The Portraiture of the Image of God in Man, Part 2 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Of the ſecond part of the image of God in man, in his dominion over the creatures.
MAn before the fall was Lord over the creatures, Prop. and herein he reſembled his Maker.
There is no creature that can uſe all the creatures but man; Firſt, Illuſt. 1 hee had dominion over the inſenſible creatures, as the elements, for no creature can uſe the fire but man; he can doe ſundry things with the fire that no creature can doe; which argueth that hee was made Lord over it. The Lyon who is the King of beaſts, is afraid of the fire, and when hee ſeeth the light of it, he fleeth from it. 2. He had commandement over the living creatures, for as yet a little boy can leade a great Elephant, and a childe will drive a number of oxen before him; the relicts of Gods image in man makes them ſtand in awe of him yet.
There are ſundry creatures that excell man in ſome things; Illuſt. 2 as ſome excell him in ſmell, ſome in ſight, and ſome in touch; but joyne them all together in man, hee excelleth them all: which ſheweth that man was created Lord over the creatures.
Reaſon is onelyonly found in man, Illuſt. 3 by the which hee can ſubdue all the perturbations in beaſts, Iam. 3.7. All are tamed by man; which they cannot doe by themſelves: that ſheweth that man was made Lord over them.
We count that one of the moſt excellent qualities in beaſts, Illuſt. 4 when they can counterfeit man neereſt; as the Elephant his reaſon; the birds his words; the Ape his geſtures; which all ſhew that he was made Lord over them.
That which hath a ſhew of reaſon, Illuſt. 5 & diminute in part onelyonly, ſhould obey him who hath reaſon perfectly, and underſtanding of all things: but beaſts have onelyonly ſome ſhew of reaſon, they know ſome particular things, but they have not a full and an univerſall knowledge of things, therefore they are naturally ſubject to man.
There is nothing ſwifter than the horſe among beaſts, and yet he carries man, the dogge though moſt fierce waits upon man; the Elephant for as great and terrible as he is, yet he ſerves to be a ſport to man, in publike meetings he learnes to leap, kneele and dance; and other beaſts ſerve to feed man: we eate the honey of the bees, we drinke the milke of cattell, therefore all the beaſts are made ſubject to man.
Man was Lord over the creatures before the fall, and they were ready to obey him, hence may be drawn theſe conſequents.
It is lawfull for men to hunt after the beaſts and to catch them now, Ariſtl. pol. 1. o. 5.becauſe that way he recovers the right over them again, that he had at the beginning.
Man was Lord over the creatures before the fall: therfore he could be afraid of none of them: we ſee that Eva was not afraid of the ſerpent, as Moſes was when he fled from it, Exod. 4.
Man hath another ſort of dominion over the living creatures, than that which he hath over the plants and herbs of the fields: for the dominion which he had over the living creatures was per imperium rationis, but he had dominion over the plants, per ſolum earum uſum, onelyonly by uſing them.
Man was made Lord over the creatures, therfore when by ſinne he becomes a beaſt, like a dog or a hog; how farre then doth he abaſe himſelfe from his firſt eſtate and dominion: Plato called this, Foedam animarum incorporationem, which ſome miſtaking, thought that he held that the ſoules of men entred into beaſts, but he meant onelyonly that men became brutiſh and ſenſuall like beaſts.
Queſt. How were the beaſts ſo farre diſtant from Adam gathered unto him, and how could they give homage to him, being ſo farre from him? Gen, 9. ad liter. cap. 4Auguſtine holds that when the beaſts were gathered together before man, that it was not by the authority which man had over them being ſo farre diſtant from him: but by the miniſtery of the Angels, or by the immediate power of God, as they were gathered in the Arke to Noah, Gen. 7.8.9. This ſeemes moſt probable.
