CHAPTER I. The use of this Question, and how it is to be handled.

The diffi­culty and necessitie of this do­ctrine. AMong the many, intri­cate questions wherein the Church of God hath almost lost it selfe in this [Page 2]last age of the world, there is none more difficult to know and more necessary to be knowne, than that which concerneth the Soules originall. The difficulty ap­peares in that so many worthies who have entered into this La­byrinth, could never yet finde a cleare way out of it againe. The necessitie, in that there are so ma­ny necessary points in divinitie depending upon this, which can­not be well cleared without it, e­specially the doctrine of originall sinne, and the immortality of the soule, which are two of the maine principles of Christian Religion.

The possi­bilitie of knowing it.But some perhaps will say, who then shall undertake that which no man ever yet could performe? It is true indeed, I say so too: and so in a manner say all. And thus under a colour of modesty and humilitie, wee are all hindered from seeking that which happily might o­therwise [Page 3]be found. I reply there­fore on the cōtrary, why should we not attempt it. They are not alwayes the learnedst men that find out the greatest mysteries: neither are they alwayes the greatest men, by whom God bringeth the greatest things to passe. Sure I am, the promise is made to the godly,Ioh. 7.17. not to the great; & it is Gods usuall 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. Certaine it is, there is a truth if we could find it: For God will prove himselfe true,Rom. 3.4. though every man be a lyar, and therefore if any mistake be, the fault is in our selves. This I hold as one principle. Againe, looke what God hath spoken in his Word, the same he hath wrought in the world: he doth not say one thing and doe ano­ther: but his word & his works [Page 4]agree, and this I hold as a se­cond principle. Lastly, I doubt not but in this controversall age God is about to refine the Chri­stian Religion; and to reveale secrets that have beene 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 performe; let men say & thinke what they will, I shall not there­fore faile, through his assistance, to doe my best indeavour.

Curiositie to be a­voided.Two extreames notwithstan­ding I confesse are in this mat­ter to be avoided: Curiosity and Negligence. First, Curiositie: It is strange how mans nature is affected to noveltie, so divine a thing is knowledge, that even innocency it selfe was ambitious of it; it cost Adam a fall, as we know.Deut. 29.29. Neverthelesse, secret things belong to God, and one­ly things revealed to us and our [Page 5]children. Where God hath not a tongue to speake, we may not have an eare to heare; 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 passe our bounds, least we die; Being creatures we must submit our selves to our Crea­tor: and if we will be Christi­ans, faith must satisfie 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 non-plust, even in mat­ters of greatest consequence, and to try our faith in mounting a­bove reason, when it shall ap­peare that wee rely more upon Gods word then our own fancy. Now that the soule is immor­tall, and that all men are stained with originall sinne: are things most certaine, for the Scripture plainly affirmes them: And if the [Page 6]originall of the soule be doubt­full, yet even reason teacheth, that it is altogether madnesse to reject a certaine truth for uncer­taine. Justly therefore is their curiosity to be condemned, who are wondrous inquisitive to know whence the soule 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 libertie to be carelesse in the o­ther.

Cautions to be ob­served.Yet is not this so to be under­stood, as if we were not to seeke after any thing, but that which is manifest in the Scripture, for so we shall not need to seeke at all. Neither is every question cu­rious, which may seem to be so: but that indeed is a curious que­stion, which is either needlesse, or not revealed. Nor how need­full this present question about the soules originall is, no man doubteth, the onely quaere is, [Page 7]whither it be revealed or no; and indeed many thinke it is not. But besides that all things are not revealed at once; we must know that God reveales things two wayes: either by his word, or by his works. Now as many things are not to be found in the booke of the creatures, are yet manifest in the booke of the Scriptures. So many things that are not mentioned in the word, are yet manifest in the works of God. It is our dutie therefore to search both. But divine things are to be sought especially in the former, and na­turall (as this is) in the latter, yet still comparing both together. If therefore this truth can be found in either, then it is revea­led: neither can we say, it is a secret, untill both be throughly searched. And because there is a depth in both past finding out, therefore we must exercise our selves in them day and night; [Page 8]and never leave searching, I meane for things needfull, 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 Curiositie on the one hand, so negligence on the o­ther is also to be avoided. And not onely in regard of those fun­damentall doctrines which doe so neerly depend upon it, the o­verthrowing of which would o­verturne 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 Sa­thans malice, and our owne cor­ruption, are too apt to arise even in the hearts of Gods best chil­dren; and lastly, to stop the mouths of wicked men and A­theists, who are ready upon all occasions to blaspheme GOD, [Page 9]and make a mocke 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 suspition, that there is some secret fraud which we are afraid to discover, in all points of con­troversie therefore so much as is mani [...]st in the word. I certainly beleeve, though reason seemes against it, and withall I know that it is not for me to question the doctrine, but to blame mine owne ignorance, and so set my selfe to search, not because I doubt, but because I doe beleeve the truth. And this we may and must performe as well for our owne satisfaction, as the edifica­tion of others.

