He was going to create. If, from an unwillingness to admit the idea of the Trinity in these Mosaic documents, we confine the whole meaning of this deliberation to this last consideration, (the dignity of man,) it is, however, not the less true, that still there remains no satisfactory explanation of the use of the plural in the passage, much less in the expression, one of us," in the 22d verse.

2. However this may be, it is, at all events, evident that it was in the image of God, and after His likeness, that man was created. What is the meaning and extent of this declaration? Let us first briefly determine the signification of the words. We can derive nothing for the illustration of our subject from the subtle distinctions which the Jews have endeavoured to establish between the words make, in ver. 26, and create, in ver. 27, pretending that the one refers to the soul, and the other to the body, &c. We pass then to the words image and likeness, which alone require our attention. image, originally signifies a shadow; then the representation of an object, drawn after its shadow, as a profile taken from the shadow of a person; and, lastly, in the ordinary use of the word, every image or resemblance copied from a type, whether it be in colours, wood, stone, or metal. 1 Sam. vi. 5, 11. This word is frequently used in Scripture for the images of false gods. 2 Kings xi. 18; Ezek.

vii. 20; xvi. 17; xxiii. 14, &c.

-resem) דְמוּת

blance,) signifies also an image, a figure, Is. xl. 18; 2 Chron iv. 3; the expression frequently occurs in Ezekiel, to designate the indeterminate figures of his mysterious visions. In the verse under consideration, the two words, figure and resemblance, are probably synonimous. After St. Augustine,

who endeavoured to found on these words the opinion of a trinity in the human soul, the Roman Catholics, and, among others, Bellarmine, have made a distinction between these two words; viz. that image, represented the faculties with which Adam was endowed in virtue of his nature, and

(resemblance,) the gratuitous gifts which God imparted to him over and above.* In the language of the schools, the image of God represented the essence of the soul, and the likeness its accidents. The Mosaic account, however, furnishes no foundation for any such distinction. On the contrary, the sacred historian, in repeating the same idea in the 27th verse, omits the word resemblance, and mentions only the image, whilst, in chap. v. ver. 1, he mentions the resemblance and omits the image, which proves that he employs the words indiscriminately for one another. Some have endeavoured to establish a distinction equally subtle between

*De Trinit. b. 10 and 14. Decio Dei i. 11.

the two particles, and, (in and after;) but this also is without proof; by comparing Exod xxv. 40, and Isa. xliv, 13, any one may be convinced that they are capable of being taken synonimously. It appears, then, that in the meaning of the terms there is no difficulty.

But as the idea of God's image in man is vague, and not clearly defined by Moses, interpreters have, in consequence, at all times, entertained very different opinions on the subject. The difficulty has also been increased by the fact, that the Bible, which is the only certain guide to arrive at the truth, evidently gives many different significations to the expression image of God. Meanwhile this subject, as most subjects of a religious nature which are encumbered with difficulties, would be much simplified if every interpreter did not persuade himself, as too often happens, that his own particular opinion contained the whole truth. 1st. Some, resting upon the words which immediately follow those under our consideration, have supposed that the whole of the image of God in man consisted in the dominion which the Creator gave him over the inferior animals, and, in general, over the world. Thus think the Socinians, many Arminians, and even St. Chrysostom. This idea is, in part, correct, but not absolutely so, as we shall see hereafter. 2dly. Others have explained the image of God as consist

ing only in the superiority and excellence of man's body, and in the admirable mechanism of its conformation. We deny not this opinion altogether; but to see in it the whole truth, is too gross an anthropomorphism to be admitted. God is a Spirit: can then His image consist entirely in the body of man? 3dly. Others, again, have imagined that the image of God in man consisted exclusively in the faculties of the understanding, (which give him so vast a superiority over the animals,) in his reason, and the liberty which he possessed to choose between good and evil. Thus Tertullian, (Adv. Marc. 11. 5, 6.) Thus also, at an earlier period, Philo of Alexandria, who mixed up with his biblical opinions the ideas of the Platonic philosophy. Here, again, we admit that there is some truth, and even much truth, in this opinion; but surely it is not the whole truth. Doubtless God is a Spirit, and His image must be spiritual. But is not God also essentially a moral being? Is it not His moral perfections that, even now, speak most powerfully to our hearts, and that He must have taken the greatest pleasure in seeing reflected in the creature of His love? Such is the consideration which, 4thly, has led a great majority of the fathers of the church, and of theologians of all times, to admit that the image of God in man must chiefly have consisted in his moral faculties, which were a reflec

tion of the perfections of his Creator. This is our opinion also. And we proceed to show that it is founded upon the Word of God, as well as upon reason, and a sound knowledge of the works of the Supreme Being, from whose hands we have sufficient ground to believe nothing can proceed but what is perfect. But we wish to avoid the fault which we have laid to the charge of the greater part of human systems-that of seeing the whole truth on this subject in one particular opinion. In opposition to this, we admit all the opinions which we have just enumerated, placing them, however, in a subordinate, or, if you please, a co-ordinate rank with the last. By adopting this extended view of the subject, we shall avoid a great many of the difficulties which encumber it, and, among others, those which are involved in that interminable question, Does man, or does he not, still retain the image of God?

4thly. That man was created with moral faculties which he has in a great measure lost, is proved, first, by the simple fact, that the Scripture every where supposes him not to be what he ought to be, and that it every where calls upon him to become what he formerly was, in order to find happiness in God. The Bible employs on this subject the most striking images, the strongest and most explicit terms: it is necessary for us "to be raised from the dead, and to

Q