Before the fall the beaſts were ſubiect unto man: A collation betwixt the innocent and old Adam.but ſince the fall he hath loſt his dominion; they become enemies unto him, they picke out his eyes, eate his fleſh, lappe his bloud. Before the fall Gods image made them ſtand in awe of him. Man ſtands in awe of the Kings herald, becauſe of his coate of armes, take off this coat of armes from him, and men carry no reſpect to him: The image of God is as it were the Lords coate of armes, which he put upon him, that made the creatures affraid of him. We have a notable example of this in the primitive Church, Lib. 8. cap. 8,as Euſebius teſtifieth, when the Chriſtians were caſt naked to the wilde beaſts: yee ſhould have ſeene them ſtamping, raging, and ſtaring againſt them, but durſt not ſet upon them, the image of God ſo affrayed them: therefore the perſecutors covered them with the skinnes of wilde beaſts, to make them run upon them.
Chriſt when he was in the wilderneſſe with the beaſts forty dayes and forty nights, A collation betwixt the ſecond, renewed, and old Adam.they hurt him not, Mark. 1. So when the image of God is reſtored to man in holineſſe, they begin willingly to ſerve him: but they are enemies to the unregenerate. The dogges that eate the fleſh of Iezabel, 1 King. 9.35. yet they licke the ſores of Lazarus, Luk. 16.21. The ravens that picke out the eyes of theſe who are diſobedient to their parents, Prov. 30.17. yet they feed Elias in the wilderneſſe, 1 Kin. 17.4.6 The ſerpents ſting the Iſraelites in the wilderneſſe, Num. 21.6. yet the Viper when it leaps upon Pauls hand hurts him not, Act. 28.3, 5. The fiſh eate the bodies of the wicked in the ſea: yet the Whale preſerved Ionas, Ion. 1.17. The Lyons that touch not Daniel: yet devour his accuſers, Daniel 6.17. It is true that there are ſome relicts of the image of God left, which make the beaſts to ſtand in awe of him: therefore Pſal. 104. it is ſaid, When men goe to reſt, then the beasts come forth to hunt for their prey. But theſe remnants of the image of God in the unregenerate, doe not ſo terrifie the beaſts, as the image of God reſtored in the regenerate man doth.
Queſt. What benefit ſhould Adam have had of the creatures before the fall: for he had not neede of them ad alimentum for nouriſhment: he had not neede of them ad indumentum for cloathing: he had not need of them ad laboris adiumentum, to helpe him to labour in his worke, as we have now?
Anſw. He had other uſes of them, for they were the matter of the praiſing of God. We ſee now when Kings and Princes kepe Lyons, Eagles, Bears, Tigers, and ſuch their ſubiects gather their greatneſſe by this, and their ſoveraingty: much more did Adam before the fal gather the greatneſſe and excellency of God, by the diverſity of theſe creatures. Againe, by them he ſhould have learned more experimentall knowledge of the qualities of the creatures: therefore it is ſaid, that God brought them before Adam that hee might ſee how he would call them, Gen. 2.20.
As hee was Lord over the beaſts before the fall, Prop. and they were peaceably ſubiect to him: ſo they were peaceable amongſt themſelves, and one of them devoured not another.
Wee ſee when the beaſts were in the Arke, after the fall, the ravening beaſts lived not upon fleſh, Illuſt. but they agreed all together: which vively repreſents to us the firſt eſtate and condition of the creatures. And as it ſerveth for the credit of a Maſter of a familie, that not onelyonly his ſervants obey him, but alſo that they agree amongſt themſeves: So the creatures not onelyonly obeyed man before his fall, but alſo in feare of their Lord they agreed amongſt themſelves.
As man had dominion over the brutiſh creatures before his fall, Prop. ſo ſhould there have beene ſome ſort of dominion and ſubjection amongſt men before the fall.
Mans eſtate before the fall was no better than the eſtate of the Angels but amongſt the Angels ſome are ſuperiour and ſome inferiour, Illuſt. for there are degrees amongſt the Angels. Coloſ. 1.16. There ſhould have bin a willing ſubjection of the wife to the husband: ſo then there ſhould have bin a ſubjection of children towards their parents.
There was no ſervile ſubjection of man to man before the fall but voluntary. Prop.
The relickes we ſee of this after the fall, Illuſt. when as man had beaſts a long time ſubject to him, but not men ſervilely. The firſt Fathers were ſheepheards a long time before they were Kings, to ſuppreſſe and hold men under: the firſt King that ever we reade of in the ſcripture, was Nimrod, which was more than 2000. yeeres after the creation.
Servile and unwilling ſubiection came in after the fall. Prop.