Neither may the difficulty dis­courage us, but rather whet on our diligence so much the more: wherin for our comfort, so long as we maintaine that the soule is so produced (whither immedi­ately [Page 10]from God, or mediately from man) that it is of an im­mortall nature, and yet stained with originall sin, according to the Scriptures: what ever we de­termine of the manner, we are out of danger of heresie, though perhaps subject to error. Nei­ther yet may the feare of being censured for presumption or cu­riositie, hinder the sober search of it; which though it cannot justly for the former reasons, yet can hardly be avoided: not one­ly because some lazy persons would gladly free themselves of that labour, by calling it curious, but also considering the intricate nicenesse of it, which is such in­deed as may seeme to be hand­led curiously, and yet without curiositie; yea, curiousnesse it selfe is no curiositie in such a cu­rious (though necessary) questi­on. Wherefore taking Philoso­phy on the one hand, and Divi­nitie on the other hand, to leade [Page 11]me, & craving the light of Gods Spirit to direct me, I will set my selfe unto it: resolving so God may be glorified, not much to care who is offended.

CHAP. II. Whether the originall of the Soule may be perfectly knowne in this life.

BUt before I proceede any further, I must preadmonish my Reader, not to thinke to at­taine perfect knowledge herein in this life: nor yet to thinke it strange that he cannot. For how doe we thinke it is possible to know how the soule is made be­fore it is: when we cannot con­ceive what it is after it is made? For albeit we know it is a spiri­tuall substance, truly subsisting, yet what manner or metaphysi­call matter, it is impossible for a­ny man to conceive. Nor seeing [Page 12]we doubt not but that we have soules, though we know them not, and are no whit troubled that we doe no [...] know them: why should we doubt, or thinke i [...] strange, because we cannot [...] their originall, which [...] [...]s be harder than the [...]er.

Reasons why the S [...]les o­riginall cannot perfectly be known. [...] ignorance should more trouble than the know, [...] [...]ill [...] is good (if reason [...] sa [...]ed with reason) I [...] make [...] appeare, tha [...] [...] [...]ot onely reasonable so to [...] [...]mpossible it should be o­th [...]wise: 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 least knowledge of.

[Page 13] Secondly, the soule is a spirit, and spirits are ever more diffi­cult to judge of than corporall substances: not being subject to sense, as anon we shall see. Thirdly, the soule is an incom­pleat spirit, being but part of a creature. And therefore more difficult to be knowne: for as is the thing knowne, such is our knowledge of the thing, if that be imperfect, our knowledge is imperfect also: and therefore by like reason, the soule being an incompleate spirit, we can have but an incompleate knowledge of it. Fourthly, this question concernes the existence of the soule. Now the existence of any thing is harder to know then [...]he essence, and consequently [...]hose questions that concern the [...]xistence are more difficult then [...]hose that concerne the essence. And therefore if it be impossible [...]or us in this life perfectly to know the essence of the soule, [Page 14]it must needs be so much the more impossible to know the o­riginall.

What knowledg men have of spirits.And to make yet this more plaine to every mans apprehen­sion, let us a little compare the faculty of knowing with the na­ture of the things to be knowne: For as the consideration of the faculties of spirits, doe not a lit­tle helpe to finde out their na­tures, so by the nature of the soule, we shall better judge of this faculty of understanding. And first, touching the whole man: we know that man is a mixt creature, consisting of two natures, soule and body, which are sweetly united to make up one compleat creature. The body indued with senses to re­ceive the images of all corporall things: and the soule furnished with a faculty of reason, which apprehēding those images, doth discourse and draw consequents from them, according to its own [Page 15]ingenerate principle of reason, whereby it gets Knowledge of causes and effects, which sense cannot attaine unto. This being the onely naturall way of mans knowledge. Hence it commeth to passe, that when we come to discourse of spirituall natures, the knowledge of which, lyes not through the senses, but is gotten onely by the rationall power or force of reason that is in man. We are put out of our naturall accustomed way, and so being halfe lost, wee wander in uncertainties, without any per­fect knowledg, or such as might content the nature of man. And this I take to be one reason why we are so dim-sighted in spiritu­ [...]ll things.

