Calvin, Institutes, Vol.2, Part 2
(... continued from part 1)
Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Book Second.
Of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as first manifested
to the fathers, under the law, and thereafter to us under the
gospel.
Chapter 1.
1. Through the fall and revolt of Adam, the whole human race made
accursed and degenerate. Of original sin.
I. How necessary the knowledge of ourselves is, its nature, the
danger of mistake, its leading parts, sect. 1, 2, 3. II. The causes
of Adam's fearful fall, sect. 4. III. The effects of the fall
extending to Adam's posterity, and all the creatures, sect. 5, to
the end of the Chapter, where the nature, propagation, and effect of
original sin are considered.
Sections.
1. The knowledge of ourselves most necessary. To use it properly we
must be divested of pride, and clothed with true humility,
which will dispose us to consider our fall, and embrace the
mercy of God in Christ.
2. Though there is plausibility in the sentiment which stimulates us
to self-admiration, the only sound sentiment is that which
inclines us to true humbleness of mind. Pretexts for pride. The
miserable vanity of sinful man.
3. Different views taken by carnal wisdom and by conscience, which
appeals to divine justice as its standard. The knowledge of
ourselves, consisting of two parts, the former of which having
already been discussed, the latter is here considered.
4. In considering this latter part, two points to be considered; 1.
How it happened that Adam involved himself and the whole human
race in this dreadful calamity. This the result not of sensual
intemperance, but of infidelity, (the source of other heinous
sins,) which led to revolt from God, from whom all true
happiness must be derived. An enumeration of the other sins
produced by the infidelity of the first man.
5. The second point to be considered is, the extent to which the
contagious influence of the fall extends. It extends, 1. To all
the creatures, though unoffending; and, 2. To the whole
posterity of Adam. Hence hereditary corruption, or original
sin, and the depravation of a nature which was previously pure
and good. This depravation communicated to the whole posterity
of Adam, but not in the way supposed by the Pelagians and
Celestians.
6. Depravation communicated not merely by imitation, but by
propagation. This proved, 1. From the contrast drawn between
Adam and Christ. Confirmation from passages of Scripture; 2
From the general declaration that we are the children of wrath.
7. Objection, that if Adam's sin is propagated to his posterity, the
soul must be derived by transmission. Answer. Another
objection, viz., that children cannot derive corruption from
pious parents. Answer.
8. Definition of original sin. Two parts in the definition.
Exposition of the latter part. Original sin exposes us to the
wrath of God. It also produces in us the works of the flesh.
Other definitions considered.
9. Exposition of the former part of the definition, viz., that
hereditary depravity extends to all the faculties of the soul.
10. From the exposition of both parts of the definition it follows
that God is not the author of sin, the whole human race being
corrupted by an inherent viciousness.
11. This, however, is not from nature, but is an adventitious
quality. Accordingly, the dream of the Manichees as to two
principles vanishes.
1. It was not without reason that the ancient proverb so
strongly recommended to man the knowledge of himself. For if it is
deemed disgraceful to be ignorant of things pertaining to the
business of life, much more disgraceful is selfignorance, in
consequence of which we miserably deceive ourselves in matters of
the highest moment, and so walk blindfold. But the more useful the
precept is, the more careful we must be not to use it
preposterously, as we see certain philosophers have done. For they,
when exhorting man to know himself, state the motive to be, that he
may not be ignorant of his own excellence and dignity. They wish him
to see nothing in himself but what will fill him with vain
confidence, and inflate him with pride. But self-knowledge consists
in this, First, When reflecting on what God gave us at our creation,
and still continues graciously to give, we perceive how great the
excellence of our nature would have been had its integrity remained,
and, at the same time, remember that we have nothing of our own, but
depend entirely on God, from whom we hold at pleasure whatever he
has seen it meet to bestow; secondly When viewing our miserable
condition since Adam's fall, all confidence and boasting are
overthrown, we blush for shame, and feel truly humble. For as God at
first formed us in his own image, that he might elevate our minds to
the pursuit of virtue, and the contemplation of eternal life, so to
prevent us from heartlessly burying those noble qualities which
distinguish us from the lower animals, it is of importance to know
that we were endued with reason and intelligence, in order that we
might cultivate a holy and honourable life, and regard a blessed
immortality as our destined aim. At the same time, it is impossible
to think of our primeval dignity without being immediately reminded
of the sad spectacle of our ignominy and corruption, ever since we
fell from our original in the person of our first parent. In this
way, we feel dissatisfied with ourselves, and become truly humble,
while we are inflamed with new desires to seek after God, in whom
each may regain those good qualities of which all are found to be
utterly destitute.
