The Portraiture of the Image of God in Man, Part 2 · Chapter 16 – Chapter 17
CHAP. XVI. Of the end wherefore God placed this image in Man.
GOd placed this image in man, Prop. to keepe a perpetuall ſociety betwixt man and him. Illuſt. 1
Similitude and likeneſſe are a great cauſe of love: Adam loved Evah when hee ſaw her firſt, becauſe ſhee was like unto him, As a man when hee lookes into a glaſſe, hee loveth his image becauſe it is like to him but diſsimilitude breeds hatred. A man loves not a ſerpent or a Toade, becauſe they are moſt unlike him, David marvailes that God ſhould looke upon man, Pſal. 8. but in the end he brings in his ſimilitude in Chriſt, or elſe he would hate us.
Secondly, God placed this image in man, as a marke of his poſſeſſion; therefore the Fathers called him nummum Dei; for even as Princes ſet their image upon their coyne, ſo did the Lord ſet his image upon man; therefore miſerable are theſe, who adulterate this coyne, and blot out this Image of God: he deſerveth now to be arrained as a traitour before God.
Man in innocency was like unto God, A collation betwixt the innocent and old Adam.but now he is become like unto the beaſts of the field, Pſal. 49. now God may juſtly exprobrate unto him, Behold man is become like one of us, There was a great change in Naomi when ſhee came to Bethlehem; ſhee was not then Naomi beautifull, but Mara bitterneſſe: there is a greater change now in man when he is falne from his firſt eſtate, and loſt this holy image.
Man was made to the jmage of God, Conſeq. therefore no man ſhould lift his hand againſt him, Gen. 9. no Prince will ſuffer his image to be defaced, much leſſe will God. There aroſe a ſedition at Antioch for that Theodoſius the Emperour exacted a new kind of tribute upon the people; Theodoret. lib. 5. cap, 21.in that commotion the people brake downe the Image of the Empreſſe Placilla, (who was lately dead.) The Emperor in a great rage ſent his forces againſt the City to ſacke it. When the Herald came, and told this to the Citizens, one Macedonius a Monke indued with heavenly wiſedom, ſent unto the Herald an anſwere after this manner;
Tell the Emperour theſe words, that he is not onelyonly an Emperor, but alſo a man, therefore let him not onelyonly looke upon his Empire, but alſo upon himſelfe: for he being a man commands alſo theſe who are men: let him not then uſe men ſo barbarouſly, who are made to the image of God. He is angry & that juſtly, that the brazen image of his wife was thus contumeliouſly uſed, & ſhall not the King of heaven be angry, to ſee his glorious image in man contumeliouſly handled; Oh what a difference is there betwixt the reaſonable ſoule, and the brazen image; We for this image are able to ſet up an hundred, but he is not able to ſet up a haire of theſe men againe if he kill them.
Theſe words being told the Emperor, hee ſuppreſſed his anger and drew backe his forces: if men would take this courſe, and ponder it deepely in their heart, they would not be ſo ready to breake downe this image of God by their bloody cruelty.
CHAP. XVII. Whether the Image of God in Adam was naturall or ſupernaturall?
THe ſecond conſequent of the image of God being placed in man, is, concerning the nature of it.
There are two things which principally wee and the Church of Rome controvert about, touching the image of God. The firſt is, conditio naturae, Duplex conditio imaginis Dei, naturae, & Iustitiae.the condition of nature: the ſecond is, condtio juſtitiae, concernig mans righteouſneſſe.
The Church of Rome holds, that there was concupiſcence in in the nature of man, being created in his pure-naturalls, but it was not a ſinne (ſay they) or a puniſhment of ſin as it is now, but a defect following the condition of nature; Bellarm. lib. 7. cap, 28.and they ſay that it was not from God but beſides his intention. And they goe about to cleare the matter by this compariſon: when a Smith makes a ſword of yron, he is not the cauſe of the ruſt in the yron, but ruſt followeth as a conſequent in the yron: but if this rebellion flow from the condition of nature, how can God be free from the cauſe of ſin, who is the author of nature?
Their compariſon then taken from the Smith and the iron is altogether impertinent: Triplex diſsimilitudo compparation is.firſt, the ſmith made not the yron, as God made man, therefore he cannot bee ſayd to be the cauſe of the ruſt of yron, as God making man, concupiſcence neceſſarily followes him according to their poſition.
Secondly, the ruſt doth not neceſſarily follow the yron, neither is the yron the cauſe of it, but ſome externall things: they make concupiſcence neceſſary to follow the body.
Thirdly, the Smith if he could, he would make ſuch a ſword that ſhould take no ruſt; but God (according to their judgement) made man ſuch that concupiſcence did neceſſarily follow.
Before the fall there was no reluctation nor ſtrife betwixt the ſuperiour and inferiour faculties in man; That there was no concupiſcence in man before the fall.and therefore no concupiſcence: our reaſons are theſe.
