Concerning the Truth of Christian Religion, Chapter 17
The xvij. Chapter.
That the men of old time agreed with vsus concerning mans corruption and the cause thereof.
IT followeth that wee gather the voyces and iudgements of the wisest sort, yea & of all men in generall; the which in myne opinion ought to beare the more sway with vsus, because it is a kindly thing with vsus, both to louelove our selues, and also to thinke ouerwell of our selues. For what cause hath a man to complayne, if being made Iudge in his owne case, he frame his owne indytement, and willingly beare witnesse against himselfe, by his owne voluntarie confession? Surely, that man is straungly infected with vyce; it is witnessed sufficiently by the Histories of all ages, which in effect are nothing els but registers of the continuall Manslaughters, Whoredomes, Guyles, Rauishments, and Warres? And when I say Warres, I thinke that in that worde I comprehend all the mischief that can be imagined.The Conscience of Sinne. And that these vyces were not created in mans nature, but are crept into it; it appeareth sufficiently by the bookes of the Ceremonies of al Nations; all whose Churchseruices are nothing but Sacrifices, that is to say, open protestations both euening and morning, that we hauehave offended God, and ought to bee sacrifized and slayne for our offences according to our desarts, in stead of the sillie Beastes that are offered vntounto him for vsus. Had man bene created with vyce in him, he should hauehave had no conscience of sinne nor repentance for it. For repentance presupposeth a fault, and conscience misgiueth the insewing of punishment for the same. And there can be neither fault nor punishment in that which is done according to creation, but onelyonly in and for our turning away from creation. Now, the Churchseruice and Ceremonies of all Nations, doe witnesse vntounto vsus a certeyne forthinking and remorce of sinne against God. And so they witnesse altogether a forefeeling of his wrath, which cannot bee kindled against nature which he himselfe created, but against the faultinesse and vnkindlynesse that are in nature.
Also what els are the great number of Lawes among vsus, but authenticall Registers of our corruption? And what are the manifold Commentaries written vppon them, but a very corruption of the Lawes themselues? And what doe they witnesse vntounto vsus, but as the multitude of Phisitions doth in a Citie; namely, the multitudes of our diseases; that is to wit, the sores and botches whereto our Soules are subiect, euen to the marring and poysoning of the very playsters themselues? Againe, what doe the punishments bewray which we hauehave ordeyned for our selues, but that wee chastise in vsus, not that which GOD hath made or wrought in vsus, but that which wee our selues hauehave vndone or vnwrought: nor the nature it selfe, but the disfiguring of nature? But yet when we consider that among all Nations, that Lawmaker is beléeued and followed by and by, which sayth, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steale, thou shalt not beare false witnesse; whereas great perswasion is required in all other lawes which are not so naturall: It must néedes be concluded, that the Consciences of all men are perswaded of themselues, that the same is sinne, and that sinne deserueth punishment; that is to wit, that sinne is in nature, but not nature it selfe. But to omit the holy Scripture, which is nothing els but a Lookingglasse to shewe vsus our spots and blemishes; what are all the Schooles of the Philosophers,The opinion of the Auncient Philosophers. but instructions of the Soule? And what els is Philosophie it selfe, but an arte of healing the Soule, whereof the first precept is this so greatly renowmed one, know thy selfe? Aristotle Aristotle.in his Moralles, sheweth that the affections must be ruled by reason, and our mynd bee brought from the extremes into the meanes, and from iarring into right tune. Which is a token that our mynd is out of tune euen of it owne accord, seeing that it néedeth so many precepts to set it in tune agayne. And yet is not Aristotle so presumptuous as to say, that euer he brought it to passe in his owne mynd.Theophrast. Theophrast his Disciple was woont to say, that the Soule payd wel for her dwelling in the bodie, considering how much it suffered at the bodies hand. And what els was this, but an acknowledgement of the debate betwéene the bodie and the mynd? But (as sayth Plutarke) he should rather hauehave sayd, that the bodie hath good cause to complayne, of the turmoyles, which so irksome and troublesome a guest procureth vntounto him.Plato in his Phedrus. Plato who went afore them, sawe more cléerly than both of them. He condemneth euerywhere the companie and fellowship of the body with the soule, and yet he condemneth not the workmanship of God. But he teacheth vsus that the Soule is now in this bodie as in a prison, or rather as in a Caue or a graue. And that is because he perceiued euidently, that contrarie to the order of nature, the Soule is subiect to the bodie, notwithstanding that naturally it should and can commaund it. The same Plato sayth further, that the