The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1 · Chapter 15
¶ The .xv. Chapter. What a one man was created: wherin there is entreated of the powers of the soule, of the image of God, of free wyll and of the first integritie of nature.
NOw must we speake of the creation of mā, not only because he is among all the workes of God the moste noble and most excellente example of his iustice, wisdome and goodnesse: but also because as we said in the beginning, we cannot plainly and perfectly know God, vnlesse we hauehave wtall a mutuall knowledge of our selues. Although the same knowledge be of two sortes, the one to knowe what we were created at the first beginning, ye other to know what our estate began to be after the fall of Adam (for it were but to smal profit for vsus to knowe our creation, vnlesse we did also in this lamentable fall knowe what is the corruption and deformitie of our nature:) yet at this time we wil be contente with descriptiō of our nature when it was pure. And before we descende to this miserable estate wherunto man is nowe in thraldome, it is good to learne what a one he was created at the beginning. For we must take hede that in precisely declaring only the natural euils of man, we seme not to impute them to the author of nature. For vngodlinesse thinketh her self to hauehave sufficient defense in this color, if it may lay for her selfe that whatsoeuer fault she hath, the same did after a certaine maner procede from God, & sticketh not if she be accused, to quarell with God, and to lay ye fault vpō him wherof she is worthely accused. And they yt would seme to speake somwhat more reuerently of the maiestie of God, yet do willingly seke to excuse their own wickednesse, by nature, not considering that therin though not openly they blame God also, to whoes reproche it shoulde fall if it were proued that there is any fault in nature. Sith then we see that our fleshe gapeth for all the wayes to escape, wherby she thynketh the blame of her own euils may any way be put of frō her, we muste diligently trauail to mete with this mischiefe. Therefore we must so handle the calamitie of mankinde that we cut of all excuse, and deliuer the iustice of God from al accusation. Afterwarde in place conueniente we shall see howe far men be nowe from that purenesse that was geuen to Adam. And first we must remember, that in this that man was taken out of earth and claye, a bridle was putte vppon his pride, for there is no greater absurditie, than for them to glory in their excellencye that do not onelyonly dwell in a cotage of clay, but also are themselues in parte but earth and ashes. But forasmuche as God did not onelyonly vouchesaue to geue life vntounto an earthen vessell, but also it was his pleasure that it shoulde be the dwelling house of an immortall Spirite, Adam might iustly glory in so great liberalitie of his maker.
Now it is not to be doubted that man consisteth of soule & body, and by the name of soule I meane an immortall essence, and yet created, whiche is the nobler parte of him. Sometime it is called the Spirite. Albeit whē these two names Soule and Spirite are ioyned together, they differ one from the other in signification,Eccle, xii, vii, Luc. xxiii.xlvi. Act. vii.lix yet when Spirite is sett by it selfe it meaneth as muche as Soule. As, when Salomon speaking of death, sayeth that then the Spirite returneth to him that gaue it. And Chryste commending his Spirite to his father, and Stephen his Spirite to Chryst doe both meane none other thing but that when the soule is deliuered from the prison of the fleshe, God is the perpetual keper of it. As for them that imagine that the Soule is therfore called a Spirite because it is a breath or a power by god inspired or poured into bodyes which yet hath no essence: both the thing it selfe and all the Scripture sheweth that they do to much grosly erre. True it is that while men are fastened to the earth more than they oughte to bee, they waxe dull, yea because they are estranged from the Father of lightes they are blinded with darkenesse, so that they do not thinke vponupon thys, that they shal remaine aliue after death. And yet is not that lighte so quēched in darkenesse, but that they be touched with some feling of immortalitie. Surely the conscience which discerning betwene good and euil answereth the iudgement of God, is an vndouted signe of an immortal Spirite. For how could a motion without essēce atteine to come to the iudgement