2. In examining ourselves, the search which divine truth
enjoins, and the knowledge which it demands, are such as may
indispose us to every thing like confidence in our own powers, leave
us devoid of all means of boasting, and so incline us to submission.
This is the course which we must follow, if we would attain to the
true goal, both in speculation and practice. I am not unaware how
much more plausible the view is, which invites us rather to ponder
on our good qualities, than to contemplate what must overwhelm us
with shame - our miserable destitution and ignominy. There is
nothing more acceptable to the human mind than flattery, and,
accordingly, when told that its endowments are of a high order, it
is apt to be excessively credulous. Hence it is not strange that the
greater part of mankind have erred so egregiously in this matter.
Owing to the innate self-love by which all are blinded, we most
willingly persuade ourselves that we do not possess a single quality
which is deserving of hatred; and hence, independent of any
countenance from without, general credit is given to the very
foolish idea, that man is perfectly sufficient of himself for all
the purposes of a good and happy life. If any are disposed to think
more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem
to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division,
they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and
boasting always remains with themselves. Then, if a discourse is
pronounced which flatters the pride spontaneously springing up in
man's inmost heart, nothing seems more delightful. Accordingly, in
every age, he who is most forward in extolling the excellence of
human nature, is received with the loudest applause. But be this
heralding of human excellence what it may, by teaching man to rest
in himself, it does nothing more than fascinate by its sweetness,
and, at the same time, so delude as to drown in perdition all who
assent to it. For what avails it to proceed in vain confidence, to
deliberate, resolve, plan, and attempt what we deem pertinent to the
purpose, and, at the very outset, prove deficient and destitute both
of sound intelligence and true virtue, though we still confidently
persist till we rush headlong on destruction? But this is the best
that can happen to those who put confidence in their own powers.
Whosoever, therefore, gives heed to those teachers, who merely
employ us in contemplating our good qualities, so far from making
progress in self knowledge, will be plunged into the most pernicious
ignorance.
3. While revealed truth concurs with the general consent of
mankind in teaching that the second part of wisdom consists in
self-knowledge, they differ greatly as to the method by which this
knowledge is to be acquired. In the judgement of the flesh man deems
his self-knowledge complete, when, with overweening confidence in
his own intelligence and integrity, he takes courage, and spurs
himself on to virtuous deeds, and when, declaring war upon vice, he
uses his utmost endeavour to attain to the honourable and the fair.
But he who tries himself by the standard of divine justice, finds
nothing to inspire him with confidence; and hence, the more thorough
his self-examination, the greater his despondency. Abandoning all
dependence on himself, he feels that he is utterly incapable of duly
regulating his conduct. It is not the will of God, however, that we
should forget the primeval dignity which he bestowed on our first
parents - a dignity which may well stimulate us to the pursuit of
goodness and justice. It is impossible for us to think of our first
original, or the end for which we were created, without being urged
to meditate on immortality, and to seek the kingdom of God. But such
meditation, so far from raising our spirits, rather casts them down,
and makes us humble. For what is our original? One from which we
have fallen. What the end of our creation? One from which we have
altogether strayed, so that, weary of our miserable lot, we groan,
and groaning sigh for a dignity now lost. When we say that man
should see nothing in himself which can raise his spirits, our
meaning is, that he possesses nothing on which he can proudly plume
himself. Hence, in considering the knowledge which man ought to have
of himself, it seems proper to divide it thus, First, to consider
the end for which he was created, and the qualities - by no means
contemptible qualities - with which he was endued, thus urging him
to meditate on divine worship and the future life; and, secondly, to
consider his faculties, or rather want of faculties - a want which,
when perceived, will annihilate all his confidence, and cover him
with confusion. The tendency of the former view is to teach him what
his duty is, of the latter, to make him aware how far he is able to
perform it. We shall treat of both in their proper order.