Soule créepeth bacely vponupon these lower things, and that it is tyed to the matter of the bodie: the cause whereof he affirmeth to be, that she hath broken her wings which she had afore. His meaning then is, that the soule of her owne nature is winged and flyeth vpward, that is to say, is of a heauēly & diuine nature, which wings she hath lost by meanes of some fall. But to get out of these bonds, and to recouer her wings, the remedie that Plato giueth her, is to aduaunce her selfe towards God, and to the things that concerne the mynd. By the remedie we may coniecture what he tooke the disease to be namely, that our Soule hauing bin aduaunced by God to a notable dignitie, the which it might hauehave kept still by sticking vntounto God; fell to gazing at her gay feathers, till she fell headlong into these transitorie things, among the which she créepeth now like a sillie woorme, reteyning nothing as now of her birdlike nature, saue onelyonly a rowsing of her feathers and a vayne flapping of her wings. Now he sayth that he learned all this of a secret Oracle, the which he had in great reuerence. And of …cueth, in this doctrine of the originall of our corruption, wee hauehave to marke the same poynt which wee hauehave noted in some other things afore; namely, that the néerer wee come to the first world, the more cléere and manifest we finde the matter. Empedocles and Pythagoras.Empedocles and Pythagoras taught that the Soules which had offended God, w… condemned and banished into bodies here belowe. And Phil…aus Philolaus.the Pythagorian addeth, that they receyued that opinion from the Diuines and Prophets of old tyme. Their meaning is, that the body, which ought to be the house of the soule, is by Gods iust iudgemēt turned into a prison to it; and that which was giuen it for an instrument, is become Manicles and Stocks. So then, there is both a fault and the punishment: and the fault must néedes procéede from one first man, euen in the iudgement of those men of olde tyme, which acknowledged the Creation of the world. Also those auncient fathers seeme to hauehave heard what prouoked the first man to sinne. For Homer speaketh of a Goddesse whom he calleth Até, (that is to say Waste, Losse, or Destruction) which troubled heauen, and therefore was cast downe to the earth, where she hath euer since troubled Mankynd. And herevpon Euripides calleth the Féendes foreign, that is to say, Falne from Heauen. And the AEgiptians, who bee of most antiquitie, hild and taught the same in their Misteries. It is a méetly cléere shadowe of that which we reade in the Scripture concerning the fall of the deuill, wherevnto he drewe mankynd afterward by his temptations. Pherecydes alledged by Origen against Cellus.But when as Pherecydes the Syrian agréeing therein with Sibil, telleth vsus expresly that this Deuill which hath marred and destroyed the whole earth was a Serpent, (whom he calleth foreign or foreign, that is to say, Snakebread or Adderbread,) which armeth men by whole troopes against God: we by gathering al these testimonies together, shall hauehave the whole storie of the fall of man. Hermes Hermes in his Poemander.being auncienter than all these, doth plainly acknowledge the corruption of man, yea and that so farre, as to say that there is nothing but euill in vsus, & that there is no way for vsus to louelove God, but by hating our selues. And to kéepe vsus from accusing the Creator, The workmaister (sayth he to cut off all quarelling) is not the procurer of the rust, neyther is the Creator the author of the filth and vncleannesse that is in vsus. On whom then shall wee father the cause therof? God (sayth he) created man after his owne likenesse, and gaue him all things to vse. But man in stead of staying vppon the beholding of his father, would needes bee medling and doing somewhat of himselfe, and so fel from the heauenly contemplation into the Sphere of Elements or of Generation. And because he had power ouer al things, he began to fall in louelove with himselfe, and in gazing vponupon himself, to wonder at himself; whereby he so intangled himselfe, that he became a bondslaue to his bodie, whereas he was free and at libertie afore. Now he intangleth this trueth with his accustomed speculations. But yet what is this in effect, but that the first man being proud of the grace which he had receyued, drowned him selfe in the louelove of himselfe, whereas he might hauehave liued euerlastingly by drinking still of the louelove of GOD? And if we mount vp yet higher to Zoroastres, Zoroastreswho (as is written of him) was Noes graundchild: wee shall finde that in his Oracles, he bewayleth the race of Mankynd in these words. Alas alas, the Earth mourneth euen vntounto Children! which words cannot be otherwise interpreted than of originall sinne, which hath passed from the first man into all his ofspring; after which maner the Cabalistes and namely Osias the Chaldian interpret it; wherevnto Gemistus Gemistus.the Platonist is not repugnant. And as touching the originall of this mischief, he denyeth in these words that it came of creation; The thing that is vnperfect (sayth he) cannot proceede of the Creator.
