The Institution of Christian Religion

It were but folly to borrow of the Philosophers a definition of the soul, of whom almost none, except Plato, hath perfectly affirmed it to be an immortal substance. In deed some other also, that is the Socratians do touch it, but so as none doeth plainly teach that to other, which him self was not persuaded. But therefore is Plato of the better judgement, because he doeth in the soul consider the image of God. Some other do so bind the powers and virtues of the soul to this present life, that being out of the body they leave to it nothing. Now we have already taught by the Scripture, that it is a bodiless substance: now must we add that although properly it is not comprehended in place, yet it is set in the body, and doeth there dwell as in a house, not only to minister life to all the parts of the body, and to make the instruments thereof mete and fitly serving for the actions that they are appointed for, but also to beat the chief office in governing the life of man, and that not only about the duties in this earthly life, but also to stir us up to the service of God. Although this later print in this corruption is not plainly perceived, ⟨p. 55⟩yet even in the vices themselves there remain imprinted some leavings thereof. For whence cometh it but of shame, that men have so great care what be reported of them? And whence cometh shame, but of regard of honesty? Whereof the beginning and cause is, that they understand that they are naturally borne to observe Justice, in which persuasion is enclosed the seed of religion. For as without all controversy man was made to meditation of the heavenly life: so is it certain that the knowledge thereof was engraven in his soul. And surely man should want the principal use of his understanding, if he should be ignorant of his own felicity, whereof the perfection is that he be joined with God, and therefore it is the chief action of the soul to aspire thereunto. And so the more that every man studieth to approach unto God, the more he thereby proveth himself to be endued with reason.

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 haue 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 onely 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 onely aboute the dueties in this earthely lyfe, but also to stirre vs vp to the seruice of God. Although this later print in this corruption is not playnely perceiued,