4. As the act which God punished so severely must have been not
a trivial fault, but a heinous crime, it will be necessary to attend
to the peculiar nature of the sin which produced Adam's fall, and
provoked God to inflict such fearful vengeance on the whole human
race. The common idea of sensual intemperance is childish. The sum
and substance of all virtues could not consist in abstinence from a
single fruit amid a general abundance of every delicacy that could
be desired, the earth, with happy fertility, yielding not only
abundance, but also endless variety. We must, therefore, look deeper
than sensual intemperance. The prohibition to touch the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil was a trial of obedience, that Adam, by
observing it, might prove his willing submission to the command of
God. For the very term shows the end of the precept to have been to
keep him contented with his lot, and not allow him arrogantly to
aspire beyond it. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life
as long as he should eat of the tree of life, and, on the other
hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were meant to prove
and exercise his faith. Hence it is not difficult to infer in what
way Adam provoked the wrath of God. Augustine, indeed, is not far
from the mark, when he says, (in Psal. 19,) that pride was the
beginning of all evil, because, had not man's ambition carried him
higher than he was permitted, he might have continued in his first
estate. A further definition, however, must be derived from the kind
of temptation which Moses describes. When, by the subtlety of the
devil, the woman faithlessly abandoned the command of God, her fall
obviously had its origin in disobedience. This Paul confirms, when
he says, that, by the disobedience of one man, all were destroyed.
At the same time, it is to be observed, that the first man revolted
against the authority of God, not only in allowing himself to be
ensnared by the wiles of the devil, but also by despising the truth,
and turning aside to lies. Assuredly, when the word of God is
despised, all reverence for Him is gone. His majesty cannot be duly
honoured among us, nor his worship maintained in its integrity,
unless we hang as it were upon his lips. Hence infidelity was at the
root of the revolt. From infidelity, again, sprang ambition and
pride, together with ingratitude; because Adam, by longing for more
than was allotted him, manifested contempt for the great liberality
with which God had enriched him. It was surely monstrous impiety
that a son of earth should deem it little to have been made in the
likeness, unless he were also made the equal of God. If the apostasy
by which man withdraws from the authority of his Maker, nay,
petulantly shakes off his allegiance to him, is a foul and execrable
crime, it is in vain to extenuate the sin of Adam. Nor was it simple
apostasy. It was accompanied with foul insult to God, the guilty
pair assenting to Satan's calumnies when he charged God with malice,
envy, and falsehood. In fine, infidelity opened the door to
ambition, and ambition was the parent of rebellion, man casting off
the fear of God, and giving free vent to his lust. Hence, Bernard
truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened
to us when we receive the gospel with our ears, just as by the same
entrance, when thrown open to Satan, death was admitted. Never would
Adam have dared to show any repugnance to the command of God if he
had not been incredulous as to his word. The strongest curb to keep
all his affections under due restraint, would have been the belief
that nothing was better than to cultivate righteousness by obeying
the commands of God, and that the highest possible felicity was to
be loved by him. Man, therefore, when carried away by the
blasphemies of Satan, did his very utmost to annihilate the whole
glory of God.
5. As Adam's spiritual life would have consisted in remaining
united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the
death of his soul. Nor is it strange that he who perverted the whole
order of nature in heaven and earth deteriorated his race by his
revolt. "The whole creation groaneth," saith St Paul, "being made
subject to vanity, not willingly," (Rom. 8: 20, 22.) If the reason
is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the
punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were
made. Therefore, since through man's fault a curse has extended
above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing
unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring. After the
heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished
by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed, viz.,
wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the
substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness,
impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved
his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness. This
is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave
the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a
nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much
discussion, there being nothing more remote from common
apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty,
and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the
oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or,
at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required. This
timidity, however, could not prevent the rise of a Pelagius with his
profane fiction - that Adam sinned only to his own hurt, but did no
hurt to his posterity. Satan, by thus craftily hiding the disease,
tried to render it incurable. But when it was clearly proved from
Scripture that the sin of the first man passed to all his posterity,
recourse was had to the cavil, that it passed by imitation, and not
by propagation. The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially
Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired
wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It
was the greatest impudence to deny this. But no man will wonder at
the presumption of the Pelagians and Celestians, who has learned
from the writings of that holy man how extreme the effrontery of
these heretics was. Surely there is no ambiguity in David's
confession, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me," (Ps. 51: 5.) His object in the passage is not to throw
blame on his parents; but the better to commend the goodness of God
towards him, he properly reiterates the confession of impurity from
his very birth. As it is clear, that there was no peculiarity in
David's case, it follows that it is only an instance of the common
lot of the whole human race. All of us, therefore, descending from
an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of
sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God's
sight defiled and polluted. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? Not one," says the Book of Job, (Job 14: 4.)