seate of God, and throwe it selfe into feare by finding her own giltinesse? For the body is not moued with feare of a Spiritual peine, but yt falleth only vpō the soule. Wherby it foloweth yt the soule hath an essence. Moreouer the very knowledge of God doth proue that the soules which ascende vp aboue the world are immortal: for a vanishing liuelinesse wer not able to atteine to the fountaine of lyfe. Finalli forasmuch as so many excellent giftes wherwith mans minde is endowed, do cry out yt there is some diuine thing engrauen it, there are euen so many testimonies of an immortal essence. For that sense which is in brute beastes, goeth not out of the body, or at lest extendeth no further than to thyngs presently set before it. But the nimblenesse of the minde of man which veweth the heauen and earth & secretes of nature, and comprehending all ages in vnderstandyng and memory, digesteth eueryevery thyng in order and gathereth thynges to come by thinges past, doth playnly shewe that there lyeth hydden in man a certayne thing seuerall from the body. We conceiue by vnderstanding the inuisible God and Angelles, which the body can not doe. We know thynges that be right, iuste, and honest, which are hidden from the bodily senses. Therefore it muste nedes be that the Spirite is the seate of thys vnderstandyng, Yea and our slepe it selfe, which astonieth a man and semeth to take life away frō him, is a plaine witnesse of immortalitie, forasmuch as it doth not only minister vntounto vsus, thoughtes of those thinges that neuer were done, but also foreknowinges of things for time to come. I touch these thinges shortly which euen prophane writers do excellently sette oute with more gorgeous garnishment of wordes: but with the godly reders a simple putting in minde of them shall be sufficient. Nowe if the soule were not a certayne thing by it selfe seuerall from the body, the Scripture would not teache that we dwell in houses of clay, that by death we remoue out of the Tabernacle of the flesh, that we do put of that which is corruptible, that finally at the last day we may receiue rewarde eueryevery man as he hathe behaued hymselfe in hys bodye. For these places and other that we do eche where cōmonly light vponupon, do not only manifestly destinguish the soule from the body, but also in geuing to the soule the name of man do shew that it is the principall parte.i. cor. vii.i Now wheras Paul doth exhort the faithful to clense thēselues from al defiling of the fleshe and the Spirite, he maketh two partes of man wherein abydeth the filthinesse of sinne. And Peter where he calleth Christ the shepeherde & bishop of soules,i Pete. ii.xxv. i. Pe i.ix, i. Pe. xiii, shold hauehave spoken fondly if there wer no soules about whom he might execute that office. Neyther would that conuenientlye stande together which he saieth of the eternal saluation of soules, and where he biddeth to clense our soules, and where he sayeth that euil desires do fight against the soule, and where the author of the Epistle to ye Hebrues sayeth,Heb, xiii, xvi. that the Pastors do watch that they may yelde accōpte for our soules, vnlesse it were true that soules had a proper essence. To the same purpose serueth it that Paule calleth God for witnesse to hys own soule, because it could not be called in iudgemente before God vnlesse it were subiect to punishment.Math. x.…xviii. Lu, xii, v. Heb. xii.ix And this is also more plainly expressed in the words of Christ, when he biddeth vsus to feare him which after that he hath killed the body, can throw ye soule into hel fier. Now where the author of the Epistle to the Hebrues doth distinguishe the Fathers of our flesh from God, which is the only Father of Spirites, he woulde not otherwise more plainly affirme the essence of soules. Moreouer, if ye soules remained not aliue being deliuered from the prisons of their bodies, Christ should very fondly hauehave broughte in the soule of Lazarus ioying in the bosome of Abraham,Luk. xvi.xxii, ii. Cor. v Act. xxiii.viii. and againe the soule of the richman subiect to horrible tormentes. The same thing doth Paul confirme whē he teacheth that we wander abrod from God, so long as we dwel in the flesh, and that we enioy his presence being out of the flesh. But, because I wil not be long in a matter that is not obscure, I wil adde only thys out of Luke, that it is reckened amōg the errors of the Sadduces that they did not beleue that there were any Spirites and Angels.
