THE TRUE ORIGINAL OF THE SOUL Proving both by divine and natural reason, that the production of man's Soul is neither by creation nor propagation, but a certain mean way between both. Wherein the doctrine of original sin, and the purity of Christ's Incarnation, is also more fully cleared then hath been heretofore published. By H. W. B. D. PSAL. 139.14. I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well. LONDON, Printed by T. Paine, and M. Symmons. 1641. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM FENIS, Viscount Say and Sele, Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries, and one of his Majesty's most Honourable privy Council. SO great is the unhappiness of our times, right Honourable, wherein men have been rather led by affection, than judgement, that a bare ipse dixit hath with most men easily gained the authority of a truth. Hereby able wits have been discouraged, Arts have lost much lustre, and the World more light. This ensuing Treatise, being a poor Orphan, that it might be secured from such prejudice, the Epidemical distemper of our times, I thought best humbly to shroud under your Honour's protection, to the intent also that they who will not receive a naked truth for itself, may embrace it for the beauty it shall derive from so noble a Patron. Vouchsafe then, Right Honourable, as to accept it, together with this my humble and thankful acknowledgement (the best coin I have) of all your favours toward myself & stock whence I sprang: so to pardon my boldness in interrupting you. The God of the spirits of all flesh, bless your Lordship, your honourable Lady, & hopeful offspring, in the fatness of the earth, and dew of heaven, and after lead you to that place where the spirits of just men made perfect, take sanctuary, which shall be, the daily prayer of Your Honours in all humility to be commanded, ELIAS PALMER. To the Reader. WHether this Treatise (composed by Mr Henry Woolnor) were to satisfy himself rather, or the curious world, I cannot say. He was early arrested by sudden death, that sent him hence a prisoner to his grave: These papers (containing his Essay of the Souls original) were brought to mine hands, for their birth, all the interest I shall challenge therein: A discourse that may be as profitable, as it is , though in itself very sublime and remote from the senses, yet leveled to the plainest capacity, that none, I hope, will departed it unresolved. To speak any thing of this subject definitively, is as fare beyond mine intentions, as my business, but shall as best becomes me, humbly submit to the censure of the learned; whose counsels and encouragements gave not only being, but lengthened out mine intentions toward the Pressè. As for others whose indigested notions cannot admit of such a speculation, nor can therefore be competent Judges in a matter beyond their sphere, let them be sober; as God distributes to every one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●om. 12. a measure of, or in the faith. Farewell. ELIAS PALMER. The Contents of the several Chapters handled in this Treatise. Chapter. 1. THE Use of this Treatise, and how it is to be handled. Chapter. 2. Whether the original of the soul may be perfectly known in this life? Chapter. 3. Diversity of opinions about the nature and the original of the soul. Chapter. 4. The state of the question propounded, with the chief difficulties on both sides. Chapter. 5. The mean chosen, and the question resolved. Chapter. 6. Scriptures to prove the souls immediate creation, answered. Chap. 7. Reasons from the Scripture for the souls immediate Creation, answered. Chap. 8. Whether propagation can stand with the spiritual nature of the Soul. Chap. 9 Whether the loss of seed be the loss of souls. Chap. 10. How one soul can proceed from two souls. Chap. 11. How the soul can be propagable, and yet indivisible. Chap. 12. How the manner of conception can stand with the soul's generation. Chap. 13. Testimonies out of the old Testament, proving the soul's propagation. Chap. 14. Testimonies out of the new Testament, proving the soul's propagation. Chap. 15. The propagation proved from the Doctrine of Original sin. Chap. 16. How the nature of the sin descending, confirms the soul's propagation. Chap. 17. That a new created soul cannot justly be united to a sinful body. Chap. 18. That a soul newly created by God, cannot be infected with Original sin. Chap. 19 That Original sin cannot pass but by propagation. Chap. 20. That Original sin cannot be propagated, unless the whole man be. Chap. 21. That the whole man cannot be propagated, unless the soul be. Chap. 22. That the whole humanity of Christ, was taken from the Virgin. Chap. 23. That Christ's humanity was never cleansed from sin. Chap. 24. How Christ's Incarnation was free from corruption? Chap. 25. Natural reasons, proving the soul's propagation. Chap. 26. Reasons from the nature of generation. Chap. 27. Reasons from the nature of the soul. Chap. 28. Reasons from other considerations. Chap. 29. An answer to some objections against this manner of propagation. Chap. 30. The Conclusion recapitulating the sum of the premises. A TREATISE PHILOSOPHICAL, Containing The true Original of the SOUL. Wherein is laboured to prove both by divine and natural reason, that the production of man's Soul, is neither by Creation nor Propagation, but a certain mean way between both. CHAPTER I. The use of this Question, and how it is to be handled. The difficulty and necessity of this doctrine. AMong the many, intricate questions wherein the Church of God hath almost lost itself in this last age of the world, there is none more difficult to know and more necessary to be known, than that which concerneth the Souls original. The difficulty appears in that so many worthies who have entered into this Labyrinth, could never yet find a clear way out of it again. The necessity, in that there are so many necessary points in divinity depending upon this, which cannot be well cleared without it, especially the doctrine of original sin, and the immortality of the soul, which are two of the main principles of Christian Religion. The possibility of knowing it. But some perhaps will say, who then shall undertake that which no man ever yet could perform? It is true indeed, I say so too: and so in a manner say all. And thus under a colour of modesty and humility, we are all hindered from seeking that which happily might otherwise be found. I reply therefore on the contrary, why should we not attempt it. They are not always the learnedst men that find out the greatest mysteries: neither are they always the greatest men, by whom God bringeth the greatest things to pass. Sure I am, the promise is made to the godly, joh. 7.17. not to the great; & it is Gods usual course to produce the greatest effects by the most unlikely instruments, that the power and praise may be of God, 2 Cor. 4.7. and not of man. Certain it is, there is a truth if we could find it: For God will prove himself true, Rom. 3.4. though every man be a liar, and therefore if any mistake be, the fault is in ourselves. This I hold as one principle. Again, look what God hath spoken in his Word, the same he hath wrought in the world: he doth not say one thing and do another: but his word & his works agree, and this I hold as a second principle. Lastly, I doubt not but in this controversal age God is about to refine the Christian Religion; and to reveal secrets that have been hitherto hidden: and seeing many other mysteries are daily cleared, why should not this also? seeing that God which giveth an heart to undertake, can give power to perform; let men say & think what they will, I shall not therefore fail, through his assistance, to do my best endeavour. Curiosity to be avoided. Two extremes notwithstanding I confess are in this matter to be avoided: Curiosity and Negligence. First, Curiosity: It is strange how man's nature is affected to novelty, so divine a thing is knowledge, that even innocency itself was ambitious of it; it cost Adam a fall, as we know. Deut. 29.29. Nevertheless, secret things belong to God, and only things revealed to us and our children. Where God hath not a tongue to speak, we may not have an ear to hear; when he is sparing in revealing, we must be sparing in enquiring; Gen. 2.17. forbidden fruit may not be tasted; and when God hath set us limits, Exod. 19.12. we may not pass our bounds, lest we die; Being creatures we must submit ourselves to our Creator: and if we will be Christians, faith must satisfy where reason cannot. And good reason there is it should be so, both for our humiliation and trial. To humble us when we shall see our reason nonplussed, even in matters of greatest consequence, and to try our faith in mounting above reason, when it shall appear that we rely more upon God's word then our own fancy. Now that the soul is immortal, and that all men are stained with original sin: are things most certain, for the Scripture plainly affirms them: And if the original of the soul be doubtful, yet even reason teacheth, that it is altogether madness to reject a certain truth for uncertain. Justly therefore is their curiosity to be condemned, who are wondrous inquisitive to know whence the soul came, but care not at all whither it goes. Indeed desiring to see cause of doubting in the one, that they may have the more liberty to be careless in the other. Cautions to be observed. Yet is not this so to be understood, as if we were not to seek after any thing, but that which is manifest in the Scripture, for so we shall not need to seek at all. Neither is every question curious, which may seem to be so: but that indeed is a curious question, which is either needless, or not revealed. Nor how needful this present question about the soul's original is, no man doubteth, the only quaere is, whither it be revealed or no; and indeed many think it is not. But besides that all things are not revealed at once; we must know that God reveals things two ways: either by his word, or by his works. Now as many things are not to be found in the book of the creatures, are yet manifest in the book of the Scriptures. So many things that are not mentioned in the word, are yet manifest in the works of God. It is our duty therefore to search both. But divine things are to be sought especially in the former, and natural (as this is) in the latter, yet still comparing both together. If therefore this truth can be found in either, than it is revealed: neither can we say, it is a secret, until both be throughly searched. And because there is a depth in both past finding out, therefore we must exercise ourselves in them day and night; and never leave searching, I mean for things needful, so long as the world endureth, and in this cause where God is sparing in revealing, it is to make us the more diligent in searching and enquiring. For as Curiosity on the one hand, so negligence on the other is also to be avoided. And not only in regard of those fundamental doctrines which do so nearly depend upon it, the overthrowing of which would overturn all Religion, but also in regard of the godly themselves, both to stay their minds in this wavering age, and to cut off those doubts and unbeseeming motions, which through Satan's malice, and our own corruption, are too apt to arise even in the hearts of God's best children; and lastly, to stop the mouths of wicked men and Atheists, who are ready upon all occasions to blaspheme GOD, and make a mock of Religion. For the shunning of such difficulties as these; under a colour of modesty, and to avoid curiosity, or the like, gives them occasion of suspicion, that there is some secret fraud which we are afraid to discover, in all points of controversy therefore so much as is manifest in the word. I certainly believe, though reason seems against it, and withal I know that it is not for me to question the doctrine, but to blame mine own ignorance, and so set myself to search, not because I doubt, but because I do believe the truth. And this we may and must perform as well for our own satisfaction, as the edification of others. Neither may the difficulty discourage us, but rather whet on our diligence so much the more: wherein for our comfort, so long as we maintain that the soul is so produced (whither immediately from God, or mediately from man) that it is of an immortal nature, and yet stained with original sin, according to the Scriptures: what ever we determine of the manner, we are out of danger of heresy, though perhaps subject to error. Neither yet may the fear of being censured for presumption or curiosity, hinder the sober search of it; which though it cannot justly for the former reasons, yet can hardly be avoided: not only because some lazy persons would gladly free themselves of that labour, by calling it curious, but also considering the intricate niceness of it, which is such indeed as may seem to be handled curiously, and yet without curiosity; yea, curiousness itself is no curiosity in such a curious (though necessary) question. Wherefore taking Philosophy on the one hand, and Divinity on the other hand, to lead me, & craving the light of God's Spirit to direct me, I will set myself unto it: resolving so God may be glorified, not much to care who is offended. CHAP. II. Whether the original of the Soul may be perfectly known in this life. BUt before I proceed any further, I must preadmonish my Reader, not to think to attain perfect knowledge herein in this life: nor yet to think it strange that he cannot. For how do we think it is possible to know how the soul is made before it is: when we cannot conceive what it is after it is made? For albeit we know it is a spiritual substance, truly subsisting, yet what manner or metaphysical matter, it is impossible for any man to conceive. Nor seeing we doubt not but that we have souls, though we know them not, and are no whit troubled that we do no● know them: why should we doubt, or think i● strange, because we cannot 〈…〉 their original, which 〈◊〉 ●●●s be harder than the ●●●er. Reasons why the S●●les original cannot perfectly be known. 〈…〉 ignorance should more trouble than the know, 〈◊〉 ●ill 〈◊〉 is good (if reason 〈…〉 sa●●●ed with reason) I 〈◊〉 make 〈◊〉 appear, tha● 〈◊〉 ●ot only reasonable so to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impossible it should be otherwise: For first there is no perfect knowledge to be had of any thing in this life. Whatsoever hath any being, hath s●●h a secret de●●●dance on God, the first ●●ing as no man is able to c●●●●end. And if it be so in those things w● 〈◊〉 best known un●●● 〈◊〉 m●●h more must it ●●●●●s 〈◊〉 in those things whi●●● 〈◊〉 ●●●ye lest knowledge of. Secondly, the soul is a spirit, and spirits are ever more difficult to judge of than corporal substances: not being subject to sense, as anon we shall see. Thirdly, the soul is an incomplete spirit, being but part of a creature. And therefore more difficult to be known: for as is the thing known, such is our knowledge of the thing, if that be imperfect, our knowledge is imperfect also: and therefore by like reason, the soul being an incompleate spirit, we can have but an incompleate knowledge of it. Fourthly, this question concerns the existence of the soul. Now the existence of any thing is harder to know then ●he essence, and consequently ●hose questions that concern the existence are more difficult than ●hose that concern the essence. And therefore if it be impossible ●or us in this life perfectly to know the essence of the soul, it must needs be so much the more impossible to know the original. What knowledge men have of spirits. And to make yet this more plain to every man's apprehension, let us a little compare the faculty of knowing with the nature of the things to be known: For as the consideration of the faculties of spirits, do not a little help to find out their natures, so by the nature of the soul, we shall better judge of this faculty of understanding. And first, touching the whole man: we know that man is a mixed creature, consisting of two natures, soul and body, which are sweetly united to make up one complete creature. The body endued with senses to receive the images of all corporal things: and the soul furnished with a faculty of reason, which apprehending those images, doth discourse and draw consequents from them, according to its own ingenerate principle of reason, whereby it gets Knowledge of causes and effects, which sense cannot attain unto. This being the only natural way of man's knowledge. Hence it cometh to pass, that when we come to discourse of spiritual natures, the knowledge of which, lies not through the senses, but is gotten only by the rational power or force of reason that is in man. We are put out of our natural accustomed way, and so being half lost, we wander in uncertainties, without any perfect knowledge, or such as might content the nature of man. And this I take to be one reason why we are so dim-sighted in spiritual things. The soul's knowledge of itself. Again, to come more closely to the nature of the soul: we know that whatsoever excellencies are in inferior natures, are much more and much more perfectly in those that are superior. Whence it is that the perfections of other creatures are much more perfectly in man, and chief in the soul of man. And those virtues which are in men's souls, are after a more excellent manner in Angels: and all perfection most perfectly of all in God. Now as their natures are, so also are their faculties, and therefore in like manner the knowledge of inferior natures, is comprehended by the superior, but never the superior by the inferior; I mean properly and naturally. For because the soul knows by certain spiritual Ideas, or abstracted species, which being grossly taken from the senses, are perfected by degrees, as they come nearer the soul: hence it is that the knowledge of things (according to the manner of out knowledge) is a more intellectual apprehension of them; and so of an higher nature than the things themselves that are known. Whence it appeareth that it is impossible for the soul to know itself properly or perfectly, yea, of so well as it can inferior natures. If it be said, if the soul be thus ignorant of itself, how then do men know Angels, & both men and Angels God, being superior natures? First, Although the soul cannot know itself, 1. Reflection according to that proper and natural way of knowledge, whereby it knoweth other things, yet it knoweth itself by reflection, that is, by beholding its own image in the effects as it were in a glass: but this knowledge is but a shadow in comparison. Secondly, I answer the soul knoweth Angels, 2. Comparison. and both men and Angels, & God two ways: First, by the inferior; secondly, by the superior itself. By the inferior: so by consequents of reason drawn from sensible things, we conceive something of spirits, both our own souls and Angels: and by the image of God in his creatures, we conceive something of him also. But especially we know the superior by the superior itself: 3. Infusion. And so both men and Angels know God by union with him; that is, by the working of his holy Spirit abiding in us; of which nature is that immediate vision of God which the Angels enjoy in heaven, and the Saints somewhat taste of on earth. To know that which knows impossible. By this which hath been said, it appeareth, that properly to know that by which it knows is impossible for any creature: because to know that, is to be above itself: and to have that which it hath not. This therefore is proper to God alone, whose essence and knowledge is both one: and all other natures by the superior comprehend the inferior. As for example, we see in the senses (for as the sense is, so is the understanding) the eye sees: but it cannot see▪ that it sees. Beasts know, but they know not that they know▪ they know by sense those things that eaten inferior and subject to sense, but how they know, that is, by sense cogitative (the highest perfection of their nature) they know not. For that is to be comprehended by a higher perfection, that is, by reason; and thereby indeed men know how they know: but how they know that, even themselves do not know, otherwise then by the effects and by way of reflection; but the thing itself, that is, the essence of the soul, the soul itself cannot properly know. Every nature as it is more excellent, proves itself and the inferior Yet we must know that we know our souls better than beasts do themselves; and no doubt Angels themselves better than we do ourselves: and God who is above all knoweth himself absolutely and perfectly; Why God knows all. because his nature is of that height, that essence and knowledge in him are all one. Thus we see the reason why GOD only can perfectly contemplate himself, & every other creature as it comes nearer to his nature, can thereby contemplate itself, and those which are inferior. And hence it is that man who is a creature cansisting of soul and body, Why man knows not all secrets of nature. can by his soul contemplate elementary natures: but for as much as his soul is also united to a body, which is part of himself, he cannot perfectly know the secrets of nature, even in these corporal things. Whence no doubt it is that a man may find His reason nonplussed in so many works of nature▪ But the Angels being altogether of aspirituall nature, may have perfect knowledge of these inferior natures (I mean as they are in themselves, not as they are virtually in God, for so he only knows them perfectly) and yet they cannot perfectly contemplate themselves, Why Angels cannot know our thoughts. no nor our souls neither; because they also are spiritual like them. And hence also it may well be, that Angels cannot know men's thoughts, as is manifest in the Scripture. Much less than can man have any perfect knowledge of his soul, Why man not knowing his soul, much less the original. and much less the Original. No although he were not joined to a body, unless he had another spiritual nature above the soul, yea, above Angels, by which he might look down upon it, and so discern all those difficulties which now he cannot comprehend. Even as by these souls we can look down upon inferior creatures, and judge of elementary creatures in the world; For as love, so knowledge doth descend, and therefore if we had such superior souls, yet than we should find as much difficulty in them also. Here therefore it is to be noted● that no nature (excepting Gods) can know itself perfectly, so neither properly, but as it were by way of reflection. For even as the eye, though it beholdeth all other things, yet it cannot see itself, unless in a glass; so we cannot know our own souls, but as it shown itself in the works as in a mirrors, so that as by it we know other things, so by other things we come to the knowledge of it: which must needs be an imperfect shadow, and indeed not so much as a shadow of perfection. And herein it beareth the image of God in a special manner, who cannot be known properly, but only by his creatures, rather what he is not, than what he is. So that as it is proper to him alone, who is the perfection of all natures to know all things: so he only can properly and perfectly know both them and himself. How far the soul's Original may be known. Some perhaps will say, if it be a thing that cannot be known, than it is in vain to inquire after it. I answer, that though the knowledge of the soul be very difficult, especially the original of it, and though it be impossible to know it perfectly, and so properly as we know other things, for the reasons abovesaid, yet there is a competency and such as may give reasonable satisfaction to our nature, to be attained, and therewith we ought to rest contented. For though we can see no reason, yet if we see reason, why we should see no reason, reason it is we should be content without reason. CHAP. III. Diversity of opinions about the nature and the original of the soul. Strange conceits about the soul. THE truth of this ignorance will farther appear; and also farther the point in hand, if we shall consider the many strange opinions that have been in the world, concerning the anture and original of it. 1. Aristotle's opinion. First, Aristotle, that Prince of Philosophers, who being ignorant of the Creation, held that the world was eternal: did also maintain that souls have been from eternity: but yet propagated from parents to children, the soul being in the seed potentially, though not actually: but whether it were mortal or immortal, as himself was not certain, so his writings are very doubtful: yet rather concluding that it was; howbeit, the first creation of nothing, is denied flatly by him and all his followers. Somewhat more tolerable than this (because it hath some resemblance of truth) is the fable of the Poets: that Prometheus. 2. Poets. made the first man of the slime of the earth, and being beloved of the gods, and sometimes taken up to heaven, he there saw the celestial Orbs to live and move by fire; whereupon he made bold to steal some of the heavenly fire to enlive his body, and so informed it with a living soul, whence it seems came that opinion, that souls were made of celestial fire. Others again held that Angels made all men's souls of spirit and fire: 3. That Angels made them. of this mind was Seleucus: and long before him all Carp●crates was of opinion that they made the whole world. Also so Menander▪ and others. 4. Of his own substance. Others say, God made them of his own substance, as Priscillianus Serve●●us, and their followers. 5. Of the soul of the world. But as touching the matter, most of the other Philosophers were of opinion, that souls were bred of the soul of the world, which they imagine to be a celestial substance or quint-essence, of which they say the stars are made, and so are incorruptible and immortal, even as the body is corruptible and mortal, being compounded of the elements. 6. Hypocrat. Notwithstanding Hypocrates thought that the soul was engendered of the heat or vital spirits, or else of the harmony of the whole body, or (to speak plainly) it was he could not tell what. 7. Galen. That famous Physician Galen also, held it to be either an aerial body more than the elements, or else not corporal, and yet carried by the animal spirits as by a chariot. 8. Plato. Plato, and his followers, maintain, that all souls were at first bred in heaven, of the divine nature, and dwelled here, being endued with excellent sciences and virtues: but afterwards descending from thence into men's bodies, as into stinking prisons, they are corrupted, and forget all their former knowledge, and when afterward by study and instruction, those celestial sparks are again kindled in them, they do only recall or call to mind those things which they knew before in heaven. And farther they affirm, that if by virtuous living, good works, or some other kind of purgation, after they are separated from their bodies, (for which cause it is like Purgatory was invented) they be purged from this corporal contagion: then they shall return again to heaven from whence they came. For thus doth Satan seek to obscure the truth with lies, when he cannot put out all light of nature. Not much unlike this (and as it is like derived from it) was the opinion of Origen, 9 Origen. who though he thought as the Scriptures teach, that God created the soul of nothing, and not of any celestial substance, yet he saith that all souls were created together at the beginning of the world, as Angels were, and because they sinned in departing from God, they are since put into divers bodies, to be as it were their Jails and fetters to imprison & clog them, more or less, according to the diversity of their sins. And that for this cause the world was made, that so these evil spirits might be bridled. No less, 10. ●●thago●●●●s. if not much more strange was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or transmigration of souls, which the Pythagoreans imagined, viz. that they passed at death out of one man's body into another, yea, into fowls, fishes, plants, without any difference, exercising their power in them, so far as in those natures could be manifested: and that accordingly as they had lived in one body more or less viciously, so they were received at death into a worse or better body. And it seems the Jews themselves were somewhat infected with this opinion by the Romans, for they thought that Christ was John Baptist risen again, Mat. 14.2. & 16.13, 14. or Eliah, or Jar●●●ah, Mar. 6.14. or some other of the old Prophets. Luk. 9.7, 8 11. Certain Platonists or Pythagoreans. Yea, there have not been wanting some heretics of old, who following the opinion of the Platonists, have affirmed the soul to be of such a nature, as it can never be quiet, until such time as it hath finished all manner of works whatsoever can be done in the world, of what nature soever; whether good or bad, by passing out of one body into another, through all sorts of creatures. And until then, say they, it can never be throughly purged or be at rest. 12. Certain Tertullianists. Yet more, some have maintained that at death those souls that live well, are turned into Angels, and those that have lived wickedly, become devils, as the Tertullianists, etc. And hence it is that we read of conjurers, who have killed men and children, that they might have their souls as their imps and familiar spirits, to command after their deaths; and such an one it is said Simon Magus was. 13. Every man 3 souls. Neither is there more diversity about the nature than the number of souls, for some are of opinion that every man hath three souls; a vegetative soul with plants, a sensitive soul with beasts, and a reasonable soul like unto the Angels, although indeed they are but three faculties or sundry operations of one and the same soul in us. 14. 2 Souls. Other again think there can be no less than two souls at the least; one sensual, the other rational; the one mortal, the other immortal; the one propagated by the Parents, and the other created by God. And this Occam would prove from the diversity and contrariety of appetites and desires in one and the same man, which he thinks cannot be in one and the same individual nature. 15. Manichees. Some others yet more grossly have affirmed, that every man hath indeed two souls, the one made of the substance of God, and the other of the substance of the devils. These were the Manichees, who held two beginnings; a good God, and an evil God. 16. Averrois. Contrary to these, and yet no less unreasonable, is the opinion of that great Philosopher Averrois, that there is one only soul of all men that ever were or shall be in the world. Diversities of opinions amongst Christians. But leaving these Heathens and heretics, with their heathenish and heretical conceits, as not worthy the confuting, let us hear the verdict of the learned Christians since Christ, who all with one consent affirm, that the souls of men are either immediately created by God, 1. Creation. or else mediately propagated by man: 2. Propagation. yet herein also there is no small diversity, for in either of these, there are two opinions, each differing from other. 17. Created out of the body. Of those that maintain the soul to be immediately created by God; some think it is created without the body of nothing, and then infused into it by God after the forming of the body: of this mind was Hillary, etc. 18. Created within the body. Others again think it to be created within the body of the conceived fruit; which hath first vegetative life, then sensitive, and lastly, the reasonable soul is created therein, and united therewith, by the immediate power of God only. Both these have been countenanced by many of the best learned, especially the latter; which is most commonly received: as the truth at this day. 19 Propagated corporally. Notwithstanding, others contend, that although God at first created Adam's soul of nothing, yet ever since, they have been naturally propagated from the parents together with the body; so that as we have our bodies, from Adam's body, so our soul from Adam's soul, but so as it is immortal notwithstanding. But of these some conceiting it to be a corporeal substance, thought also that it was generated after a corporal manner; which was worthily condemned by Austin and others. 20. Propagated spiritually. But those that held it to be a spiritual substance, held also that it was propagated spiritually, the soul of the soul, as it were light of light; And this heretofore was upholden by many of the most learned men amongst the Ancients: yea, as St. Hierome witnesseth, most of the Doctors of the Western Churches were of that mind. So that it seemeth this opinion was as commonly received among them there, as the other now amongst us. Lastly, 21. there were some that wavered between these two opinions, not knowing which to take; and of this mind was St. Augustine and Eucherius, August. Epist. 