Now that we be come as it were vp the streame to the first man Adam by whom sinne entered into the world, and by sinne, death: let vsus see hēceforth what the opinion of the Philosophers hath bin, since the comming of the second man Iesus Christ. We hauehave a little booke of one Hierocles a Stoick, Hierocles the Stoic against Ath…ts.vppon the golden sayings of Pythagoras, which shall answer both for the Pythagorists and for the Stoiks. Man (sayeth he) is of his owne motion inclyned to follow the euill and to leaue the good. There is a certein stryfe bred in his affections, which stepping vp ageinst the will of Nature, hath made it to tumble from Heauen to Hell, by vndertaking to fight ageinst God. He hath a free will which he abuseth, bending himself wholy to incounter the Lawes of God: and this freedum itself is nothing else but a willingnesse to admit that which is not good, rather than otherwise. What els is this, but as the holy scripture saieth, that al the imaginations of manes hart are altogither continewally bent to euill? and which wee dayly dispute of, namely that our freedome is fresh and foreward vntounto euill, but lame and lasie vntounto dooing well? If yee aske him the cause thereof, Let vsus not blaspheme for all that, (sayeth he) nor say that God is the author of our sinnes: but rather that man is of his owne accord become vntoward; and that whensoeuer we fall into sinne, we do that which is in vsus, but not which was in vsus from God. How then shall we make these propositions of his to agree; namely that God created man; that man is froward and corrupted; and yet that God created not man such a one: vnlesse we say that God created man good, and that afterward man degenerated from his nature? But it is the very thing whereunto he commeth of himself. Ambition (sayth he) is our bane; and this mischeefe hauehave wee of ourselues, bycause we be gone away from God, and do giuegive ourselues to earthly things, which make vsus to forget God. And that this mischeef is comon to all mankynd, he confesseth sufficiently in that he giueth vsus an vniuersall remedie that is to wit Religion: the which alonly is able (sayeth he) to rid vsus from earthly ignorance, without the riddance whereof, we can neuer come agein to our former shape, and to the lykenes of our kynd, which was to be lyke vntounto God. Now if all the whole kynd be defiled as he sayeth it is; surely we must resort backe to one first father, frō whom it is spred out into the rest by naturall generation.Plutarke in his booke of Morall vertue, and in his booke of the mutuall louelove betweene Parents and their Children and That Beastes hauehave Reason. Plutarke wryting of Morall vertue, findeth it a very hard matter to make our affection subiect to reason, and the body obedient to the spirit. And he is driuen to maruell greatly, That our féete should be so ready to goe or too stand still whensoeuer Reason loozeneth or pulleth backe the Brydle; and that on the contrarie part, our affections should carry vsus away so headlong for all the restreint that wee can make. Also hee thinketh it strange, that in our discourses of the greatest matters, as of LoueLove, of the bringing vp of our Children, and of such like, we be driuen to take the brute beastes for our Iudges, as who woulde say that nature had stamped no Print of them in our selues; And he findeth himself so sore graueled in his consideration, that he preferreth the brute beastes before vsus in all things, sauing in the capacitie which wee hauehave to knowe God; vndoubtedly as perceiuing a continuall following of their kind in all of them, wheras in vsus only there is contrariwise such an vnkindly and Bastardly Nature, that not euen the best of vsus hauehave any whit of our former nature remayning in vsus, sauing onelyonly shame that we hauehave it no more. And this very gift of knowing God which remayneth to man, graueleth Plutarke more than all the rest. Man (saieth he) is a reasonable Creature; God hath set him in the world to be serued & honored of him, and he hath made him to be borne to common ciuill Societie. Whereof commeth it then that in his doings he is more vnreasonable, more contrarie to Gods will, and more against the Lawe of Nature, then the very brute beastes? In this perplexitie, one whyle he saith that man had receiued fayre and sound Seede, but that he corrupted it afterward: Anotherwhile hee sayth that he delt with reason as perfumers doe with Oyles, which neuer ceasse medling and mingling of them, till there remayne no sent of Oyle at all: And in one place, perceiuing (by all likelihod) this corruption to be so vniuersal: he saith further, that at the very beginning and from their first comming into the Worlde, men intangled and confounded themselues with sinne. Whereby we may perceiue, that had the thing bin declared vntounto him in such sort as wée beléeue it; surely hee would willingly hauehave imbraced and receiued it, as the only solution of so many perplexities wherein he was intangled.