The soules knowledg of it selfe.Againe, to come more close­ [...]y to the nature of the soule: we know that whatsoever excel­ [...]encies are in inferiour natures, are much more and much more perfectly in those that are supe­riour. [Page 16]Whence it is that the per­fections of other creatures are much more perfectly in man, and chiefly in the soule of man. And those vertues which are in mens soules, 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 inferiour natures, is comprehended by the superiour, but never the superi­our by the inferiour; I meane properly and naturally. For be­cause the soule knowes by cer­taine spirituall Ideas, or abstra­cted species, which being grosse­ly taken from the senses, are per­fected by degrees, as they come neerer the soule: hence it is that the knowledg of things (accord­ing to the manner of out know­ledge) is a more intellectuall ap­prehension of them; and so of an higher nature than the things [Page 17]themselves that are knowne. Whence it appeareth that it is impossible for the soule to know it selfe properly or perfectly, yea, of so well as it can inferiour natures.

If it be said, if the soule be thus ignorant of it selfe, how then doe men know Angels, & both men and Angels God, being su­perior natures?

First, Although the soule can­not know it selfe,1. Reflexion according to that proper and naturall way of knowledg, whereby it knoweth other things, yet it knoweth it selfe by reflexion, that is, by be­holding its owne image in the effects as it were in a glasse: but this knowledge is but a shadow in comparison.

Secondly, I answer the soule knoweth Angels,2. Compari­son. and both men and Angels, & God two wayes: First, by the inferiour; secondly, by the superiour it selfe. By the inferiour: so by consequents [Page 18]of reason drawne from sensible things, we conceive something of spirits, both our owne soules and Angels: and by the image of God in his creatures, we con­ceive something of him also. But especially we know the su­periour by the superiour it selfe: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 injoy in heaven, and the Saints somewhat taste of on earth.

To know that which knowes 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 it selfe: 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 superiour compre­hend [Page 19]the inferiour. 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 ate inferiour 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 themselvs doe not know, other­wise then by the effects and by way of reflexion; but the thing it selfe, that is, the essence of the soule, the soule it selfe cannot properly know.Every na­ture as it is more excellent, proves it selfe and the inferi­our

Yet we must know that we know our soules better then beasts doe themselves; and no doubt Angels themselves better [Page 20]than we doe our selves: and God who is above all knoweth himselfe 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 onely can perfectly contemplate himselfe, & every other creature as it comes nearer to his nature, can thereby contemplate it selfe, and those which are inferi­our. And hence it is that man who is a creature cansisting of soule and body,Why man knows not all secrets of nature. can by his soule cōtemplate elementary natures: but for as much as his soule is al­so united to a body, which is part of himselfe, he cannot per­fectly know the secrets of na­ture, even in these corporall things. Whence no doubt it is that a man may find His reason non-p [...]ust in so many workes of nature▪ But the Angels being altogether of aspirituall nature, may have perfect knowledge of [Page 21]these inferiour natures (I meane as they are in themselves, not as they are virtually in God, for so he onely knowes them perfect­ly) and yet they cannot perfect­ly contemplate themselves,Why An­gels cānot know our thoughts. no nor our soules neither; because they also are spirituall like them. And hence also it may well be, that Angels cannot know mens thoughts, as is manifest in the Scripture. Much lesse then can man have any perfect know­ledge of his soule,Why man not know­ing his soul, much lesse the o­riginall. and much lesse the Originall. No although he were not joyned to a body, un­lesse he had another spirituall nature above the soule, yea, a­bove Angels, by which hee might looke downe upon it, and so discerne all those difficul­ties which now he cannot com­prehend. Even as by these soules we can looke downe upon infe­riour creatures, and judge of ele­mentary creatures in the world; For as love, so knowledge doth [Page 22]descend, and therefore if we had such superiour soules, yet then we should find as much difficul­ty in them also.

