Wesley Corpus

ix. 6: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.’” (Page 177.) Certainly it has the same meaning in both places; for the latter plainly refers to the former. And thus much we may fairly infer from hence, that “the image of God,” wherein “man was” at first “created,” whereinsoever it consisted, was not utterly effaced in the time of Noah. Yea, so much of it will always remain in all men, as will justify the punishing murderers with death. But we can in nowise infer from hence, that that entire image of God, in which Adam was at first created, now remains in all his posterity. The words of Gen. v. 3, rendered literally, are, “He begat in his likeness, according to his image.” “Adam,” says Mr. Hervey, “was created ‘in the image of God. After his fall, the sacred historian varies his style, and, with a remarkable peculiarity, as well as propriety, says, “Adam begat a son in his own likeness;’-so it must be translated, according to all the rules of grammar, Adam being the nearest antecedent. That every reader may advert to this melancholy but import ant truth, it is enforced by a very emphatical repetition: “After his own image,’ as contradistinguished from that “image of God,” mentioned in the preceding verse; which expressions are evidently intended to denote the difference between the state in which Adam was created and Seth bgeotten.” “The two following texts are brought by the Assembly, to show what the image of God was in which Adam was made: “‘And have put on the new man, which is renewed in know ledge, after the image of Him that created him. (Col. iii. 10.) “‘Put on the new man, which after the image of God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians iv. 24.)” (Page 178.) “I answer, These texts are parallel. ‘The old man’ means a wicked life; ‘the new man, a good life; to which they were formed and ‘created’ by the gospel dispensation. And this ‘new man,” this new life, is “after the image,’ that is, agreeable to the nature, ‘of God.’” (Page 179.) As you advance no proof of this perfectly new interpreta tion, I leave it to shift for itself.