Man is conſidered three wayes: firſt as he hath a reſpect unto God, Illuſt. and in this reſpect all men are ſervants it was mans chiefe felicity to ſerve God. Homo tripliciter confideratur, 1. reſpectu dei, 2, reſpectu brutorum, 3. reſpectu aliorum bominum.Secondly, as he is conſidered with the beaſts, in which reſpect he was Lord over them, for they were made for him. Thirdly, as he is conſidered with other men: and in this reſpect, ſome now are ſervants, and ſome are free. Firſt, now by nature ſome are ſervants, as the dull and blockiſh, unto them thut are of quicker wit and underſtanding. Quintuplexſervus, 1. naturae, 2, affectionum, 3, fortunae 4. belli, 5, ex compacto.Secondly, theſe who have commandement over their affections now, are morally Lords over theſe that cannot command their affections. Thirdly, there are ſervi fortume, as when the poore ſerve the rich Fourthly, there are ſervibelli, as theſe that are taken ſlaves in the wars. Fiftly, theſe who are ſervants ex pacto that ſell themſelves.
Servile ſubjection was contrary to the firſt eſtate of man: therefore every one ought to ſeeke freedome, providing he may have it with lawfull meanes, that ſo he may draw neerer to this firſt eſtate hence it was that God would have ſuch ſervants, who refuſed their liberty at the ſeven yeeres end. Exod. 21.6. marked with a note of infamie, boaring them through the eare: This curſe to be a ſervant was laid, firſt upon a diſobedient ſonne Cham, and wee ſee to this day, that the Moores Chams poſterity, are ſold like ſlaues yet. When men may not have their liberty now by lawfull means, they ſhould not ſhake off the yoke of ſervitude; this was the fault of ſundry ſervants in the Apoſtles dayes, who thought becauſe they were the Lords free-men, they might ſhake off the yoke of their maſters: but the Apoſtle teacheth them another leſſon, 1 Tim. 6.1. Whoſoever ſervants are under the yoke, let them have a due reſpect to their maſters, leſt the name of God and the word come to contempt.
Queſt. But ſeeing all men are ſinners now, why are not all men ſlaves?
Anſw. If God would deale in juſtice with us now, all ſhould bee ſlaves, but God hath mittigated this to ſome to the end that common wealthes and families might ſtand.
Adam gave names to the creatures, as their Lord, Prop. and in ſigne of their ſubjection.
Therefore none ſhould impoſe names to children but the fathers who have ſuperiority over them, Conſeq. no not the mother. Yee ſee when Rachel called her ſonne Benoni, Iacob called him Benjamin, Gen. 35.18. Hence they gather well, that Chriſt as man had not a father, becauſe his mother is commanded to give him the name, Eſay. 7. foreign et tu faemina vocabis, in the feminine gender.
Object But Hagar gave her ſonne a name, Gen. 16.11. and yet hee had a father; then it may ſeeme that the mother may likewiſe impoſe the name to the childe.
Anſw. She gave this name at the commandement of the Angell, which Abraham afterwards confirmed, otherwiſe ſhe had no power to give it.
Therefore theſe fathers who give this power to others, Conſeq. to impoſe names to their children: reſigne the firſt part of their authority over their children, which God hath put in their hands.
This dominion which Adam had over the creatures, Prop. was not an abſolute dominion.
God hath dominium merum, Illuſt. immediatum, & liberum: hee hath abſolute, Dominium dei in credturis, eſt abſolutum, immediatum, et liberū: dominium hominis eſt conditionatum & liberum.free, or immediate dominion over the creatures: Man had onelyonly but dominium conditionatum: ſuch a dominion that was not an abſolute and ſimple dominion, to uſe them at his pleaſure.
They who had their inheritance in Iſrael, had not an abſolute and immediate dominion, for it was Emanuels land, Eſay 8.8. God had the abſolute dominion: but theirs was conditionatum; for they might not ſell their inheritance to whom they pleaſed, neither might they alienate their lands perpetually; but onelyonly morgage them to the yere of the Iubilee, Lev. 25.13. So the Levites had not merum dominium of the tythes, but conditionatum, Levit. 23.4. For none of their children who were leprous might eate of them, neither might a ſtranger eate of them, neither might they ſell them to others. Caleb had the property of Hebron, and yet it is ſaid to bee given to the Levites; it was Calebs by right of propriety, but it was the Prieſts becauſe they dwelt there, and had the uſe of the ground.