Here therefore it is to be no­ted [...] that no nature (excepting Gods) can know it selfe perfect­ly, so neither properly, but as it were by way of reflexion. For even as the eye, though it be­holdeth all other things, yet it cannot see it selfe, unlesse in a glasse; so we cannot know our owne soules, but as it shewed it selfe in the workes as in a mir­ro [...], so that as by it wee know other things, so by other things we come to the knowledg of it: which must needs be an imper­fect shaddow, and indeed not so much as a shaddow of perfecti­on. And herein it beareth the image of God in a speciall man­ner, who cannot be known pro­perly, but only by his creatures, rather what he is not, then what he is. So that as it is proper to [Page 23]him alone, who is the perfection of all natures to know all things: so he only can properly and per­fectly know both them and himselfe.

How far the soules Originall may be knowne.Some perhaps will say, if it be a thing that cannot be knowne, then it is in vaine to enquire af­ter it. I answer, that though the knowledge of the soule be very difficult, especially the originall 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. Diversitie of opinions about the na­ture and the originall of the soule.

Strange conceits about the soule.THE truth of this ignorance will farther appeare; and al­so farther the point in hand, if wee shall consider the many strange opinions that have been in the world, concerning the an­ture and originall of it.

1. Aristotles opinion.First, Aristotle, that Prince of Philosophers, who being igno­rant of the Creation, held that the world was eternall: did also maintaine that soules have been from eternity: but yet propaga­ted from parents to children, the soule being in the seed potenti­ally, though not actually: but whether it were mortall or im­mortall, as himselfe was not cer­taine, so his writings are very doubtfull: yet rather concluding that it was; howbeit, the first creation of nothing, is denied [Page 25]flatly by him and all his follow­ers.

Somewhat more tollerable 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 caelestiall Orbes to live and move by fire; whereupon he made bold to steale some of the heavenly fire to enlive his body, and so informed it with a living soule, whence it seemes came that opinion, that soules were made of caelestiall fire.

Others againe held that An­gels made all mens soules 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 owne substance, as Priscil­lianus [Page 26]Serve [...]us, and their fol­lowers.

5. Of the soule of the world.But as touching the matter, most of the other Philosophers were of opiniō, that soules were bred of the soule of the world, which they imagine to be a cae­lestiall substance or quint-essence, of which they say the starres are made, and so are incorruptible and immortall, even as the bo­dy is corruptible and mortall, being compounded of the ele­ments.

6. Hypocrat.Notwithstanding Hippocrates thought that the soule was in­gendred of the heat or vitall spi­rits, or els of the harmony of the whole body, or (to speake plainly) it was he could not tell what.

7. Galen.That famous Physitian Galen also, held it to be either an ae­riall body more then the ele­ments, or els not corporall, and yet carried by the animall spi­rits as by a chariot.

8. Plato. Plato, and his followers, main­taine, that all soules were at first bred in heaven, of the divine na­ture, and dwelt here, being in­dued with excellent sciences and vertues: but afterwards descen­ding from thence into mens bo­dies, as into stinking prisons, they are corrupted, and forget all their former knowledge, and when afterward by study and instruction, those caelestiall sparkes are againe kindled in them, they doe onely recall or call to mind those things which they knew before in heaven. And farther they affirme, that if by vertuous living, good workes, or some other kinde of purgation, after they are sepe­rated from their bodies, (for which cause it is like Purgatory was invented) they be purged from this corporall contagion: then they shall returne againe to heavē from whence they came. For thus doth Sathan seeke to [Page 28]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 soule of nothing, and not of any caelestiall substance, yet he saith that all soules 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 Jayles and fetters to impri­son & clog them, more or lesse, according to the diversitie of their sinnes. And that for this cause the world was made, that so these evill spirits might be bridled.

No lesse,10. [...]thago­ [...]s. if not much more strange was that [...], or transmigration of soules, which the Pythagoreans imagined, viz. [Page 29]that they passed at death out of one mans body into another, yea, into fowles, 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 lesse vitiously, so they were received at death into a worse or better body. And it seemes the Jewes themselves were somewhat infected with this opinion by the Romans, for they thought that Christ was John Baptist risen againe,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. Certaine Platonists or Pytha­goreans.Yea, there have not beene wanting some heretickes of old, who following the opinion of the Platonists, have affirmed the soule to be of such a nature, as it can never be quiet, untill such time as it hath finished all man­ner of works whatsoever can be done in the world, of what na­ture [Page 30]soever; whether good or bad, by passing out of one body into another, through all sorts of creatures. And untill then, say they, it can never be throughly purged or be at rest.