157. who durst neither condemn those that thought it was spiritually propagated from the Parents, nor yet those that held it to be immediately created by God. Lib. 2. Cap. 56. The one professing in one of his Epistles that he could not find any certainty of the souls Original throughout the Canonical Scriptures; in which doubt he also continued to his death, as appeareth plainly in his Retractations. CHAP. IU. The state of the question propounded, with the chief difficulties on both sides. The censure and choice; HEreby it appeareth sufficiently both how much difficulty is in this question of the souls original, and how imperfect our knowledge is therein. But since all the rest are most absurd, erroneous, and some blasphemous; and two, only as most probable claim right therein: proceed we now to their titles, and so if it be possible to find out the truth, in this most intricate question, viz. whether the soul be naturally propagated from Adam, or supernaturally created by God? Not generated. If we say the first, it must needs be generated of the soul, or of the body; if of the body, than it will follow, that it is by nature corruptible, and so not immortal. And if we say it is spiritually produced of the soul, that seemeth contrary to reason, unless we should overthrow the excellent nature of the soul; for if it be a spiritual and immaterial substance, indivisibly subsisting by itself, how can it be that one should engender another? Besides many other inconveniences would follow thereupon, as afterward we shall see. Not created. Now if on the other side we say; that they are daily created by God of nothing, besides the opposition that this hath to God's first institution of nature, whereby all things were settled in a course to increase and multiply of themselves, and God hath rested from the works of creation ever since: it is no less opposite to divinity. For if this be true, it cannot be conceived how there can be any original sin without impeachment to God's Justice. Original sin denied by some of the Ancients. Whenee it is that not only the old Anabaptists, the Pelagians, and our new Pelagians the Anabaptists, holding that the soul is immediately created by God: deny that there is any original sin, otherwise then by imitation: but even divers of the ancient Fathers seem to be of the same mind; and not only Hierome, and chrysostom, Zan. de operibus par. 3. li. 2. c. 5. thes. 1. but as (Zanchy wintnesseth) this was the chief reason that moved the chiefest Divines, and most famous Doctors of those times, to choose rather to hold the propagation of the soul, than to fall into so many absurdities as follow upon ●he former Doctrine. And as ●hey could not see how these two could stand together; so neither can I see, how it can be seen. Not cleared by our modern Divines. Nay, I dare say farther, themselves that hold this opinion, themselves cannot see it clearly; neither can they herein satisfy either themselves or others. As appeareth plainly, first, 1. because throughly urged, they put it off, by accounting it a curious question, and so restrain diligent searching, under a colour of modesty. 2. Secondly, they plainly confess, they cannot satisfy such. 3. Thirdly, they urge & exhort us to faith without reason. 4. Lastly, they turn us from searching after the original, to make a good end with it; and that indeed is good counsel; but in the mean while, if this opinion be contrary to the truth, and staineth God by consequence, they must give others leave to doubt, and to descent. For as it is ridiculous folly to neglect quenching, to find out who fired our house; so it is a great wickedness to lay it upon him that did it not. 1. Not by the soul. For if the soul comes immediately from God, the question is, how we come to be defiled with original sin? this infection cannot proceed from the soul, for if God created it, he maketh it exceeding good; and it is not good to say, God forsakes it before it sins, or it sins before it comes into the body, or God punisheth for another's fault; a good soul for a man's sin. 2. Not by the body. Again, it cannot be polluted by the body; for neither can the body be sinful without the soul, nor yet if it could, could the divine nature of the soul be corrupted by the body; and if it could be, yet not with original sin. 3. Not by union. Neither can it be by the union of both, for that is done by God. And how can it possibly stand with God's Justice, to put a new created soul that is good and without sin, into such a condition, as wherein it shall be strait way liable to eternal damnation, for the fault of another, that doth nothing pertain unto it? or how can it belong to a good soul newly created of nothing, that not a soul but a man some thousand years since sinned? Neither will it avail any thing to say, it is created in the infusion, and infused in the creation: for that is all one as if we should say in plainer word, It's made in the marring, and marred in the making: for being a spiritual substance, and nature distinct from the body, if it come from another principle, it must have a proper existence of its own, before it can be made part of another; and if not in time, yet in nature I am sure, it must first be, before it can be united to the body. Neither can it help to say, it is Cod's decree; for that cannot be proved, and being unjust, is most justly disproved. 4. By neither by law of justice insufficient. But the last and best refuge is, that original sin passeth neither by the soul, nor by the body, but by the offence of our first parents, who standing in the room of all their posterity; as look what gifts they ieceived, was no less for their posterity, than for themselves: so what they lost, they lost also for their posterity: And therefore in the instant that God createth souls, although he creates them good, yet for Adam's sin, he deprives them of those supernatural gifts, which otherwise they should have had: which deprivation although it putteth no evil into the soul, yet evil necessarily followeth, and hence is Original sin. The reason why. This indeed comes somewhat nearer the matter, for if it be granted that the soul is not propagated from Adam, it must be granted withal, that we are not guilty of Original sin simply, because we proceed from Adam; but by some other means; as namely, because he stood in our rooms; and we are men as he was; but yet this will not serve the turn neither; For first it stands not with the Justice of God, that Adam's sin should be imputed to us any other way then as it is our own: 1. It must be our own. that is, as we sinned potentially in him: it being Gods just ordinance in nature, Rom. 11.16. that all things should be potentially in their principles, and partake of their natures: secondly, 2. Not by imputation only. it is confessed (as the truth is) that original sin is not only by implication, as this is, but also by propagation: yea, I will say more (and yet according to the truth) that it is not by imputation, 3. Chief by propagation. but only in respect of propagation. For if we could be without sin of our own (as a new created Soul is) his sin could not justly hurt us. True it is that. God may justly punish all mankind for the sin of Adam, yet this is and must be his posterity only, & neither they for his sin properly, Ezek. 18.20. (for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father) but because by his sin they are made sinful, or rather sinned in him, and so for their own sin are justly subject to the same punishment. So that in truth, propagation is the main, if not the only stream of original corruption. Now if we receive only the least parts of ourselves, that is our body from Adam, which cannot be the subject of sin, not only because it wants the soul, but because not parts, but whole persons sinned in Adam; how can this satisfy any reasonable man; that it is possible for us to be guilty of Original sin, if the soul comes immediately from God. CHAPTER V The mean chosen, and the question resolved. Further satisfaction needful. THis therefore is a most profound question, full of wonderful difficulties; this is that intricate Meander, and that endless Maze, wherein St. Augustine wandered all his life long, and could find no issue: and to conclude, this is that wherein Divines to this day have rather shown their modesty, in not searching, than their judgement in determining the truth. If not rather too much searing lest they should seek too fare, they have thereby failed in finding. But how soever, it is very commendable to walk soberly herein; yet we may not through too much modesty, leave a gap open to be trodden down by the feet of beastly Atheists; and therefore notwithstanding it is a Labarinth, where it is hard to wade out safely, yet we may and must endeavour to give satisfaction in such a needful question. The Author's apology for this singularity. And here I most humbly crave leave to step a little out of the common path, or rather to make the same path strait, which (as to me it seemeth) is a little crooked in this place; bearing out against Philosophy on the one hand, and Divinity on the other; and if force of reason do not prove my assertion, I will willingly bear the blame that is due; which yet I hope, cannot be much though I should err. First, because it is a most difficult point, wherein the greatest Clerks can scarce tell which way to turn themselves. Secondly, because the premises being confessed, it can be no fundamental error. Thirdly, being in the mean, it must needs be confessed nearer the truth, (at least) them that which hath yet been maintained by the most wise and godly of the ancient Fathers in former ages. Fourthly, those opinions which I oppose, were never maintained as necessary doctrines, but only as probable opinions. Lastly, I am not peremptory, (much less obstinate) but willing to submit to better judgements: and propound this only by way of trial, as one that would gladly be a means to find out the truth. How man propagates man. That we may therefore sail even between this Scylla & Charybdis, seeing we see it can neither be merely propagated by man, nor yet immediately created by God: my conclusion is, that it is partly from both. That is to say, that the whole man consisting of soul and body, doth propagate a creature like himself, consisting of the same parts; by virtue of that efficacious word of God in the beginning (increase and multiply) and the concurrence of his own immediate power therewith. And that therefore God hath set a steadfast law in nature for the generation of mankind (both soul and body) as well as other creatures. But yet partly mediately and partly immediately, Man's propagation natural. himself having a more peculiar work in this than in any other. For besides this general providence in conseiving the natural order that himself hath instituted; as the nature of the soul is more excellent, God's act in the production of the soul. so answerable thereunto the act of his providence is more immediate therein than in any other creature whatsoever. And thus the soul may be propagated as well as the body, after a manner convenient to either nature: God having so much in it as to make it immortal; and man so much as to make if sinful▪ yet not as if there were any separation in their generation, Soul and body not to be divided. the body of the body only, and the soul of the soul only (for this is but to multiply difficulties without end, no man being able to say directly, here it is either for the one or the other) but the whole of the whole, generation being not of parts but of persons. For nature itself teacheth, that neither soul nor body can properly be said to be generated; but the creature consisting of soul and body: neither is there any thing that seems to me more absurd, than that when God and nature hath thus conjoined them: the Scripture always speaking of the generation of the whole man; and nature we see always bringing forth the whole; we should notwithstanding make a separation; fetching one part from heaven, and another from earth: and then vainly tire ourselves to bring both ends together again. How the soul is propagated of the soul. Now if the soul and body may not be separated in this case, much less should we take upon us to assign the proper cause of every effect herein: and yet because such is the curiosity of man's nature, that it will not otherwise rest satisfied; if we must needs in reason distinguish, what in nature cannot be severed, I should thus determine. The essential causes distinguished. That the parents, by God's immediate assistance, do out of their own spiritual nature, inform their issue, with a reasonable soul, in the instant of conception, for the preservation of humane kind. So that I conceive the power of God to be the external efficient cause, 1. Efficient. who as he made the first soul immediately of nothing: so by reason of the purity of it, it can have no other external efficient cause, but his own immediate power. The procreating cause is the parents, 2. Procreant. who are as instruments in God's hand, to bring forth what, how, and when he please, according to his own eternal decree. The material cause, is the spiritual matter of the parents souls. 3. Material. It will be said, the soul is immaterial: be it so, then, I say, the soul is made of that matter which is immaterial. For though it be not corporeal, yet it is spiritual, and being a spirit and not a body, it is rather an act than a matter: Mark this mystery. so that according to the course of nature, I confess more is to be ascribed to the efficient cause, yea, so much that the latter is almost extinguished in the former. And hence it is that though the soul be congenerated with the body, yet by reason of the pure nature of it, God being the efficient, it is as near to a creation as possibly it can be: and as it were a mean between creation and propagation. 4. Formal. Touching the formal cause as itself is the form of the body, or rather of the man; so it's own form is the specifical difference, or individual existence; which it hath as a reasonable soul, in the common nature of man: proceeding from the concurrence of all those causes. 5. Instrumental. And herein that body or rather the corporal seed the perfection of the body, especially the pure spirits therein (wherewith the soul naturally unites itself, 1 by reason of sympathy and familiarity which is between them) becomes an assisting or instrumental cause. Lastly, 6. Final. the final cause is the preservation of mankind, and his own glory by them, according to his first institution. Now all this is done in conception, soul and body beginning both in the same moment of time, Time. and neither being before or after other. And thus we may conceive how the soul is propagated of the soul, after a spiritual manner; as the flame of one Lamp lighteth another (by promotion or multiplication) being blown by the power of God, Simile. and said with the oil of the animal spirits. And that this may not seem strange, Conclusions concerning the souls original. before I come to the proof of it, I desire that these few Conclusions might be considered. 1. Of the union of the body and soul. First, that there is no such diametral opposition between the soul & the body, but that they may be naturally coupled together. Indeed the soul is far from such a gross & visible substance as the body is compounded of; yet is it not without some spiritual kind of substance, and that not altogether simple. Neither do I think the creatures of God to differ so much in kind as in degree. Besides, it is manifest that the soul is of the lowest degree of spirits, and not only capable of, but coveting union with corporal natures, and so according to the course of nature, may as well be propagated with them as united with them. Secondly, 2. Of the union of the soul with God. as any nature is more excellent; so it hath a: nearer union with that first being whereon it depends, & is more immediately moved by it? Now because all natures do subsist, and are sustained more or less immediately by that first being, according as their natures are nearer unto it, or farther removed from it; answerable whereunto the work thereof is more or less immediate in them. Hence it followeth that the soul being more excellent, and confequently nearer to God than any corporal creature can be: as he works more immediately in them, than in others after they are made; so by like reason it followeth, that he doth so in their first propagation. 3. The efficient cause in generation. Thirdly, there is nothing generated in the world, but it hath some external efficient cause. Now this in corporal generations all grant to be the heavens, which being of a more excellent nature, send down their influences to inferior creatures, by virtue of which (next unto God) they continue their kinds. But the soul, being a spirit, is above all corporal creatures, and being made by Gods own immediate hand only at first it can have no other external efficient but the same immediate power still. So that whereas it is commonly said, Sol & homo generant hominem, it may more truly be said, Deut & homo generant ani●nam. Neither is it absurd that man should have two efficients; it is rather an honour that God & nature should concur, together in his generation. 4. The true cause of mortality. Fourthly, Mortality proceeds not so much from generation as divine malediction. For had not ●an sinned, it is confessed that ●he body should have been immortal as well as the soul. Although therefore the soul were compounded and generated after a corporal manner, without any immediate act of GOD'S power (none of which are true) yet if would not presently follow, that it must needs be mortal. 5. The cause of immortality. Lastly, Whatsoever hath the being immediately from God, cannot be annihilated but by the same immediate power: so that it is the act of his immediate power, that is the proper cause of immortality: and hence it appeareth that though the body which is produced by the power of nature, only may die and perish, yet the soul whose production is not without an immediate act of the Deity, can never die, but by the same power omnipotent by which it lived. How man is sinful, and the soul immortal. Thus than it appeareth that though the soul be propagated in the manner aforesaid, yet it is nevertheless immortal, since it is neither made of any corporal matter, nor produced only by the power of nature; and God is never the more faulty, though we be sinful, because being wholly in Adam, according to the just law of nature, & so sinning potentially in him, he with us, and we with him being then actually one; the whole nature of mankind is thereby so corrupted, and this pure ordinance of God in producing souls so defiled, that corruption passeth in the very conception, and we are stained with original sin, and so are liable to God's eternal wrath, Psal. 51.5 Eph. 2.3. Rom. 11.16. Mat. 7.18. Gal. 6.7.8. so soon as we begin to be. It being a just and necessary law in nature, that as the root is, such are the branches: and look what the tree is, such must the fruit be. CHAP. VI Scriptures to prove the souls immediate creation, answered. The method and reason of it. HAving thus declared the manner of the soul's creation, or rather procreation; for the better satisfying of the sober minded, and silencing such as shall be wilfully contentious, it behooveth me in the next place more fully to explain & prove the same. Wherefore after this general entrance having presumed to determine this so intricate a question, that we may have the freer passage, my next endeavour shall be to clear the same by removing out of the way such obstacles and objections as may seem to oppose it. And the rather because they are such, as whereby I shall best explain myself, and show that it may be so, and so afterward prove the more clearly that it is so: and thereby also take away that prejudice wherewith men's minds are forestalled, before I proceed to the proof of it. Objections marshaled. Here therefore I must first encounter with a whole army of Arguments, that seem to be set in battle array against me; and then pitch a new field of reasons to maintain what I have spoken. The arguments that come marching against me seem to be ranged in two several battalions: the former mainly intending to fight for the immediate creation of the soul, the latter altogether against the propagation of the soul; Those that most establish the souls immediate creation, are of two sorts: partly, Testimonies of Scripture, and partly, reasons drawn from them. Being thus greatly beset with enemies, I have notwithstanding great hope of victory; not only because I have before well abated their courage, and broken their force, 1 ●. hor●● 〈…〉 by setting them in the first encounter to fight one against another: but also because by the advantage of the place, the forces of both fall besides me; for neither do I hold that it is not at all from God, nor altogether from man. Testimonies of Scripture. And first to answer those testimonies of Scripture, which are brought to prove the immediate creation of the soul; that general answer of that divine Father Saint Augustine, may serve for all, i. e. that the divine testimonies only teach that God is the giver and former of our souls; but they do not declare how or by what means, God sendeth them into us. So that by his judgement they strain the Scripture too fare, who endeavour to prove this immediate manner of the soul's creation from them, and indeed if we proceed to a particular examination of them, we shall find that amongst all, Exod. 21.22.23.24. there is not scarce one that doth purposely speak, either of the original of the soul, or the generation of man. As for example (to take them up in order) the first is drawn by consequence from a Law which God made concerning the hurting of a woman with child: for which if it were so that her fruit did departed from her before it was informed with a soul (as they would have it) than he should have some light punishment only; but if it were informed with a soul, & thereby perish; then he that did it should die the death. And why (say they) should so small a punishment be inflicted for the one, but because it was void of a reasonable soul before; & so great a punishment for the other, but because the soul was present, and so a man being slain, the slayer must give life for life. But first of all, Answer. this is to corrupt the Text, for the words truly translated be these: If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit departed from her, and yet no mischief follow, or (as some read it) death follow not, Geneva Bible. (for so it is in the Original) he shall he surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, etc. and if any mischief or death followeth then thou shalt give life for life, etc. This being the true Text in the Original, from which we ought not to swerve, it maketh nothing to their purpose: Indeed the Septuagint seemeth to read it thus; Et non fuit efformatum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, and it hath not been informed, or enlived with a living soul. And thus that the fruit may departed without a soul, they make the text depart from the true sense. Secondly, if this should be granted, this informing must be understood of quickening, else no judgement could be given, seeing none can know when the soul is infused: & if that should be the meaning, seeing they say the rational soul comes after vegetation and sense, it must be needs that the child can move before it hath a rational soul, and so it shall still be uncertain when a man shall deserve death by such a mischance, unless we could set down the just time when God did infuse the soul, or feel when it is infused. But touching the quickening, there is more reason a man should die for it after then before, though the soul be the same from the beginning, both because it is not so certain before what it is, or whether it be any thing or no: and also before it be come to that perfection, any light matter might occasion a mischance, for which there were no reason a man should lose his life. Lastly, 3. this is to be understood of the mother, as well as of the child. It her fruit departed from her, and yet death follow not, neither to herself, nor to it, a light punishment may serve, but if either die, he must render life for life. But it is manifest then, there must be life, else there could be no death: and life there cannot be in a reasonable creature without a reasonable soul; this therefore maketh nothing at all for them, 1 but yet something against them. The next is taken from the prayer of Moses; Let the Lord, 2. Num. 27.16. the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, which may go in and out before them: and when God was about to take away Moses, he like a faithful Steward, having a care that the people might be well governed after his departure, and knowing how weak man's judgement is, and how apt to err in choosing of Officers, entreats God by that Epithet, that he would choose for them. As if he should say, thou, oh father, from whom cometh every good gift; thou that givest spirit and wisdom to all men; thou that searchest the heart and tryest the reins; do thou set a man over the congregation, that may be fit to go in & out before thy people, etc. And that this is the sense, plainly appeareth by God's answer: 1. Vers. 18. Take ice Joshua, a man in whom is the spirit, etc. 2. Besides if it were meant simply of the soul (for which there is no show of reason) yet will it not follow, that because he is the God of them, therefore he daily creates them of nothing. Next followeth that of the Psalmist; 3. Psal. 33.15. He fashioneth their hearts (or souls) alik; He considereth all th●ir works: Pro. 22.1.2. which is in effect this: The hearts of all men (even of Kings) are in the hands of the Lord, and he turneth them whethersoever he will: he order both the thoughts and actions of men, according to his own good pleasure, as is plain from the words both before and after, and so is nothing to the purpose: and if it should be meant of the original of the soul, whereof there was no occasion to speak in this place, yet the question still remains, whether God forms them mediately or immediately, by creation or propagation. But that which is esteemed of more weight, is that of Solomon, 4. Eccl. 12.7. where resolving the parts of man at his death into the first principles, he saith, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return to God that gave it. But though this may prove the immortality of the soul, 1. yet the immediate creation cannot be proved by it, but rather the contrary. 2. For it is manifest that he hath relation to man's first creation, and that necessarily in the one, else it should not be true For every man's body is not now made of the dust, 3. but only adam's, from whom we came, and therefore if we will make a true Antithesis, it will follow, that neither is every man's soul created of nothing, but only adam's, from whom all others come. So that this is rather salomon's meaning, as the body returns to dust, whereof it was first made, so the soul returns to God from whom it first came: but that was immediately from Adam, & so therefore is this. The next proof is taken from the words of God by the Prophet Isay; 5. Isai. 57.16 I will not ever contend with man, for the spirit will fail before me, and the souls which I have made: which some do thus expound: If I should straightly mark what is done amiss, and severely punish your sins, than not only the bodies which ye have received from your parents, but even the souls which I have immediately created and infused into your bodies, would also perish: but who seethe not that there is more in the exposition than in the Text. If indeed this were a truth manifest in the Scripture, it might happily be so understood; but this being the thing we question, ought first to be proved, which cannot be from this place; for the word translated soul, signifieth breath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes any creature that hath breath, and so the meaning is, those whom he made to live and breath, would fail and die; which the soul cannot do, and therefore it cannot he meant of that. Neither would it follow, that because he made them, therefore he made them immediately of nothing, and so the question remaineth still unanswered. Again, 6. Ezek 18.4 God saith by the Prophet Ezekiel; Behold all souls are mine, etc. But is little to the purpose, for here by soul is meant the whole person; for so it followeth in the next words; The soul that sinneth shall die. What shall the soul only be punished, and not the whole person rather? Besides, if every soul be created of nothing, because it is Gods: then so should the body be, for that also is his. There is yet another place alleged out of the old Testament, 7. Zach. 12.1 to prove this, which as it seems to me is clearly against it, namely, that of the Prophet Zachary, where it is said; Thus saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him; if it be form by the Lord, than not by man, say some. But that follows not, for it may be by both. And therefore Augustine well answereth, it is not denied, but; God formeth every man's soul, but the question is whereof, whether of the substance of the parents souls, or of nothing? But it is objected, that the scope of the place is to comfort the Church by setting forth the omnipotent power of God. Be it so, if then we admit an immediate act of God's power herein (which I grant) the scope of the place is answered, and yet the soul not immediately created. Again, it is manifest the two former sentences have relation to the first creation; for God doth not now either stretch forth the heavens, or lay the foundation of the earth; and therefore why should not the latter also, seeing it is apparent he created the first soul immediately of nothing; but we do not read that he created ever any other so since Lastly, it is to be noted, that the text saith not the Lord createth, but the Lord formeth the spirit of man, etc. and where did ever forming signify creating of nothing, de hoc postea. To this purpose, 8. joh. 5.15. (though to small purpose) some do also produce, that saying of our Saviour, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: as if by this working he meant the daily creating of souls: but his meaning was, not in the creation of new things, but in the preservation of the old: and not so much in the preservation of nature, as in the propagation of grace. For indeed it is not the government of the world, but the regiment of the Church, that our Saviour speaks of in that place: not ordinary operations in the course of nature, but miraculous works in the promulgation of the Gospel, as the words both before and after do manifest And though it be true, that God and Christ too (being essentially one) do cause all these things that are done naturally (for he is the Author of Nature) yet he is not properly said to work that which nature worketh, because he is therefore said to rest, because he hath committed these things unto nature. Some also would seem to wring it out of the words of the Poet Aratus, 9 Acts 17.28. cited by St. Paul; We are the offspring of God. For such weak proofs as these, must serve where better is wanting, which poverty does indeed more weaken and discredit the case, than any way confirm the same. For his meaning is only, that we are of a divine nature, by reason of that spiritual and immortal soul that is in us, but how woe come by it, whether by creation or propagation, neither did Paul here purpose to speak, nor the Poet ever dispute. But most of all, 10. Heb. 12 9 and most worthily of all, is that of the Apostle to the Hebrews urged; and indeed, almost all the rest have no inference at all to the purpose, and this no necessity, nor (as we shall see) no just probability: the wards are these; If we ●ad Fathers four bodies that corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live. Whence they collect that earthly parents propagate the body only, and God creates the soul of every man immediately. But for Answer, Answer. first of all Beza, whose judgement is (i. e. is to be) reverenced, rendereth the sense of this place thus; If all men yield this right to natural parents, to whom next to God we own this life, that they may rightfully correct their children; shall we not be much more subject to our heavenly. Father, who is the Author of our spiritual and everlasting life? And indeed what else can be the meaning? For if in the next place we consider the scope, it is to persuade to the patiented suffering of afflictions, and not to teach the original of the soul Again, if we examine the words, we shall find, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, flesh (for so it should be translated and not bodies) cannot be meant of the body without the soul; for parents do not correct a carcase. Secondly, the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of spirits, is not to be understood of a soul without a body, for God is the father of men's bodies too, and not of the soul alone; and lastly, the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chasticers, (as the parents are called) signifies such a chastisement, as when instruction is joined with correction; but there can be no such correction of the body without a soul, a castigation being of an understanding man, and not of a body only; and as the word, so the Antithesis makes it apparent that the Apostle in this place makes mention of a twofold castigation, the one carnal, the other spiritual: so that not soul and body? but spiritual and carnal castigation is here opposed. But be it that God is here in a peculiar right called the Father of souls, it must not be in a sense of our own devising, whereof there is no example nor warrant in the Scripture, but as they teach us: which is that he created man's soul after a peculiar manner; not of former matter, as the body, and all other creatures, but immediately of nothing, when he breathed into him the breath of life. Lastly, I grant that God hath a more peculiar work in the production of every man's soul, than in any other thing throughout the whole order of nature, and yet according to the course of nature too. And this is the utmost that can be urged from this or any of the former places; (these being the most and best that ever I could find brought for the immediate creation of the soul) none of which do infringe but rather confirm this mediate manner which I have propounded. CHAP. VII. Reasons from the Scripture for the souls immediate Creation, answered. From the Creation of Adam's soul. THe reasons drawn from the Scripture to prove the immediate creation of the soul, are these; first, because Adam's soul was created of nothing, and in the creation of his, God hath declared the manner of the creating of ours; since it is unlike the original of his soul and ours should be unlike, when as we are both of one kind. And seeing our Saviour Christ speaking of Manage, calleth men back to the first institution, saying, it was not so from the beginning; there is the same reason why we should learn the original of our souls also from the beginning. But notwithstanding this, there is no more necessity, nor indeed probability that our souls should be created of nothing, because his was: then that our bodies should be still made of the slime of the earth, because his was. For every one knoweth there is one consideration in the first creation or things, and another in the producing of them afterwards, according to their kinds by ordinary generation. And if this difference should alter the kind, than it should do so in all other living creatures as well; for though in part they were made of that first matter, yet were they in part also created by the immediate power of God; as well as Adam. But seeing it cannot vary the kind in them, it cannot by the course of nature do so in us neither. Nay, it seems in the text there is more reason, it should be thus for man rather than for any other creature. For it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives: Gen. 2.7. the plurality of which word may in reason be better expounded of the many lives that were potentially in him, than of the divers faculties and operations which yet are but one life: and proceed from one soul only. And the rather because the words Spiraculum vitarum▪ mightwell be rendered the Spirit of Souls. As who should say that spiritual nature which was the fountain of all those souls which have been produced ever since; and (which is to be noted) this is never affirmed of any creature in Scripture but such as being made male and female, had power given them to propagate more of the same kind; Gen. 7 15. & 6.17. so that it may seem to be principally spoken for this cause, and therefore to be belonging to man above all the rest, and chief in respect of the soul, which being made after such an immediate manner in man, is therefore of a fare different and more excellent nature than the souls of bruits, but yet propagated as well as they. From the creation of Eves soul. A second reason is drawn forcibly from the creation of Eve, for because Moses expresseth the difference that was between the creation of her body and his; the one being made of the dust, the other of a rib: but speaketh not of awe difference in the creation of their souls: therefore (say some) it is very probable that both were created alike of nothing; otherwise Moses would never have omitted it, especially considering it was his principal intent to declare the original of all things. But this also is easily answered. Answer. For, first, if it be a good argument that Moses would not have omitted it, if it had been otherwise created than adam's was; than it is much more forcible to prove that she had no soul at all. For if that which was taken out of Adam made the body only, than it is confessed he speaks nothing of the creation of her soul, but leaves us to guess that it might be as adam's was; or rather that she had none at all, otherwise Moses would never have omitted it. Secondly, it is the thing in question, whether Moses expresseth the different creation of their bodies only, and not of their whole persons rather, according to the express words in the text. Thirdly, if it should be granted that her soul was immediately created of nothing, it were nothing to the purpose: for this is still in the frist creation of mankind, and therefore no fit rule to measure the manner of man's propagation afterward. Lastly, it is at least to prove one unknown thing by another, there being no less doubt of the manner of the creation of her soul than of ours. But for my part seeing in things doubtful that which hath most reason, is to be received as most reasonable: I should rather think her whole person both soul and body, to have been made of Adam's substance than otherwise, and that for these reasons. 