So Adam before his fall, he was but foreign, dei uſufructuarius, the tenant of God, but God was the immediate Lord, qui habebat directum dominium, et ad omnes uſus, he had the ſupreame dominion and abſolute uſe over all the creatures,
Adam had not nudum uſum of the creatures, Illuſt. 2 but hee was uſu-fructuarius. The Lawyers illuſtrate the matter by this example; Du plexuſum creaturarum, nudus uſus, et uſufructuarius.if thou get the uſe of ones garden thou mayeſt gather roſes, hearbs, flowers to thy owne uſe, but thou canſt not ſell them to others to make benefit of them. But if thou be uſu-fructuarius, then thou mayeſt make benefit of them, and ſell the fruite to others.
Another example, If one leave in his latter Will to thee the uſe of his flock, thou mayeſt uſe his flock for dunging of thy ground; but thou mayeſt neither ſheare the ſheep, nor milke them; for that pertaines to them for whom it is left: but if he leaue the vſu-fructum, then thou mayeſt uſe both the milke and the wooll.
Man in his firſt eſtate had not onelyonly nudum uſum, but uſu-fructum, Duplex poteſtas, utendiet fruendi. Diſtinguunturhaec, dare uſum et dare in uſum.hee had not onelyonly a bare uſe of them for maintenance, but hee was Lord over them. He had not onelyonly power uti ijs, ſed frui ijs; not onelyonly to uſe them but alſo to inioy them: & they diſtinguiſh theſe two: aliud eſt dare alicui uſum; that is, it is one thing to give a man the vſe of a thing, and another thing to give him it unto uſe: he who giveth the uſe of a thing, giveth not the dominion over it: but hee who giveth it unto uſe gives alſo dominion.
A man may have nudum uſum, et illicitum rei; as when a thiefe takes a mans horſe. Illuſt. 3
Secondly; a man may have nudum vſum, ſed licitum, Ʋſus rei multiplex: 1. nudus et illicitus, 2. alicitus etutilis, 3. licitus ſed non utilis, 4, uſus utilis et propriet as ſubordinata, 5. dominium directum et altum.et vtilem; as when a man hires a horſe.
Thirdly, a man may have nudum vſum, et licitum, ſed non vtilem; as when the ſervant of a banker changeth mony for his Maſter, all the commodity is his maſters.
Fourthly, a man my have vſum licitum, utilem, et proprietatem, ſed ſubordinatam: as he who holds his lands in fealty.
Fiftly, he who hath the propriety, & dominium directum: this is called dominium altum, this ſupreame dominion, Adam had not this ſupreame dominion, but ſubordinate to God, Chriſt is called the Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8. and man is called, Lord of the Sabbath, Mark. 2.27.28. how is Chriſt called the Lord of the Sabbath. As the ſupreame and high Lord. Man is called Lord of the Sabbath, not as the ſupreame, but as the ſubordinate Lord.
The firſt Adam had all things ſubiect to him, but by ſubordination: A collation betwixt the innocent and ſecond Adam.but the ſecond Adam had them, by a more excellent manner from God his Father, eminenter, by way of excellency. Pſal. 2. I wil give thee the ends of the earth for a poſſeſsion.
Secondly, the firſt Adam had jus ad rem, jus in re, hee had not onelyonly the right to the things, Duplex poteſtas, authoritativa, & ſubauthoritativa. Duplex jus ad rem, & in re. foreign. Duplex ius: in communi, & in proprio.but alſo the uſe of them But the ſecond Adam had jus ad rem ſed non in re, for the moſt part; that is, he had the right to them, but the uſe of few of them for the moſt part.
Quest. Had Chriſt nothing in propriety to himſelfe, had hee but onelyonly the naked uſe of things?
Anſw. There are ſundry ſorts of rights. Firſt, that which many have right to in common, as the Levites in Iſrael had right in common to the tythes: but Barnabas a Levite who dwelt in Cyprus, out of Iudea had his poſſeſſions proper to himſelfe, Acts 4. So the Church of Ieruſalem had their goods in common.