Let vsus come to the Platonists. All of them agrée in these points; That the Soule of Man is a spirit; and that a spirit cannot naturally receiue any affection from a body, neither which may cause it to perish, nor which may doe so much as once trouble it. Yet notwithstanding, on which side so euer they turne themselues, they cannot deny but that our mynds are trubbled with infinite affections and passions in this body, and that they be subiect one while to starting besides themselues through pryde, anger or enuie; an another while to be cast downe with Riottousnes, Gluttonie, and Idlenes; yea and to receiue diuers impressions not only from the body, but also from the aire, the water, and from Mistes, and finally from eueryevery little thing in the world. Now how can this contrarietie be reconciled, except their meaning be as ours is, that naturally our Soules are not subiect to any of these things, but that they bee put in subiection to them beyond the course of nature? If it bee beyond the course of nature; by whome is it doone, but by him that commaundeth nature, to whome it is as easie to put a spirit in Prison, as to lodge a man in a house? If it be done by him who is the rightuousnes it selfe; doth it not followe that it was for some fault committed by the Soule? If for some fault; then seeing that the punishment thereof is in all men, in whome should that first fault be, but in that man which was the originall of all men, as in whom all of vsus (say I) were materially? Now againe, this fault cannot bee imputed to the body, for it is in the will, and the body of it selfe hath no will: neither can it be imputed to any …fection receiued first from the body; for the Soule could not be wrought into by the body. In the Soule therefore must the fault of mankind néedes be, and for the soules offence doth the Soule itself suffer punishment, and make the body also to suffer with her.
Howbeit, that we may the better iudge of their opinions, let vsus heare them in the chief of them one after another. Plotine hauing considered that the Soule is of nature diuine, heauenly, and spirituall; concludeth that of itselfe it is not wrought into by the body. But afterward perceiuing how it is defiled, ouermaistred by sinne,Plotin: Enn. 3. lib. 2. and by force of necessitie linked vntounto lust; he commeth backe to this solution, That hir béeing here beneath is but a banishment too her,Also Enn. 1. lib. 6 Cap. 5. Also Enn. 1. lib. 8. Cap. 14. & Enn. 6. lib. 9 Cap. 9. which he termeth expresly a fall, and otherwise (as Pato doth) a losing of hir wings: That the vertue which she hath, is but a Remnant of hir former nature; That the vyce which she hath, is taken by dealing by these bace and transitorie things: and too bee short, that al the vertue which is learned, is but a purging of the Soule, which must be fayne to be as it were newfurbished, to scoure of the greate Rust that hath ouergrowen it. In these Contradictions therefore hee maketh this question to himselfe:Plotin. lib. 1. Enn. 5. Cap. 1. What should bee the cause (sayth hee) that our Soules being of a diuine nature, should so forget both God their father, and their kinred, and themselues? Surely (answereth he) the beginning of this mischeef, was a certeine rashnes & ouerboldnesse, wherethrough they would needes plucke their neckes out of the collar, and be at their owne commaundement; by which abuse turning their libertie into licentiousnes, they went cleane backe, and are so farre gone away from GOD, that (like Children which being newly weaned, are byanby conueyed away from their Fathers and Moothers, they knowe neither whose, nor what they be, nor from whence they came. Now in these words he agreeth with our Diuines, not only in this, yt corruption came in by sin,Plotin. Enn. 1. lib. 8. Cap. 4. but also in ye kind of sinne, namely Pryde, wherby we be turned away frō our Maker. In another place, The Soule (saith he) which was bred for heauenly things, hath plundged itselfe in these materiall things, and matter of itselfe is so euill, that not onelyonly all that is of matter or matched with matter, but also euen that which hath respect vntounto matter, is filled with euill, as the eye that beholdeth darknes is filled with darknes. Here ye sée, not onelyonly from whence we be turned away, but also too what: that is too wit, from God, to vanitie, from the Creator to the creature, from good to euill. But of this inclyning to the materiall things, he sometymes maketh the body to be the author,Plotin. Enn. 3, lib. 5. Cap. 5. as though the body had caried the Soule away by force of his imaginations; and he acquitteth the mynde thereof as much as he can, insomuch as hee sticketh not to affirme, that notwithstanding all this marrednesse, yet the Soule liueth and abideth pure and cleane in God,Enn. 3. lib. 3. Cap 4. yea euen whyle the Soule (whereof the Mynd is as yee would say the very