Also a strong profe herof may be gathered of this where it is sayed, that man is create lyke to the image of God.Ge. i.xxvii For although the glory of God do appeare in the outwarde shape of man, yet is it no doubte that the proper seate of the image of God is in the soule. I do not deny that as concernyng our outwarde shape, in asmuch as the same doeth distinguishe and seuer vsus from brute bestes, we doe also therein more nerely approche to God than they: nether wil I much stand against thē which thinke that thys is to be accōpted of the image of God, yt where al other lyuynge creatures doo grouellyngwise beholde the grounde, to man is geuen an vpright face, and he is commaunded to loke vponupon the heauē, and to aduaunce his countenaunce towarde the starres: so that this remayn certain, that the image of God whiche is seene appereth in these outward signes, is spiritual. For Osiander (whom his writyngs declare to hauehave ben in fickle imaginations fondly witty) referryng the image of God without difference as well to the body as to the soule, mingleth heauen and earth togither. For he saith, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy ghost did settle their image in man, because though Adam had stande without fallyng, yet shuld Christe hauehave become man. And so by their opiniō the body that was appointed for Christ, was but an example or figure of that bodily shape whiche then was formed. But where shall he fynde that Christe is the image of the Spirite? I graunte in deede that in the Person of the Mediatour shyneth the glorye of the whole Godheade. But howe shall the eternall woorde be called the image of the Spirite whom he goeth before in order? Finally it ouerthroweth the distinction betwene the Sonne and the Holy ghost, if he doo here call him his image. Moreouer I would fayne learne of hym how Christe dooth resemble the Holy ghoste in the fleshe that he tooke vppon him, and by what markes and features he doth expresse the likenesse of hym. And where as this saying: Let vsus make man after our image,Genes. i.xvi, dooth also belong to the Person of the Sonne, it foloweth, that he must be the image of himselfe: whiche is against all reason. Beside that, if Osianders inuention be beleued, man was fashioned onelyonly after the figure & paterne of Christ in that he was man, and so that forme out of whiche Adam was taken, was Christ, in that that he was to bee clothed with fleshe, where as the Scripture in a farre other meanyng teacheth, that he was create in the image of God. But their suttle inuē tion is more colourable whiche doo thus expounde it, that Adam was create in the image of God, because he was fashioned like vntounto Christe, whiche is the only image of God. But that exposition also is not soūd. Also som interpreters make a great disputation about Image & Likenesse, whyle they seke a difference betwene those two wordes, where is no difference at al, saying that this worde Likenesse is added to expoūd the other. First we knowe that amonge the Hebrues suche repetitions are common, wherin they expresse one thyng twise: and in the thyng it selfe there is no doubt, but that man is therfore caled the image of God, because he is like to God. Wherby appereth that they are to be laughed at, which doo so subtilly argue about the wordes, whether they appoint Zelem, that is to say, Image in the substaunce of the soule, or Demuth, that is to say, Likenesse in the qualities, or what other thyng soeuer it be yt they teache. For where as God determined to create man after his own image, this being somwhat darkly spoken he doth as by way of explication repete it in this saying, After his likenesse, as if he wolde hauehave said, that he woulde make man, in whom he would represent hym selfe, as in an image, because of the markes of likenesse grauen in him. And therfore Moses a little after recityng the same thyng, dooth repete the Image of God twise, leauyng out the name of Likenesse. And it is a triflyng obiection that Oseander maketh, that not a parte of man, or the soule onelyonly with the giftes thereof, is called the Image of God, but the whole Adam whiche hadde his name geuen him of the earth, from whense he was taken. Triflyng, I say, will all readers that hauehave theyr sounde witte iudge this obiection. For where whole man is called mortall, yet is not the soule thereby made subiect to mortalitie.
Again where he is called a liuyng creature endued with reason, it is not therby meant that the body hath reason and vnderstandyng. Although therfore the soule is not the whole man, yet is it not inconuenient, that man in respecte of the soule be called the image of God, albeit I holde still that principle whiche I hauehave before stablished, that the Image of God extendeth to the whole excellence, wherby the nature of man hath preeminence among all kyndes of liuyng creatures. Therefore in that worde is noted the integritie that man had when he was endued with ryght vnderstandyng, when he had his affection framed accordynge to reason, and all his senses gouerned in right order, and when in excellēt giftes he did truly resemble the excellence of his Creatour. And though the principall seate of the image of God were in the mynde and hart, or in the soule and the powers therof, yet was there no parte of man, not so muche as the body, wherin dyd not some sparkes therof appere. Certaine it is, that also in all the partes of the worlde, there doo shyne some resemblances of the glory of God: wherby we may gather that where it is said, that his Image is in man, there is in so saying a certain secret comparison, that auaunceth man aboue all other creatures, and doth as it were seuer him from the common sort.Mat. xxii.xxx. Neither is it to be denied, that the Angels were create after the likenesse of God, sithe (as Christ him selfe testifieth) our chiefe perfection shall be to become like vntounto theim. But not without cause doeth Moses by that peculiar title sette forth the grace of God towarde vsus, specially where he compareth onelyonly visible creatures with man.