1. Because Moses speaketh nothing of any more immediate creation of Souls, but of the first; He saith not, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of lives as into Adam's: there is not the least word or title that can seem to signify any such matter, and what reason can be given that he who omitteth not the circumstance of the manner of closing up Adam's side again, should overslip that miraculous work of God in creating another new soul, if he had done so. Neither is it sufficient to say, it was in vain to repeat it, for it is not where affirmed; and if it were not needful, why should it still be doubtful, and men left only to guess at it. Secondly, Not only doth Moses not speak of any new created soul infused into her, but if only her body was made of that which was taken from Adam, (as is said) then for aught Moses speaks of it, it may be questioned whither she had any soul or no; which must needs be very absurd especially considering it wa● his chief purpose to declare unto us the true beginning of every thing at the first. I do not impute such an oversight to the holy penman of God. Thirdly, so far is Moses from teaching that, that he plainly affirms the contrary; saying, that of that rib, he made a woman; not a body, speaking of her whole person, and not of a part only; unless a woman may be a woman without a soul, as some silly ones have foolishly imagined. Fourthly, Gen. 2.22. Zan. de operibus par. 3. li. 1. c. 1 Gen. 2.23. those that hold the contrary opinion, yet grant that God did not only take out the bare bone only out of Adam's side, but some flesh together with it; which made Adam to say, this is not only bone of my bone, but flesh of my flesh. And it seemeth an unlikely thing, that being done instantly by the almighty power of GOD, he should take out a dry and dead bone only; and not the life, spirit, & soul, that was in it, (after the manner of the souls being in such a substance) together with it Now it he took it thus whole together as it was, (the soul not being shut out of any part of the body;) how easy is it to conceive, how God might miraculously, in the first creation, separate the whole matter of her person from Adam only, and so of that bone as of a living body, produce a new creature in a short time; which now in longer time usc to be separated from both sexes, and so perfected by degrees in natural generation: yea, why may not this original affinity between the two sexes, give strength to the course of nature in producing more, by uniting them again in generation. Fifthly, This is the more probable, because herein we have a clear type of Christ's incarnation, whose whole humanity, (as we shall hereafter see) was also miraculously made of the substance of the virgin only, as Eves only of Adam; a man of a woman only, as a woman of a man only: both being insensible of it: and (as is probable) both asleep when it was done. Lastly, when she was brought to Adam, he confessed that she was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, that is, of the same humane nature that he himself was both for soul and body, and also taken out or him. Neither needed he to say, soul or my soul; for flesh is usually put for the whole person; as where (even in the same book) it is said, All flesh had corrupted their ways: Gen. 6.12. which notwithstanding is chief in regard of the soul. And lest any should doubt of it, he presently adds. She shall he callea woman, because she was taken out of man: where he plainly affirms, that her whole person was taken out of man, and for that cause was named woman, which cannot possibly be understood of the body only. I will therefore hereunto subjoin the foregoing words of our Saviour; Let no man separate what God hath joined together, Mat. 19.6. and conclude that her whole person, as well soul as body was taken out of man. So that in this also, that of the Apostle is true, God hath made all of one blood, even adam's. Act. 17.26. Wherefore from this reason I also conclude the contrary, that seeing in all probabilities Adam's soul was of such a nature, as thereon could be made another, and ours are of the same nature that his was: it is not absurd? but very likely, that others may be made of ours also. The third and last reason of any weight is, 3. that Christ's soul was created of nothing, and he is like unto us in all things, sin only excepted (ergo, etc.) But first if it be necessary, 1. From the creation of Christ's soul. that we should be like unto him in all things except sin, than it would follow that we should be conceived by the Holy Ghost, as he was, for that was without sin; especially, if he might have been conceived without sin, without that work, as by this doctrine it seems he might, as afterward we shall see. 2. Secondly, it is not yet proved that Christ's soul was immediately created of nothing; yea, it may be denied by the same reason, for than we should not be alike to him in all things except sin. If it be said that if Christ's soul had been traduced by ordinary generation, it must needs have been sinful, I grant it; and therefore, I say, it was that his conception was extraordinary and supernatural; for it being impossible in nature for a Virgin to conceive without man, therefore this was brought to pass by the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost, who separated a part of the Virgin for that purpose, and supplied what was wanting in nature by supernatural power, which is signified in that it is said, She was overshadowed by the holy Ghost. But although he was not conceived after the manner that other men are, that so he might be without sin: yet it followeth not from hence, but his whole humanity, both soul and body might be made of the same matter that other men's are, so as he be not corrupted with sin. Which how it may be, we shall hear in the proper place, where this also shall be brought as an Argument to prove the contrary: so weak are objections against the truth. Lastly, Though it should be granted that Christ's soul was immediately created by God, as the first adam's was; because it could not be propagated after the manner of mankind without sin, yet it would not follow, that all ours are therefore so, as they collect. Nay, the contrary plainly appeareth; for, for the same cause that his must be created immediately to be without sin, ours must be mediately that they may be sinful; and tor the same cause he cannot be propagated without sin, we cannot be sinful unless propagated. And thus much for the Scripture, and reasons drawn from them, to prove the immediate creation of souls. Whereby all men may see upon what weak grounds, this opinion is fatherred upon the Scriptures. And now I am to encounter with the other troop of Arguments taken from the impossibility of the soul's propagation. CHAP. VIII. Whether propagation can stand with the spiritual nature of the Soul. Objection ordered. From the probability of the Creation, proceed we now unto the impossibility of the propagation of the soul. And indeed the reasons oppugning the soul's propagation are very many and forcible; and such as do sufficiently prove that man cannot of himself alone (without some more special work of God) propagate his like as beasts do theirs. 1. From the nature of the soul. The reasons (that we may not be confounded with the number of them) are either such as do more specially respect the nature of the soul, not without some respect to propagation: or else such as do more specially respect the nature of propagation, not without some respect to the soul. But before I come to the particulars, the general answer to all may be this. 2. From the nature of propagation. That all natural reasons are taken from corporal generations, and so do only prove that souls cannot be propagated as bodies are, which is not denied. For neither doth the body propagate the soul, neither yet is it propagated after a bodily manner: but the whole man generates the whole man after a manner convenient to either nature. 1. The soul supernatural. The first objection is that the soul is supernatural, and nature cannot produce any thing above nature. But first it cannot be properly said that the soul is supernatural. It is indeed above elementary natures, and therefore I also deny, that it can be propagated of, or by the body alone. Again, I say not that the whole man can beget his like, according to that common manner whereby other creatures are generated: but by the supernatural power of GOD assisting him. And so though it were supernatural, yet it is not against nature that it should be propagated, seeing as it is supernatural, so it is supernaturally propagated. 2. Spirits cannot propagate. Secondly, It is objected that the soul is a simple spirit, like unto Angels: and therefore as one Angel cannot beget another, so neither can souls. First, I answer, 1. that we might with as good reason, reason thus; souls are like unto Angels, and Angels cannot be united with bodies, therefore souls cannot. 2. Homo generat nec materiam nec formam, sed totum compositum. Secondly, I do not say that one soul doth beget another, but one man another. For generation is not of matter, or form only, but of the whole compound, consisting of matter and form. Thirdly, though souls are of a simple spiritual substance, as are Angels in respect of elementary; yet even Angels themselves and much more men's souls, are not without a spiritual kind of composition. For to be simply simple, is proper only to the nature of God. Fourthly, Mens souls are of a fare more inferior nature, and so are more compounded than the nature of Angels: and very fit it was that they should be so, that they might be the more suitable to corporal natures, with whom it pleased the Creator to unite them. Lastly, We see it is the will of God, that souls should be produced with bodies, one after another in a natural order to the world's end, and therefore hath conferred his efficient power for the effecting thereof from the beginning; none of all which can be affirmed of Angels. And now let reason or any reasonable man judge, whether it will follow, that because one Angel neither doth nor can beget another, therefore man cannot beget man; yea, God cannot by man produce one soul out of another, though after a metaphysical manner, as for the reasons aforesaid we cannot throughly conceive. 3. The soul is immaterial. Of the same kind is that objection, that the soul is immaterial, and the reason stands thus: Whatsoever is made, must be either of nothing, or of some matter pre-existing: now the soul is without matter, and therefore cannot be propagated, but must needs be immediately created of nothing. But I deny the soul is altogether immaterial; for although it hath no elementary matter, yet it hath spiritual matter: For all created spirits, being compounded of act and potency, have a kind of similitude with corporal natures, both in regard of matter and form; yea, even Angels themselves. But by a kind of transcendency, their matter is as our form, and their form as the form of our form: which because we want fit words, may indifferently be called spiritual matter and form, which do best of all agree with the inferior nature of the soul: And if it be said, The spiritual matter of the soul. it can have no such spiritual all matter. because than it must be of such a nature as may receive contrary forms, as we see in the generation of all other creatures, by reason whereof the soul shall be made corruptible I answer, first, that though it be so in elementary generations, yet it followeth not in spiritual compositions, seeing their matter is of an higher kind. Secondly, Though nature cannot produce one soul put of another, but by a corruptible course, yet it followeth not but the God of nature may. Thirdly, as the soul to speak properly, consists rather of power than any parts: so the propagation is rather by promotion then than any decision. Fourthly as the soul hath its essence more in the power and faculty, than in the matter of it: so more is to be ascribed to the efficient, than to the material cause, more to God than to man, and yet that according to the course of nature too. Lastly, as man is the perfection of the creatures, so his is the perfection of generation. It is no strange thing therefore, but very fitting that there should be somewhat in it transcending the common course, as namely, that one immortal nature should be derived from another, by such a kind of generation as is very near a creation, by virtue of that first ordination, and continual assistance of the father of spirits, on whom the soul hath so near a dependence. 4. The soul corruptible. Again, it is objected that the soul is incorruptible. and it is a rule in nature, Generatio unius est corruptio alterius; the generation of one is the corruption of another. Now if in every generation there must be a corruption, seeing the soul cannot be corrupted, it cannot be generated neither. But, first, if this corruption should be granted in the generation of the soul, it is only in termino a quo, which cannot hinder the immortality of the soul that is propagated, neither doth it belong to the soul that doth propagate, for the generaration is of the soul generated, not of the soul generating. Again, what manner of corruption is that which is here meant? A perishing indeed, but such an one is rather a perfecting. For in generation the seed is not corrupted by putrefaction, but by perfection; that is, it ceaseth to be that which before it was, and is made that which it was not; because the potential being is turned into actual being; seed into a creature: so that the thing is the same that it was before, though not after the same manner that before it was: and thus I grant there is a corruption in the soul's generation, namely, it ceaseth to be in power only when it is in act: and why then there is not something in man that is not the soul, but rather the seminary of the soul, as the seed is of the body, we shall hear afterwards. 5. It can subsist by itself. Another argument is taken from the power that the soul hath to subsist by itself without the body after this manner: if the soul cannot be produced without the body, then can it not live without the body: and if the body's generation be the cause of producing it, the body's corruption must also cause the death of it; but the soul can live without the body, and cannot be corrupted by it; and therefore is not generated neither with nor by the body. These things thus huddled up together, are partly true and partly false: for, first, there is not, nor ever was there a soul produced without a body: that opinion of Origen was justly hissed out long ago: So that though no soul is produced by the body, yet no soul is produced without it. Secondly, it is not to be thought that any soul is produced by the body otherwise then by an assisting cause, or causa sine qua non; whether we consider the body generating or generated: but this, I say, that the soul is not brought forth without the seed of the parents, and yet not by that as it is corporal only, but as there is soule-seede, or rather spiritual power in it: And thus the soul shall be no less able to subsist by itself, although it be not propagated without the body, than a child shall not be able to live after the death of his parents, by whom it was brought forth into the world; and as it is not generated, so neither can it be corrupted by the body. Lastly, it cannot be said properly that the soul doth subsist by itself alone, so long as it is united to the body, for according to the course of nature it cannot do so; but after the death of the body, for as much as it is not made of mortal seed nor produced merely by the power of nature, and therefore cannot die: it cannot do otherwise but must but must of necessity subsist by itself alone without the body. 6. It cannot be hurt by the body. Of the same kind is that objection, that as the body cannot corrupt or hurt the soul, so much less can the soul be propagated by the body. For if it be absurd to say the soul is infected with sin by the body, (because that which is corporeal cannot work upon that which is incorporeal) much more absurd is it that the soul should be generated by the body. But this also falleth beside without hurting, for though the soul cannot be generated of or by the body (which I also confidently affirm) yet this is no impediment why it cannot be produced out of the soul by the efficient power of God, to which the Body also may be an instrumental cause in this as well as it is in all other ordinary actions of the soul. 7. It worketh in-organically. Lastly, it is objected that seeing the proper actions of the soul (as to understand and will) are performed without any help of the body: so also is the original being of it; for such as the operation of any thing is, such is the essence, and contrarily, as Philosophy teacheth. But first it may be doubted whether any action of the soul be performed without any help at all from the body so long as the union lasteth. Secondly, for as much as the soul ordinarily doth neither understand nor will, without the assistance of the animal spirits, it follows (according to the former rule) that by the course of nature neither is the original without some operation of the body. And whereas it is said, the mind itself must be free from all matters, that it may be the better able to discern the same; as the eye judgeth of colours: this may proceed not so much from the vacuity of matter, as the equal respect it hath to all matter. For being the perfection of this mundane frame, it hath the Idea of all natures in it, as the eye doth represent all colours. But as the agent is more noble than the patiented, though proportioned to it, so is the soul above all matter, and yet agreeing with it. Answerable whereunto the original (according to the former rule) must needs be more transcendent than the common course of generation. Lastly, all those arguments are more forcible to prove that the soul cannot be united with the body: and being manifestly false in that, they have small probability of truth in this. CHAPTER IX. Whether the loss of seed be the loss of souls. Objection from propagation itself. BUt the most forcible arguments (and which are indeed accounted impossible to be overcome) are those which are taken from the course of nature in propagation itself, whether we consider the matter or manner of it; the matter conceived, or the manner of conception. As first, because many souls must be lost, because much seed is. Secondly, because the soul must come from two souls. Thirdly, the parents must lose part of their souls. Lastly, touching the manner of conception, if may well be questioned how this doctrine can stand with the time of conception; In one & the same womb. the imperfect beginning and the variety of conceptions in the same womb. All which seem to take away all power from man, for having any part in the propagation of the soul: and these being the chief difficulties, if they may be well cleared, I doubt not but this doctrine will easily be received. 1. Obj. About the loss of souls. First therefore to begin with the first, which concerns the loss of seed, which although it may seem difficult at the first, yet (I trust) may receive a reasonable answer; for the adversaries of this doctrine do thus reason against it: If the soul be propagated by the seed, what shall become of so much seed as is lost? either in sleep, or by such dishonest means, Gen. 38.9. as Er and O●an practised, or which being received into the womb, never cometh to conception? What (say they) shall so many souls be lost? or shall they be choked in the womb? or shall they remain alone without bodies, seeing it is certain, they are not to be accounted amongst the number of men? In a word, because it cannot be denied but much seed passeth from man which never cometh to perfection, no not to conception; hence they conclude, that if the soul passeth in the seed, than many souls perish, and so the soul shall not be immortal. How the soul is in the seed, & yet not lost with it. But these conceive not rightly, yea, too basely and bruitishly of the soul's generation; imagining that which no man sound in his wits will go about to maintain. For by that which hath been said, it appeareth that the soul never passeth in the seed, but at the instant of conception, and from thenceforth a new soul remaineth in the conceived fruit. Neither can it be properly said that it passeth then, for as the soul is in the body, and yet not contained of it, so it is always in the seed, though not comprehended by it, and whensoever the seed proves not effectual, the soul remains as it was, what ever becomes of the seed; for the soul is never procreated but in conception, when both seeds meet in a due proportion, and become one, and when the efficient power of God concurring with all other natural causes, do out of the substance of the generating souls, produce another together with a body capable of that divine form. Some resemblance whereof we may see in the lighting of a Lamp or Candle; Simile. for as fire is the most spiritual of all corporal substances, so by it we may have the clearest resemblance in this case; the soul of man may well be compared to a spiritual flame, united to the body by the spirits, as the flame of the Lamp by the oil; now as in the lighting of a Lamp, every touch of fire doth not kindle it, but as after blowing and fit applying of fire thereunto, it sometimes flameth with a touch; so the soul is not kindled at every conjunction of seeds, but only then when (as I said before) it is blown by the efficient power of God, which meeting with all other natural causes, out of the matter of these flames applied, this new heavenly flame (the soul) is produced. And as in that elementary inflammation the Lamp is not turned into the flame, but inflamed by another; so the corporal seed is not turned into the soul, but informed with a soul by others. Which soul being a spiritual flame, not nourished by any elementary matter as the other is, nor kindled without that everlasting breath whence it first came: it can never after be extinguished as the other may. And hence it cometh to pass, not only that souls perish not when any seed is lost, but also that in case man's seed be mingled with other creatures (as if sometimes happeneth) such unkindly conceptions are never informed with reasonable souls: not only for that there is a want in the concurrence of all natural causes; but because God doth not confer his efficient power, but where and when he pleaseth. To conclude, therefore it appeareth that souls are neither lost, nor choked in the womb; nor yet constrained to live alone without bodies when the seed proves not effectual, for then there is no soul produced; I will not say, but there may be fire, but in that case (I dare say) there is no such flame kindled. CHAPTER X. How one soul can proceed from two souls. THe former objection being taken away, 2. Obj. That the soul must be mingled of the parents soul. we are to proceed to the second, which is that if the soul be traduced from the parents, it must needs be as well from the mother's soul as the father, and if from both, then either there must be two souls, or else two souls must be mingled together, and so grow into one, both which are no less than impossible, to which (although it seems unanswerable) these things which shall be spoken, being throughly considered, I trust will give sufficient satisfaction. For first, why might we not for the same cause say, that there must be two bodies also, one from the father and another from the mother? and if it be said that one partakes of both, how comes it to pass then, that it is sometimes like the father only, & sometimes only like the mother; yea, oftentimes a son like the mother and a daughter like the father. In all other things most contrary to that part from whence the sex is received. And if it must be confessed that the work of nature herein is above reason, what wonder if it be so in the soul also; yea, why should it not be so in that, much rather than in this? and if the former draw us only to an admiration, but not to a negation of if, because the thing is apparent: why should not the latter do so also, seeing in nature it is no less manifest than the former, both being brought forth together as we see? To come a little nearer the matter, One creature cannot be made of two souls. I would first of all demand how it cometh to pass, that among all living creatures of two divers seeds, that is to say, of the male and female is notwithstanding generated but one creature of the one kind? Since as Philosophers truly teach, the species of things cannot be mingled no more than souls: Vide Scal. de subti. exer. 268. and the essence of every thing is indivisible; and two forms cannot be made one. Now seeing the seed of any creature contains in it both matter and form thereof: and is the same in potentiâ (as they speak) differing from the creature itself only so much as power differeth from act; that is, ability to be or do, from being or being done; how therefore can it possibly be that one creature can be produced from two seeds in univocal generations; seeing also that vegetative nature have therefore but one seed. These reasons made Aristotle deny that females had any seed at all, being only as the ground wherein seed is sown. Now if this be true, the point is clear without any farther opening; for then the soul proceeding from the soul of the father only, there shall not need be two souls, nor one mingled of two. How the soul is from both as both are one. But this is denied, & therefore some further answer is to be sought out. For though the sex proceed not from the sex, yet (they say) if this were true, neither by the course of nature could ever be propagation by both. Be it so, yet I say, that as two seeds produce but one creature, because the seeds of male and female, though they be two in number are but one kind (else there must be two bodies also) so it is concerning the soul more plainly, I say, The seed of both but one seed. that as the seed of either apart cannot properly be called seed-seed, because neither of them alone contains the matter and form of the creature, and is not Animal in potentiâ; but at the instant of conception, when both seeds are so mingled that therein is contained the power of producing the like, then only it is rightly called seed; and before, only, because it may be thus; for that is to be actually seed to have this potency in it: so as the seed is properly but one in all sensitive creatures aswell as in vegetative, in that sense that theirs is: so in like manner, I say, that the spiritual seed of the soul (if by way of resemblance I may so call it) is not in the several seed of either sex (for there is no such material or local division) but rather in both when but one. For in generation we may not conceive one act to be made of two; but two in act do make one. The mystery of which union lies in this, that the nature is one, and the sex's two, which again united in one produce a third. For by the spiritual seed of the parents souls, What the soul's seed is, & how generated. I do not mean any separated matter, as the bodies is: but far otherwise: namely, that potential virtue in the parents' souls, which in conjunction uniting their forces together out of their own matter do inform their seed with their nature, that is, a soul apprehended and united by the spirits therein. It being the ordinance of God that man's nature should be distinguished into two sexes, that by the more forcible union of both, the whole kind might be preserved: And because the soul is rather faculty than matter, The production of souls. the seed must needs be rather power than sperm. Now the reason why parents do communicate a soul to their issue, Gen. 2.24. is because in this conjunction two are made one flesh, not only carnally, but the very souls do so cleave together, that if it were possible they would lose their proper forms and become one, which though being tied by nature or rather Gods separation (which yet is not fare removed) they cannot effect; yet by the fitness of other causes concurring, and the infinite power and wisdom of God so ordaining and assisting, another soul and creature like the former is produced. Things brecoing without seed. The like whereof we may see in aequivocal generations, where when one thing is changing into another, even in the very change, a third most commonly is engendered. And so here it is to be thought that in the interchanging of souls (if I may so say) even in a small moment of time, Why conception so called. this is performed; as it were by conceit or fancy, and therefore is worthily called conception, or conceiving. Whence is that of Athanasius, Atha. lib. de var. qu. 16. who saith, even as fire is begotten by the strinking together of the stone and the steel; so is the soul by the parents. By all which it plainly appeareth, that although the soul be received both from the father and the mother, and indifferently from both, yet it followeth not thereupon that there must be two souls, neither yet that two souls should thereby be mingled in one; no more than the seeds of both which are not two seeds mingled or two forms made one (which is impossible) but only one; and that no less simple, spiritual, and immortal, than either of the former. CHAP. XI. How the soul can be propagable, and yet indivisible. BY that which hath been said, 3. Obj. Parents souls divided. there is a way opened also, for the clearing of that other difficulty, concerning the indivisible nature of the soul, which they say cannot possibly stand with the course of generation. For if the soul be propagated from the patents, it must needs be, that either the whole soul of the father is traduced, and so the father shall be left soulless; or else some part and portion of the soul, and so the soul shall be divisible: and the like may be said of the mother's soul, 1. ●ow a ●art is the ●hole. as well as the fathers. For the answering of this objection, it must be considered that the substance & matter of the soul is not like these corporal natures; and so though this would follow in those, yet not in that. It is commonly said of Philosophers (to which Divines also consent) that the soul is tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte; wholly in the whole body, and wholly in every part. So that the soul cannot be divided into parts; but if we will needs consider of a part, that part is the whole and yet the whole not divided, and therefore when one soul is propagated of another, it is all one whether we say it be of the whole, or of a part: for even that part is the whole, and yet (according to the received doctrine) the whole not divided, nor any whit diminished. 