meet on common ground, and can understand a common language. While it is true that

the human terms in which God has been pleased to reveal His nature and attributes must

always be understood as symbols, and not ultimate realities, yet the testimony of Genesis

and the faculties of man alike assure us that the comparison instituted by the Professor is

not a true one. The reader will find other articles in this series dealing more specifically

with the meaning of Gen. 1: 26, and also with the general question of the testimony of

language. This is simply a short article in the form of a supplementary note, using the

Professor's argument as a means of drawing attention to the true relationship between

man and God.

Luke 3: 38 tells us that Adam was a son of God, and we should expect a son,

however lowly, to be capable of a fellowship and understanding in relation to his father,

that would be on a much higher plane than any relationship that could exist between the

most intelligent dog and the thought processes of his master. Man, created in the image

of his Maker, has been endowed with a faculty which at least appreciates "His eternal

power and deity" and renders ignorance "without excuse" (Rom. 1: 19, 20). The advent

of sin and death has impaired these faculties and seriously impaired the "image", but both

faculties and image remain the distinctive characteristics of man. Added to this, of

course, we have the gospel message, that in the fullness of time God was manifested in

the flesh, and seen and heard by men, to whom it was revealed that, having seen Him,

they had seen the Father. Both the nature of man by creation, and the coming of Christ in

grace, make the parallel between the Sealyham and man untrue and misleading.

"That which may be known of God" has been manifested to man in terms that he can

understand, and that are based on the very nature and purpose of his creation. The Book

of Genesis, so easily tossed aside by the modern mind, contains in germ the answer to the

problems of all mankind. What a tragedy first of all to brush the lamp aside, and then to

speak of groping in the dark as wisdom!

In our last article we considered the meaning of the name "Adam" and its connection

with the "likeness" of God, after which he was created. The reader is asked to carry

forward the results obtained to this article, as we continue with our present study.

How far, and in what direction, was Adam intended to shadow forth God Himself?

How far was he, as a creature, able to represent Deity? What limits can be set? The

reader will no doubt be acquainted with the two extreme answers to these questions.

There are some who will not allow the image and likeness to be anything more than

physical, while there are others who would deduce from this passage the inherent

immortality of the soul. The truth lies mid-way between the two extremes.