is _from God himself_ and _from God alone_. The original gift of it is his prerogative and the secret thereof is for evermore with him. 8. In the passage――“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (v. 26) there are two special points to be considered:――(a.) In _what sense_ is man made in the image of God? (b.) The explanation of the plural pronouns, “_us_” and “_our_”――“Let _us_ make man in _our_ image.” (a.) Inasmuch as God is a spirit and never to be thought of as having a corporeal nature――material, tangible to our bodily senses, we are at once shut off from all reference to man’s physical, corporeal nature and shut up to his spiritual nature to find in it the points of this resemblance. Consequently man is made in God’s image as being gifted like his Maker with intelligence and with capacities for moral action――beyond comparison the noblest possible elements of being. He has the sense of moral obligation and the voluntary powers requisite to fulfill such obligation. He can find his supreme joy in voluntarily seeking the good of others, even of all other sentient beings, and in laboring even to the extent of self-sacrifice to promote their welfare. This is the pre-eminent perfection of God――the very point ultimately in which man is made in his image, and capable of becoming more and more Godlike, forever approximating toward his holiness and blessedness.――――His intellectual powers are only the servants of these highest and noblest activities of his being.――――(b.) The use of the plural pronouns――“Let _us_ make, in _our_ image”――has been accounted for variously. Some would make this plural intensive, corresponding to the emphatic plural in Hebrew nouns. But there seems to be no real analogy in the two cases.――――Some make it the plural of dignity (“pluralis excellentiae”), as an oriental monarch puts forth his edict, saying “we,” not I. But the great simplicity of this whole narrative goes against this explanation. Moreover, this usage, so far as it appears in literature, sacred or profane, is later by many ages than Moses. Besides, there is no apparent reason why God should assume more dignity in saying――“Let us make man,” than in saying, Let us make light, or the sun in the heavens. Indeed, the form of the divine behest――“Let there be light,” seems to our ideas the more sublime and the more expressive of God’s supreme dignity.――――I see no explanation of this plural that is at all satisfactory save that which assumes a reference to the persons of the Trinity. As one reason for such reference it may be suggested as certainly not improbable――that the idea of man, God’s chief work in creation, was coupled with his future history (all present to the divine mind)――as fallen, yet also as redeemed, and specially as redeemed _by means of the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh_. Supposing this incarnation present to the divine thought, the significance of this plural would be――Let us proceed to make in our