2. No parts but powers. Others deal somewhat more subtly herein, as that learned both Philosopher and Divine Keckerman; who in his Physics treating on this subject saith, that the soul is not united to the body by any physical or corporal touching, and thereupon concludeth thus: Et quia anima non unitur corpori per contactum ideo etiam non concluditur extremitatibus corporis, Keck. Syn. l. 4. cap. 6. sicut aqua concluditur extremitatibus vasis, & quia non concluditur extremitatibus corporis ideo etiam non extenditur ad extensionem corporis, & per consequens, frustra a quaeritur, an sit in totô corpore tota, an in singulis part ibus tota: Because the soul is not united to the body by touching, therefore also it is not included within the bounds of the body (as water is in a vessel) and because it is not so included within the bounds of the body, therefore also it is not stretched out to the utmost limits of the body; and consequently it is a vain quaere, whether the whole soul be in the whole body, or whole in every part. Now if this indeed be the truth (as indeed it cometh nearer to the pure nature of the soul) it is no whit less to the present purpose; seeing it followeth accordingly, that the soul is in the seed, and yet not contained of it: and so the propagation thereof is rather a powerful operation, than any local division. For seeing all confess that the essence of the soul, properly considered, consists not in parts, but in powers; it must needs be confessed likewise that proportionably thereunto that the propagation of the soul is not by decision, whereby one part is separated from another; but by promotion, whereby the same power is effected in another, which it hath in itself; and this is the manner of propagation, which (as I said) is convenient to the nature of the soul. The rather is this to be received as agreeable to nature and reason, because if it be well observed, we shall find that the very nature and essence of souls consist chief in their faculties: as corporal natures in their elementary composition: and God himself in virtues: his nature, being, as well as being most known, in goodness, justice, mercy, etc. which perfections as they are too high to be essential to any created nature: so are they all that one essential virtue which is in God, or rather which is God himself. Now seeing the soul's nature consists especially in the divine faculty of it, this doctrine may best be cleared by considering the faculties thereof. Whereby it may appear, even as when I give another my understanding, or make him know that which I know, my knowledge is still the same, and nothing diminished: so when these intellectual natures, I mean one soul produceth another, the soul is still the same and indivisible. I know to communicate the notion is one thing & the faculty another: notwithstanding herein the similitude holdeth, that even as the notion communicated to another, is nevertheless perfect in his mind that imparts it: so even the faculty itself (which in respect of corporal natures is as a real notion) when it is propagated to another, is nevertheless perfect in him from whom it proceedeth. And that it is thus the property 4. Spiritual natures may be communicated, cannot be diminished. of spiritual natures to lose nothing themselves in communicating their essence to others, may farther appear by the testimony of that learned divine Zanchy; who in confuting the heretics objection against the divinity ot our Saviour Christ, reasoning after this manner, that if he receive the whole essence of the Father, the Father shall be left destitute: and if but a part, than it will follow that the essence of God is divisible, Zanch. de trin. Eloh. par. 2. l. 3. cap. 7. answers the same thus; that he receiveth the whole essence, and yet the Father hath it all still. For, saith he, spiritual natures whilst they are communicated, are neither wholly taken away, nor anything at all diminished. His words be these; Res enim spirituales, dum communicantur; neque tolluntur penitus, neque etiam imminuuntur. Neither can it be said, that this is proper to God, seeing he affirms it of all spiritual natures indifferently; yea what else can be meant by the indivisiblenesse of the soul, but that it is of such a nature as cannot be diminished by taking aught from it? else how should it differ from corporal natures, for even they cannot be diminished if nought be taken from them? yet, I say, not that the soul can be parted at all, after the manner of dividing corporal natures; but this, I say, as the essence and form of every creature is indivisible, no less than the soul, and yet they can out of themselves propagate their like, without making their form or essence divisible, so may man produce his like without dividing his form or essence, which is his soul. For seeing the form of a beast, as it is so, is as much indivisible as man's soul, and experience proves that they notwithstanding communicate their forms to their issue, why also may not parents give souls to their offspring without dividing their own? especially considering man is the most excellent creature, who must needs therefore excel in this faculty as well as in others. Neither can it be said, The soul not full of souls. that then his soul must be full of souls, no more than that other creatures should therefore have in them many of their own kinds, because they beget many: for as Scaliger well answers, Scal. exer. 6. sect. 10. there is in that one sufficient power for the generating of many: and so much for those objections which are taken from the matter conceived, I proceed now to those that concern the manner of conception. CHAPTER XII. How the manner of conception can stand with the soul's generation. TOuching the manner of conception, Objections. three things especially are and may be objected: First, it is doubted whether conception be in the act of generation or afterwards. Secondly, it should seem by this, that the soul is imperfect at the first, and grows by degrees with the body. last; it may be questioned, how superfetation, and the conception of twins, can stand with this manner of the soul's propagation. And if these also can be well cleared, there is nothing more material worth the questioning. 1. Whether conception be in generation. First, I say, it is a question amongst the learned, whether conception be at the first union of seeds or no: for (as some Physicians writ) there must be a certain concoction and preparation of the seed before conception. First of all I might answer, that the ordinance of God herein is so wonderful as passeth all men's understandings, so as none can say directly how it is, either for the soul or for the body: it being one of those things which David professeth was too wonderful for him, Psal. 139. vers. 6. and therefore much more for us. And yet if we make no question of the conception of the body, though we cannot conceive the manner how; why should we be more doubtful and inquisitive about the soul, of which we know we are less able to conceive? 2. That the soul gins with the creature. Secondly, I answer, that though it should be granted, that the more gross and corporal parts of the seed do (as indeed they do) require time before they can be throughly mixed & knit together to make a perfect conception: yet in reason it must needs be, that the more spiritual parts, and chief the soul is conceived in the first instant; I mean a small moment of time, and that in the beginning at the first meeting and union of the seeds of both sexes. And thus it must needs be, not only because spiritual natures are more quick and subtle, and so move in less time than corporal; and therefore may do that in a moment, which the other cannot do but in a longer time; whence it is that in eating and drinking we see the spirits are refreshed, and the man strengthened immediately after he hath eaten, before ever the meat can be concocted; but also experience teacheth, that in the breeding of all creatures, the internal parts are perfect before the external, the more spiritual parts of the body, before those that are more gross and corporal; and therefore it followeth by like reason that the spirits in man have their perfection before the body, and the soul before the spirits: for there is no doubt but nature observes the same order in the beginning that she doth in the continuance of her work, there being one and the same cause of both. Again, be it that there is such a concoction in conception, (as in respect of the body questionless there is) yet it cannot be denied, but the corporal parts are prepared & perfected by the other, which must needs therefore be first, and in the first instant; for that which beginneth must of necessity be in the beginning; because all that is done afterward is by virtue of that power wherewith it was informed at first. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that power becomes the first act of the conceived fruit, and is the very soul of the creature, wherewith if the seed be not informed at the beginning, all comes to nothing at the end. And hence it is that if all causes do not fitly concur together for the forming the seed with the soul at first, by whose working it may proceed to perfection afterward, the whole work is frustrated. The consideration whereof may teach us, what the reason in nature should be, that there is more failing in the conception of man than of other creatures. Namely, because the soul being of a more excellent nature in man, requires a more fit proportion, and due temper of all means, before such a heavenly flame can be kindled, and the seed informed and united therewith, then is necessary for the production of any other creature whatsoever. Now this very beginning only is properly conception, all that followeth afterward being nothing but a continued perfecting of this beginning by insensible degrees: which not nature but reason, hath distinguished into conception, forming, quickening, etc. to every of which that time is allotted, wherein that work most appears, though natures work be one and the same from the beginning. 2. Whether the soul be imperfect at first. But here it will he objected, that if the soul be in the seed at the first conception, it must needs be very weak and imperfect at the first, and so growing and increasing with the body, it must also decrease and die with it. For answer whereunto, I would first of all demand of them who hold that it comes by immediate creation, how the soul of an infant newly quickened in the mother's womb, can be as perfect as when it is a perfect man? Surely there is not so much difference (at least in though soul's appearance) between conception and quickening, as is between quickening and manhood: when therefore they answer the one, I may happily thereby also answer the other. But not to stay so long, in the second place I answer, that all souls as well the souls of beasts as of men, are essentially as perfect in the first instant of conception, as ever afterward, yea, even the soul of a plant when it is in the seed, for though not being of such a fiery nature as living creatures, and wanting means to exercise its power, it may lie a while, yea, many years as dead (as Mustardseed will do) yet the vegetative soul in the essence thereof, Reason's proving the soul's perfection in the first conception. is as perfect as the most perfect plant, as plainly appeareth so soon as the means of growing is administered to it. 1. Now if the souls of other creatures (which as they are souls do neither increase nor decrease, no more than the soul of a man doth, may be perfect when they show no perfection) no nor action at all, why should we think man's soul imperfect, because it doth not manifest the perfections at all times alike. 2. And if this be a good argument against the propagation of the soul, because it should then seem to be imperfect at the first, and so to grow up with the body: why should not that be as good against the immortality of the soul, that it seems also to die and decay with the body? 3. yea why should it not be much stronger, seeing it may better stand with the nature of immortality to increase, & grow better, than to decrease and wax worse? But to put all out of doubt, 4. seeing all confess that the soul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prime act or first mover, and essential form of the creature; it must needs be perfect at the first, and always the same. For reason teacheth that that which is first, and giveth perfection to all the rest, cannot have another before it to give perfection to that; for so there should be a first before the first: and a soul of the soul. And seeing the soul is the essential form, it must needs be unchangeable also: for it is impossible the form should be altered, so long as the creature continues the same, what creature soever it be. So that this never change but at death, nor then neither in men: because it is begotten of immortal seed, and not brought forth without the immediate hand of GOD. It skilleth not therefore whether the soul can see, hear, or reason, when it is in the seed: it sufficeth that it hath that spiritual and divine nature, which when the organs are perfected, is able to do it. Herein it is with the soul as with the body; the child newly conceived hath not the fashion of an humane body; yet is there all that is essential to the nature of it, as will in time appear; so is there all that is essential to the soul in conception: but the bodily parts requiring time hath it imperfectly, the soul being spiritual and above time, hath it perfectly in the first instant: yet in this case the soul, must stay for the expression of itself, till the body be perfected; and then all those (seeming) new-come perfections, are to the souls as to the body: only accidental ornaments, and external habits, which do not alter it indeed, but only in show. 3. Of conception of Twins. Lastly, concerning the question of superfetation, whether twins be conceived at once or at divers times; we need not much to dispute. For whether it be either or both ways, it makes no matter; for if nature hath power to work so diversely for producing of bodies, there is no question but that both God and nature is able to endue them with souls accordingly. And it is sufficient for the point in hand, that howsoever the manner of generation be, there is (at least of the soul whereof we dispute) but one conception of one, and that at once, which once is in propagation. For though among other creatures, the receiving of the seed once, sometimes produceth many, and often, many times but one; yet we need not grant it so in humane propagation: and yet if we should in regard of the former we need not doubt (as I said) but God is as powerful to produce souls, as nature is to bring forth bodies: and for the other, we must needs think, either that the former is a propagation to the latter, or else the latter a perfecting of the former (otherwise there would be divers bodies too, any or all of which rightly understood, may well stand with this manner of the soul's propagation: yet in all probability there is but one for one with us; howsoever there are many for one; and one for many in some other creatures. Further than this, I think no modest or reasonable man will or need inquire; but rather conclude this point as the Psalmist gins it; Psal. 139.14. I will praise the Lord, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well. Conclusion of all the objections. Thus we have seen (I hope) sufficient reason, that it is not against reason, that God should produce one soul out of the spiritual matter of another, by the help of bodily organs. And if it were against reason, yet reason teacheth, that we should rather teach it, than that which is against Religion; which we are now to prove, for having thus explained my assertion, & cleared the way by answering all the material objections that I can meet with; whether from divine or natural reason against it; whence it is manifest that it may be so: I will now proceed to prove that it is so. CHAP. XIII. Testimonies out of the old Testament, proving the soul's propagation. The method observed in proving the soul's propagation. AS the former arguments to disprove this mediate manner of the soul's propagation, were of two sorts; Scripture, and natural reasons; so also shall the arguments to prove the same be. For seeing God hath a twofold voice, the one speaking in the Book of the Scriptures, and the other in the Book of the Creatures; when the divine Oracles of the former cannot be heard, we must give ear to natural reasons drawn out of the latter: the voice of natures agreeing with the Scriptures, being indeed the voice of God. The proofs from the Scripture, shall be of two sorts likewise, either direct testimonies, or reasons drawn from them. And again the testimonies shallbe first from the old, and then from the new Testament, which we will take up in order as we shall meet with them. And first that this doctrine may not seem new, I will prove it even from the beginning of the world, beginning first with the testimony of God himself, who in the day he created man upon the face of the earth; he created them male and female, and blessed them, and said unto them; 1. God's first Institution. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Here without any limitation, they are commanded to fill the whole earth, S● to subdue it also, Gen. 1.27, 28. which must certainly be understood of the whole man, and not of the body only. For what is the body that it should subdue the earth, or who is man that he should limit the holy. One of Israel? or presume to set bounds where God hath set none? Neither can there be any colour of doubt how this is to be understood, seeing God spoke the very same immediately before, Verse 22. even to the fishes and fowls. For, saith the Text, God blessed them, saying, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters, etc. As therefore God so framed their natures, and gave such power unto them, that the like might produce the like unto itself, as touching the whole creature: so if we will believe God and his word, man doth produce man the whole, the whole as well as other creatures. Besides, how can it stand with reason, that that blessing that proves sufficiently effectual to the basest creatures, should not only be effectual in man the most excellent? especially so grossly defective, as that man should not be able to propagate man, but some imperfect formelesse piece of a creature, which indeed is so unnatural, as no man knows what to call it. For the body of a man can be no more termed man, than the carcase of a bruit beast, can be called a bruit beast: and shall a beast, upon whom there is no such blessing expressly pronounced in Scripture, be acknowledged to do more this way in his kind, than man who was most expressly blessed, even twice over? yea, is it not contrary to reason, and religion too, that God should command man that which he did not give him power to perform? for it is manifest, that God did not only bless, but command them, and it is no less manifest, did extend to the whole man. Now if God's command reacheth to the whole man, and man's power reacheth only to the body, or carcase; how can it be avoided but God's command, shall be in vain and unreasonable, if not unjust? If in this work the chief part belongs to God, it cannot with reason be ascribed to man; neither can God command him to do all (according to his kind, that is the law of nature) if he can do but the least part. Lastly, it is to be considered that God so framed the nature of every living creature, that it was apt, not only for the bringing forth of the body, but also, and especially, of the soul, that being the chief part of the creature: so that this blessing and command of God doth principally respect the soul in every creature. Whence it followeth that it is more absurd to deny the propagation of the soul, than of the body; but most of all absurd to deny it in man, who of all other creatures, is the most excellent, and herein most especially blessed of God. To conclude therefore from the premises we may well frame this argument, that if the voice & ordinance of God, be no less effectual in man, than it is in the rest of the living creatures propagating: then according to the ordinance of God, man begetteth whole man, soul and body. But the Antecedent is true, as appears in the text, and therefore all so the consequent. 2. God's resting from his labour. Secondly, It appeareth that God so ordered the nature of all creatures in the beginning, that they might persist of themselves, and multiply their kinds by the power of nature; that so he himselte might not need to be always creating new creatures: and herein man was ranked amongst the rest without any difference. And so on the seventh day (saith Moses) God ended the work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his-workes which he had made. How then dare we set him a-work to create thousands of new souls every day at our pleasure. Obj. I know the ordinary answer is, Ans. that God indeed rested from creating any more new kinds of things, but not from creating any more individuals of the same kind. But first there is no such limitation extant there, nor in any other place of Scripture, & therefore it is to be rejected as a vain imagination of man's brain. Secondly, This is a direct begging of the question; for they grant it generally in all the works of nature, yea, in every particular, excepting only this exception of their own: notwithstanding Moses speaketh alike of both, ascribing no more to one than to another. Thirdly, It is most absurd to say, God rested from creating more kinds: but not from creating more particulars of the same kind: because to create new things of nothing is more properly a work of creation, than still to produce new kinds out of former matter. For according to the common definition of creation; Creatio est productio entis ex non ente, a making of something of nothing. And therefore if God hath so ceased from his work of creation, that he makes no more new kinds of creatures, although of former matter, much more hath he ceased from creating daily new substances of nothing. Lastly, otherwise God should not have ceased at all, for it cannot be denied, but there are new kinds continually brought forth, and not only in aequivocal generations, but by such copulations as are out of kind, whereby it cometh to pass, that there are divers kinds of creatures now in the world, which were not created by God in that sort at the first: so that this resting must be understood chief, if not only, from immediately creating new substances of nothing. From this place of Scripture therefore I reason thus: If God absolutely ceased from the work of Creation, than also he ceased from the creation of souls: but the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequent. 3. The creation of Eve. Thirdly, we read that God of the rib of Adam as of a living body form Eve, but we do not read, that he breathed into her nostrils the breath of lives, as he did into adam's, which certainly if it had been done, the Scripture would not have passed over in silence: especially seeing it was Moses chief purpose, to declare the original of all things: but contrarily, he plainly affirmeth, that of that he made a woman: and speaking of her whole person, he saith, that she (that is, Eve the woman) was taken out of man; and addeth moreover, that therefore she was called woman: Gen 2.22, 23, 24. and farther affirmeth, that therefore by marriage God made them one flesh again, and for that cause others should be so united also: besides divers other reasons alleged before, which need not here to be repeated. 4. The promised seed Fourthly, When our first parents had committed sin, before they had brought forth any children, God made a comfortable promise to Eve, Gen. 3.15. saying, that the seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head. Now the body itself being without reason, what is it being compared to the Serpent? Wherefore by seed in this place must needs be meant the whole nature of man, which Christ took of the Virgin Mary: For whole man was conceived and borne of her, except sin only; as afterward we shall see. Neither is this to prove one doubtful thing by another: for it is out of doubt, that by seed is here meant both body & soul: unless we shall say, that Christ redeemed us by a body without a soul. And if this soul was received from Eve, as her seed, as well as his body, I think there is none will make question of ours. 5. Adam's offspring. Gen. 5.3. Fifthly, Very forcible also if it be well considered, is that where Moses saith, Adam got a son in his own likeness, after his own Image. Whence it appeareth manifestly, that he was the parent of the whole nature, and not of one part only: for this Image is opposed to the Image of God spoken of in Adam before: which Image and likeness was not in the body, for than it Would follow that God had a body, but in his soul in respect of his mind and reason; and those other divine gifts whereby Adam excelled the rest of the creatures. So that if we will make a true opposition, it will follow from this place, that as God made Adam in his innocency, in his own Image and likeness, chief in regard of the soul, and those divine gifts wherewith it was endued: so Adam in his corrupted estate begat a son in his own Image and likewise, not in regard of the body only, but chief in respect of the soul, and in that, corrupt and sinful like himself. 6. God's promise to Abraham. Gen. 17.7. Sixthly, Such is that place also where God made a promise to Abraham, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee. Where by seed must needs be meant that which is borne of seed, to wit, whole man, and not the body only, for that without the soul of itself is dead: and as our Saviour speaks in another case; Matth. 22.32. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And if God will not style himself the God of the dead, unless the soul at least be still living, much less will he call himself the God of a senseless substance, inferior to the issue of brute beasts. Obj. Either thorefore GOD must here promise to be the God of an unreasonable brute, or else Abraham's seed must contain more than a body, yea, extend in self as indeed it doth to the whole man, as well soul as body, that is to say, persons consisting of both, for to such only is this promise made. Ans. Neither is it for any man here to except & say, that the whole man may be said to proceed from man, though the soul comes from God: because he prepares the body, and gives the existence to the creature; for besides that it is contrary both to nature and reason (as afterwards we shall see) that a man should be a father to that to which he gives only the least part of the matter, and nothing at all of the form: it cannot be avoided but the Scripture doth here plainly affirm, that the whole man consisting of soul and body, is the seed, issue, and offspring of man: & consequently begotten, born, and brought forth by the seed of man. 7. The souls that descended from Jacob. Seventhly, When the Scriptures do expressly affirm, that sixty-six souls descended from the loins of Jacob: doth it not plainly teach that the souls of children do descend from their parents? Neither can the force of this place be avoided, by saying that the soul is here by a Metonymy put for the body, or by a Synecdoche the whole soul put for the vegetable and sensible part of the soul; neither yet that it is only for that denomination is taken from the better part; or for that man disposeth the matter of the body for the receiving of the soul. The falsehood of these conceits doth plainly appear out of the Antecedent and consequent of the Text; for a little before it is said, these are the sons of Rachel which were borne unto Jacob, fourteen souls in all; and immediately after; the sons of Joseph were two souls: so that it is evident in the text, the souls signify sons, viz. the whole person and nature of man. Although therefore hereby is not meant souls only, but persons; according to the propriety of the Hebrew tongue: yet why in this case should the holy Ghost speak of the whole person, if only the least part of him be thereby meant. Neither can I think the Hebrew tongue so double, or the holy penman so much mistaken, as to say only souls descended, if bodies only did: yea, how absurd is it, when by the rules of interpretation, the proper literal sense is always to be retained, unless some manifest falsehood or absurdity do necessarily follow upon it: and When we must fly unto some tropical sense, it must be fetched out of the Text itself, if it may be, here we should departed from both, only to confirm a fancy, which hath no apparent warrant in the whole Scripture? and that when in all other places we understand the whole to comprehend the parts, yet in this case above when the Scripture speaks of the whole, we must understand but the least part: and when it names the soul, yet it means the body only. 8. Scriptures that purposely speak of man's generation. Eighthly, As this doctrine is clear by the testimony or Moses from the creation of the world, and the first institution of nature; so also from those Scriptures which do purposely speak of the propagation of man, according to the ordinary course of nature since the creation. Two places there are especially where this matter is purposely handled in the Scripture: in both which, the soul is said to be conceived in the womb, and brought forth by the virtue of generation as well as the body. The first we find in the book of Job, 1. job 10.8.10, 11. where in making his moan to God, he useth these words: Thine hands have made me, and fashioned me together round about:— Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like thief? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. The other we have in the Book of the Psalms, where David speaketh unto God in this manner; Thou hast possessed my reins; 2. Psal. 139.13.15.16. thou hast covered me in my mother's womb:— My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in a secret place, and curiously wrought as in the lowest parts of the earth; thine eyes did see my mass (or whole substance) yet being imperfect and in thy book all, my members, were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. To omit the omission (although it is very unlikely that Job and David here describing so precisely the manner of man's conception, breeding & bringing forth into the world: wherein God's power, wisdom, 〈◊〉 1. ●● and goodness, is most of all to be magnified; should pretermit that wonderful work of the creation &c infusion of the soul, if it had been known and believed in their days) this only I would know, how, if the soul be immediately created by God, they could so peremptorily (without any exception or limitation) affirm that the whole man was form in the womb, poured out as milk, curdled like cheese, etc. which that they both jointly affirm, will plainly appear, if we consider these three things: Man, or me, secret place, and mass or substance. For the first, it is manifest they do not herein speak of their own persons only, as being a matter proper to them alone, but in this they rank themselves with all mankind, so as man here signifies all mankind, male and female (as Moses uses the word) soul and body, Gen. 1.27. & 5.1.2. and one as well as the other. When therefore they both expressly affirm, that man is conceived in the womb, it followeth that all men and women's souls, have heir original together with their bodies. As for the term secret place, it signifieth the womb of the mother, where the child is conceived, which is expressly named where he saith, thou hast covered me in my mother's womb: therefore when David saith, he was wonderfully form in a secret place, he intimateth that the conception of the whole man, is made in the womb. Lastly, the word mass, or substance, which he addeth afterwards, makes it yet more manifest, for it signifieth all whatsoever is in man, which is also proved by the words that follow after: for he saith, that this whole mass or substance of man which is form in the womb, was described in the book of God's providence, and who dare deny but soul as well as the body was from all eternity known unto the providence of God? for it is not meant of the members of the body only, but according to the true meaning of the words in the originally, all things whatsoever in man, is brought forth in continuance of time, which before was not. So that from these Scriptures I conclude thus; If whole man, with his whole mass or substance be conceived in the womb of his mother, than his rational soul, together with his body, is propagated out of or by virtue of the seed. But whole man together with his whole mass or substance, is conceived in the womb of his mother; therefore the rational soul, together with the body, is brought forth by virtue and power of the seed. 9 David's confession. Ninthty, Like unto these also is that other speech of the Prophet David; where he confesseth that not his body only, but he himself; both soul and body was conceived in sin. So are his words: Psal. 51.5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Whence it appeareth, not only that the whole man is conceived in the womb, but that he is bred and borne in sin; yea corrupt and sinful even from the very first conception, which as (we shall afterward see) could not possibly be if the soul were immediately created by God. And lest we should not take knowledge of this, or knowing if think it more strange than true; he setteth before it this special note of observation, Behold as being a matter worthy to be known, and believed of all men. Jeremy's approbation. Tenthly, The Prophet Jeremy likewise, or rather the Lord by the Prophet speaketh thus: Before I form thee in the womb, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee. Whence also it appeareth, not only that the whole man, the soul as well as the body is form in the womb; but also that the soul is present, and in some sanctified by grace (as all are corrupt by nature) even from the beginning; for so it may well be understood, that Jeremy was sanctified, Luk. 1.15.41. as John Baptist also was, with the gifts of the holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb: yea, before he was borne, even from the time of his first forming in the womb. And seeing such sanctification and special knowledge of God cannot be ascribed to a body without a soul; it will follow that as all are sinful, and some in part sanctified, even from the very conception, neither of which can be without a soul: so all do receive both soul and body together at the very first conception. 