Basic HTML Version
193
adds further “that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man
surpasses that of all other species of animals.”[Inst. I. 15.308.] This broader conception of the
image of God became the prevalent one in Reformed theology. Thus Witsius says: “The image
of God consisted antecendenter, in man’s spiritual and immortal nature; formaliter, in his
holiness; consequenter, in his dominion.”[On the Covenants, 1. 2. 11.] A very similar opinion is
expressed by Turretin.[Opera, De Creatione, Quaestio X.] To sum up it may be said that the
image consists: (a) In the soul or spirit of man, that is, in the qualities of simplicity, spirituality,
invisibility, and immortality. (b) In the psychical powers or faculties of man as a rational and
moral being, namely, the intellect and the will with their functions. (c) In the intellectual and
moral integrity of man’s nature, revealing itself in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,
Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. (d) In the body, not as a material substance, but as the fit organ of the soul,
sharing its immortality; and as the instrument through which man can exercise dominion over
the lower creation. (e) In man’s dominion over the earth. In opposition to the Socinians, some
Reformed scholars went too far in the opposite direction, when they regarded this dominion as
something that did not belong to the image at all but was the result of a special disposal of God.
In connection with the question, whether the image of God belongs to the very essence of man,
Reformed theology does not hesitate to say that it constitutes the essence of man. It
distinguishes, however, between those elements in the image of God which man cannot lose
without ceasing to be man, consisting in the essential qualities and powers of the human soul;
and those elements which man can lose and still remain man, namely, the good ethical qualities
of the soul and its powers. The image of God in this restricted sense is identical with what is
called original righteousness. It is the moral perfection of the image, which could be, and was,
lost by sin.
2. THE LUTHERAN CONCEPTION.
The prevailing Lutheran conception of the image of God
differs materially from that of the Reformed. Luther himself sometimes spoke as if he had a
broad conception of it, but in reality he had a restricted view of it.[Koestlin, The Theology of
Luther II, pp. 339-342.] While there were during the seventeenth century, and there are even
now, some Lutheran theologians who have a broader conception of the image of God, the great
majority of them restrict it to the spiritual qualities with which man was originally endowed,
that is, what is called original righteousness. In doing this they do not sufficiently recognize the
essential nature of man as distinct from that of the angels on the one hand, and from that of
the animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also
possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little
importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him
from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference
between the two lay in the image of God, and this man has lost entirely. In view of this it is also
natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man