eisight or apple of the eye) dwelleth in this body. Howbeit, besides that he is reproued for it by Porphyrius, Proclus and others; his owne reasons whereby he proueth that the Soule is not naturally subiect to the body, be so strong; that it were vnpossible for him too shift himself from them. In this the great Philosopher is ouershot, that he will needes seeke out the cause of sinne in Man as Man is now. Where finding Reason caried away by Imagination, and Imagination deceiued by the Sences; he thought the fault to hauehave procéeded of that; wheras in deede he should hauehave sought the cause in Man as he was first created, when he had his Sences and Appetites absolutely at commaundement, whose wilfull offending hath brought vppon vsus the necessitie of punishment which we indure. And in good sooth, this saying of his in another place cannot be interpreted otherwise; namely that the cause why the Soule indureth so many trubbles and passions in this body, is to be taken of the life which is led afore out of the body: that is to say, that the subiection of the Soule to the Body is not the originall cause of the sinne therof, but rather a condemnation thereof to punishment.Plotin. Eun. 1. lib. 8. Cap. 14. & lid. 3. Cap. 4 Neither also can he scape frō these conclusions of his owne, namely that the Soule beeing separated from the body, hath her wings sound and perfect: and that the Body being ioyned to the Soule, hath no power to breake her wings, and yet that she findeth herself there to be weake and without wings: except he hold with vsus, that the Soule hath by her fall forgone her strength, and that the body by the feeblenes of the Soule and the sentence of the Creator, is strengthened in his weakenesse: that is to wit, in so much as the body (as I hauehave sayde afore) is of a House become a Prison to the Soule. To be short, graunting Gods Iustice, as he doth; hee can neuer wind himselfe out of this question which he himself maketh; namely why the sinnes are imputed to the Soule, seeing it doth them not but by infection of the body; vnlesse he make this infection to be a punishment of the fault which the Soule had committed afore in the body.
But Porphyrius, who perceyued these inconueniences, hath spoken more distinctly of the matter than his Mayster did, agréeing with him neuerthelesse in the corruption of man,S. Austin in the Citie of God, lib. 10. Cap. 23. and 32. and in the cleansing of the Soule; Which cleansing of the Soule (sayth he) is so needfull a thing, as that it cannot possibly bee but that God hath prouided some vniuersal meane of cleansing mankynd. How is it possible then (sayth he) that the fall of the Soule, should come of Imagination which knitteth the Soule to the bodie, seeing that the higher things are not drawne downe by the lower, but contrarywise the lower are drawne vp by the higher? Nay rather (sayth he) the higher substances come downe in themselues from vnderstanding into imagination, from spirituall things to bodily things, from high things to lowe things, frō perfect things to vnperfect things. And wheras by sticking fast vntounto God they might hauehave abidden firme, not so much by their owne strength as by his, and might hauehave liued and wrought as vnderunder his forme; they bee come to a fall of themselues by stooping to matter. And therfore Porphyrius in his booke which sheweth how to do the things that are to be conceyued alonly by reason and vnderstanding.(sayth he) in the substaunces which are inclinable to such things, there is befalne (as men say) a sinne, and a certeyne vnbeleef which is condemned, because they fell in louelove with the Creatures, and turned away to them from the Creator. To be short, he commeth to this poynt, that the fall of mens Soules, is like the fall of the Féendes that is taught by the Iewes, and that through the fault of the wit and the will, which he termeth vnbeleefe or vnfaithfulnesse, man is falne into the folly of concupiscence, that is to say,Also in his third booke of Abstinence. from the fault into the punishment thereof, from the rebellion of the Soule, into the bondage thereof to the bodie. And ye must not thinke wee speake contraries when wee say, one while that man sinned by aduauncing himself too high, and by presuming to become as it were equall with God; and another while that he sinned by stooping downe to these bace and lowe things. For in very déede, the lifting vp of a mans selfe to Godward, is the true abacing and humbling of himselfe: for who is hée that can rightly looke vp to God, and make account of himselfe, or rather not bee abaced in himselfe? And to inclyne to a mans selfe, is in very trueth a presuming to make himselfe equall to God. For it is a seeking of that thing in our selues, which is not to bee found but in GOD, namely of welfare and felicitie; and what els is pride, but a selfestimation or an ouerwéening of a mans selfe?