11. Salomons resolution Eleventhly, Hereunto may be added that of Solomon, which was before alleged to prove the contrary, where he saith; Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, Eccl. 12.7. and the spirit shall return to God that gave it. That is, at death the body returns to the earth whereof it was first made, when God form man of the dust of the ground, and the soul returns to God who first breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of lives. Now if salomon's meaning be, that look as the body ariseth from the earth, so the soul comes from God (whence some would infer the immediate creation of the soul) it holds much more strongly, that the soul is not immediately given of God, but mediately by the means of nature; seeing we have not our bodies neither immediately from the earth, but mediately by propagation from Adam, from whom both soul and body is communicated to posterity, and both by the gift of God. To conclude, therefore as our bodies come from the dust, so do our souls from God: but our bodies come by propagation from Adam; and therefore (by this argument) so do our soul's souls also. 12. Zacharies testimony Zach. 12.1. Lastly, That of the Prophet Zachary before objected to the contrary, serves also notably for the confirmation of this mediate manner of the soul's propagation: his words be these; The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him. Now to form in the Scripture never signifieth to create of nothing, as God did in the beginning: but to frame of some matter pre-existing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 1.1.2.7. as when the Lord form Adam's body of the dust of the ground. For though indeed creating be sometimes put for forming, yet forming is never put for creating of nothing. Seeing therefore the Lord formeth the souls of men of some matter, it must be either of the souls of the parents, or of his own essence, they being neither bodies nor Angels; but the latter is impossible, and therefore it must needs be the former. Again the Prophet saith not, without him, as if it were first made and then infused, but within him. So that in saying the Lord formeth the spirit of man within him, he doth evidently declare, 1. Of matter that there is some matter within man, whereof the Lord formeth the soul: than which, what in so few words can so fitly and fully express the manner of the soul's propagation; being form in conception of the spiritual matter of the parents souls, by the power and virtue of the seed in generation. And yet not merely by the power of nature; for in the last place it is to be observed, that he saith, the Lord formeth it. For he indeed is the external efficient, the nature of the soul being of that height, that without an immediate act of his providence, it cannot be produced. Whence it is that in the production of the soul, though it be not a creation, it is as near to a creation as can be: and though it be by propagation, yet it is not merely by propagation, but some way above it: and so it is in a manner a kind of mean between creation and propagation. For according to these words of the Prophet, the soul is form of the spiritual matter of the parents souls, within the conceived fruit, not without the omnipotent power of God. So that by all these testimonies it appeareth (I think) sufficiently, that this doctrine went currant in the time of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets: and (I believe) never was once questioned in those first ages of the world. CHAP. XIV. Testimonies out of the new Testament, proving the soul's propagation. THis doctrine is no less, if not much more clearly revealed and fully confirmed in the new Testament also. 1. S. Paul. For first the Apostle Saint Paul saith as plainly as can be, that all men in their whole persons, both were in Adam, and sinned in him. Death (saith he) passed by one man upon all men, in whom all sinned. Where he maketh no such division of soul and body, one from one place, and another from another, as men have now invented: but he saith plainly, the whole man, Rom. 5.12. yea all men (who consist of souls I am sure as well as bodies) were in Adam, yea, and sinned in him too; which is absurd to say, and impossible to be without souls. What would we, yea, what can we have more plainly spoken? Is it not then high presumption (to say no worse of it) for men thus to sever what God hath joined together without apparent warrant from his word? how much more than in this, for which it is confessed there is no warrant there at all? And yet lest any man should be mistaken, as thinking the whole man may well enough be said to be in Adam, though not in other of our parents, by I know not what imaginary imputation; because he was the stock of all mankind (or rather of the bodies of all mankind;) the holy Ghost, I say, foreseeing our aptness to err, to take away all exception saith the very same concerning other Fathers also; The Author to the Heb. Heb. 7.1. as that Levi (together with all his sons) was yet in the loins of his Father (grandfather, yea, and great grandfather) Abraham when Melchisedeck men him; and which is more, paid tithes in him. So that by the testimony of the Apostle, V●rs. ●. Abrakam is to be reckoned in the number of those that did propagate the whole man, soul and body together: and for that cause paid tithes for his posterity while they were yet in his loins. And if Isaa● Jacob, and the whole tribe of Levi, were once in the loins of Abraham; we need not doubt, but we were all in like manner once wholly in Adam, and consequently are now wholly propagated from him. 2. The Angel Gabrell. Again, that we may not deny it, unless we will deny Christ and our own salvation. The Scriptures teach, that Jesus Christ as concerning his humanity was the son of the virgin Mary, and so of David his Father: for so said the Angel Gabrell, being sent unto her; Luk 1.31, 32. Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son: and again, the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Neither is it sufficient to say his body came from them; for the Apostle plainly affirmeth, Rom. 1.3. that he was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Where flesh is figuratively put for his whole humanity, both soul and body, as themselves confess. Per sy●ocdoch●n. Neither can it be denied, for it is there opposed to his Divinity, as the words immediately following do manifestly declare: and all Interpreters acknowledge. Whence it necessarily followeth, that the soul of our Saviour was the seed of David, even the fruit of his loins as well as his body, 3. S. Peter. Act. 2.30. as St. Peter witnesseth: for since the holy Ghost affirmeth it, why should we fear to do it? yea, why should we not fear to do otherwise? Is it not safer to follow such a guide, than to run a way by ourselves for which we have no warrant? And seeing as the Apostle elsewhere affirmeth, Heb. 4.15. He was made like unto us in all things, except sin; why should we make any doubt, but it is so with us also, as it was with him? Especially considering the whole currant and full stream of the Scriptures run this way, even from the beginning. And not only concerning him, as where it is said, Gen. 3.15. & 22.18. the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpent's head; and, in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. 5.10.11. as we heard before: but also all other places speaking of his or our generation, comprehends both soul and body under the name of seed, 1 Chron. 1, 2, 3, etc. Mat. 1. Luk. 2. Mat. 19.6. without any exception, making the soul no less the seed of man than the body, and the body no more than the soul; and neither of them more or less propagation than the other, and this throughout the whole Scripture, without any the least word to the contrary. And therefore, I say again, let no man dare to separate what God hath so joined together. 4. Our Saviour himself. Lastly, Unless we will make God the Author of sin, and consequently deny God that made us; we must confess the truth of this doctrine, proved from those words of our Saviour, where speaking both of the natural and the new birth of man, he saith; joh. 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh is flesh, and that which is borne of the spirit is spirit. Whence I reason thus; If the soul were immediately created by God, it should not be flesh that is corrupt and sinful, but spirit, that is pure and holy. For whatsoever comes immediately from God, he makes it pure & good, yea, Gen. 1.3. all things very good. But man from his very beginning is corrupt and sinful, because he is borne of flesh; for saith our Saviour of the whole man that being borne of the flesh he is flesh; Eph. 2.3. and therefore the whole man hath need of a second birth, that he may be borne of the spirit. Either therefore we must deny original sin, or else make God the Author of evil, if the soul be immediately created by him. But seeing it is manifest we are borne of flesh, and are by nature children of wrath; and it is impious blasphemy once to imagine that God is the Author of sin; I fear not to conclude, that the soul is not borne of the spirit, I mean, created by God, but of the flesh, that is, propagated by man. The conclusion of the divine Testimonies. Thus then for divine testimonies we have produced no less than a whole Jury of witnesses▪ first God himself, than Adam, Moses, Job, David, Solomon, Jeremy, Zachary, Peter, Paul, the Angel Gabrell, and our Saviour Christ himself; and if humane Testimonies would serve the turn, it were not hard to show more than twelve Legions of Saints, learned and unlearned, that have lived and died in this belief. It being the received doctrine of the western Churches in Saint Hieromes time, as was before declared: but if these will not satisfy, much less would those, and therefore I omit them. CHAPTER XV. The propagation proved from the Doctrine of Original sin. Reason's proving the soul's propagation. BEsides the Testimonies of Scripture, this mediate manner of the soul's propagation, may farther be demonstrated by reasons drawn from them; whereof there are two only most material, and indeed necessary to be considered: the one concerning the doctrine of original sin, and the other touching the incarnation of our Saviour; which two, being the main difficulties in this question; the one hindering the souls immediate creation, the other the immediate propagation thereof; if these two can be cleared, but especially if both do agree together to confirm this doctrine, there will remain no more place of disputation about it; and therefore I purpose to insist so much the longer in them both. 1. Original sin. And for the better clearing the first reason drawn from the Doctrine of Original sin, I will first make way to it by a general description of these three things: First, Original sin; Secondly, Creation; Thirdly, Propagation: and then apply it particularly to the proving of the point in hand. l. From the nature of the sin descending. 2. From the goodness of God in creating. 3. From the course of nature in propagating. Of all which, I will speak as briefly and plainly as I can, and according to that divine light which is revealed in the Scriptures. First therefore it must be showed out of the Scripture, whether there be any original sin or no, and what it is. For the first, that the stream of man's being, first poisoned in Adam the fountain, hath infected every man that comes into the world with sin, is manifest through the whole Scripture. Proofs out of the Scripture. By one man (namely Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by n =" a" Rom. 5.12. sin: in the day that he did eat of the forbidden fruit, we began to die the n =" b" Gen. 2 17 death: yea, n =" c" Rom. 5.14. even Infants that had not actually sinned, yet were tainted with original sin: so that in Adam all dye n =" d" 1 Cor. 15.22. , because in Adam all did sin n =" e" Rom. 5.12. : Hence it was that by and by after all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually n =" f" Gen 6.5 : yea, evil even from his youth n =" g" Gen. 8.21 : And now who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean n =" h" job 14.4. : And what is man that he should be clean n =" i" job 15.14. , and he that is borne of a woman, that he should be righteous, saith Job. Hence even David confesseth of himself, I was borne in iniquity, and in sin did my n =" k" Psal. 51.5. mother conceive me: and of others, he saith, the wicked are estranged from the womb n =" l" Ps. 58.3. , they go astray as soon as they are borne. Esay also calleth man a transgressor from the womb n =" m" Isa. 48.8 and Jeremy saith, the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked n =" n" jer. 17.9. : hence also it is that the Apostle saith, We are by nature children of Wrath n =" o" Eph. 2.3. ; and by the offence of one, the fault came upon all n =" p" Ro. 5.18. men to condemnation. And to conclude, our Saviour saith plainly, that which is borne of the flesh is flesh n =" q" joh. 3.6. joh. 3.3.5. ; and except a man be regenerate and borne again, he cannot enter into nor see the Kingdom of God. Reasons to prove it. Besides, Reason teacheth, that like begets like, as touching the substance and accidents proper to the kind, 1. according to the Rule, Generatum sequitur naturam generantis; Beasts bring forth beasts; Serpents, serpents, and sinful man, a sinful offspring: We cannot gather grapes of thorns, Mat. 7.16. nor figs of thistles; but an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit; and corrupt Adam sinful men, otherwise how could Infants justly be punished with death, seeing death is the wages of sin. And why were Infants circumcised, and women purified after childbirth under the law, but to show that all that cometh of man's seed, is defiled with sin. Again, common experience showeth the fruit of this bitter root to bud forth in children, even from their very cradles, and that by inclination before they can learn by imitation. The necessity also of our regeneration proves it; for if by our first birth we were not corrupt, then should not the second be necessary to salvation. Lastly, the double grace which we receive from the second Adam Christ Jesus, namely, Justification & Regeneration, shows that there floweth a double evil from the first Adam, namely the guilt and corruption of nature. If we had not this double sin, we should not need this double remedy. What original sin is. And now that we see we are thus infected, let us inquire a little more narrowly into the nature of it. It appears by that which hath been said already, that all men are become sinful through Adam's sin, having lost those now supernatural gifts, wherewith he and we with him were at first endued; and in stead thereof, are all over infected with a venomous quality, or inclination to all manner of evil, causing ignorance and blindness in the mind, stubborness and rebellion in the will disorder in the affections, making the senses sensual and beastlike, all the members of the body instruments of unrighteousness, and the whole man a slave to the devil; and that from our first being, even so fare as nature can reach (as well potentially as actually ever since Adam's sin, which groweth up with us from the womb and in time (if we live) brings forth the fruits of unrighteousness, in our thoughts, words, and actions, by reason whereof we are not only corrupt, but guilty of God's wrath, and liable to eternal damnation from our first being. Now it is called Original sin, Why it is so called. first, because it was from the beginning, even as soon as ever Adam sinned: secondly, because it is with us from the beginning, even in conception, as soon as we do actually begin to be: and thirdly, because it is the beginning of all actual sin whatsoever. Howbeit, in the Scripture it is called by other names, Rom. 6.6. as, The old man, The body of sin, Rom. 7.17.23. The sin that dwells in us, The law of our members, The sin that encloseth us on every side, Heb. 12.1. Concupiscence, jam. 1.14. and the like. And as we use the word, it is sometimes taken more largely, for the sin of Adam, together with the guilt and corruption following it: but usually more strictly for the corruption of nature only: consisting of the privation of goodness, and inclination to evil, before rehearsed. These grounds being laid down, we may make a full definition of it after this manner. Definitie Originalis peccati. Original sin is the depravation of the whole nature of man, consisting of the privation of original righteousness, and an inclination to all manner of evil; derived from Adam to all his posterity by natural generation, whereby they stand guilty of eternal death: in which definition, we may see all the essential causes of original sin: the subject, or material cause, is the whole nature of man, all men, and every part of all men, soul, body, understanding, will, memory, affections, senses, and several members of the body, as they constitute the person of a man propagated from Adam. The formal cause is the depravation of the same, whereby every man is deprived of original righteousness, and prone to every sin that can be committed. The efficient cause, the sinning will of Adam; the instrumental cause, natural generation: and the end and effect of it, guilt and punishment: misery and death here, & eternal damnation hereafter. More briefly, Original sin is by some defined to be the depravation of man's nature, consisting of the privation of righteousness, and inclination to evil, contracted from the generation itself, and derived from Adam to all his posterity. For as sickness is not only a privation of health, but also an evil affection of the body, arising from the distemper of the humours: so original sin is not only the want of righteousness, but also an inclinableness to unrighteousness, arising from the sin of Adam, and conveyed unto us by natural propagation. In a word, it is our potential sinning in Adam, whereby according to the law of nature, we are both corrupt and guilty. And so much for the general nature of original sin. Creation what it is. Now for the second, what Creation is, we shall not need many words. Improperly Creation is taken sundry ways, sometimes for the determination, and decree of God to create, as where Wisdom saith, Ecclu. 24. He created me in the beginning before the world; that is, he decreed to create and reveal me in the Church. Sometimes for renovation, & changing, not of the substance, but the quality of a thing: Ps. 51.10. So David prayeth, Create in me a clean heart, O God. Sometimes for the natural generation of the creatures; Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, Psal. 104.30. and they are created. And sometimes it is taken for the restauration of that which is destroyed; Isa. 65.17. Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth. But properly taken, it either signifieth to make something of nothing, or else to give forms to the matter, unto which it hath no natural power of itself. And for that cause do require an omnipotent hand to effect if; so as creation properly taken belongs to God only. Nevertheless, for the most part, it is used in the first sense, and therefore creation is commonly defined thus; Creatio est productio entis ex non ente; or as Aquinas hath it; Est productio rei secundum totam substantiam ex nihilo. So that in the most proper sense, a thing cannot be said to be created, unless the whole substance be produced by the omnipotent power of God out of nothing; and not at all, unless at least he hath an immediate hand in the forming of it. Propagation, what it is. Lastly, For Propagation, it is that most excellent and natural faculty, whereby a living creature, by feed of generation, begets his like, for the continuation of the kind. It is a faculty, commonly accounted a species of the vegetative faculty, but is indeed the natural perfection of a living creature, whether vegetative, sensitive, or rational; and it is the most excellent, and the most natural faculty, being engrafted into nature, with a special charge & blessing from God in the creation, and is therefore most desired and consequently most natural to all creatures that have life; Gen. 1.22.28. whereby like begets like; univocal which is most properly so called, when as a creature brings forth the like to itself, as a plant comes of a plant, and a Lion of a Lion: and aequivocal generation of unlike, as when a plant or living creature is bred of putrefaction, as, Mice, Flies, Serpents, and the like, for the continuation of the kind, for nature aimeth at the highest perfection that can be, even to continue all creatures for ever; and therefore every creature naturally desires ever to be, which because it cannot be effected in the individuals, therefore it is done another way, namely, by propagation, for to beget the like, is after a sort to be ever. And to conclude, this is done by the seed of generation, which as the faculty itself is most excellent: so is the matter of it the perfection of man's nature, as the seed of a tree, the sap whereof hath passed through root, body, branch, leaf, bud, and all: and so contains the nature of the whole: so is the seed of man the quintessence of nature, which having passed through all the degrees of concoction, and containing the whole kind of man, is reserved by nature in a place convenient for the procreation of another of the same kind. Now because this generation is the affection or rather perfection of the whole compound, consisting of matter and form, a man cannot be said to propagate the matter alone, but the whole creature, so as to speak properly, generation is not either of the matter, or of the form, but of a certain third thing, consisting of matter and form. So that here it followeth, that our propagation from Adam, is nothing else but the deduction of the whole man out of Adam, according to the course of nature; that is, the turning of our potential being in him into act by natural generation, which is the only means whereby Adam's nature is derived unto us. Difference between generation and creation. And here to conclude, it shall not be amiss to observe the differences between natural generation, and immediate creation; the chief whereof are these. First, Creation is the work of God by himself; Generation is the work of nature from God: Secondly, Creation is wrought only by the word & command of God by his only beck and will; generation is performed in a natural order preordeined of God. Vide Polan. Synt. lib. 5.6.2. Thirdly, Creation is merely of nothing, not of any matter or substance, but of nothing at all; generation is of some matter pre-existing indeed, old matter putting on new forms. Fourthly, Creation is done in a moment, without any time, being by an infinite virtue, which is not capable of any time; generation cannot be but in time, being perfected by degrees and in succession of time. Fifthly, In Creation, things are not made of the same substance with the creator; but in generation, that which is generated, hath the same substance with the generator. Sixthly, Creation is performed without any motion or mutation; but in generation, there is both motion and mutation, the same matter being varied into diversity of forms. Lastly, the order of creation is one, and of generation another; for in creation the privation is before the habit, power before act, darkness before light; but in generation, the habit is before the privation, sight before blindness, & light before darkness. And so much for the general description of Original sin, Creation, and Propagation. CHAP. XVI. How the nature of the sin descending, confirms the soul's propagation. The nature of the sin. IT appeareth by the former description of Original sin, which is proved by the scripture, & confessed by all, that it is not only a loss of original righteousness, but an hereditary infection or spiritual corruption, which hath overspread the whole nature of man: which two, as they are the main things in original sin, so the one necessarily followeth the other. For the soul ceasing to be good, it must needs become evil; and being turned out of the right way, goes on in a wrong; for it cannot stand still or be idle, but must be doing either good or evil, and therefore being deprived of goodness, corruption follows as darkness succeeds in the place of light. The means of deriving it Whereas therefore some make original sin, to consist of guiltiness & corruption, as the parts of it; and to be derived from Adam by imputation and propagation, guiltiness by imputation, and corruption by propagation; it appeareth that guiltiness is no part of original sin, but an effect of it; and consequently, that imputation is not properly the means of conveying it to us, but an effect of the other. And as that depravation or corruption only is properly original sin, and guiltiness comes only by reason of corruption; so propagation only is properly the means whereby it is derived unto us, and imputation is only in regard of propagation. For as we should not have been guilty, if we had not been corrupt; so sin should not have been imputed, if it had not been propagated. And as we were potentially guilty in Adam, because potentially corrupt; so by like reason it followeth, that it is now actually imputed to us, because we are actually propagated from him. I conclude therefore, that the nature of this sin consists in the corruption of nature, and the stream thereof runs in natural propagation. Objections from the nature of sin. But here it will be objected, that sin is such an accident, as cannot by the course of nature be communicated to posterity. 1. It is nothing. For if we consider the matter or substance of it, it is indeed nothing; it is non ens in rerum naturâ; no substance, for than it should be created by God, but a mere of privation, the want of that which should be, and not any thing that should not be; as darkness is a privation of light, not any thing that succeeds in the place of light. For there is nothing in the dark night which was not in the day, only light is absent, and such a manner of thing (or nothing rather) is sin said to be. And if it should be granted, that it is somewhat more, namely, an evil quality, besides that than it must needs be created of God as good qualities are, it must needs be either in the soul or in the body, yea, in the soul and not in the body; for sin is a spiritual thing, if it be any thing. 2. Not by the soul. Now if it be a quality of the soul, it cannot be conveyed to posterity, for such habits and endowments of the mind, as are not engrafted into nature, but happen from without as this did, cannot be propagated, according to the Proverb, Ex grammatico non nascitur grammaticus, but they are gotten by art and industry, and so they will grant that Adam's sin may be derived to us by imitation, but not by generation. 3. Not by the body. On the other side, if it be a corporal and elementary quality, besides that it cannot then be sinful, it cannot descend to posterity neither, because it is not inherent in the principles of nature, but an external accident which nature hath no sense of; for what is nature the worse for Adam's taking the forbidden fruit? yea, what if he had cut off his own arms, his children should not have been borne without, for nature followeth the first institution: yea more, if it had caused some distemper in the body, yet it is not necessary it should be communicated to posterity, for all children have not the sicknesses of their parents, how much less their sins then, which are not natural either to soul or body. These things, Ans. I confess, have a show of truth, but I deny the power of it in them all for disproving original sin, not doubting to make it appear, that all these do agree together to confirm this only way of sin's propagation. 1. Privation of good. For first, let it be granted, that sin in regard of substance, is nothing but a privation of goodness; than it will follow, that it cannot subsist without some subject, which must also be good, because every substance is created by God; It is in a good subject. so that evil cannot be but in a good subject. Again, being a privation, it can have no efficient cause, 2. Hath no efficient cause. for to speak properly, it is no effect but a defect rather. And if evil can have no cause, 3. It comes from a good God much less can it be caused by the chief good. For God who is summum bonum, being as the habit unto this privation, can no more be the cause of sin than light can be of darkness; which cannot possibly be; for light always inlightens; and no darkness can proceed from light; for though we read, that God commanded light to shine out of darkness, yet for darkness to proceed from light is altogether impossible; and even so it may stand with the nature of God, to bring good out of evil, but not evil out of good. 4. There can be no evil God. And for that sin is no positive thing, but a privation of good, hence it followeth also, that there cannot be a summum malum, as well as a summum bonum: for the one is not, and if it were the one should destroy the being of the other, in as much as there cannot be two chiefs: contrary to the devilish conceits of the Manichees, of a good God, and an evil God. 5. It may be propagated. Lastly, Though it be an accident, yea, a privation, yet it is not a mere negation, & though it be but an accident, yet even an accident is his imperfection, and sometimes the accident of a substance prevails as much as the substance itself: so that though it be but a privation, yet it may have a being in nature: Malum est in rerum naturâ etiamsi per se nihil est else Aristotle was much overseen in making privation one of the principles of nature: and if that be so necessary in generation, why should we think this impossible to be generated? and though it cannot hang in the air, but must cleave to some subject, yet it followeth not but it may be propagated, together with the subject wherein it is. 2. An inclination to evil. But if this will not satisfy, it is farther to be considered, that original sin is not only a privation of goodness, but also a corrupt quality and inclination to evil, as appears by the former description, an● the proof of it; and may farther be manifested by the punishment and consequents of the same. For a mere privation of happiness were a sufficient punishment for a mere privation of goodness: but we know that Adam and all his posterity, have not only lost Paradise, but gained a great deal of labour, pain, sorrow and misery. Neither was the earth only deprived of that excellent condition wherein it was created; but in the place thereof hath succeeded a curse, making it barren of good fruit, and fruitful of evil, Gen. 3.17, 18. thorns, thistles, and the like. Teaching us that there is an evil quality in sin as well as a privation of goodness. 