Secondly, there is, uſus juris et uſus facti: the uſe of propriety, & the naked uſe of things: the naked uſe is, when a man hath onelyonly the naked uſe, Duplex uſus, iuris, & facti.that he may neither ſell it, nor give it to others: the uſe of propriety is, when he may both uſe it himſelfe and give the uſe of it to others, When a man hires a houſe, then hee hath onelyonly the bare uſe of it, becauſe hee cannot let it out to another, but when he hath a Leaſe of it, then he hath uſum juris, and may then let it to another.
Thirdly, Duplex jus, charitatis, & proprietatis.there is a right of charity and a right of property: a man comming into a vineyard, he may eate as many of the grapes as he pleaſeth to ſatisfie his hunger, Deut. 23.24. this is the right of charity: but hee may carry none away with him; this is the right of property. So the Diſciples when they were hungry upon the Sabbath, pulled the eares of corne, Matth. 12.2. This was the right of charity, but they carried none away with them, becauſe they had not the right of property; and in this ſenſe it is that Salomon, Prov. 3.27. calls the poore bagnale tobh, the Lords of thy goods: withhold not thy goods from the owners thereof, that is, from the poore; the poore in their neceſſity have the uſe of thy goods. That axiome is true then, Ius charitatis manet ſemper, ſed non pro ſemper, habent enim jus utendi, non pro omni tempore ſed tempore neceſsitatis; that is, Charity remaineth alwayes, but we are not at all times to give our goods; there is a time to give them, not all times, but in the time of neceſſity; and in this ſenſe is that of Luke to be underſtood, Luke 6.30. Give to every one that askes of you; that is, who in extreame neceſſity askes of you.
Chriſt had not jus in communi, with the Diſciples, Of the right that Chriſt as man had to the creatures.in the bagge, Ioh. 12. For theſe that have a common right, one of them cannot give without the conſent of the reſt; but Chriſt had a proper right to the bagge, and commanded Iudas to uſe it for the benefit of the poore, Ioh. 13.29.
Secondly, Chriſt had not a bare & a naked uſe of things, but alſo he had the uſe of property in ſome things, as the clothes which he wore, and the money which he ſpent; he had not onelyonly the naked uſe to weare them, but alſo the property of them, for he might have given them to others: it is true, he had but nudum uſum of the houſe which he dwelt in, Luk. 9.58. The Foxes have holes, but the Sonne of man, hath not a hole wherein to hide his head, for he had not the property of any houſe.
Thirdly, he had not onelyonly jus charitatis to things, but alſo the right of property; neither had he theſe things as almes, for that which a man laboureth for is not called almes, ſol us titulus recipiendi, ratione naturalis neceſsitatis facit mendicum, the onelyonly title of receiving in reſpect of naturall neceſſity, makes a begger: when it is ſought and given in this manner, then it is almes.
Now that the ſecond Adam had not his maintenance given him, by way of almes, it is proved thus; firſt he had the ends of the earth given him for a poſſeſsion, Pſal. 2. and all things were put under his feet, Pſal. 8. he ſent for the mans colt, Luk. 19.30. Which ſheweth that he had right over all the creatures.
Againe, it is proved thus, If wee ſow to you ſpirituall things, ought yee not to give us temporall things? 1 Cor. 9.11. but Ieſus Chriſt ſowed ſpirituall things to them, therefore temporall things were his by right of property.
Thirdly, it is ſaid, Who feedes the flocke and eates not of the milke of it? 1 Cor. 9.7. as the ſhepheard and ſouldier have the right of property to their wages, ſo had Chriſt.
Fourthly, Chriſt ſaith Luk. 10. Goe into whatſoever houſe yee come to, and eate that which is ſet before you: the Diſciples had not onelyonly jus gratitudinis, Duplex jus gratitudinis, & juris.the right of thankfulneſſe; but alſo jus juris, the right of property: Chriſt had this right ſeeing he preached the Goſpell. When Paul tooke no ſtipend from the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 11.8. receſsit à jure ſuo, hee went from his right: therefore others had this right of property, and ſo had Chriſt.