Proclus Proclus concerning the Soule and concerning the Feend. cap. 4.doth ordinarily call the inclyning of our nature vntounto euill, a descending or comming downe; and the corruption thereof, a fall, because the highest that our Soule can atteyne vntounto, is the beholding of God; and the descending, stooping, or comming downe thereof, is to fall into estimation of our selues; and the fall is to bee thrust downe [in subiectiō] vnderunder our selues, like a body that falleth from some high place. But as touching the cause of the corruption, he fathereth it vppon our Mynd, that is to wit, the highest part of our Soule; saying that if the same had continued sound, and sticked fast vntounto God, (as sayth Plotin) it had also hild reason sound still, which is the Sunbeame thereof, and consequently all our actions should hauehave bene found, so as wee should not hauehave bene subiect to sinne. Séeing then that the punishment is come euen to the highest part of vsus, which we sée combered with so many passions, dimmed with so much darknesse, and defiled with so many vyces: surely the fault procéeded onelyonly from thence. Herevnto we might ad many other sayings; but wee will content our selues as now with onelyonly Simplicius Simplicius vppon Epictus.the famous interpreter of Aristotle. As long as mans Soule (sayth he) cleaueth fast vntounto God the author thereof, it abydeth sound, and holdeth her perfection wherwith she was created of God: but fall she once to shrinking away from him, by and by she withereth as hauing lost her roote, and comes to nothing; neyther can she recouer her former liuelynesse, except she be reunited agayne to her former cause. Now perceyue we euerychone of vsus, that our nature is withered; and therefore let vsus say that we be slipped from our roote. And the roote leaueth not the braunches, but contrarywise the braunches leaue the roote. Let vsus say then that we hauehave bereft ourselues of the gracious goodnesse of God, who would hauehave mainteyned vsus still: for to nourish and quicken, is the propertie and nature of the roote. In one only thing doe the Philosophers differ from vsus in this behalfe: namely, that they vphold all mens Soules to hauehave sinned eueryevery one in himselfe; and wee say, That the onelyonly first man sinned, and thereby hath bound all his whole ofspring to the punishment. But yet doe both come backe agayne to one poynt, seeing that euen by their owne reasons I proued the creation of the world, which of necessitie leadeth vsus to one man the father of vsus all, whereas the Philosophers hang wauering still vnresolued in that poynt.