3. Seated in the Soul. Against this it is objected, that if it be an evil quality, it must cleave either to the soul, or to the body, or both. If to the soul, it cannot descend, because such endowments of the mind as are not engrafted into nature, cannot be propagated, according to the proverb, etc. To which I answer, Ans. 1. first, that even those arts which are least natural, are not altogether excluded in generation, nay, experience proves that children for the most part are like their parents, even in such faculties as these, whether they be inclined to Husbandry, Horse-manship, Merchandise, Navigation, or the liberal sciences: howsoever they are often crossed in their inclinations. Secondly, 2. It is commonly seen, that children are like their parents also in the faculties of the mind, as in acuteness of understanding, firmness of memory, soundness of judgement, and the like. Thirdly, 3. It is well known that the affections of the soul, which are yet nearer to the nature of sin, are very commonly composed to posterity, whether concupiscible or irascible, as covetousness, wrathfulness, mirth, sadness, fear, boldness, and the like: whence is that other Proverb, Partus ventrem sequitur. Lastly, 4. It is manifest, that sin cleaves to the will itself, which is the fountain of the affections. For as there are certain natural principles of knowledge, as of good and evil, which were at the first engrafted into the understanding: so there are certain natural inclinations in the will, as of love and hatred, which at first were carried to their proper objects, and so were created good: but now through man's failing and Gods curse upon it, they are carried a contrary way, by means whereof we are now corrupt and sinful. Now if sin cleaves thus to the will, whence these affections proceed, yea, pierceth into the most inward and purest parts of the soul, whence it spreads itself through the whole man; it must needs be propagated much better (or rather) than the affections which are removed a degree farther from the soul, and how much more then, better than those external acts, which are not natural, but mere habits gotten by use and industry: which nevertheless in regard of natural aptness unto them, may also after a sort be propagated unto posterity. 4. Cleaving to the body. Yet is not sin so seated in the soul, as that it should not affect or rather infect the body also. For though it cannot dwell in the body alone, nor be propagated by it, yet together with the soul the body is infected, and by them both sin propagated. Which may further appear. First, if we consider, that not the soul or body alone, but the whole man or person is the subject of this sin especially; for not parts but persons sinned, and so were corrupted with sin in Adam: and thu● the body is sinful not of itself, but as a part of the person of man. Secondly, being a corrupt quality of the body, though accidental, and not engrafted into nature at the first; yet why may it not be propagated as well as the gout & leprosy (whereunto sin is resembled in the Scripture) especially considering these are no less accidental, unnatural, yea, and contrary to created nature at the first, and are not now common to all mankind as sin is. Lastly, If it be granted, that nature does always follow the first institution, notwithstanding external accidents, yet this is such an external accident as it is also internal: yea, farther I affirm that sin is now no less engrafted into our nature (I mean the whole nature of man, 5. Engrafted into nature itself. How sin is engrafted into man's nature and propagated with it. consisting of soul and body) than if the first, and yet without fault in God. Which that I may plainly manifest, and so clear all in a word, I would know of the adversaries of this doctrine, whether that wisdom and holiness which was at first in Adam, was such as might and should have been communicated to his posterity, if he had not sinned or no? If yes (as no reasonable man can deny it) than it must follow by that rule of reason, Contraria contrariorum sunt consequentia; that so may sin and corruption now since the fall. All that can be objected to the contrary is this, Obj. that these virtues which were in Adam, were good qualities created by God, & engrafted into him at his first creation: whereas our vices are neither such qualities, Obj. 2. nor so engrafted into our nature in the beginning, and therefore though they might have been propagated, yet it will not follow that these may. To the first I answer, Ans. 1. that his virtues were no more qualities created by God, than our vices are. For God did only so rectify the will of Adam in his first creation, that it had a disposition, and inclination to good, by the exercise whereof those habits of the mind are in time gotten which we call virtues: and contrarily, from the evil disposition of the will, proceeds those evil customs which we call vices. So that (if I conceive right) neither the one nor the other, are qualities created by God. Ans. 2. And concerning the second, the engrafting of them into our nature at the first. I answer, that as God made Adam simply good, by giving him an inclination unto good without evil; so he gave him a free will to evil, though he were good. Neither was he at the first endued either with virtues or habits, save only that same habitu● inchoatus, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a disposition or inclination whereby he was carried to good, Adam had evil in power and goodness in act. yet not so strongly but he could as freely will evil also; whereby it came to pass, that he had evil in power as well as goodness in act. So that the seed and power of the one was engrafted into his nature no less than the act of the other, even in the beginning: which power also we see soon after came into act as well as the other. For if Adam had alike freewill to either, it must needs follow, that the one was as natural to him as the other; and consequently as easy to be propagated. For however some conceive of it, for my part I see no reason to persuade me, that Adam was ever more inclined, or had more power to good than to evil; but that God made him, as Ecclesiasticus saith, Ecclus. 7.29. right, that is, as I understand it in equal condition, either to stand or to fall; to continue good or become naught, which as it was the perfection of his nature, and that innocent condition▪ in which he was created; so that it might appear, it pleased God so to order the matter, that he fell from it, by so small an enticement as an apple. Now so fare forth as he had natural power to sin by creation; so fare sin might be derived by propagation, all will confess: and why then when Adam▪ through his own folly, and Gods just wrath upon him for the same, had lost the former freedom together, and brought upon himself a necessity of sinning; should not the corruption be propagated much more, being so much more increased? To conclude, therefore it followeth by just consequence in reason, and is manifest by the rules of nature, that his corruption may and must be propagated to his posterity, now he is fallen; as well and as much as his goodness might & should have been if he had not fallen: yea so much more, by how much goodness more properly belongs to the nature of God, and evil to the nature of the creature. Wherefore having thus proved, even from the nature of the sin it sell, that it is most agreeable to the course of nature, that original sin should descend by propagation: I proceed now to prove that it is most contrary to the justice of God that it should descend by a course of creations. CHAP. XVII. That a new created soul, cannot justly be united to a sinful body. THe necessity of the souls mediate propagation, will farther appear, if we consider the impossibility of the immediate creation thereof, without injustice in God in respect of Original sin: seeing a soul new created, can neither be justly united, It justly united. nor corrupted when it is united with the body; for touching the former, first I would know, how it can agree with the goodness and justice of GOD, to put an innocent soul (as he createth it) before it hath sinned into such a condition, as wherein it shall he liable strait my to eternal torments: yea, and perhaps presently damned for another's fault? Obj. it will be said, that it is not liable before faulty; for so soon as it is united to the body, it is guilty of Adam's sin. Ans. 1. I answer, first it must be showed how a soul newly created very good, can be in the fault of his sin; otherwise it is unjust that it should be made guilty, and much more punished for another's fault Secondly, 2. I must ask why then God makes such an union, as whereby it shall be both liable and faulty? Obj. 2. If it be said, that it was the eternal decree of God, It was the decree of God. which neither needed nor could be reversed for Adam's sin: and so the evil is not from God, but from the virtue, or rather viciousness of the union which Adam caused by his sin, whereby it cometh to pass that so soon as they are conjoined, both are guilty, which is merely accidental in respect of God. Ans. 1. It cannot be proved that it is. To this I answer. First that we cannot thus hid ourselves under God's decree: for it cannot be proved, that it is thus, and therefore neither that it is the decree of God. Indeed God did decree that all men should be corrupt and sinful through Adam's sin, yet this must be by some just means, which if it be by this course of propagation only, and not by creation; then this & not that, is to be accounted the decree of God. Now it appeareth by that which is and shall be said, that this is the only just and natural way of sins conveyance, for which cause God would have all men to proceed from one: and not that other, which for aught yet said, seemeth to be an unjust course of man's devising. And as it cannot be proved that it is, Ans. 2. It may be proved that it is not. so it is easy to prove that it is not God's decree, because it is contrary to his word. For if the soul be created good, it must needs be unwilling to enter into this sinful condition: else it should even therein sin, and none I hope will say now (as some did of old) that it sinned before it came into the body: and being unwilling to enter, It shall be enforced to sin. God cannot justly force it into the body, nor punish it for doing that which himself caused. Now God forbidden that we should once imagine such a thought of him. Gen. 18.25 Shall not the Judge of all the world do righteously? Zeph. 3.5. Can Justice itself deal unjustly? No verily: in equity itself there can be no iniquity. Again, 2. It shall be unjustly punished. Ezek. 18.20. Take it the most favourable way that can be, and it must needs be and is granted by all, that for a good soul to be thus united▪ and set into such a condition, is a punishment of Adam's sin. Now since God's justice & very nature proclaims, that the innocent child shall not be punished for the father's offence: how can a good soul be punished in so high a degree for the sin of another who was not the father of it, no nor of the same kind (for Adam was not a soul but a man) without injustice, yea cruelty in God? how justly might such a poor soul complain of God in this case, to be so fare from mercy as to be unjust? and how justly may the unjust Anabaptists cry out of us as they do, that we make God the Author of sin? The Lord hath taughtus in his word, that he abhors such courses: for my part therefore I am so fare from believing this doctrine, that I quake to think of it. CHAP. XVIII. That a soul newly created by God, cannot be infected with Original sin. 2. Not justly corrupted. AS the soul cannot be justly united; so being united, it cannot be justly corrupted, if it be immediately created. For whence should the corruption come? it must be either from the body or the soul, or the union of both: but it can be from none of these. It is manifest it cannot be from the body, for that alone cannot be corrupt, and if it could, it cannot corrupt the soul: and if it could corrupt the soul, yet not with original sin. 1. Not by ●he body. That the body alone cannot be corrupt and sinful, may easily appear by many reasons. 1. It cannot be corrupt First, even the thing itself declares that the simple substance of the body, is no more capable of virtue or vice than a stone; for sin can be only in a subject that hath power to understand, will, and move of itself: which the body of itself cannot do, but only by reason of the reasonable soul. So that the body cannot make the soul, but it is the soul that makes the body sinful; Rom. 6.13. and so the Apostle also implieth, that our members are the soul's instruments of sin. Although therefore the body may be choleric, melancholy, etc. all the world know, that elementary qualities, humours, and affections, are not of themselves sinful, but naturally good, and so rather dispose to good than to evil. Again, The body hath nothing in it of spiritual nature, but only that which is bodily; and therefore cannot have sin, which is of spiritual nature: it being a spiritual evil, even as obedience to God is a spiritual good. Moreover, if neither plants having life, nor bruits having both life & sense, cannot be said to be sinful, because they want reason; much less can the body, the senseless and liveless body of man be infected with sin without the soul. Lastly, That which the body hath not first, with that it cannot infect the soul in being united with it, but the body hath not first in it ignorance, unbelief, etc. in which the soul's tainture originally consisteth; and therefore cannot infect the soul thereby in being united with it, and consequently not with original sin neither. 2. It cannot corrupt the soul. But let it be granted, contrary to all reason and truth, that the body is first infected with original sin; can the body fasten the same upon the soul? Nothing less. And not only because it is a spirit, and bodies can work only corporally, according to their natures, so as the impurity of the body can neither affect nor infect the purest spiritual soul: but also because the soul is the first mover, and commander of all actions in the body. Now if men's souls be created sound and sincere, free from the contagion of sin; every way absolute, as were the souls of our first parents, and so joined unto their bodies: why do they not by virtue of that divine nature, restore the ruin of that building which was defiled by the sin of Adam? why do they not cleanse and cleanse and purge the blots and filth of the body? seeing they do sit as Judges in the body, and rule and guide it according to their own pleasure. If it be said that sin sometimes Obj. gins in the body, as David's eye when he saw Bathsheba bathing of herself; it is easily answered. For, Ans. 1. first, the eye as a bodily part seethe not, but the soul by the eye; Oculus non videt, sed anima per oculum. Secondly, His sin was not at all in seeing her, but in lusting after her in his heart & soul, which lust conceiving, I am. 1.14 by consent, brought forth death in act: and therefore in his confession he ascends by this stream to the original fountain, Psal. 51.5. namely, that original sin wherein he was conceived. Wherefore if the soul be created good, and so infused into the body, there is more reason that it should sanctify the body, than that the body should corrupt it: and according to this doctrine, it may much better be maintained that all men have original righteousness, because the soul comes from God, than that we have original sin, because the body comes from Adam. 3. It cannot corrupt it with original sin. But let this also be granted, that the soul is corrupted by yielding obedience to the body, as Adam did to Eve, yet we cannot have original sin ever the more for this, for the souls yielding obedience to the body, and following the sinful motions thereof (if any such there be) is actual sin: and not that original corruption wherewith the whole man is infected by descending from the loins of Adam, in whom as the Apostle saith, We all sinned, Rom. 5.12. and which only was before proved to be original sin. Not actually to commit something against the will of God is original sin: but that inbred homebred breathing of sin which is the spawn of all sin; which if it be seated in the body, how it can corrupt that new created pure soul, without any provocation or enticement to sin, cannot possibly be imagined. Again, if Original sin most properly consisteth in ignorance of mind, averseness of will, and perverseness of affections, none of which can be immediately in the body: how can it give these things to the soul? and that original sin consists mainly in these, besides the testimony of Scripture, and all orthodox Writers, it is manifest in reason; for that from which actual sin cometh, in that doth original sin consist; now all actual sin springs from ignorance, unbelief, etc. and therefore therein especially original sin must needs consist. To conclude, seeing the body alone cannot possibly have original sin, nor give that which it hath not; Original sin cannot possibly come by the body. 2. Not by the soul. Neither can it proceed from the soul, if it be created good, but it will be said it may; for in the instant of creation God depriveth it of supernatural gifts for Adam's sin; which though it putteth not evil into the soul, yet evil necessarily followeth; and hence is original sin. But neither can I see how this can stand; for first if God deprives it so soon as it is made, it should be not only absurd, but a vain work, to do and strait way to undo again. Secondly, It should be unjust nevertheless; for he had been as good never to have given it goodness, as presently to take it away again. Thirdly, Seeing they say it is created in infusing and infused in creating: they must needs grant that he creates it without supernatural gifts, (unless it be infused with them, which is worse) and so they cannot say, if is deprived of that which it never had. Fourthly, I answer, that if God createth it without those gifts which are supernatural to us, he creates it evil; for so are we without supernatural gifts, and a man may as well imagine a God without goodness, as a good soul without such gifts. Fifthly, However it be for creation or privation, natural or supernatural goodness: if God so makes it, as it must needs be evil (as they say) he makes it evil; for what is it to make an evil one, if not to make one that cannot be good? yea, that is the greatest evil: for to be necessarily evil, is not only nought, but worst of all. Sixthly, This were unjustly to punish the innocent for the guilty, as we heard before. Lastly, though all this might justly be, yet we are never the nearer to original sin. For this is not our sinning in Adam, but our being made sinful for Adam. So that if the soul be created good, we cannot possibly be thereby infected with original sin. In the last place therefore it will be said, that it comes neither by the soul not the body, Not by the union of both. but by the union of both, and that we are deceived if we suppose it to happen through any physical touching, but because in the union we become Adam's sons (he receiving and losing both for himself and us) his sin is thereby made ours. Verily Calvin was a man of an excellent judgement, Calv. Inst. lib. 2. c. 1. who seeing the former grounds unanswerable, flies to this as the last refuge; yet with reverence to so worthy an instrument, I must seek for better satisfaction. True it is that original sin is neither puddle nor stench, yet it is a spiritual Leprosy, hereditarily descending from Adam to all his natural posterity, and infecteth the whole man, both body & soul, with all the parts and powers of both: And I would know how, if the soul be pure, and the body sinful, the infant at first, is half holy and half corrupt, which is absurd, and if both be clean at the first, can the uniting of them make both unclean? can two goods (as both are confessed apart) make one evil? 2. Goods cannot make one evil. nay, rather they are so much the better, being conjoined, according to that common saying, Vis unita fortior: neither will it serve the turn to say it is imputed, and so we are reputed corrupt, for so it can be only, if it be imputed only in this. 2. Imputation insufficient. Indeed Christ's righteousness is really ours by imputation: For a voluntary institution, Obj. as it is a covenant of grace, Ans. differs from a necessary course of justice in the order of nature; it being lawful to show kindness without cause, but not to inflict punishment, as afterwards we shall see; besides, it cannot be justly imputed neither, unless the whole man be propagated; as was before, and shall be again more fully proved. But we are not only guilty of his sin, but by him really corrupt ourselves. For is original sin only imputed corruption? no, it is a real infection also: and that is it whose original I inquire for, which if it be neither from the soul nor from the body, nor the union of both, it is not at all this way: but seeing it is certain, both by Scripture & experience, that we have both: certain it is also, that we have our whole corrupt nature, both soul and body from Adam. CHAPTER XIX. That Original sin cannot pass but by propagation. FRom the impossibility of the soul's creation, we proceed now to the necessity of the propagation thereof in respect of original sin: the former being not more contrary to the nature of God, than this is agreeable to the course of nature: For, first, as by God's ordination, original sin passeth from one to all mankind, so by propagation all mankind proceeds out of one. Secondly, As original sin overspreads the whole man both soul and body; so according to the course of nature, the whole man both soul and body is propagated. Thirdly, As original sin is seated chief in the soul, according to the Scriptures: so the soul especially is propagated according to the course of nature. Wherefore that the truth of the one may appear in Scriptures as well as the other is manifest in nature, I will prove first that Original sin cannot pass but by propagation: secondly, that it cannot be propagated unless the whole man be. 1. The necessity of proving this. The first, that original sin can no way justly descend to us, but by propagation: being the chiefest must chief be proved, and so much the rather, partly, because this being granted, the other two will follow alone, and partly, because some are of opinion, that we may justly be punished for Adam's sin, though we had never been borne of him; even as when one brother spends the estate which he received for himself and all the rest. And so indeed all must hold that hold the immediate creation of the soul, else there can be no original sin: which course (being as I think) unequal, is as far from God as God is from injustice. 1. The scriptures teach this and none others. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First therefore this may appear by the clear testimonies of the Scripture, for, saith the Apostle, death passed upon all men, by one man in whom all men sinned: or, because all men sinned in him. Whence it is manifest not only Rom. 5.12. that Adam was then all men, that is, the stock and root of all men naturally; in whom all men were, and so sinned in him and with him; but also that his sin is therefore imputed to his posterity, because they were in him. For if the death threatened to him for sin, passed upon all, because all were in him; it is plain, that the sin for which that death was threatened, was imputed for the same cause; namely, because we were all in him. Now for the same cause it was imputed to us then when we were in him, for the same cause it is imputed now that we are out of him; and therefore as his sin was then ours, because according to the course of nature we were in him: so it is now ours, because by course of nature we are come out of him. So that Adam's sin is ours by imputation, and by propagation: but by imputation only, because by propagation: yea so by this that▪ the other may well lose the name. For it is not the imputing of another's sin to us which was not ours: but by propagation that is made ours naturally, which was before potentially only. And thus by the order of nature (which is the rule we must go by in this) his sin is as truly ours, we being potentially in him, as his own. The Antithesis showeth there can be no other. This also farther appeareth by the Antithesis which the Scripture maketh between the first and second Adam Christ Jesus. For, saith the Apostle, as in Adam all die, 1 Cor. 15.22. so in Christ shall all be made alive. And as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5.19. And again, If one died for all; 2 Cor. 5.14. then are all dead. Whence it appeareth that as Adam was the stock of mankind, in whom all men were by nature; so was Christ the head of the Elect, in whom all they were by grace. For this is that admirable way, in consideration whereof men and Angels may stand amazed, whereby God had from eternity decreed, to give his creatures a higher perfection by grace, than he could possibly give them by nature; for therein stands the opposition, which alone well considered, may happily put an end to this question; that mistake being indeed the ground of this error. Mark this difference or rather similitude between grace and nature. For they are deceived that think Adam's sin to be imputed as Christ's righteousness: the one being by the ordinance of nature, and the other of grace; the one a voluntary institution of the creator, the other a necessary operation of the creature: the one a work of mercy wherein kindness must be showed without cause, the other a work of justice, wherein punishment ought not to be inflicted but upon due defect. So that if we will here make a true Antithesis, we must say, that as in Christ we fulfilled the Law, suffered death, and are now in the seat of salvation, because we are in him as members of his body by grace: so in Adam we did eat of the forbidden fruit, and are under the condemnation of hell, because we were in him, and are still members of his body by nature. And thus Adam's sin shall be as truly ours by nature, as Christ's righteousness is by grace▪ For as Christ derives his righteousness to his children by grace, so Adam communicates his sin to his children by nature. The means whereby Christ doth it is by spiritual regeneration: Adam by natural generation. Now therefore I conclude, that as Christ's righteousness can be no way imputed unto us, but by means of regeneration, whereby we are engrafted into him, and made members of his body by the ordinance of grace: so Adam's sin cannot be imputed to us or become ours, but by generation, whereby we descend from him, as members of his body, by the ordinance of nature. The Law of justice required it. Again, it is contrary to God's law of justice, that one should be punished for another's fault, yea, even innocent children for their wicked parents, much more many thrifty brethren for one prodigal. Hence it was that the Lord abhorred that wicked proverb of the Israelites; Ezek. 18.2, 3, 4 The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge; as I live saith the Lord, ye shall not use this proverb, etc. the soul that sinneth it shall die. And again, he saith, Vers. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. True it is indeed the Lord will visit the sins of the parents upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation: but himself saith, it is of them that hate him. Exod. 20.5 And not simply for their father's sins, but for their own: and the rather to afflict the parents, who oft live to see the fourth generation. Hence also the Lord made a law that the fathers should not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the parents; but every man should die for his own sin; and it is indeed no less contrary to justice than to the Lords own practice; Deut. 24.16. for who was ever more excellent than some that came of wicked parents, & who more wicked than some that came of good parents, whereof not only the Scriptures but also daily experience yield innumerable examples: and perhaps the more to confute this error. On the other side, what can be more just and natural than that all things should be in their first principles, and partake of their natures: Mat. 7.17. nature teacheth that if the tree be evil, so must the fruit be: Rom. 11.16 and divinity allows that if the root be holy, so should the branches be. And hence God is just in making this order, might easily be cleared, but need not here to be disputed. Christ's righteousness proves it. Lastly, The original righteousness of Christ's humane nature plainly proves it; for he was freed from this corruption by his extraordinary generation: and why should he herein differ from us to free him from sin, if we be not hereby sinful? Again, if Adam's sin be imputed unto us simply for that we are men, as Adam was (because whatsoever he received or lost, was for all mankind as well as for himself;) it cannot be avoided but it must be imputed to Christ so far forth as he is man, as well as unto us. But God forbidden that we should say, Christ was sinful. Woe were us if this were true. And yet true it must needs be, if the being man will make us sinful; for that his sin is to be imputed to all men: If, I say, the mere being man, without being mere man will do it. We must therefore beware of this, and hold, that not the being a man, as Adam was, but our sinning in him, and now being sinfully propagated from him, is both the cause & means whereby his sin is derived unto us: from both which by his extraordinary generation. Luk. 1.35. Christ is not only free, but sanctified from the womb, and holy from his first conception, as presently we shall see. CHAP. XX. That Original sin cannot be propagated, unless the whole man be. We sinned in Adam only as we were in him. IT being evident that original sin cannot pass, but by propagation. I proceed now to prove that it cannot be propagated, unless the whole man be; and this will easily follow upon the former grounds; for as we sinned in Adam, only as we were in him; so we are sinful from him, only as we are from him. Wherefore as if the whole man was not potentially in Adam, the whole man did not sin in him; so, if the whole man did not proceed from him, the whole man cannot have original sin from him. For it is impossible we should be in him, and sin in him, in that respect wherein we neither were in him nor could sin in him, that i●, without the whole man: and therefore if the whole man neither was nor could be in him, nor from him, the whole man neither have nor can have fin in him, or from him. So that if we say we were in him in our bodies only, than they only and not we sinned in him: yea, even they did not sin in him, for bodies simply considered, cannot sin, as we heard before: and therefore to say we sinned in our bodies only, is as much as to say, we did not sin at all. Besides, The whole man is the subject of sin. it is manifest that neither the body nor the soul alone is the subject of sin, but the person or whole man. For if according to the rule of reason, that be the proper subject to which the accident properly cleaveth: then either the whole man is the subject of sin, or else the whole man is not properly sinful. Obj. And why else is the law given to the whole man? and the whole man rewarded or punished, Ans. according to his virtuous, or vicious manner of living? If any object, Obj. 2. that the soul cannot be punished alone after death: Ans. 2. I answer, Neither is it simply as a soul, but as the soul of a wicked man. If they reply, that so our souls sinned in Adam, not as our souls, but as the soul's ofmen. I answer (nay, they must answer themselves) that according to their doctrine, the soul never was before, and so had no being in nature, no not potentially: much less was it the soul of a man, and least of all could it sin in Adam. 5. Scriptures. Seeing therefore I could not sin in Adam, but as I was in him, & I sinned in him in my whole person, consisting of soul and body: and that not by I wots not what imaginary imputation, but really and truly, as I was potentially in him by the law of nature: it necessarily followeth that I was naturally and really in him, in my whole person, both soul and body, and so have proceeded from him. And hereto serve the former Scriptures, in him all men sinned: and, Rom. 5.12. 1 Cor. 15.22. in Adam all dye: speaking of the whole person, and therefore so must we. For what is mortal man, that he should contradict the holy Ghost; or seek a new way when God hath chalked out the old? Wherefore I conclude, that as none can partake of Christ's righteousness, unless the whole man be regenerated and borne again, by and from his grace, joh. 3.3. so none can partake of Adam's sin, unless the whole person be generated, by and from his nature. CHAP. XXI. That the whole man cannot be propagated, unless the soul be. 1. The whole cannot be without the essential parts. IN the last place it remains to prove, that if the whole man do; the soul also must needs come from Adam: for this must also be proved, be it never so manifest, because some seeing the former grounds unanswerable, would make us believe, that the whole man may be said to be in Adam, though the soul comes from God. I deny not but it may be said, but I cannot see how it can be said truly. For what can be more false and absurd, than to say the whole was in Adam, but not the essential parts, whereof the whole consisteth. And indeed such a manner of being must be an idle imagination, or nothing, for it is impossible to be either really or rationally. But what is their reason? man gives the subsistence to the person, and the soul comes from Adam quoad existentiam, though not quoad essentiam. But I deny this too: man does indeed something in the subsistence of the person, but that (as they say) is only to provide, I know not what, a body (it should be) without a form; which at the most is but the least part, and therefore not the whole nor half. 2. The conjunction if it put them in one case. cannot yet bring them from one place. But they say, man conjoins both natures together, whereby it doth subsist by itself as a person. But neither is this true, for the conjunction is (they say) no body knows how long after conception; and therefore not man but the woman must do it alone. And yet hot she neither, for they say, God doth create it in the infusion and infuse it in the creating. But say that God gave the soul to the parents, and they did unite them, would it follow that the conjunction of both, makes both to come from Adam? Why do they not rather come both from God, and not at all from Adam? it were more reason the greater should draw the lesser, than the less the greater; & that the base should attend the more noble, rather than the most noble to wait on the base: verily if the whole man may be properly said to proceed from Adam, because the body doth; much more may the whole man be said to proceed from God, because the soul doth. The vanity of this reason (that the whole man comes from Adam, because the body doth) may appear by the like. If a lame man should have a wooden leg joined to his body, Simile. might it be said his whole body grew in the wood, because his leg did? nothing less. And yet is not the wooden leg so much inferior to the body, as the body is to the soul. Any child therefore may take away these stilts from such a lame reason as this is. 3. It could not be in Adam's time nor ours. And if any will still urge it in good earnest, let him tell me when the whole man was in Adam? since the former Scriptures say plainly it was, it must needs be in Adam's time, or ours, yea in both: but according to this doctrine it could be in neither, & so not at all. It could not be in Adam's time, for the whole man had not being in nature (nor not potentially in respect of the soul) many hundred years after; neither could it be in our time, for Adam was dead likewise many thousand years before we had any being, especially in respect of the better part of the soul: and so consequently never was, contrary to those Scriptures, and the doctrine of original sin. It must needs be therefore that the whole man, as well soul body, form as matter, even the whole compound was potentially in Adam (as the whole tree in the root or seed, many grains of wheat in one) and so being naturally propagated from him, doth partake of his nature both in soul and body. Else mark what absurdities will farther follow. Absurdities. That we were in Adam in that wherein we were not: 1. 