But yet it semeth that there is not geuen a ful definition of the image of God, vnlesse it plainlier appere in what qualities man excelleth: and wherby he ought to be compted a glasse, resemblyng the glorye of God. But that can be by no other thyng better knowen, than by the repayryng of mans corrupted nature. First it is doubtlesse, that when Adam felle from his estate, he was by that departure estranged from God. Wherefore althoughe we graunte that the Image of God was not altogyther defaced and blotted oute in hym, yet was it so corrupted, that all that remaineth, is but vggly deformitie. Therefore the begynnyng of recouerie of safetie for vsus, is in that restoryng whyche we obteyne by Christe, whoe is also for the same cause called the seconde Adam, because he restored vsus vntounto trewe and perfecte integritie. For althoughe where Paule dooeth in comparyson set the quicknyng Spirite that Christe geueth to the faithfull,i. Cor. xv.xlv. against the liuyng soule wherin Adam was created, he setteth foorth the more abundaunte measure of grace in the regeneration: yet doothe he not take awaye this other principall poynte, that this is the ende of our regeneration, that Chrste shulde newe fashion vsus to the image of God.Colo. iii.x. Ephe. iiii xxiiii. Therfore in an other place he teacheth, that the newe man is renewed accordynge to the image of hym that created hym. Wherwith agreeth this saying: put on ye new mā which is create according to God. Now it is to be sene, what Paul doth principally cōprehēd vnderunder this renuyng. First he speaketh of knowlege and after of pure rightuousnesse and holynesse. Wherby we gather that the image of God was first of al to be sene in the light of the mynde, in ye vprightnesse of hart, and soundnesse of all the partes. For although I graunt that this is a figuratiue phrase of speeche to set the part for the whole: yet can not this principle be ouerthrowen, that that thyng whiche is the chief in the renewyng of the image of God, was also the principall in the creation of hym.ii Cor. iii xviii. And for the same purpose maketh it that in an other place he teacheth, that we beholdyng the glory of God with open face, are transformed into the same image. Nowe doo we see howe Christe is the moste perfect image of God, accordyng to the whiche we beyng fashioned are so restored, that in true godlynesse, rightuousnesse, purenesse and vnderstādyng, we beare the image of God. Whiche principle beyng established,i. Cor. xi.vii. Osianders imagination of the shape of our body dooth easily vanishe away of it selfe. Where as the man alone is in Paule called the Image and glory of God, and the woman is excluded from that degree of honour, it appereth by the reste of the text, that the same is to be applied only to ciuile order of policie. But that vnderunder the name of image,Ioh. i.iiii wherof we speake, is comprehended all that belongeth to the spirituall and eternall lyfe, I thinke it be alredy sufficiently proued. And the same thyng doeth Iohn confirme in other wordes: saying that the lyghte whiche was from the beginnyng in the eternall worde of God was the light of men. For where his purpose was to praise the singular grace of God, whereby man excelleth all other liuyng creatures to seuer him from the common …orte, because he hath atteined no common life, but ioyned with the light of vnderstandyng, he therwithall sheweth howe he was made after the image of God. Therfore sithe the image of God is the vncorrupted excellence of the nature of man, whiche shyned in Adam before his fall, and afterwarde was so corrupted and almoste defaced, that nothyng remaineth sins that ruine, but disordred, mangled, and filthily spotted: yet the same dooth in some part appere in the electe, insomuche as they are regenerate, and shall obtein her full brightnesse in heauen. But that we may knowe on what partes it consisteth, it shall be good to entreate of the powers of the soule. For that speculatiue deuise of Augustine is not sounde,Libr. de tri. x. De ciui. dei▪ xi. where he saith that the soule is a glasse of the Trinitie, because that there are in it vnderstandyng, will, and memorie. Neither is their opinion to bee approued, whiche sette the Image of God in the power of dominion geuen vntounto hym, as if he resembled God onelyonly in this marke, that he is appointed lorde and possessor of all thynges, where as in dede the Image of God is proprely to be sought within hym, and not without hym, and is an inwarde good gifte of the soule.