12. Certaine Tertullia­nists.Yet more, some have main­tained that at death those soules that live well, are turned into Angels, and those that have li­ved wickedly, become devills, as the Tertullianists, &c. And hence it is that we reade of con­jurers, who have killed men and children, that they might have their soules 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 soules.Neither is there more diversi­tie about the nature than the number of soules, for some are of opinion that every man hath three soules; a vegetative soule with plants, a sensitive soule with beasts, and a reasonable soule like unto the Angels, al­though [Page 31]indeed they are but three faculties or sundry operations of one and the same soule in us.

14. 2 Soules.Other againe thinke there can be no lesse than two soules at the least; one sensuall, the other rationall; the one mortall, the other immortall; 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 individuall nature.

15. Maniches.Some others yet more grosse­ly have affirmed, that every man hath indeed two soules, the one made of the substance of God, and the other of the substance of the devils. These were the Ma­niches, who held two begin­nings; a good God, and an evill God.

16. Averrois.Contrary to these, and yet no lesse unreasonable, is the opinion [Page 32]of that great Philosopher Aver­rois, that there is one onely soule of all men that ever were or shall be in the world.

Diversities of opiniōs amongst Christi­ans.But leaving these Heathens and heretickes, with their hea­thenish and hereticall conceits, as not worthy the confuting, let us heare the verdict of the lear­ned Christians since Christ, who all with one cōsent affirme, that the soules 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 diversitie, for in either of these, there are two opinions, each differing from other.

17. Created out of the body.Of those that maintaine the soule 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, &c.

18. Created within the body.Others againe thinke it to be created within the body of the [Page 33]conceived fruit; which hath first vegetative life, then sensitive, and lastly, the reasonable soule is created therein, and united therewith, by the immediate power of God onely. 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 Adams soule of nothing, yet ever since, they have beene naturally propagated from the parents together with the body; so that as wee have our bodies, from Adams body, so our soule from Adams soule, but so as it is immortall notwithstanding.

But of these some conceiting it to be a corporeall substance, thought also that it was genera­ted after a corporall manner; which was worthily condem­ned by Austin and others.

[Page 34] 20. Propaga­ted spiri­tually.But those that held it to be a spirituall substance, held also that it was propagated spiritu­ally, the soule of the soule, as it were light of light; And this heretofore was upholden by many of the most learned men amongst the Antients: yea, as St. Hierome witnesseth, most of the Doctors of the Westerne Churches were of that minde. 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 minde was St. Augustine and Eucherius, August. Epist. 157. who durst neither condemne 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 finde [Page 35]any certainty of the soules Ori­ginall throughout the Canoni­call Scriptures; in which doubt he also continued to his death, as appeareth plainly in his Re­tractations.

CHAP. IV. The state of the question propoun­ded, with the chiefe difficulties on both sides.

The cen­sure and choise;HEreby it appeareth suffici­ently both how much dif­ficultie is in this question of the soules originall, and how imper­fect our knowledge is therein. But since all the rest are most absurd, erronious, and some blasphemous; and two, onely as most probable claime right therein: proceed wee now to their titles, and so if it be possi­ble to find out the truth, in this most intricate questiō, viz. whe­ther the soul be naturally propa­gated [Page 36]from Adam, or superna­turally created by God?