Among all people wee see there were prayers to craue pardon for sinne,Vniuersall consent, Sacrifices to appease Gods wrath, Misticall washings, and Satisfactories or Uotaries that were … …he sinnes of some whole Realme, Citie, or … (as I hauehave sayd afore) are publick protestations of a publick …. The Philosophers were sore combered in finding a meane … Mankynd from his filthinesse; some would hauehave done it by the Morals; some by the Mathematicals; and some by Religious Ceremonies: but in the end they confesse that all these …ngs can doe nothing in that behalf. They be fooles in their remedies, but wise in discerning the disease. Wee reade of the people of Affricke at this day, (who bee giuen enough to contemplation,) that they fall into great conceyts of mynd, and are not able to perswade themselues that all their Churchseruices are sufficient to make them cleane. And that is a proofe that they féele a mischief within them, whereinto neither the eye of the Phisition can see, nor the medicine that he ministreth can atteyne.Agathias in his secōd book of the Persian Warres. Also the Persians were woont to hold a holyday eueryevery yéere, which they called The Death of vyces: In the which Feast, for a token of deuotion, they killed of all sorts of Serpents & wyld Beastes. And doubtlesse that was because they had learned, that man doth couertly carie in his breast all maner of Beasts, ye which it behoueth him to kill in himselfe, according to this saying of the Platonists, That the readiest way to returne vntounto God, and consequently to a mans first nature,The generall Historie of the Indyes ca. 122. is to kill his owne affections. But what shall we say to that which we hauehave learned in these our daies among the barbarous Nations of the West Indies? There came a man into their Countrey (say they) which called himself the Sonne of the Sonne, who by his word and power replenished the Land with men and women whom hee created, and gaue them great abundance of fruits. Who doth not herevppon call by and by to remembrance the creation of man and woman in the Scripture, where God sayth vntounto them, Increase and multiply and fill the earth; I hauehave giuen you al hearb bearing seede, and all trees bearing fruite, and so foorth? But (sayth the booke of their Diuinitie) because some men prouoked his displeasure, he afterward chaunged the good soyle which he had giuen them, into drye and barreyne sands, and bereft them of Rayne, and left them nothing but a few riuers to helpe themselues withall by their great labour and trauell. Who espyeth not here agayne the sinne of man, Gods curse vppon the earth, and namely these words, In the sweate of thy browes shalt thou eate thy bread all the daies of thy life? And who should bee ignorant of God, when as euen those knowe him, whom wee estéeme to bee almost of another kynd than we be?
But here the wicked perceyuing themselues to want matter to replye,Obiections. do fail to rayling against God. Séeing that man (say they) sinned through the fréewill which GOD gaue vntounto him; how can God be called good, hauing giuen man wherewith to sinne? By the same reason I say at once for all, if God be good; why hath he made Man, or any thing for Man? If he should take from thée all that thou abusest, I pray thee what should bee left thée? Thy Reason? What is there in thée that maketh thée more vnreasonable? Thy Sences? To what other seruice doest thou put them, than to the marring of thy Sences? Thy Tongue? How much more eloquēt is it in speaking euill, than in speaking good? To bee short, where shal the good things become which he hath giuen thée for the maintenance of thy health and life? Nay, on the contrary part, which of them is it that thou turnest not to thy death and to thy bane? Now is the founder of them to blame, if thou kill thy self with the things without the which thou couldest not liue? Or if thou become euill by the things without the which thou couldest not be good? GOD hath giuen thée a will; and without will thou couldest not bee good. Unto will hee hath added a good wit to guyde it: and without wit thou couldest not be wise. If thou be loth to be eyther good or wise, it is but because thou art loth to bee a man. Thy will was giuen thée to louelove God withall. Now, louelove delighteth to bee fréeharted; neither would God bee loued of vsus as inchaunted to it, but freely and vtterly vnconstreined. Therfore it behoued this will to be frée. Likewise thy wit was giuen thée to behold God withall. And haddest thou but onelyonly thy Sences, what haddest thou more than the brute Beastes? And if thou haddest no more than they; why were they and all the whole world made for thee? Now then, which of these two canst thou finde fault with, seeing that without them both, thou couldest be neither good, nor wise, no nor a man? Thou wouldest hauehave bin created vnchaungeable; howbeit, not as a Rock or a Mountayne, but as a Man. Surely the vnchaungeablenesse of Spirits, was created to depend vppon their linking in with their maker. Thou wouldest peraduenture hauehave bin an Angel: but there are euen of the Angels that are falne; and as thei were farre higher than thou, so was their fall more daungerous than thyne. O man, acknowledge the goodnes of the Creator in creating thée good; and acknowledge the vanitie of the creature, which cannot stand in his owne goodnesse, but in the goodnesse of the Creator. But especially aboue all things commend thou his goodnesse and merciemercy, in that he hath not onelyonly reléeued thée in thy fall, but also as it were vphild thée that thou mightest fall the softer.