But before I go any further, it is nedefull that I meete with the dotyng errour of the Manichees,Genes. ii.vii. whyche Seruetto hath attempted to brynge in agayne in this age. Where it is saide, that God breathed the breath of life into the face of man, they thought that the soule dyd conuey into man the substance of God, as if some porcion of the immeasurable God were come into man. But it is easye euen shortely to shewe howe many grosse and fowle absurdities this deuillish errour draweth with it. For if the soule be by deriuation part of the essence of God, it shall folowe that the nature of God is subiect, not only to chaunge and passions, but also to ignorance, euill lustes, weaknesse, and all kindes of vices. Nothing is more inconstant than man, because contrary motions do tosse and diuersely drawe his soule, oftentimes he is blynde by ignorance, ofte he yeldeth as vanquished euen to small tentations, and we knowe that the soule it self is the sinke and receiuer of al filthinesse, all which thynges we must ascribe to the nature of God, if we graunte that the soule is of the essence of God, or a secrete inflowyng of godhed. Who would not abhorte this monstruous deuise? Truely in dede dooth Paule alledge out of Aratus, that we are the ofspryng of God, but in qualitie and not in substance,Act. xvii.xxviii. in as much as he hath garnished vsus with godly giftes. But in the meane tyme to teare in …under the essence of the Creatour, as to say, that eueryevery man doth possesse part of it, is to much madnesse. Therfore we must certainly holde, that the soules, although the image of God be grauen in them, were no lesse created than the angels were. And creation is not a powryng out of one substance into an other, but a beginnyng of essence made of nothyng. And although the spirite of man came from God, and in departyng oute of the fleshe retourneth to God, yet is not foorthwith to be said, that it was taken out of his substaunce. And in this pointe also of Oseander, while he glorieth in his illusions, hath entangled himselfe with an vngodly errour, not acknowledgyng the image of God to be in man without his essentiall iustice, as though God by the inestimable power of his holy spirite coulde not make vsus like vntounto him selfe, vnlesse Christe should substantially powre hym selfe into vsus. With what soeuer colour many dooe go aboute to disguise these deceiptes, yet shal they neuer so beguile the eies of the readers, that are in theyr right wittes, but that they will easilye see that these thyngs sauour of the Manichees errour. And wher saint Paule entreateth of the restoryng of this image, it may be readyly gathered out of his wordes,ii. Cor. iii xviii. that man was made of lyke forme to God, not by inflowyng of his substaunce, but by grace and power of his Spirite. For he saieth, that in beholdyng the glory of Christe, we are transformed into the same Image, as by the Spirite of God, whyche surely so worketh in vsus, that it maketh vsus of one substance with God.
It were but folly to borowe of the Philosophers a definition of the soule, of whom almoste none, except Plato, hath perfectely affirmed it to be an immortall substance. In dede some other also, that is the Socratians dooe touche it, but so as none doeth plainly teach that to other, whiche him selfe was not persuaded. But therfore is Plato of the better iudgement, because he dooeth in the soule consider the image of God. Some other doo so bynde the powers and vertues of the soule to this present life, that beyng out of the body they leaue to it nothyng. Nowe we hauehave already taught by the Scripture, that it is a bodylesse substaunce: nowe muste we adde that althoughe proprelye it is not comprehended in place, yet it is sette in the bodye, and dooeth there dwelle as in a house, not onelyonly to minister lyfe to all the partes of the body, and to make the instrumentes therof mete and fittly seruyng for the actions that they are appoynted for, but also to beate the chiefe office in gouernyng the life of man, and that not onelyonly aboute the dueties in this earthely lyfe, but also to stirre vsus vp to the seruice of God. Although this later print in this corruption is not playnely perceiued, yet euen in the vices themselues there remain emprinted some leauynges therof. For whense cometh it but of shame, that men hauehave so great care what be reported of them? And whense commeth shame, but of regarde of honestie? Wherof the beginnyng and cause is, that they vnderstand that they are naturally borne to obserue Iustice, in which persuasion is enclosed the sede of religion. For as without all controuersy man was made to meditation of the heauenly life: so is it certaine that the knowledge therof was engrauen in his soule. And surely man shuld want the principall vse of his vnderstandyng, if he shuld be ignorant of his own felicitie, wherof ye perfection is that he be ioyned with God, and therfore it is the chiefe actiō of ye soule to aspire thervnto. And so ye more that eueryevery man studieth to approche vntounto God, the more he therby proueth hymselfe to be endued with reason. As for them that woulde hauehave diuers soules in man, that is, a felyng soule, and a reasonable soule, although they seme to say somwhat by reason proueable, yet because there is no stedfast certaintie in their reasons, we muste reiecte theim, vnlesse we listed to accombre our selues in thynges triflyng and vnprofitable. A great disagreement say they, there is betwene the instrumentall motions and the part of the soule endued with reason. As thoughe reason it