Man Made in the Image of God.
By R. F. Cottrell
We take two plain and positive statements of the word of God, place them side by side, and draw a simple, legitimate conclusion. 1. "God formed man of the dust of the ground." 2. "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." CONCLUSION. That which was formed of dust was made in the image of God. But it is objected that God is "without body or parts," and therefore this conclusion must be erroneous; that man was morally in the image of God. That his likeness to God must be a moral likeness. That man was like God in moral character, or in his attributes, or both. Those ministers that say, as many do, that man lost the image of his Creator, in his fall, must refer to man's moral character; for they do not wish to be understood that he lost the immortality of the soul. Now man could have no real, positive moral character, till he had formed it, by his own action in reference to moral law. When first created, his character was not formed. He was innocent, and was pronounced very good; but it could not then be said to him, "Well done;" for he had done nothing to form a character either way. But man was made in the image of God. Then, if we understand it of moral image, it could mean nothing more than innocence. The tiger, and every four-footed beast, were equally innocent, were "very good;" but it is evident they were not created in the image of God. Man's innocence, then, was not what distinguished him, as being in the image of God. "Admitted," says an objector; "but the image of God was found in the natural attributes of the soul. Thus: 1. Man was made in the image of God. 2. But God is immortal. 3. Therefore man was made immortal. Now, my friend, if that argument is good and sound, another formed upon the same plan would be equally good. But by forming syllogisms after your pattern we might make it appear that man is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; yes, and further, that man "only hath immortality," for this is affirmed of God. This mode of arguing proves too much; therefore it proves nothing. Hence, we must take the most simple and obvious conclusion, namely; that man was made in the form of God. Christ was in the "form of God," and is the "express image of his Father's person." Col. i, 15; Phil. ii, 6; Heb. i, 3. In Gen. ix, 6, we read, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man." And an apostle says, that men "are made after the similitude of God." Daniel says of the Father, "The Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. Chap. vii, 9. John describes the Son as follows: "One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if it burned in a furnace." Rev. i, 13-15. A comparison of these scriptures would give us the idea that the Son had the personal appearance of the Father. "That view is grossly material," says one. If it is so, the fault is in the Bible. Why not say fleshy material? We "believe that God is;" others say they believe he is—immaterial. We do not say that he is of the earth, earthy; but man thus formed of the dust of the earth, was made in the image of God. This fact has no bearing on the question of the immortality of the soul. R. F. COTTRELL.