Another taketh exception to Gods Iustice. What Iustice is it (sayth he) to punish a man so rigorously for so small a fault? Nay, what is more iust than nature? What is more naturall than to runne into darknesse, when a man turneth away from the Sunne? Or (as Plotin sayth) to impayre and wex naught, when a man departeth from the souereyne good? But O thou man which thinkest thy self iuster than God, what punishment wouldest thou appoynt to thy Sonne, not being a babe or a yoong childe, but being come to yéeres of discretion, and a mangrowen; not pinched and pyned, but flowing in all wealth: if vponupon a brauerie and lustinesse of courage, he would disobey thée for a thing of nothing? Thē set thou Adam also before thyne eyes newly come into the world by the goodnesse of the Creator, not starke naked, but furnished with ye whole world to serue him; not witlesse, but with a pure sound and skilfull mynd; not subiect to his lustes, but able to holde them in awe to his will, and hauing his will obedient to reason. Now, whether thou consider his sinne, his rebellion, his vnfaithfulnes, and his pride; or whether thou hauehave an eye to the easines of absteyning from sinne: what punishment wilt thou not déeme him worthie to hauehave?
Yea (sayest thou) but why vseth he this rigour against his children? Nay rather, say, why is he so mercifull, why is he so gracious, as to kéepe them low in their fathers fall, least they should fall [more gréeuously] through the same rashnesse? Thou buildest a Citie, and the custome is to beautifie it with Priuiledges. Afterward this Citie rebelleth; thou take… away their priuiledges, their Belles, their Armour, and their weapons; and this punishment of their Insurrection extendeth to all their posteritie, albeit they were but fewe at the beginning, and grewe to bee mightily multiplyed afterward. The graunting of the Priuiledges to the first, was a poynt of goodnesse; for otherwise they might hauehave had occasion to complayne of thée. Likewise it is Iustice to take them so from thē, and merciemercy to withhold them from their posteritie who hauehave the same rebellious mynd in them, and had els runne headlong into extreme punishments. God gaue thée the priuiledge of freedome, and inriched thée with singular gifts both of body and mynd: praise thou his goodnesse. Now, because thou hast abused them, he eyther taketh them cleane away, or els diminisheth them: acknowledge thou his Iustice. And because thy children might doe as thou hast done, and would not be amended by thine example, he taketh them from them also and diminisheth them in thée: commend thou still his merciemercy in his Iustice, but specially honor thou his Iustice in his merciemercy, in that of this rebellious race hée causeth the partie to bee borne, which can appease his Iustice.
Yet for all this, they giuegive not ouer. If by the sinne of the first man (say they) nature be corrupted in all men: why be not the children more corrupted than their Fathers, by meanes of so many sinnes committed by their Fathers? In this behalfe they mislyke of Gods clemencie, and yet could not Gods Iustice hauehave contented them. Now the Lords intent in punishing the rebellious Citizens, was to make them submit themselues againe vnderunder his gouernement, and not to destroy them vtterly. And it was Gods intent to humble mankind by making hym to feele the smart of his fall; and not to breake him in peeces in his wrath, but to reclayme him by his merciemercy. We bee falne into a Pit, we be falne from our highnes: now what would a second fall be? We hauehave broken our Wings already against the Earth; whether would wee fall at the next fall, being vnable to make a second flight? Wée be falne (say I) from the goodnes of our nature into naughtines, from Gods fauour into his wrath: how can wee fall any lower? Nay rather by creeping halfebroken vponupon the Earth, we knowe that we be falne; and féeling the losse which we hauehave susteyned, wee crye vntounto God for relief, and like little Nurcechildren we beséech him to stay and vphold vsus with his mightie hand.
Now therefore let vsus conclude for these twoo last Chapters, That mans nature is corrupted; and that it was not so created of God; but that man abusing Gods grace, did cast himselfe downe from goodnesse into naughtines, and from Gods freefauour intoo his iust displeasure; and that the man in whome the sayd Nature was first corrupted, was the first man: from whom we hauehave receiued our corruption, as well as our nature. But let vsus not so much muse to take an account how we be falne into this pit of infection, as earnestly bethinke vsus by what meanes we may get out againe, which is the thing that we hauehave to treate of next.