selfe did not also dissent from it selfe, and some deuises of it doo striue with other some, as they were armies of enemies. But forasmuche as that troublesomnesse procedeth of the corruption of Nature, it were amysse to gather therby, that there are two soules, because the powers of the soule doe not agree together, in suche well framed order as they ought. But as for more suttle disputation of the Powers them selues, I leaue that to the Philosophers. A symple definition shall suffise vsus for edification of godlynesse. I graunt that the things that they teache are true, and not onelye pleasaunte but also profytable to bee knowen, and well gathered of theym, and I forbydde not suche as are desyrous to learne to studye theim. Fyrste therefore I admitte that there are fyue Senses, whyche Plato better lyked to calle Instrumentes, whereby all Obiectes,in The…cteto. are powred into Common sense, as into a place of receypte: then foloweth Phantasye, whyche iudgeth those thynges one from other that Common sense hathe conceyued, nexte is Reason, to whyche beelongeth the vnyuersall iudgemente of thynges: laste, is the Understandyng mynde, which with earnestly bente and quiete vewyng beholdeth all those thynges, that Reason is wonte to discourse vppon,Arist. Etthicorum lib. i. ca. vlt. Itē li.vi. cap. 2. and consyder. And to the Understandyng mynde, Reason, and Phansy, whiche are the thre powers of the sowle, that rest in knowledge, there doo aunswere three other that doo reste in Appetite, that is to saye, Wyll, the partes whereof are to couete those thynges that the Understandyng mynde and Reason dooe laye before it: the Power of Anger, whyche catcheth those thynges that Reason and Phansy do minister vntounto it, The power of Desiryng, whyche taketh holde of those thynges that Phantasy and Sense, presenteth it. Although these things be true, or at least likely to be true, yet because I feare that they shall more entangle vsus with obscurenesse than further vsus, I thynke it beste to ouerpasse them. If any man lyste otherwyse to dyuide the powers of the soule, and to calle the one the power of Appetite, whyche althoughe it be without reason it selfe, yet doeth obey reason, if it bee by other meane directed, and to call the other the power of vnderstandyng, whyche is by it selfe partaker of reason, I am not muche agaynst it, neither will I confute this opinion, that there are thre beginnyngs of doyng: that is to say, Sense, Understandyng, and Appetite. But let vsus rather choose a diuision, that is within the capacitie of all men, which can not be hadde of the Philosophers. For they when they meane to speake moste plainely, doo diuide the soule into Appetite and Understandyng, but eyther of these they make of two sortes. Understandyng, they saye, is sometyme Contemplatiue, which beyng contented with onelyonly knowlege,Themistocles de anima lib. 3. ca. 49. De duplici intell. de finibus lib. 3. hath no mouyng of action, whiche thyng Cicero thynketh to be expressed by this worde ingenium, witte. Sometyme they saye it is practicall, whiche by conceyuyng of good or euill doeth diuersely moue the Will. And appetite they doo diuide into Will, and Lust. Will they cal that when Appetite which they call Horme, obeyeth to reason, and Lust thei call that when the appetite shakyng of the yoke of reason, runneth out… to intemperance. So alwais they imagine reason to be that in man, wherby man may rightly gouerne hym selfe.
But we are constrayned somwhat to swarue from this maner of teachyng, because the philosophers whiche knewe not the corruption of mans nature, whiche came for punishement of his fall, doo wrongfully confounde the two very diuers states of man. Lette vsus therefore thus thynke of it, that there are in the soule of man two partes, whiche shall serue at this tyme for our present purpose, that is to say, Understāding and Wil. And let it be the office of Understandyng, to discerne betwene obiectes, or thynges sette before it, as eche of them shall seme worthy to be liked or misliked: and the office of Will to choose and folow that whiche Understandyng sayth to be good, and to refuse and flee that whiche Understandyng shall disalowe. Let vsus not here bee staied at all with the mee suttelties of Aristotle, that the mynde hath of it selfe no mouyng, but that it is choise whiche moueth it, whiche choise he calleth the desiryng vnderstandyng. But to the ende we bee not entangled with superfluous questions, let this suffise vsus, that the Understanding is as it were the guide and gouernor of the soule, and that Will hath alwais regarde to the appointment of Understandyng, and abideth the iugement therof in her desires.Etthi. li.vi. cap. 2 Accordyng wherevnto, Aristotle hym selfe hath truely sayde, that fleeyng or folowyng is in Appetite suche a lyke thyng, as in the vnderstandng mynde is affirming and denying. Now howe certaine the gouernement of Understandyng is to direct the Wil: that we will consider in an other place. Here we meane onelyonly to shewe that there can be founde no power in the soule but that may wel be said to belong to the one of these two membres. And in this sort vnderunder Understandyng we comprehende Sense, whiche other doo so distinguishe, that they say Sense is enclined to pleasure, for whiche Understanding foloweth that which is good: and that so it cometh to passe, that the Appetite of sense is Concupiscence and Lust, the affection of vnderstandyng is Will. Agayne in stede of the name of Appetite, whyche they better like, I sett the name of Will, whiche is more commonly vsed.