Not gene­rated.If we say the first, it must needs be generated of the soule, or of the body; if of the body, then it will follow, that it is by nature corruptible, and so not immor­tall. And if we say it is spiritu­ally produced of the soule, that seemeth contrary to reason, un­lesse we should overthrow the excellent nature of the soule; for if it be a spirituall and imma­teriall substance, indivisibly sub­sisting by it selfe, how can it be that one should ingender 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 oppositiō that this hath to Gods first institution of nature, where­by all things were setled in a course to increase and multiply of themselves, and God hath re­sted [Page 37]from the works of creation ever since: it is no lesse opposite to divinitie. For if this be true, it cannot be conceived how there can be any originall sin without impeachment to Gods Justice.Originall sin denied by some of the Anci­ents. Whenee it is that not onely the old Anabaptists, the Pelagians, and our new Pelagians the Ana­baptists, holding that the soule is immediately created by God: deny that there is any originall sin, otherwise then by imitation: but even divers of the antient Fathers seeme to be of the same minde; and not onely Hierome, and Chrysostome, Zan. de o­peribus par. 3. li. 2. c. 5. thes. 1. but as (Zanchy wintnesseth) this was the chiefe reason that moved the chiefest Divines, and most famous Do­ctors of those times, to choose rather to hold the propagation of the soule, 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 [Page 38]neither can I see, how it can be seene.Not clea­red by our moderne Divines. Nay, I dare say farther, themselves that hold this opi­nion, themselves cannot see it clearely; neither can they here­in satisfie either themselves or others. As appeareth plainly, first,1. because throughly urged, they put it off, by accounting it a curious question, and so re­straine diligent searching, under a colour of modesty.2. Secondly, they plainly confesse, they can­not satisfie such.3. Thirdly, they urge & exhort us to faith with­out reason.4. Lastly, they turne us from searching after the origi­nall, to make a good end with it; and that indeed is good coun­sell; but in the meane while, if this opinion be contrary to the truth, and staineth God by con­sequence, they must give others leave to doubt, and to dissent. For as it is ridiculous folly to neglect quenching, to finde out who fired our house; so it is a [Page 39]great wickednesse to lay it upon him that did it not.

1. Not by the soule.For if the soule comes imme­diately from God, the question is, how we come to be defiled with originall sin? this infection cannot proceed from the soule, for if God created it, he maketh it exceeding good; and it is not good to say, God forsakes it be­fore it sinnes, or it sinnes before it comes into the body, or God punisheth for anothers fault; a good soule for a mans sin.

2. Not by the body.Againe, it cannot be polluted by the body; for neither can the body be sinfull without the soule, nor yet if it could, could the divine nature of the soule be corrupted by the body; and if it could be, yet not with originall 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 Gods Justice, to put a new created soule that is good and [Page 40]without sin, into such a conditi­on, as wherein it shall be straight way liable to eternall damnati­on, for the fault of another, that doth nothing perteine unto it? or how can it belong to a good soule newly created of nothing, that not a soule but a man some thousand yeares since sinned? Neither will it availe 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, Its made in the marring, and marred in the making: for being a spitituall substance, and nature distinct from the body, if it come from another principle, it must have a proper existence of its owne, 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 helpe to say, it is Cods decree; for that cannot be proved, and be­ing [Page 41]unjust, is most justly dispro­ved.

4. By neither by law of Iustice in­sufficient.But the last and best refuge is, that originall sin passeth neither by the soule, nor by the body, but by the offence of our first parents, who standing in the roome of all their posteritie; as looke what gifts they ieceived, was no lesse for their posteritie, than for themselves: so what they lost, they lost also for their posteritie: And therefore in the instant that God createth souls, although he creates them good, yet for Adams sin, he deprives them of those supernaturall gifts, which otherwise they should have had: which depri­vation although it putteth no e­vill into the soule, yet evill ne­cessarily followeth, and hence is Originall sin.

The rea­son why.This indeed comes somewhat nearer the matter, for if it be granted that the soule is not propagated from Adam, it must [Page 42]be granted withall, that we are not guilty of Originall sin sim­ply, because wee proceed from Adam; but by some other means; as namely, because he stood in our roomes; and we are men as he was; but yet this will not serve the turne neither; For first it stands not with the Justice of God, that Adams sin should be imputed to us any other way then as it is our own:1. It must be our owne. 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 pertake of their natures: second­ly,2. Not by imputati­on onely. it is confessed (as the truth is) that originall sin is not onely 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. Chiefly by p [...]opaga­tion. but onely in respect of pro­pagation. For if wee could be without sin of our owne (as a new created Soule is) his sinne [Page 43]could not justly hurt us. True it is that. God may justly punish all mankinde for the sin of A­dam, yet this is and must be his posteritie onely, & neither they for his sin properly,Ezek. 18.20. (for the son shall not beare the iniquitie of the Father) but because by his sin they are made sinfull, or ra­ther sinned in him, and so for their owne sin are justly subject to the same punishment. So that in truth, propagatiō is the main, if not the onely streame of ori­ginall corruption. Now if wee receive onely the least parts of our selves, that is our body from Adam, which cannot be the sub­ject of sin, not onely because it wants the soule, but because not parts, but whole persons sinned in Adam; how can this satisfie any reasonable man; that it is possible for us to be guilty of O­riginall sinne, if the soule comes immediately from God.

CHAPTER V. The meane chosen, and the question resolved.

