so that it is made to counterbalance the natural division between the higher and the lower forces (the spirit and the fiesh. reason and sensuality), thus direct- ing the forces towards (iod. and introducing the simili- tudo in the imago (Bellarmine, De Grat. Prim. Uominis,