Firſt, our firſt parents were not aſhamed when they were naked, Gen 2. but after that Adam had ſinned and ſaw himſelfe naked, hee fled from the preſence of God and hid himſelfe even for very ſhame; it is the rebellion betwixt the ſuperiour and inferiour faculties that makes men aſhamed.
Secondly, in Ieſus Chriſt the ſecond Adam, there was no rebellion, and yet he was like to us in all things ſinne excepted, taking our nature upon him, and the eſſentiall properties of it. As to bee tempted, Mat. 4.1. Ieſus was carried by the Spirit into the deſert to bee tempted; So to feare, Hebr. 5.7. he was heard in that which hee feared. So to be angry, Mark. 3.5. Hee looked round about on them angerly: So forgetfulneſſe of his office by reaſon of the agonie aſtoniſhing his ſenſes; Father, if it bee poſsible, let this cup paſſe from me, Mat. 26.39. Wherefore if this ſtrife, betwixt the ſuperiour and inferiour faculties, was the conſequent of nature in our whole eſtate, then Chriſt ſhould not have beene blameleſſe, which is blaſphemy: for concupiſcence is ſin, Rom, 7.7.
Thirdly, if there had been rebellion, betwixt the ſuperiour and inferiour faculties before the fall; then man in his whole eſtate had not beene happy for Paul in reſpect of this concupiſcence, is forced to cry out, Rom. 7.11. O wretched man that I am, who ſhall deliver mee from this body of death? and originall iuſtice had not beene ſuch an excellent gift in that eſtate, but only a reſtraint, to reſtraine this concupiſcence that it burſted not forth.
Fourthly, if this rebellion flow from nature, how can God be free from ſinne who is the authour of nature? qui eſt cauſa cauſae, eſt cauſa cauſati, in eſſentialiter ſubordinatis, he who is the cauſe of a cauſe, is likewiſe the cauſe of the effect in things eſſentially ſubordinate: but God is the author of mans nature and concupiſcence: therefore according to their poſition, Of mans originall juſtice, according to the Church of Rome.he muſt bee the author of ſinne: this is blaſphemie.
The Church of Rome holds, that this holineſſe was a ſupernaturall thing to man, and not naturall in his firſt creation: and they goe about to ſhew the matter by theſe compariſons.
They ſay, mans righteouſneſſe in his innocent eſtate, was like a garland ſet upon a virgines head; the garland is no part of the virgins body, and although the garland be removed, yet ſhe remaines ſtill a virgin. So this originall righteouſneſſe, they make it as it were a garland, which being taken away from man, no naturall thing is blemiſhed in him.
Secondly, they compare it to Sampſons lockes, which when they were cut off, nothing was taken from Sampſons nature.
Thirdly, they compare it to a bridle in a horſe mouth, which is no part of the horſe, nor naturall to him, but ſerves to bridle the horſe and keepe him in. So ſay they, this originall righteouſneſſe, was no naturall thing in man before the fall, but ſerved onelyonly as a bridle to reſtraine concupiſcence; and they put a difference betwixt a naked man and a robbed man. Duplex homo, nudus & ſpoliatus.Man before his fall (ſay they) he was naked, but God did caſt his cloake of ſupernaturall righteouſneſſe about him to cover him: but ſince the fall (ſay they) hee is not homo nudus ſed ſpoliatus, a naked man, but ſpoyled of the graces of God.
Hence is that diviſion made by the Ieſuites of the eſtate of man: Perer. lib. 5. in Gen. diſput. de excellent. pag. 118.the firſt eſtate (ſaith he) is of man conſidered without grace or ſinne, (as they terme it) in his pure naturals; the ſecond eſtate is of man in his purenaturals, cloathed with ſupernaturall righteouſnes: the third eſtate is of man degenerate and ſinfull: the fourth eſtate, is of man regenerate; and the laſt is of man glorified. But to conſider a man both voyde of grace and ſinne, ſuch a man was never, nor never ſhall be; neither did the Iewiſh or Chriſtian Church, ever divide the eſtate of man thus.
The Iewiſh Church taketh up the eſtate of man in theſe three; the firſt they call Adam, ratioue creationis, becauſe hee was made out of the red earth: the ſecond they call Enoſh, man ſubject to all miſeries: the third they call Iſh, man reſtored to bleſſedneſſe and happineſſe.
The orthodoxe chriſtian Church, divides the eſtate of man thus: the firſt eſtate, is gratiae collatio, the beſtowing of grace: the ſecond is, collatae amiſsio the loſſe of that grace beſtowed: the third is, inſtauratio amiſſae, the reſtoring of loſt grace; and the fourth is, confirmatio inſtauratae, the confirmation of reſtored grace.
We will ſhew that his originall righteouſneſſe, Of mans originall juſtice, according to the reformed Church.was naturall to man, and not ſupernaturall: where we muſt conſider: that nature is take five wayes:
Firſt, a thing is naturall by creation, as the ſoule and the body are naturall to man, becauſe they give a being to him.
Secondly, for that which floweth eſſentially and naturally from a thing, as the faculties from the ſoule.