2. we sinned without that without which we could not sin: 3. the whole man was in Adam, and yet never came from him: 4. and we left that in Adam, which we never had in him, viz. our souls. 5. Then also Adam shall be still full of souls, which yet he never had: 6. and (that I may not be endless in that which is needles) who can abide a speech so contrary to itself, the whole was in Adam, but not that which is the whole? All which are rather wholly to be laughed at, than confuted in any part. CHAP. XXII. That the whole humanity of Christ, was taken from the Virgin. The use and order of handling this questionn. HAving thus showed out of the Scriptures the necessity of the souls propagation, by reason of original sin; I proceed now to prove it from the incarnation of Christ, which yet is accounted the maine let why it cannot be propagated: for because the Scripture saith, He is like unto us in all things, Heb 4.15. sin only excepted: and it is taken for granted, that his soul was created of nothing: this is used not only as one of the chief weapons to maintain the creation of ours; but also as a shield to defend them from the force of many other Arguments, which cannot otherwise possibly be avoided. It is very necessary therefore fully to clear this point, and to show both that it was mediately (though extraordinarily) produced from Adam, as well as ours, and how so it could be free from sin. No Scripture for it. That the soul of our Saviour was not immediately created of nothing, may appear; first, because it is more than is in the Scripture. 1. The holy Ghost in the description of Christ's incarnation, saith nothing of any such thing, no notwithstanding it is thought to be such a notable, yea, such a necessary way to clear him from sin. 2. And who dare say or think the holy Ghost should omit one of the most principal things, in the mightiest matter that ever was revealed to men or Angels? yea, how contrary to all reason is it, 3. that when the four Evangelists were so careful, to set forth every material circumstance (touching his birth, life, death, etc.) so as that which is wanting in one, is supplied by another; yet in this alone, which is the chief of all, they should all forget to mention it, if there had been any such matter? And why then should we thrust in our conceits of such things as never were heard of in the Scriptures? For from the beginning of the world since Adam) it was never heard that a soul was created of nothing: and shall we then father our imaginations upon the Scripture? yea, why or how dare man speak where the holy Ghost is silent? know, Deut. 14.2 that cursed is he that addeth aught to the word of God? Scriptures against it. But not only do the Scriptures not speak it, but they plainly affirm the contrary: as where it saith, Gen. 3.15. The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. & 22.18. Where by seed is meant the whole nature of man which Christ took: and how can it be denied then, but his soul as well as his body was their seed. Again, Christ was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom. 1.3. that is, his whole humanity; for it is there opposed to his divinity As also where it is said, God raised up Christ, Act. 2.30. of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh: And how else can he be in all things (except sin) like unto us, who (as is abundantly proved before) are mediately traduced from Adam both soul and body. 3. Then Adam's sin must be imputed to him. Again, If his and all souls be immediately created by God, than the imputation of Adam's sin to all men, must lay hold on Christ as man. Neither is it sufficient to say, that he is more than a man, for if Adam's sin be imputed unto all men, eo nomine, even because they are men, it cannot be avoided, but it must light upon him also, so far forth as he is man. And thus they must needs fall into that which they so much fear; the making of Christ's humane nature sinful: so slippery is it to walk out of the right way, though never so warily. 4. His soul and body conceived together. This appeareth also in that his soul and body were conceived together both at once: and not after the perfecting of the vegetative and sensitive souls; as they say it is with us. For this is generally confessed, because the divine nature is immediately united to the soul, and by the soul to the body: so that unless we should say, that his body did subsist by itself out of the divine nature before it was assumed; or else that the divine nature was united with a brute body, (or unformed un-informed Embryo) which no man. I believe, is so brutish to affirm: it must of necessity be granted (so forcible is the truth) that however it is with us, his soul and body was conceived together. Which being so, it followeth by the same reason that if he be like unto us, and we like unto him in all things, except sin; our souls and bodies also conceived together as his was. And if it be granted that all souls are present at the first conception; there will be small reason to think they come by immediate creation. 5. His miraculous conception. Besides, it is manifest from the manner of his conception; for if his soul had come immediately from God, he might have been begotten after the common manner of men without sin: but this could not be: and therefore the former is not. The connexion of the proposition is manifest, for if his and all souls do come immediately from God, Original sin cannot possibly come by propagation: but either because God bereaves it of supernatural gifts, whereby it becomes evil; or by the union with the body at the instant whereof it is guilty of Adam's sin, because the soul of man. But seeing Christ's soul so soon as it was, was together with the body one person with the eternal word: he must needs be exempted from the common condition of men, and so even (by their doctrine) neither could be bereft of those gifts; nor guilty of Adam's sin, being more than a man. Neither can it be said, Generation not evil. that there is evil in the act of generation, for that is naturally good; 1. and the soul (they say) is not then present: 2. and the body alone is not capable of sin: no though the soul were present, if (as they say) man propagate the body only. Wherefore if his soul had been immediately created by God, he might well have been propagated without sin. But the assumption that this could not be, is no less apparent, if for no more but this; that if it could, no question it should. For God and nature do nothing in vain; and we cannot deny the truth of that saying, Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora. So that either this extraordinary work of the holy Ghost was in vain, or else Christ's soul was not immediately created. 6. The confession of the adversaries. Lastly, For the confirmation hereof, I will only add one reason more, taken from the reasoning of the Adversaries unto this Doctrine, who therefore prove the holy Ghost not to be Christ's father (though he overshadowed the Virgin) because the matter of his humanity was not from the holy Ghost, but from the Virgin. From whence I might conclude; First, That Christ's soul comes not immediately from God; for then the greatest part of his humanity should have been from the holy Ghost: because all external works of God are common to each person in Trinity. Secondly, 2. That his soul was taken from the Virgin, for they say his humanity was: whereof I am sure the soul is the principal part: yea, that without which it cannot be humanity. But that which I do especially conclude from hence is, that if the holy Ghost cannot be Christ's father, because he gave not the matter of his humanity, Christ cannot be the son of Adam nor David according to the promise: no nor the son of man (and so no Saviour) unless he receive the matter of his humanity (whereof the soul is the chief part) from them. And herein indeed they speak the truth, for it is impossible to be a natural father to that whereunto we give not the whole matter, yea and form too: as we shall see when we come to the rules of nature, which God hath instituted, and from whence the truth of this is also to be fetched. How Christ was true man. I conclude therefore, that Christ's whole humanity, both soul and body, was traduced from Adam: that is, deduced out of his substance, though not after the common manner, but separated from the person of the Virgin only by the miraculous work of the holy Ghost, which useth to be taken from both sexes in ordinary generation. And though a soul cannot by the power of nature be produced of one soul, no more than a body: yet it being performed by supernatural power, it is a true soul no less than the body is a true body; and both together makes a true man, no less than Eve was a true woman (whom Adam called bone of his bone, Gen. 2.23. and flesh of his flesh, even his other selfe-woman) although she was taken only out of man. For that which the Apostle spoke in a spiritual sense, is true also literally, that We are members of his body, of his flesh, & of his bones: Eph. 5.30. & consequently so is he of ours: which could not be if he had not the true nature of man, though taken out of a woman only: as well as Eve, who was made only of a man: yea, much more because she was immediately made perfect at the first: and he conceived of seed, form, nourished, and brought forth by degrees: like unto us in all things excepting only the manner of his first conception, that so he might be free from sin. And here let us stay a little to behold and wonder at the admirable correspondency, yea, double concordancy in the production of mankind, to wit, in Adam and us▪ Eve and Christ: immediately and mediately: after this manner. A double harmony in the production of mankind. Adam made immediately without man or woman. Other men mediately, both of man and woman. Eve partly both ways, of man and woman. Christ also both ways, of no man but woman. Thus by the same authority that they would prove our souls created of nothing, Conclusion. because Christ's was; I can prove they were not because his was not, yea, by so much more, as there are abundance of Scripture, and reasons to confirm this, and none of all for, but against that. CHAP. XXIII. That Christ's humanity was never cleansed from sin. The purity of Christ's Incarnation. COncerning the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, it is commonly said, that the holy Ghost did sanctify a part of the Virgin's substance, which was then assumed by the divine nature to make the person of Christ. Which words must be warily interpreted, and wisely understood, for by a part, we are not to understand a part of her body only, but of her whole person aswell soul as body, whereof his humanity was form: and by sanctifying, we are not to imagine cleansing it from sin, but only the consecrating it to this holy purpose, and endowing it with gifts fitting such a divine union. The former is already proved, namely, that his whole humanity both soul and body was taken from the substance of the Virgin: and the latter, how thus it could be free from sin, we are now to show. For the ground whereof, I will first prove, 1. that it was not cleansed from sin, 2. and then show how he could be incarnate without sin. The former I will prove, first, 1. because it could not be sinful; and secondly, 2. if it had been sinful, it could never have been sanctified. That Christ's humanity was not sinful. The first, that that part of the Virgin's substance which was assumed by the divine nature, was never sinful, may appear; First, Because all substances, as they are mere substances, were created by God exceeding good, & have their dependence on him: yea, even the substance of the devils themselves. Secondly, Mere substance cannot possibly be capable of sin, because that cannot be without a personal subsistence, knowledge and will to incline and move itself to good or evil: which mere substance simply considered cannot do, whether it be of the soul or body. Thirdly, Sin is not essential to the nature of man, but only an accident or evil quality, cleaving to the person of him in whom it is, and so cannot properly be said to the substance of man's nature. Fourthly, Even evil affections and actions themselves (though they be so called) are not simply sinful, but the man that commits them. For not the matter of the action which proceeds from God, but the will and intent of the doer makes it to be sinful. Now if those be not, much less can the bare substance of man be sinful: but only the man whose substance it is. Fifthly, If every part of man's substance should be sinful, than it follows that the hairs upon our heads are even infected with it, and much more such abortives as perish before the soul's infusion: and consequently must all rise at the day of Judgement again to suffer (without Christ's sarisfaction) infinite punishments. None therefore is to be accounted sinful, but only that which necessarily serves to make up the perfect person of a sinner: and so much, so, is sinful, and must and shall be punished in itself, or Christ. Sixthly, There is no law given to substances, but to creatures, not to parts, but persons: neither can any other be accused, condemned, or convicted of sin. Now where no law is, Rom 4.15. there is no transgression, saith the Apostle: not simple parts therefore, but only persons can be sinful. Seventhly, It is manifest it could have no actual sin, and original sin is not of that nature (as was before showed) that it cannot come to us neither by the soul nor body, nor union of both, if it be created: and by propagation only; if it be propagated; for which cause Christ only was freed from the ordinary course of propagation. Lastly, If mere substances be sinful, it cannot be shifted but Christ was infected with original sin; for his substance was in Adam, in as much as he was his son, and so by this doctrine must needs be sinful. This doctrine not so well cleared of old. But this seems to be granted by Divines, and therefore they say, that the holy Ghost did in the same moment that it was assumed, cleanse that mass whereof his body was made from sin: and so it was sanctified from the first conception in the Virgin's womb. Whereof we give this reason, that it became not the eternal son of God personally to assume unto himself a nature, stained, defiled, and polluted with sin. And farther they say, that indeed Mary was a sinner, but the mass of flesh which was taken out of her substance, was at the same instant sanctified by the operation of the holy Ghost. So that it is granted, that the substance whereof Christ's humanity was made, was sinful before it was assumed. This point not being so well cleared, hath much troubled the Church in former ages: being assailed with divers dangerous errors, why else did the Marcionites and Manichees hold that Christ had an incorporeal or heavenly body; which was not taken from the Virgin, but only passed through her? and what else caused Apollinarius to hold; that Christ had no humane soul, but only a body which was insould with the deity, but to free him from sin? 2. If it had been sinful, it could never have been sanctified. That we may therefore fully clear this truth from all such fantastical opinions; I deny that it can be truly and properly said that Christ's humanity was ever sinful. And not only for the former reasons, but because if it had been sinful, it could never have been sanctifièd; the Son of God could never have been incarnate, nor any man ever saved. For who should have purged away that sin? the holy Ghost? nay; there is one only Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus: 1 Tim. 2.5. and it is through his blood that we have redemption, Eph. 1.7. even the forgiveness of sins: Col. 1.14.20. and it is the blood of his cross, that reconcileth all things. 1 Pet. 1.2. And again, Heb. 9.22. it is the sprinkling of the blood of Christ that giveth power to the purging away of sin: and therefore also it is said, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. So that the blood of Christ only cleanseth from sin. Yea, but the holy Ghost also sanctifies. It is true, Obj. Mat. 3.11. joh. 3.5. Rom. 8.14 the holy Ghost doth now sanctify the elect, purge out sin, & infuse grace: but all by virtue of Christ's redemption. For if he had not first (I mean in the order of nature) taken away the guilt by his blood no man could have been sanctified by the Spirit. Now this he could not do by his own humanity, for it was impossible that he should purge sin, by that blood which he had not: & therefore if it had been necessary, that Christ should have taken away the guilt & corruption of his own nature, (which could not be but by the same nature taken) before he took it; it had been impossible, that ever Christ could have been incarnate. Yea, but God is omnipotent. True, Obj. 2. but his omnipotency cannot work contradictions, & such is this: we must take heed therefore how we hold this, lest at unawares we shut out Christ from being a Saviour, and ourselves and all other from salvation by him. Now than if his substance was never sinful, the work of the holy Ghost herein was not to cleanse it from sin, but to separate that which was not sinful in itself, from a sinful creature, that so being free, it might be assured by the divine nature, & subsist in the person of the same. CHAPTER XXIV. How Christ's Incarnation was free from corruption? How Christ was free from sin. THis ground being laid, we have a fair way opened for the freeing of our Saviour Christ from sin in every respect, although his soul and body came from Adam as well as ours: which we shall more fully conceive by showing how it was, 1. How free. and why it was so. 1. His person free. For the first, seeing neither the substance of soul or body, can be sinful, as it is substance, but as both together are a person; for as much as Christ's soul & body is no person, but as it is united with the divine nature: he, namely, his person never was, and so never could sin in Adam. And thus is his person free. If then it be said that though his person was not, His humanity free. nor could sin in Adam, yet seeing his humanity was in him, and came from him (else he were not true man) that must needs sin in him. It cannot possibly be neither. 1. From imputation. For as is said his humanity without the divinity never was a person, and not being a person but substance only, 2. By propagation. he is thereby exempted from the common condition of men, and original sin could not justly be imputed unto him. 3. His substance in the Virgin free. Neither could it be propagated, because he was conceived after an extraordinary manner without man: and thus is his humanity free also. If it be further said, that though he be not sinful as Christ, nor yet as having the mere substance of man: yet he must needs be sinful as his substance was belonging to the person of corrupt Adam, in whom it was, and afterwards to the sinful Virgin; that cannot be neither. For though it were sinful as a part of their persons, yet as it was so it was none of his. Christ never assumed the person of the Virgin (for one person cannot be another though sin were not) but he took her nature or substance only, which because it was good in itself, though sinful as hers, the holy Ghost did separate it (by an unusual course) from belonging to her person (and so being by itself it was sinless) and then it was instantly assumed by the eternal Word, and so made the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that in the same moment that it was: being by that union enriched with supernatural gifts, and exalted above all men and Angels. And thus also was his substance sinless, although it was the substance of the sinful Virgin. And to conclude, joh. 1.29. 1 Pet. 1.19. thus is he the immaculate Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. 2. Why his conception was extraordinary. Now all this was effected by the immediate working of the holy Ghost at the instant of his conception. For it neither might nor could be performed after the manner of man's sinful propagation. 1. It could not be by man. Because if man had ministered the matter of his humanity after the ordinary way, it should have been sinful in part: that is, as man gave it to be a part of Christ's person, or endeavoured the subsistence of that nature in the person of the Son, which nature alone would have made a person, and consequently a sinner. For by the law of nature in ordinary generation, so much as man begets another person, he begets another sinner (which yet if the soul were immediately created, were so little, as there could be no original sin, as we heard before.) So that by propagation the humanity of Christ which is the whole person, so fare as man could in this cause have effected, should have been sinful. And though not merely as humanity, yet as a nature sinfully propagated from man, wherewith it was impossible the divine nature should be united. Seeing therefore it could not be by man: and the Virgin neither might nor could conceive alone (for corruption must have no hand in it) it was necessary therefore that it should be done by the supernatural power of God. And seeing it must be done extraordinarily by the immediate power of God, no person was so fit for it as the holy Ghost, whose office it properly concerns from the Father and the Son, to consecrate and set apart for holy uses, and especially to endue men's souls with supernatural gifts: & therefore most of all in the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, which was absolutely the most holy of all GOD'S external works. And this (as I am undoubtedly persuaded) is the true doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, Phil. 2.6, 7 Heb. 4.15 2-6. who was like unto us in all things, sin only excepted: made of the same substance both for soul and body, and therefore true man; and yet not sinful. He was in Adam in respect of his humanity as well as we: and yet sinned not in him as we did. In the consideration of all which, we may well say with the Apostle, Without controversy, 1 Tim. 2.16. great is the mystery of godliness. Why this truth hath been so long obscured. Thus I hope, I have sufficiently manifested, both by Scripture and reasons drawn from them, that souls are not immediately created of God of nothing, but all mediately propagated from Adam: yea, Christ's as well as ours, though his after an extraordinary manner, because he was an extraordinary man. From all which, it plainly appeareth, that the holy Ghost hath not left us to wander in uncertainties, concerning the souls original, but clearly enough revealed it, had not men set up two false opinions, one of which they thought must needs be true: and neither having sure footing in the Scripture, because both false, the truth hath been long obscured, and both accounted doubtful, and almost curious, because difficult to be known. CHAP. XXV. Natural reasons, proving the soul's propagation. The nature and validity of natural reasons. HItherto we have proved the soul's propagation; by testimonies and reasons drawn out of the Scripture: and now we are to proceed to natural reasons, which in worth and authority are to be regarded next the former: they being the word of God wrought, as the other is his written word: the one we call the voice of nature, the other the word of grace: the one mediately manifested in the creatures, the other immediately revealed by himself. For if nature be (as is no less commonly than truly said, ordinaria dei potentia) the ordinary power of God, as miraculous works are his extraordinary power: then by like reason it followeth, that the voice of nature is the ordinary voice of God; even as the divine Oracles are his extraordinary voice. Now as this question chief concerneth nature, so the resolution thereof ought chief to be fetched from nature: whose sentence is therefore so much the more to be respected; yea, so much that though the Scripture said nothing, yet nature's testimony were in this of sufficient credit alone. And if we will hearken to nature, I doubt not to make it appear, that there is nothing more manifest in nature, than this mediate manner of the souls propagation: and when as well nature as divinity concludes for it, I see not with what reason it can be gainsaid. 1. Reason from the nature of reason. The first natural reason which I will produce, shall be from the nature of reason itself: which teacheth not to believe any thing for which we have no reason, Scripture, nor experience. Some things our senses teach us to believe, as the virtues of the Loadstone, for which we can render neither Scripture nor reason, but only experience. Some things reason teacheth us, It hath neither Scripture, sense, nor reason. 1. as that the whole contains the parts, which we would believe without Scriptures or experience, only by reason. And some things we receive from Scripture, as the Trinity in the Unity, which cannot appear either by sense or reason, but only by faith. 2. But none of these can manifest the soul's immediate creation, for it is confessed to be above sense or reason, neither is there any Scripture to prove it. For who ever heard of a soul newly created since the first in the beginning? is it likely that God should continually do such wonderful works, which the Scripture never spoke of, and whereof there can no example be given? yea, is it not contrary to all sense and reason, that God should work a perpetual miracle, and that the most omnipotent work that can be, and yet this only among all the works of God should be omitted in the Scripture? If there were such a thing as this, we should need none other Arguments to confute all the Atheists and Epicures in the world: this therefore of all other should have been revealed, if it had been so. 2. From the order of nature. Seeing therefore there is no divine testimony to warrant it, there had need be strong reasons to make a man believe it. Neither is it unreasonable only, but as it seemeth to me a most unnatural opinion: clean contrary to the whole order of nature, and end of all GOD'S extraordinary works. For although the supreme goodness of GOD would not content itself without producing more good, for which cause he created the world: Why God made the world. Why he instituted nature. yet for as much as his essence is chief manifested in the virtues which are essential to himself only, and the end of all his works is to manifest himself, which as it is the greatest good, is this greatest glory: he therefore could not without disparagement to his own excellency, work always immediately in the matters of his creatures, as in creating new substances of nothing, but only in bringing to an higher perfection, by qualifying them with his own essential virtues, so fare as the creature is capable: and for this cause at their first creation he disposed all things in such order, as they might persist of themselves, without his immediate working any more in their matter or substance, which order we call nature. It breeds a disturbance in the course of nature. Now seeing this is true in Angels, and all other creatures that ever God created; were it not unreasonable & unnatural too, to disturb the order of all God's works in exempting man only? Nay, then let nature go to wrack, and every thing be done miraculously, for the whole order of nature is broken, and instituted in vain. And for my part, I think that God would have rather created men together when he made Adam (as he did Angels) than thus to continue creating to the world's end. 3. From the end of GOD'S works. But it pleased the wisdom of God to make choice of this course, not only for the former reason, namely, because it was most fit for the excellency of his nature, 1. This is a disparagement to God. which might work no more in the substance of his creatures than needs must: but also for the meanness of ours, which require his working by means, after a natural order, 2. Unfit for us. proportionable to that reason he hath given us (which only our nature was capable of) the better to manifest himself unto us. 3. Against the order of grace. Again, that so he might propagate his Church of mankind successively by course of nature, 4. A vain work against nature. who thus according to his decree might and did all fall most fitly and justly in one Adam by nature; as they are restored again most fitly and justly in another Adam Christ Jesus by grace. And lastly, that he might not work perpetual miracles, which only manifest his power, one of the meanest of his attributes: which yet is so fully manifested without it in the first creation of all things of nothing, and still preserving them, that it should be in vain for him to do so at the best: and therefore certainly he doth not; Arist. De Caelo. lib. 1. cap. 4. according to the Rule, Deus & natura nil frustra faciunt. CHAP. XXVI. Reasons from the nature of generation. Man can father no more than he begets. NOw by this mediate manner of Gods working, I mean the rules of nature, and that order which God instituted for all creatures in the beginning: it is impossible that Adam should be our father and we his children, if we have not our whole man as well soul as body from him. For if we receive only the least part of ourselves, that is, our bodies from him, than he doth not beget a man, that is to say, a reasonable creature, but only I wots not what formelesse matter or dead carcase: for such an uncouth thing is the body without the soul: and though a soul comes afterward from another, Obj. Ans. that's nothing to the parents, for they beget only the former: and I trow it is unjust to make them father that which they never begat. So that by the course of nature, if man do not beget the whole man, he cannot possibly be said to be a father to the whole man. No father without giving the form. This farther appeareth for that by the law of nature, it is not the giving of the matter alone, much less the matter of the body only that makes a father, for that is of the elements: in the conveyance whereof the father is as it were an instrument only: but the form is properly and immediately his, which if he do not propagate to his offspring, he can no more be a father to his children, than to fleas or lice, that breed of his matter, but without his form, than which, what grosser absurdity can be in nature. 3. Else he cannot be a father to the body. Besides, man should then be so fare from being a father to the whole man, that he could be father to no part of him. For he can be but partly a father that begets but part of a creature, and so not a whole father to any part. And if fatherhood consists especially in giving the form, and that comes only from God; he only is a father to the whole man rather: yea, is not there much more reason to say, God only is our father, because the soul, the more noble part, comes from him; than that Adam is, because the base part the body, and yet not the body neither, but something like the body comes from him? I suppose any reasonable man will grant it, without any farther reason. 4. Else he can beget nothing. And thus he cannot be father to our bodies, unless to our souls also: yea, it is impossible in nature, that he should beget any thing without the soul. For, there can be no natural body without form, and no form of a humane, body but the soul. If therefore man doth not propagate the soul, together with the body, he cannot propagate any thing but a mere nullity, viz. nothing at all. 5. Else he cannot beget at all. Moreover, I say, he cannot propagate at all, for generation is not of parts, but of creatures, the matter and form simply considered, cannot be said to be generated, but the creature, consisting of matter and form: and therefore when I say the soul is generated or produced, it is to be understood jointly with the body, because the whole is: otherwise neither can properly be said to be generated, but rather congenerated; so that if man begets not both, he begets not at all. 6. Else man shall be inferior to beasts. Again, If man cannot beget man, he is by nature herein inferior to brute beasts, yea, even the basest creatures, who yet can propagate their like, both in regard of soul and body: And to make man herein inferior to beasts, Ob. Ans. what can be more absurd? Neither is it not any disparagement, so long as his soul comes from an higher principle; for it is not only an indecorum, and a gross deformity in nature, that man should be left destitute of that power which is given to brute beasts in so main a thing, yea, even the highest degree of natural perfection: but also it casts an aspersion upon GOD himself, as if he were overseen in endeavouring to make a creature subject to the laws of nature, of so high perfection, as could not be subjected thereunto: and so God should fail in his workmanship, and be constrained to help himself, and work perpetually in creating souls, notwithstanding his creating all Angels together, which could not be propagated, and instituting natural means for the rest, that so he might rest, and yet cannot. 