This grand assertion is the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine concerning man. It distin- guishes the revealed teaching about him from all ethnic or naturalistic Wews, and is the real foundation of all our ideas about the dignity of man. Although thus definite and significant, however, the phrase is not explicit. Large place is left for discussion as to whether this definition refers to something in man's own nature or mainly to his relations : and among these whether to his aspect towards the other creatures or his relation to God. This is why the doctrine of the Divine Image in man has been a topic so fruitful of dif- ferences in theology. For long the theological bent was to make the imago Dei distinctive of man unfallen. In the loss of the image by sin lay man's need of redemption. ' What we lost in Adam,' says Irenteus, ' to wit, the divine image and similitude, that we receive again in Christ Jesus.' But later on, it was seen that this was too sweeiiing. Then set in the tendency to expound the idea in a double sense. The cruder form of this was the Romish, as expressed by Bellarmin — that by the Fall man lost the ' likeness ' of God, though he retained the ' image.' But Protestants held a not dissimilar view, viz. that the image had two meanings. In one sense it is essential to man's nature, and in this sense consists of his intellectual powers, his liberty of will, and his superiority among the creatures, — features which can never be wholly lost, but remain with man though fallen. In the other sense it includes those ornaments or complements of the idea — immortality, grace, holiness, righteousness — which were defaced or blotted out by man's transgres-
sion. One point of unity and consistency with Scripture holds fast amid these variations of view. For it is certain that in the passages cited above the divine image is recognized as existing in man fallen as well as unfallen. Among recent evan- gelical divines of a philosophical cast the tendency has been to return to the position of the early Eastern Church, and place the image mainly in that which distingiiishes man amon" created beiu"s, rather than in that which marks olV the unfallen from the fallen condition. The Greek Christian Fathers did define it as soiiictliiiig rather metaphysical than ethical. But to place the image mainlj' in the possession of ' Spirit ' and ' Free Will ' is to overlook the moral and religious elements essential to man's nature. Man in his ideal is a ' spirit ' and ' will ' under the dominion of conscience, developed freely no doubt, but in subjection and obedience to God. That this biblical notion of the divine iuiage is a pro- foundly simple and consistent one, i' made clear by the NT passages which speak of its renewal in grace (Col 3'°, cf. Eph 4^), where the moral elements are prominent and supreme. But they cannot be read as defining what the divine image was in man at the first, for they treat expressly of the ' new man.' The unity and simplicity of the idea are conserved, if we note that this description of the ' new man ' presupiposes corresponding out- lines in the first man which were broken oil" by sin, and are for the first time fully realized in man redeemed and renewed.
Another suggestive point in the discussion comes out of the question, long debated, whether the divine image in man was a gift of grace added to his nature, i.e. was in a sense something ' supernatural,' or was wholly natural and con- created from the first, as Protestants have always maintained. The real point in dispute is much confused and hidden. The mediieval view is really one of dualism or divergence in man's nature. It splits his life into two. It accentuates the dis- tinction between nature and grace, between things secular and sacred ; whereas the true view is that of an original unity in tlie creature made after God's ima^e, and a harmonious development of the human and divine elements in him. For there is a truth in the mediaeval idea of a 'sui)ernatural gift of righteousness ' to man, though it was crudely expressed. Human nature only attains its ideal wnen cultivated by divine grace. The nature of man is incomplete without its Godward development, and this can take place successfully only through grace. For it is essential to man s higliest to be not left to himself. Mere human nature or ' unassisted reason,' as the phrase goes, is a contradiction of the Bible idea of man. That idea is that human nature rightly and fully developed manifests the di^dne, and is a reflec- tion oi^ what it has received of God.
II. That Christ is ' the Imuqc of the Father ' belongs to the doctrine of tlie Saviour's pre- existent Godhead as taught in the NT. It ia one of the ways in which that truth is set fortlu The precisely relevant passages are 2 Co 4*, Col l">i', He 1'-^ ». The idea is not restricted to the term eUdiv which occurs in the first two citations, but is also expressed by two kindred phrases \m He 1' d7rai'7a<r/ia T-qt SiJTjs, ' the ellulgence of his glory,' and xcpaxTTjp tti^ viro<TTdirews avroO, ' the very image of his substance.' It will be noted from the context of all these pa-ssages that the terms are used not so much of the incarnate Redeemer as of the eternal Son. No doubt, according to the teaching of Jesus and that of all His apostles, the ' Christ come in the flesh ' is for us the mirror and reflection of God. ' He that hath seen me,' says Jesus, ' hath seen the Father ' (Jn 14"). rhiyl