6. We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to
their children, so that all, without exception, are originally
depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until
we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountain head. We must,
therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature,
Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that,
accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly
vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws
between Adam and Christ, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 5:
19-21.) To what quibble will the Pelagians here recur? That the sin
of Adam was propagated by imitation! Is the righteousness of Christ
then available to us only in so far as it is an example held forth
for our imitation? Can any man tolerate such blasphemy? But if, out
of all controversy, the righteousness of Christ, and thereby life,
is ours by communication, it follows that both of these were lost in
Adam that they might be recovered in Christ, whereas sin and death
were brought in by Adam, that they might be abolished in Christ.
There is no obscurity in the words, "As by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous." Accordingly, the relation subsisting between the
two is this, As Adam, by his ruin, involved and ruined us, so
Christ, by his grace, restored us to salvation. In this clear light
of truth I cannot see any need of a longer or more laborious proof.
Thus, too, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul would
confirm believers in the confident hope of the resurrection, he
shows that the life is recovered in Christ which was lost in Adam,
(1 Cor. 15: 22.) Having already declared that all died in Adam, he
now also openly testifies, that all are imbued with the taint of
sin. Condemnation, indeed, could not reach those who are altogether
free from blame. But his meaning cannot be made clearer than from
the other member of the sentence, in which he shows that the hope of
life is restored in Christ. Every one knows that the only mode in
which this is done is, when by a wondrous communication Christ
transfuses into us the power of his own righteousness, as it is
elsewhere said, "The Spirit is life because of righteousness," (1
Cor. 15: 22.) Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of
the expression, "in Adam all died," is, that he by sinning not only
brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature
into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter
not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself
fell, he infected his whole seed. Paul never could have said that
all are "by nature the children of wrath," (Eph. 2: 3,) if they had
not been cursed from the womb. And it is obvious that the nature
there referred to is not nature such as God created, but as vitiated
in Adam; for it would have been most incongruous to make God the
author of death. Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself,
transmitted the contagion to all his posterity. For a heavenly
Judge, even our Saviour himself, declares that all are by birth
vicious and depraved, when he says that "that which is born of the
flesh is fleshy" (John 3: 6,) and that therefore the gate of life is
closed against all until they have been regenerated.
7. To the understanding of this subject, there is no necessity
for an anxious discussion, (which in no small degree perplexed the
ancient doctors,) as to whether the soul of the child comes by
transmission from the soul of the parent. It should be enough for us
to know that Adam was made the depository of the endowments which
God was pleased to bestow on human nature, and that, therefore, when
he lost what he had received, he lost not only for himself but for
us all. Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul,
when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us
not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man,
but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd,
therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was
left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the
pollution extends to all his seed. Thus, from a corrupt root corrupt
branches proceeding, transmit their corruption to the saplings which
spring from them. The children being vitiated in their parent,
conveyed the taint to the grandchildren; in other words, corruption
commencing in Adam, is, by perpetual descent, conveyed from those
preceding to those coming after them. The cause of the contagion is
neither in the substance of the flesh nor the soul, but God was
pleased to ordain that those gifts which he had bestowed on the
first man, that man should lose as well for his descendants as for
himself. The Pelagian cavil, as to the improbability of children
deriving corruption from pious parents, whereas, they ought rather
to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. Children come
not by spiritual regeneration but carnal descent. Accordingly, as
Augustine says, "Both the condemned unbeliever and the acquitted
believer beget offspring not acquitted but condemned, because the
nature which begets is corrupt." Moreover, though godly parents do
in some measure contribute to the holiness of their offspring, this
is by the blessing of God; a blessing, however, which does not
prevent the primary and universal curse of the whole race from
previously taking effect. Guilt is from nature, whereas
sanctification is from supernatural grace.
8. But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or
doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. (Calvin, in
Conc. Trident. 1, Dec. Sess. 5.) I have no intention, however, to
discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted,
but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with
truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption
and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul,
which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then
produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the
flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term
sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as
adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms,
in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of
Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The
two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that
being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature,
we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned
by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence,
and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it
is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice
of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent
and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his
transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have
brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has
punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which
punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it
another's sin, (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by
descent,) at the same time asserts that it is each individual's own
sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5: 12;) that is, are
involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even
infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's
womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For
although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own
unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their
whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot
but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is
properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no
condemnation without guilt. Next comes the other point, viz., that
this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new
fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly
described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames,
or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have
defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which
we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole
case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For
our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific
in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it
concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were
added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that
everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the
soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this
concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is
in himself nothing else than concupiscence.