Object. But Chriſt willed his Diſciples to leave all for his cauſe, Mat. 10.37. and he ſet himſelfe as an example before them of poverty: therefore he did renounce all right of things.
Anſw. Duplex abnegatio rerū, in affectu, & in effectu.Wee renounce all things two wayes either in our affection, or in deed: they renounced all in affection but not in deed.
Secondly, there are two ſorts of poverty; materiall poverty, and formall poverty. Chriſt left all things both moveable and immoveable in his affection, formally: Duplex paupert as: materialis, & formalis.but not materially: formall poverty is this, when in our affection we are ready to renounce all for Chriſt; but materiall poverty is, when we are actually called to the renouncing of all.
Object. Mark. 10.21. Chriſt commanded the young man, to ſell all and follow him, if hee would be perfect: therefore it may ſeeme that materiall poverty, is required of him that would be moſt abſolutely perfect, and that Chriſt made choyce of this ſort of poverty himſelfe.
Anſw. Wee muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt theſe two; firſt, to leave all, and to follow Chriſt: Secondly, that hee who truſts in his riches ſhould ſell all,Prior ut ſcholaſtict loquuntur, facta eſt ad rem, poſterior ad hominem, non ſimplex.
The firſt part of this ſpeech belongs to the matter it ſelfe, and the ſecond to the perſon: the firſt is common to all, becauſe all are bound to leaue all for Chriſt in affection; but the ſecond part belongs onelyonly to this young man, who was ſo well conceited of himſelfe, truſting in his riches, that he ſhould ſell all, and ſhould give of that which hee ſold to the poore: not that hee ſhould give all to the poore when he ſold it, but give of that which he ſold to the poore; non dare omnia, ſed de omnibus, 2 Cor. 8.9.
Queſt. But why bids he him ſell all?
Anſw. Becauſe he had ſuch confidence in his riches, for they hindered him from following of Chriſt; therefore hee bids him quite all actually; which precept binds not others, it being particular to him.
Object. But Chriſt ſayes, if thou wilt bee perfect, goe and ſell all, then this ſeemes to be the pitch of perfection to renounce all: and is more than that which the law requires.
Anſw. Chriſt ſpeakes not here of any perfection, above the perfection of the Law; but of true perfection which is above imaginary perfection: as if hee ſhould ſay: thou imagineſt thou art perfect, and thinkeſt that thou haſt kept the whole Law, if it be ſo, yet one thing is reſting to thee, ſell all: thus wee ſee how Chriſt applies himſelfe to his conceit here.
Object. But it may be ſaid that this young man ſpake not out of an ambitious conceit, for the text ſaith that Chriſt loved him.
Anſw. The event ſheweth that hee ſpake but out of the ambition of his heart, and the words of Chriſt ſhew this alſo, Mark. 10.24. How hard a thing is it for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of God: and where it is ſaid Chriſt loved him, verſe. 21. The Greeke word foreign, ſignifieth friendly to ſpeake to him, and to deale gently with him; but Chriſt liked him not in the eſtate that hee was in, for hee went away truſting ſtill in his riches, and loving them better than Chriſt.
Chriſt and his Diſciples renounced not all kind of right of thoſe things which they had; Conſeq. therefore that obſervation of the gloſſe, upon the tenth of Marke is falſe. Some have money, and love it; ſome want money and love it; but theſe are moſt perfect who neither have it, nor love it: and to this they apply that of the Apoſtle, Gal. 6.14. I am crucified to the world and the world to me; as though a man could not beecrucified to the world, unleſſe he renounce it all, and goe a begging.
Thus the Church of Rome ſerveth God with willworſhip, which hee never required at their hand, Eſay, 1.12. By their vowes of poverty, chaſtity and obedience: this they make one of their counſels, of Evangelicke perfection.
So much of Gods Image in man: both inwardly in his ſoule, and outwardly in his dominion & ſuperiority over all inferiour creatures: it reſts to ſpeake of three conſe quents proper to this image. 1. Wherefore Gods image was placed in man. 2. This image being placed in man whether it was naturall unto him, or ſupernaturall. 3. The benefit he reapeth by this Image: which was his ſociety with the Angels.