Thirdly, for that which cleaveth moſt ſurely to nature, as ſinne doth to the ſoule now.
Fourthly, for that which beautifieth nature and helps it, as grace doth.
Fiftly, for that which by generation is propagate to the poſteritie, as originall corruption.
Originall juſtice was not naturall to man in the firſt ſenſe, for it was no part of his eſſence. It was not naturall to him in the ſecond ſenſe, for it flowed not from the underſtanding eſſentially, as the faculties of the ſoule doe; but it was naturall to him in the third ſenſe, becauſe hee was created in holineſſe, and was the ſubject of holineſſe: it was naturall to him in the fourth ſenſe, becauſe it made his nature perfect: It was naturall to him in the fift ſenſe, for he ſhould have tranſmitted it to his poſteritie by generation, if he had ſtood in holineſſe, as man doth ſinne now, which is come in place of it.
Originall righteouſneſſe to the firſt Adam was naturall, to the renewed Adam, grace is ſupernaturall; A collation betwixt the innocent, renewed, and old Adam.to the old Adam, it is againſt his nature, ſo long as hee continues in ſinne.
Our reaſons proving, that originall righteouſneſſe, was naturall to Adam, and not ſupernaturall, are theſe.
Firſt, Reaſon 1 as are the relickes of the image of God in man ſince the fall, ſuch was the image of God in man before the fall: but the remnants of the Image of God in man ſince the fall, are naturall, Rom. 2.13. For by nature they doe the things contained in the Law, 2 Cor. 11. Doth not nature teach you this? therefore the image of God in man before the fall was naturall.
Secondly, Reaſon 2 ſupernaturall gifts are not hereditary, nor propagate by generation, no more than a colt (to uſe their owne ſimilitude) is brought forth with a bridle in his teeth: but man before the fall, ſhould have begotten children in his image in originall juſtice: therefore originall juſtice was not ſupernaturall to him.
Thirdly, Reaſon 3 by nature we are now the children of wrath; Epheſ. 2.3. therefore originall juſtice ſhould not have beene ſupernaturall to man, but naturall by the rule of contraries.
Bellarmine, De grat. prim. hom. cap. 5.although he grant that there might have beene a man, created as well without grace as ſinne; yet hee is inforced to acknowledge, that this point of erroneous doctrine, did never generally prevaile in the Roman Church: for there were ſome (ſaith hee) excellently learned, that thought as wee doe; that man muſt either be in the eſtate of grace, or ſinne; and that there is not a middle eſtate: and that originall righteouſneſſe was required to the integrity of nature, and conſequently that being loſt, nature was corrupted and deprived of all naturall and morall rectitude. So that man after the fall of Adam, can doe nothing morally good, or that truely can bee named a vertue, till he be renewed by grace; as likewiſe Adam before his fall was not able to doe any thing morally good by natures power, without the aſſiſtance of ſpeciall grace from God.
But we muſt hold for our part, this to be the ground of no ſmall errour which the Church of Rome layeth; that man in his pure naturals, was voyde both of grace and ſinne; this is the ground of many other errours which they maintaine.
Firſt, that concupiſcence is naturall to man, following alwayes his creation.
Secondly, that naturall gifts both in men and divels remaine unblemiſhed ſince the fall.
Thirdly, that the corruption of nature conſiſts not in any corrupt qualitie, but onelyonly in the loſſe of ſupernaturall grace.
Fourthly, that death is not an effect of ſinne properly, but it is from nature, and it is onelyonly accidentally from ſin; becauſe ſin removes that bridle of originall righteouſneſſe, which held backe death.
Fiftly, that concupiſcence is not ſinne in the regenerate.
Sixtly, that man now after his fall, is in the ſame eſtate wherein hee was before the fall in his pure naturals: for Adams ſinne hath diminiſhed nothing from that which is naturall: and the body, (they ſay) ſince the fall is no more paſſible, than it was before in the pure naturals. So (they ſay) the minde of man being conſidered by it ſelfe, without this ſupernatuall holineſſe, is no more weakened by the fall, than it was before the fall in things naturall.
Seventhly, that man hath free will left in him after his fall: which grounds are all falſe. Here we muſt doe as Eliſha did when hee cured the waters of Iericho, 2 King. 3. he went to the ſpring heads, and there caſt in ſalt: ſo muſt we goe to this, as one of the ſprings from whence many errours in popery proceed, and cure it firſt.
This popiſh platforme of mans eſtate before his fall, is taken from the ſchooles of Philoſophie, but not from Moſes and the Prophets. The Philoſophers were ignorant of the nature of man in his whole eſtate, ſo were they ignorant of his fall; and therefore they tooke up man in a middle eſtate. So theſe Sophiſts following the Philoſophers, and not the Scriptures, as though they had never heard of mans creation, nor yet of his fall; imagine him to be a middle ſort of man, ſuch a man as never was, neither in his whole eſtate, nor after his fall: but they ought to have remembred that of the Apoſtle, Coloſ. 2.8. Take heed lest any ſpoyle you by Philoſophie.