9. I have said, therefore, that all the parts of the soul were
possessed by sin, ever since Adam revolted from the fountain of
righteousness. For not only did the inferior appetites entice him,
but abominable impiety seized upon the very citadel of the mind, and
pride penetrated to his inmost heart, (Rom. 7: 12; Book 4, chap. 15,
sec. 10-12,) so that it is foolish and unmeaning to confine the
corruption thence proceeding to what are called sensual motions, or
to call it an excitement, which allures, excites, and drags the
single part which they call sensuality into sin. Here Peter Lombard
has displayed gross ignorance, (Lomb., lib. 2 Dist. 31.) When
investigating the seat of corruption, he says it is in the flesh,
(as Paul declares,) not properly, indeed, but as being more apparent
in the flesh. As if Paul had meant that only a part of the soul, and
not the whole nature, was opposed to supernatural grace. Paul
himself leaves no room for doubt, when he says, that corruption does
not dwell in one part only, but that no part is free from its deadly
taint. For, speaking of corrupt nature, he not only condemns the
inordinate nature of the appetites, but, in particular, declares
that the understanding is subjected to blindness, and the heart to
depravity, (Eph. 4: 17, 18.) The third chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans is nothing but a description of original sin; The same thing
appears more clearly from the mode of renovation. For the spirit,
which is contrasted with the old man, and the flesh, denotes not
only the grace by which the sensual or inferior part of the soul is
corrected, but includes a complete reformation of all its parts,
(Eph. 4: 23.) And, accordingly, Paul enjoins not only that gross
appetites be suppressed, but that we be renewed in the spirit of our
mind, (Eph. 4: 23,) as he elsewhere tells us to be transformed by
the renewing of our mind, (Rom. 12: 2.) Hence it follows, that that
part in which the dignity and excellence of the soul are most
conspicuous, has not only been wounded, but so corrupted, that mere
cure is not sufficient. There must be a new nature. How far sin has
seized both on the mind and heart, we shall shortly see. Here I only
wished briefly to observe, that the whole man, from the crown of the
head to the sole of the foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no
part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which
proceeds from him is imputed as sin. Thus Paul says, that all carnal
thoughts and affections are enmity against God, and consequently
death, (Rom. 8: 7.)
10. Let us have done, then, with those who dare to inscribe the
name of God on their vices, because we say that men are born
vicious. The divine workmanship, which they ought to look for in the
nature of Adam, when still entire and uncorrupted, they absurdly
expect to find in their depravity. The blame of our ruin rests with
our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy
from our original condition. And let no one here glamour that God
might have provided better for our safety by preventing Adam's fall.
This objection, which, from the daring presumption implied in it, is
odious to every pious mind, relates to the mystery of
predestination, which will afterwards be considered in its own
place, (Tertull. de Prescript., Calvin, Lib. de Predest.) Meanwhile
let us remember that our ruin is attributable to our own depravity,
that we may not insinuate a charge against God himself, the Author
of nature. It is true that nature has received a mortal wound, but
there is a great difference between a wound inflicted from without,
and one inherent in our first condition. It is plain that this wound
was inflicted by sin; and, therefore, we have no ground of complaint
except against ourselves. This is carefully taught in Scripture. For
the Preacher says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God made man
upright; but they have sought out many inventions," (Eccl. 7: 29.)
Since man, by the kindness of God, was made upright, but by his oven
infatuation fell away unto vanity, his destruction is obviously
attributable only to himself, (Athanas. in Orat. Cont. Idola.)
11. We says then that man is corrupted by a natural
viciousness, but not by one which proceeded from nature. In saying
that it proceeded not from nature, we mean that it was rather an
adventitious event which befell man, than a substantial property
assigned to him from the beginning. We, however call it natural to
prevent any one from supposing that each individual contracts it by
depraved habit, whereas all receive it by a hereditary law. And we
have authority for so calling it. For, on the same grounds the
apostle says, that we are "by nature the children of wrath," (Eph.
2: 3.) How could God, who takes pleasure in the meanest of his works
be offended with the noblest of them all? The offence is not with
the work itself, but the corruption of the work. Wherefore, if it is
not improper to say, that, in consequence of the corruption of human
nature, man is naturally hateful to God, it is not improper to say,
that he is naturally vicious and depraved. Hence, in the view of our
corrupt nature, Augustine hesitates not to call those sins natural
which necessarily reign in the flesh wherever the grace of God is
wanting. This disposes of the absurd notion of the Manichees, who,
imagining that man was essentially wicked, went the length of
assigning him a different Creator, that they might thus avoid the
appearance of attributing the cause and origin of evil to a
righteous God.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, Pt.2
(continued in part 3...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04: cvin2-02.txt
.