7. Like begets like. Yea, do not the contrary directly follow, and not only from the common rule in nature, like begets like, and therefore, man, man: but also because if man be the most excellent of the creatures, having all or at least the most excellent faculties in an higher perfection than they, he should so much the rather be more able to propagate his like than they? yea, shall any beast bring forth another, which shall be able to persist of itself, and bring forth more; and shall the God of all creatures make man's nature so lame and imperfect, that he and he only cannot go alone as well as they, unless God lead him? If this be true, God shall be the most stepfather to man, and man the worst cripple of all God's creatures. 8. Everyman two fathers or none. Furthermore, As men can have no children this way: so children can have no fathers, or else every one two fathers. For if the soul comes from God, who is a man's father, the whole man's, I mean? not Adam, for he is the father of our bodies only; nor God, for our souls only come from him. If then neither God nor Adam be our father, whose sons I beseech you are we? By this doctrine he is a wise child that knows his own father. Perhaps it will be said, we are the sons of both. But then every one must have two fathers, an infinite and a finite father. Oh strange absurdity, and no less ridiculous than impossible▪ for how can both be, when by the laws of nature neither can▪ To be short, either they must make GOD and Adam both one, or else every child must have two fathers, or none at all. 9 Children like their parents. Neither is it without force, that children are ordinarily like their parents, and not only in the features of the body, but in the faculties of the mind also. Now though all souls be essentially alike, and this is not always true, neither in soul nor body, for divers reasons, yet since it is true in both for the most part, it appeareth that the parents have more in generation, than the body; yea, so much as the whole man is ordinarily like the parents, so much is the whole man propagated from him. CHAP. XXVII. Reasons from the nature of the soul. Everyman must have two souls. NEither is this kind of propagation more agreeable to the ordinary course of generation, than to the nature of the soul itself: nor that of the immediate creation more contrary to the one than the other. For, first, as by that doctrine every one must have two fathers, or none, so also two souls; for if the rational soul be infused by God after the perfecting of the vegetative and sensitive souls, as they are called (though in truth both be performed by one soul, as we see in beasts) I would know what soul it was that did inform and shape the fruit before, giving it vegetation and sense? These things cannot possibly be done without of soul, which if it were not the rational, was some other unreasonable soul, such as is in beasts; and so every man must have two soul. For we see by experience, the former did not perish at the coming of the latter, as it is in the form of corporeal substances, when one perish, than another succeeds; but here both, remain, and therefore either must be mingled and made one with the reasonable school (which cannot be unless it be corruptible;) or else every man must have two souls, one reasonable and another unreasonable: which opinion is verily as fare from reason, as the soul is from being unreasonable. Again, 2. The soul is an essential part of man, The soul the chief part of man. and the very form of man, without which man is not man, and therefore it is against nature, and contrary to all reason, that man by the course of nature propagating a creature like himself, should not be able to propagate such an essential part as the soul is: especially seeing it is granted he can propagate such an accident as sin is. Yea, how can this doctrine possibly be true, that man should propagate that which is unnatural, & not that which is natural; an unnatural accident, and not a natural essential part? sin which cannot be without the soul, and not the soul without which there can be no sin. 3 The soul compared with other spirits. This also will farther appear, if we compare the nature of the soul with other spirits. For it is observed by the learned, and manifest even to the ignorant, that GOD hath created three sorts of spirits in the world. First, Angels, which are so spiritual that they cannot be joined with bodies. Secondly, The spirits of beasts, etc. which are so corporal, that they cannot be separated from bodies. Thirdly, Mens souls, as a mean which can both live without bodies (as after death) like Angels; and united with bodies, as in this life like beasts. Again, we see it is the will and ordinance of God, that Angels should neither increase nor decrease: corporal spirits (as I may call them) both increase and decrease: and that souls should increase and multiply, but never decrease or perish. Do not then the order of nature teach then, that as Angels eaten immediately created by God only, and the spirits of beasts altogether mediately propagated, so the souls of men, which are the mean betwixt both, should be produced, partly by the immediate power of God, and partly mediately by propagation, or rather by such a manner of production as is even a mean between creation and propagation. It were to disturb the order of nature, to confound the nature of the soul, and to make a mingle-mangle of the orderly works of God, to deny it. 4. The nature of the soul itself. And this is no less apparent, if we consider the nature of the foul alone, then compared with others. For it is to be considered, that the soul is the lowest nature of all incorporeal spirits, endued with power to use the bodily organs, to those purposes whereunto they were ordained by nature: but chief by its rational faculty, to get knowledge of all sensible things, which senses ar● 〈◊〉 proportioned by God, that the reasonable soul by them get all its natural knowledge. Ye● even but knowledge of God himself, doth ordinarily arise from sense, only ordered by reason: and reason itself is a mean between the sense of beasts, and intelligence of Angels. And therefore God hath united the soul with the body, it is incompleate without it, it naturally desires union with it, It cannot ordinarily know any thing but by it, and the end and use of it is in all things naturally to work mediately by the body. For the soul is not such a strange nature, dwelling in the body miraculously, as some imagine, but lovingly united by a sweet union, and fit concordance in nature. And therefore without question, as the nature, use, end, and all ordinary faculties and works, are naturally and mediately by these corporal natures, so also is the original, and could not otherwise have such union and sympathy with the body. But yet as the nature and works also are some ways extraordinary, without and above all elementary natures, so proportionably thereunto, God hath an extraordinary and supernatural work in producing of it. 5. The faculty of propagation seated in the soul. Another reason that the soul is propagated, may be because the faculty of propagation belongs as well to the soul as the body: yea, hath originally the chief seat in the soul only. For the body alone is but a dead instrument (as the pen in the hand of the writer) and therefore must needs be in the soul, which is the first principle, and principal cause of all actions: unless we should grant more souls than one, and disturb, yea, destroy the uniform government of nature, by placing divers commanders in one body. Now if the soul hath a part, yea, the chiefest power in propagation; it were most absurd to say, that all is spent in the producing of I know not what brutish thing, which is neither nan not beast. And seeing according to the rule of reason, such as the cause is, such also is the effect: how can it be but the soul must produce a soul, and consequently the whole man the whole man. 6. The soul present in conception. Add hereunto that the soul doth accompany the seed, and perfecteth the body from the very first conception, which not only the ancient Philosophers. acknowledge as most agreeable to nature and reason; whence it is that nothing is more common with Aristotle, Arist. de● gen. anim. l. 1. cap. 3. than that the power of the soul is in the seed, making its own house, fitly framing the bodily organs, and bringing them to the highest perfection that the first constitution of the matter is capable of: but even amongst our modern Philosophers and Divines, it is acknowledged, for such effects cannot be done without a soul, as the most acute Scaliger abundantly proveth. Scal. Exerc. 6. Sect. 5. And if the soul informs the seed at the very instant of perfection, when there are as yet no organs, is it not more probable, that it is mediately propagated with the seed, than immediately created by GOD? Yes doubtless: Neither need any doubt how the rational soul, can 〈◊〉 the seed without organs, know that the chief, yea, the only immediate organs of the soul are the spirits, and these are as well in the seed, as in the most perfect body. The souls work in the Embryo. Although therefore there are, as yet, no eyes or ears, for the soul to hear or see with, yet there is work enough for it, to heat and cool, moisten and dry; and thereby to separate and conjoin, to thicken and thin, to extend and contract, to make rough and smooth, to harden and soften: these and such other are the works of the soul, whereby it doth ordain, place, number, and form the seed. For though they be the prime and secondary qualities of the elements, yet in such a natural body, all are do●● by the power of the soul, and none of all can be done without it. 7. God the efficient cause. Lastly, It appeareth that not nature, but God is the efficient cause of the soul's procreation, because even elementary bodies cannot be produced without a more excellent efficient than themselves. For we see that all natural things, yea every plant that grows out of the earth, besides the material cause the elements, whereof it is compounded, and the seed whence it receiveth the form, hath also an external efficient cause, which certainly is the influence of the celestial Orbs, who by causing motion, gives it the first hint and power of growing. And seeing the soul hath such similitude with these corporal natures, that though they have not matter and form as they have; yet having a spiritual kind of composition, which for likeness justly meriteth the name: therefore as the spiritual matter and form thereof is propagated from the parents by the seed; so it must also have a spiritual external efficient cause more excellent than itself, which can be no other but the immediate power of God the father of spirits. For as all natural bodies have an efficient cause correspondent to their natures, which in course of nature cannot be good immediately with whose nature they have so small affinity, yea, so great contrariety: but these heavenly powers, with whom they have such sympathy, being of the same corporal nature, though of a more excellent temper: so the efficient cause of our souls must needs be agreeable to their natures, which cannot be the Stars, which are far inferior, but God who is also a spirit, and of a more excellent nature than our spirits; even as the Sun is more glorious than these earthly substances: between whom there is such sympathy, that even as plants welke and fade, without the force of their efficients, that heavenly lamp the Sun, and the rest of those celestial orbs; but grow and flourish with them: so how a soul separated from God and one united unto his and enjoying the beams of his grace, is either miserable or happy: we know in part, but cannot perfectly comprehend. CHAP. XXVIII. Reasons from other considerations. Rareness of humane conception. BEsides these arguments taken from the ordinary course of generation, and the nature of the soul, divers other probable reasons may be produced. As first, the often failing, and indeed rareness of humane conception in comparison of other creatures, as common experience teacheth. Now if the soul be created after the perfecting of the body, than the first conception and breeding being by the power of nature only, why should there not be as much frequency and certainty in the propagation of mankind as of other creatures? This rareness of humane conception doth intimate unto us, that it is not by the power of nature alone that man is conceived in the womb, but that there is some more special work of God in it, than in the generation of other creatures. And if it cannot be denied but God hath such a special work in the conception of man, why should we not think that the soul hath its beginning then also, rather than (with reverence be it spoken) to put God to a double labour, and to set him twice on work in every man generation. 2. God should be tied to nature. And this may farther appear, not only by testimony of Scripture, which makes conception to be a special work of God, and never mentioneth any extraordinary power, in the quickening & giving of souls to children: as when Rachel rashly cried oud; Give me children or else I die; Jacob gravely answereth, Am I in God's stead? And so when Boaz went in unto Ruth, it is said, the Lord gave her conception: but even reason itself will evince it. For is it not an absurd thing, that God should wait our leisures, and be set on work at our pleasures? And yet this must needs be, if God create souls after the forming of the body; for then the former being done by the power of nature, God shall be bound to give souls immediately whensoever nature produceth bodies: unless he should suffer children to be born without souls or corrupt and kill their bodies before they be informed, (and so endanger their mothers too) both which are both against nature and reason. Whereas if this mediate manner be admitted, this cannot justly be objected, for as much as God shall not then produce man's soul according to a particular immediate and new creation: but according to his almighty blessing, powerful ordinance, and constant conserving providence: which though it be somewhat more immediate in this than in other cases, yet it is still within the lists of nature, nature itself so requiring. 3. The excellency of man's nature requires it. Yea farther it followeth, both by divine and natural reason, that as God hath from eternity decreed concerning man above all creatures, both who shall come into the world, and at what time: therefore accordingly he must needs have a work in man's conception above all other creatures. Which what can it be in the course of nature, but that he is the immediate efficient of men's souls, whereby he blesseth or blasteth, furthers or hinders, man's conception at the first, and so by a special providence, order the same according to his own most wise decree. And hence it is that men cannot propagate either what or when they will. 4. God and nature should work in vain. Again, Otherwise this absurdity will also follow, that there are many children, begotten, conceived, form, quickened with sense, and so well nigh perfected, and yet dying before the rational soul be infused, they shall never rise again at the end of the world; that God might be glorified in their salvation or damnation, unless he should then create new souls for un-informed bodies. And this besides crossing the word of God, which teacheth that all that are conceived in sin, must be punished in Christ or themselves, for the satisfying of God's Justice: we must absurdly frustrate the works both of God and nature, notwithstanding, neither can do any thing in vain. 5. Unnatural conceptions void of reason. Furthermore, It is manifest that not nature alone, but the efficient power of God is joined with the propagation of souls, because it is wholly denied to such copulations as are out of kind. For nature alone would make a mixture, whereas notwithstanding, we see that some kind of creatures, as Apes and Satyrs, which (as it is probable) were at first begotten by such unkindly conjunctions, are not endued with reasonable souls Or if not they, yet it is possible that humane seed should be mingled with other creatures (for which cause buggery is forbidden in the Law) and yet such issue is altogether soulless, and void of reason: although it cannot be denied but natural sense may be and is the more perfect in them, and so they more crafty than other creatures. They therefore make a monstruous and profane mingle-mangle that would have man propagate his like by the power of nature merely, as other creatures do. 6. Souls infused in adulterous generations. On the other side it is plain also, that it is not altogether immediately created by GOD without natural means, because it is not denied to children that are unlawfully begotten: for then God should seem to approve of that which is evil. For albeit it is true (as it is commonly answered) that it is good in God to make stolen corn grow, because that order of nature is good, though the action of stealing be naught, and there is no reason he should alter that good institution of nature, for the personal corruption of some men: yet this helpeth them not at all, who maintain the immediate creation of the soul, but only freeth him in regard of this mediate manner and natural order in propagating souls, which is indeed this way sufficiently answered. But if (as they say) there be no natural order for the soul's propagation, but they come immediately from God (he not being bound to infuse souls, but where he pleaseth) he cannot be free from tollerating, if not allowing and approving of evil in this behalf. Whereas in the other, though he be not bound neither (unless by his own band) yet he may lawfully by the just order of nature. 7. Sense ariseth out of the dead elements. Moreover, Concerning the matter of the soul, seeing we see by daily experience, that nature by virtue of God's first ordination, doth out of the dead matter of the elements, continually produce so admirable powers, as seeing, hearing, etc. yea, common sense, fantasy, memory, and all those cogitative virtues which are in brute beasts; the manner of which working is above humane reason to conceive: how can it seem strange that the God of nature by his own special assistance, should out of that fare more excellent and divine nature in man, produce others like unto it, though we cannot conceive the manner how? Even this well weighed, will add no small credit to this truth amongst the wise. The corporal seed a fit instrument. Lastly, That the corporal seed is a fit instrument for nature to use in so high a work, is manifest enough in as much as it is of a more excellent temper, especially the spirits therein, being more purely subtle, and temperate, than they are in any other creature in the world. And how this may farther the operation, and consequently the propagation of the reasonable soul, appeareth in that Elephants, who being of a more excellent temper, and coming nearer to the nature of man than other creatures, do both live longer, and are (as I may say) endued with more reasonable parts than others. So that although the soul cannot arise out of any elementary temper (as appeareth by the immortal nature, which even natural reason is able to demonstrate;) yet there is no question, but it may be instrumentally furthered or hindered thereby, yea even in the most excellent works of reason, this being indeed one of the main reasons in nature, why one man excelleth another in wisdom. Now then seeing the Spirits in humane seed are of such a transcendent nature, not merely corporal, but approaching very near to the nature of the soul, whereby they are soon acquainted and easily united, and used as the hand of the soul, even in the most divine operations of reason: why should they not much more be a fit instrument for the conveyance of the soul in natural generation. And thus I have finished my task in proving this manner of the soul's propagation, both by divine and natural reason. CHAP. XXIX. An answer to some objections against this manner of propagation. BUt now methinks I hear some call me bacl, saying, I contradict myself in that I say, and that even this mean way hath its extremities. Having therefore shown that the soul of man can neither be immediately created by God, not yet merely propagated by man, and proved this middle way between both, both by Scripture and natural reasons: I will now in the last place (that there may remain no just scruple to cavil at) briefly answer some few Objections, which I conceive may be made more directly, even against this mean manner of the soul's procreation, and so conclude. The Objections are these four: Objections. First, That the soul shall not be immortal, if it may be resolved into a former principle, namely, Adam's soul from whence all came. Secondly, God shall hereby still work immediately in the creation of souls, and so shall not yet have ended his work, and rest from his labours. Thirdly, Man shall still be inferior to beasts, in that he cannot beget his like alone, but must have more help from God than they. Lastly, God shall still be touched with sin, in being the immediate efficient of our sinful souls. All which may be as easily answered as objected. 1 Obj. That the soul must be mortal if it proceed from another. For the first, first, although it is true, that all mixed bodies may be again resolved into their former principles the elements, whereof they are compounded, and out of which they arise: yet this is no impeachment to the soul's immortality. For the comparison is unequal, and the causes nothing like, unless we should say that all bodies must return into adam's also, whence they came as well as souls. Secondly, Mixed bodies are not the simple elements, but compounded of them: where as our souls are of the same nature, and no less simple than his was. Thirdly, If it were compounded, yea, even of the elements, yet it would not presently follow, that it must needs be mortal, because corruption and death comes not only, nor so much from propagation or composition, as from divine malediction, for death is the wages of sin, without which even Adam's body should have been immortal, as well as his soul. Lastly, To this objection I will oppose an infallible conclusion, viz. that nothing can return to nothing, but by the same means whereby it receives the first being. And hence it is that all creatures that are produced out of the elements by the power of nature, do by nature resolve into them again: but because men's souls cannot be propagated from their parents, but by the immediate power of GOD concurring, hence it necessarily followeth, that neither can they be again dissolved or annihilated but by the same omnipotent power. This therefore doth invincibly prove, so fare is it from disproving proving the soul's immortality. 2 Obj. That God still works in creating Souls. For the second, that God shall not yet rest from his labour, but be still set a-work in the creation of souls. I answer, first, here is no creation of any new kind of creature, which they of the contrary part would have us to take for a sufficient answer. Secondly, Which is more, here is no new substance created of nothing, but only produced out of former matter. Thirdly, It nothing oppugnes God's resting, to work immediately in some things, as by his holy Spirit in the hearts of God's Elect: joh. 5.17. in such things the Father worketh hitherto and the Son likewise. Lastly, This work is no part of creation properly, but of preservation, which is ordinarily either mediate or immediate Mediate, so all elementary creatures, and individual natures, are preserved by God; but by the means of nature or rather natural means: but now nature itself, (or as I may say) the very nature or Symmetry of nature, is preserved by his own immediate power, there being no nature above nature, but only his to preserve it. And by the same immediate power it must needs be that the production of soul is conserved: the excellency of whose nature, is such as can have no natural or mediate efficient cause, and therefore of necessity it must be his immediate providence only, and that even by course of nature. 3 Obj. That ma● shall still be inferior to other creatures. To the third objection, that if man's generation requires more help from God than other creatures, his nature shall therein be still inferior to theirs. I answer, That no creature can propagate the like alone, no more than he; and that he doth as much in the generation of his like, as any other creatures do in theirs. For it is well known, that in generation, besides the matter and form, which proceeds from the generators, it is necessary that there should be an efficient power, coming from an external cause, which all grant to be the influence of the celestial Orbs; whence is that common Proverb amongst Philosophers; Sol & homo generant hominem; now seeing man gives the matter and form of the whole man, soul and body, though in regard of his soul, he hath a more excellent efficient than they, or rather the same efficient after a more excellent manner, that is, immediately: this is so fare from disparaging, that it exalteth man's nature above all other creatures in the world. Nevertheless, if man did not give both matter and form, this were indeed justly objected, and he should be herein according to the order of nature inferior to all others, as we heard before. 4. Obj. That God shall still be touched with sin. Lastly, The last objection, that God shall be touched with sin in being the immediate efficient of our sinful souls, is easily answered: for God is simply the efficient cause of the soul, and not of sin, but that comes from our corrupt parents, who supply the matter of the whole man, corrupt and sinful like themselves. It being Gods just ordinance in nature; Rom. 11.16. that as the tree is so should the fruit be. And thus sin is merely accidental in respect of God, who as he made man at the first perfect: so also this ordinance of generation, whereby he should have begotten children perfect like himself, but he by his fall corrupting himself, hath likewise corrupted all his posterity, albeit God still performs his part as perfectly as ever, in conferring of his efficient power for the producing of them. Thus than we see how the generation of men, which should have been perfect, is become sinful through out faults, and not Gods, and why then God did not make man new again, or stop sin there, but continue his first institution, might be sufficiently cleared, but is not in this place to be disputed. CHAP. XXX. The Conclusion, recapitulating the sum of the premises. Use of this Tractate. IT is now time to conclude this so difficult a doctrine, which as in the beginning it seemed so hard that no words could sufficiently explain it, so now me thinks it is so plain and easy, that I fear nothing more than that I have insisted too long in the proof of that which I think no man can or will deny; yet considering that such is the curiosity of some in this age, that are wittily acute, and such also the difficulty and necessity of understanding this doctrine aright, that a man's life were well bestowed in giving full satisfaction therein; this short discourse I hope will not seem overlong to the judicious. 1. The original of the Soul. I conclude therefore as before, first, that the soul is neither immediately created by God of nothing, nor yet merely propagated by man without his immediate power: but that he hath instituted a natural order whereby the whole man begets the whole man, both soul and body, and as well the one as the other. Not the soul the body, nor the body the soul, neither the soul the soul alone, nor the body the body alone, yet in this order, the soul the soul only immediately, but mediately by the body: and the body the body only immediately; but mediately by the soul. And thus in man the whole propagation, the whole, as concerning matter and form as well as other creatures: albeit in the one the immediate power of GOD concurreth as an efficient cause, and natural means only, in the other. 2. ●he im●●ortali●● of the ●●●le. From this natural yet divine beginning, I also conclude the immortal nature and everlasting continuance of the soul. For seeing it is not produced by the power of nature alone, nor yet made of any corporal matter, but spiritual both for matter & manner, wherein it excelleth all other creatures, though united through God's institution to the natural generation: it must needs transcend the condition of all corporal creatures, as well in the end as in the original, and so can be no less than immortal, though we go no higher than the rules of nature. 3. Original sin. Hence also I conclude, that all Adam's offspring are infected with that stain of nature which he contracted to himself by sin; which is propagated from parents to children, together with the whole man the subject thereof; and that without any fault in God, it being our act and not his, our sinful souls proceeding not from him but our sinful parents, and so not being corrupted by him, but by our selver in Adam. 4. Christ's incarnation. And lastly, hereby also appeareth the purity of Christ's incarnation, who, though he were true man like unto us, and made of the same substance both for soul and body, yet was not propagated after the common manner of men, to avoid that infection of sin which we receive in propagation. Reasons to believe without reason. Now if any cannot conceive, through the subtle conceit they have of it, how the soul should minister any matter to the producing of another (which I confess is hardest;) yet considering that most of the most learned ancient Fathers and Schoolmen in former times, have allowed aêreall bodies even to the Angels themselves: it cannot be thought absurd, that I ascribe such a spiritual composition to souls, as hath such a near resemblance unto corporal matter and form, as may well stand both with this manner of propagation and the divine nature of the soul. And if thus much be not granted, it cannot appear in nature neither, how it can be united with the body, the one being in my conceit as hard to conceive as the other. But seeing I see the one is, I believe the other may be. And further I add that, that though this did seem to disagree with reason, yet we ought rather to believe it than the other which we plainly see do disagree with Religion. But to conclude, seeing we see the reason why we cannot see the reason, let us not be so vainly curious to inquire, of that which we know certainly we cannot certainly know, let us content ourselves a while not heathenishly to reason, but Christianly to believe, and shortly after this life, Phil. 3.15. all these things shall be revealed unto us. FINIS. A Compendious Table of matters concernable in this TREATISE. THE possibility of knowing the Souls original. 2 Cautions in searching it. 6 What knowledge men have of spirits? 14 Souls knowledge of itself. 15 How the soul knows inferior natures, how superior? 17 Angels know not our thoughts. 21 How fare may be known of the soul? 23 Twentyone opinions of the souls original. 25 A censure of the opinions, and the choice made. 35 Of Original sin. 39 How man propagates man. 46 Gods act in the soul's production, what? 47 How the soul is propagated of the soul. 49 Soul and body be at once propagated. 50 Souls double union. 52 Causes of immortality. 55 How man is sinful, and yet immortal? 56 Texts of Scripture answered, and explained. 60 Reasons from the Scripture answered. 75 From the creation of Adam's soul. 75 From the creation of Christ's soul. 85 Of propagation of spirits. 91 How the soul is immaterial. 93 Its incorruption. 95 Its selfe-subsistence. 97 It cannot be hurt by the body. 99 It worketh inorganically. 100 Whether loss of seed be loss of souls. 100 How one soul proceeds from two. ibid. Whether parents lose part of their souls. 101 Of imperfect conceptions. 104 Of the soul's seed, how generated. 111 Spirits may be communicated and not diminished. 121 That the soul is perfect in conception. 230 Of Eves Creation. 144 Testimonies of Scripture, to prove the soul's propagation, what? 181 The nature of Original sin. 186 In it is nothing positive. 188 Body cannot corrupt the soul. 130 Original sin it propagable. 241 The whole man is received from Adam. 158 Christ's humanity taken from the Virgin. 259 Christ's soul and body conceived together, and how? 263 How Christ was free from sin? 279 Why the truth of propagation of soul hid so long time? 284 Natural reasons to prove propagation. 285 Man can father no more than he begets. 292 No father without giving the form. 293 The faculty of propagation seated in the soul. 306 The souls work in the Embryo. 308 Rareness of conception. 312 Of unnatural copulations. 317 Souls infused in adultery. 318 Objections removed and cleared. 324 Conclusion of all. 331 FINIS.