God therfore hath furnished the soule of mā with an vnderstanding mynde, wherby he might discerne good frō euill, and right from wrong, and hauing the light of reason going before him, might se what is to be folowed or forsake. For which cause the Philosophers hauehave called this directing part the Guider. To this he hath adioyned will, to which belongeth choise. With these noble gyftes the first state of man excelled, so that he not onelyonly had enough of reason, vnderstandyng, wisedome, and iudgement, for the gouernemēt of this erthly life, but also to clime vp euen to God and to eternal felicitie. Then to hauehave Choise added vntounto it, whiche myght directe the appetites, and order all the instrumental motions, and that so the Will myght be altogither agreable to the gouernement of reason. In this Integritie, man had freewill, wherby if he would he myght hauehave atteined eternall life. For here it is oute of place to moue question of the secrete predestination of God: because we are not nowe about to discusse what myght hauehave chaunced or not, but what at that tyme was the nature of man. Adam therfore might hauehave stande if he wold, because he fell not but by his owne wil. But because his will was pliable to either side, and there was not geuen hym constancie to continue, therfore he so easily fell. Yet his Choise of good and euill was free. And not that only, but also in his vnderstāding mynde, & in his will was most great vprightnesse, and all his instrumētall parts orderly framed to obedience, vntill by destroying himselfe he corrupted the good thynges that were in hym. From hense cometh it that all the Philosophers wer so blynded, for that in a ruine they sought for an vpright buildyng, and for strong ioyntes in an vnioynted ouerthrowe. This principle they helde, that man could not be a liuyng creature, endued with reason, vnlesse there were in hym a free choise of good and euill: and they considered, that otherwise all the difference should be taken away betwene vertues and vices, vnlesse man dyd order his owne lyfe by his owne aduise. Thus farre had they said well if there had ben no chaunge in man, whiche chaunge because they knewe not of, it is no meruaile though they confounde heauen and earthe togyther. But as for them whiche professyng them selues to be the disciples of Christ, doo yet seeke for free will in man, that hath bene loste and drowned in spiritual destructiō, they in going meane betwene ye Philosophers opinions & the heauenly doctrine are plainly deceyued, so that they touche neither heauen nor earth. But of these thynges we shal better speake in place fitte for them: nowe onelyonly this we hauehave to holde in mynde, that man at his fyrst creation was farre other than his posteritie euer sins, whiche takyng their beginnyng from hym beyng corrupted, hath from him receiued an infection deriued to them as it were by inheritaunce. For then all the partes of hys soule were framed to ryghte order, then stoode safe the soundenesse of his vnderstandyng mynde, and his will free to choose the good. If any doo obiecte that it stoode but in slippry state, because his power was but weake, I answere that that state was yet such as sufficed to take from him all excuse, neither was it resonable to restraine God to this point, to make man suche a one as either coulde not or would not sinne at all,Aug. Ge… ne. lib. xi, cap. vii.viii.ix. I graunt suche a nature had bene better, but therfore precisely to quarel with god, as though it had ben his dutie to hauehave geuen that vntounto man, is to muche vniustice, forasmuche as it was in his owne choise to geue howe muche pleased hym. But why he dyd not vpholde him with the strength of stedfast continuance, that resteth hidden in his owne secrete counsell: it is our parte onelyonly to bee so farre wise as with sobrietie we may. Man receaued in dede to bee able if he wolde,De correp. & gtati. ad valentini. ca. xi. but he had not to will that he might be able. For of this will shuld hauehave folowed stedfast continuance. Yet is he not excusable, which receiued so much that of his owne will he hath wroughte his owne destruction. And there was no necessitie to compell God to geue him any other then a meane will and a fraile will, that of mans fall he myghte gather matter for his owne glory.