Further satisfacti­on need­full.THis therefore is a most pro­found question, full of won­derfull difficulties; this is that in­tricate Meander, and that end­lesse Maze, wherein St. Augu­stine wandered all his life long, and could finde no issue: and to conclude, this is that wherein Divines to this day have rather shewed their modesty, in not searching, than their judgement in determining the truth. If not rather too much searing least they should seeke too farre, 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 downe by the feet of beastly Atheists; and there­fore notwithstanding it is a La­barinth, [Page 45]where it is hard to wade out safely, yet we may and must indeavour to give satisfaction in such a needfull question.

The Au­thors apo­logie for this singu­laritie.And here I most humbly crave leave to step a little out of the cōmon path, or rather to make the same path straight, which (as to me it seemeth) is a little crooked in this place; bearing out against Philosophy on the one hand, and Divinitie on the other; and if force of reason doe not prove my assertion, I will willingly beare the blame that is due; which yet I hope, cannot be much though I should erre.

1 First, because it is a most diffi­cult point, wherein the greatest Clearkes can scarce tell which way to turne themselves.

2 Secondly, because the premis­ses being confessed, it can be no fundamentall errour.

3 Thirdly, being in the meane, it must needs be confessed nee­rer the truth, (at least) them that [Page 46]which hath yet beene maintai­ned by the most wise and godly of the antient Fathers in former ages.

4 Fourthly, those opinions w^ch I oppose, were never maintained as necessary doctrines, but one­ly as probable opinions.

5 Lastly, I am not peremptory, (much lesse obstinate) but wil­ling to submit to better judge­ments: and propound this one­ly by way of tryall, as one that would gladly be a means to find out the truth.

How man propagates man.That we may therefore saile even between this Scylla & Cha­ribdis, seeing we see it can nei­ther be meerely 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 soule and body, doth propagate a creature like himselfe, consisting of the same parts; by vertue of that efficaci­ous [Page 47]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 stedfast law in nature for the ge­neration of mankind (both soule and body) as well as other crea­tures. But yet partly mediately and partly immediately,Mans pro­pagation naturall. him­selfe having a more peculiar worke in this than in any other. For besides this generall provi­dence in conseiving the naturall order that himselfe hath institu­ted; as the nature of the soule is more excellent,Gods act in the pro­duction of the soule. so answerable thereunto the act of his provi­dence is more immediate there­in than in any other creature whatsoever. And thus the soule 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 immortall; and man so much as to make if sinfull▪ yet not as if [Page 48]there were any separation in their generation,Soule and body not to be di­vided. the body of the body onely, and the soule of the soule onely (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 it selfe teacheth, that nei­ther soule nor body can proper­ly be said to be generated; but the creature consisting of soule and body: neither is there any thing that seemes to me more absurd, than that when God and nature hath thus conjoyned them: the Scripture alwayes speaking of the generation of the whole man; and nature we see alwayes bringing forth the whole; we should notwithstan­ding make a seperation; fetching one part from heaven, and ano­ther from earth: and then vaine­ly tyre our selves to bring both [Page 49]ends together againe.How the soule is propaga­ted of the soule. Now if the soule and body may not be seperated in this case, much lesse should we take upō us to assigne the proper cause of every effect herein: and yet because such is the curiositie of mans 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 essen­tiall causes distingui­shed.That the parents, by Gods im­mediate assistance, doe out of their owne spirituall nature, in­forme their issue, with a reaso­nable soule, in the instant of con­ception, for the preservation of humane kinde. So that I con­ceive the power of God to be the externall efficient cause,1. Efficient. who as he made the first soule imme­diately of nothing: so by reason of the purity of it, it can have no other externall efficient cause, but his owne immediate power. The procreating cause is the pa­rents,2. Procreant. [Page 50]who are as instruments in Gods hand, to bring forth what, how, and when he please, accor­ding to his own eternall decree. The materiall cause, is the spiri­tuall matter of the parents souls.3. Materiall. It will be said, the soule is imma­teriall: be it so, then, I say, the soule is made of that matter w^ch is immateriall. For though it be not corporeall, yet it is spirituall, 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 confesse 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 soule be congenera­ted with the body, yet by reason of the pure nature of it, God be­ing the efficient, it is as neere to a creation as possibly it can be: and as it were a meane between creation and propagation.4. Formall. Tou­ching the formal cause as it selfe [Page 51]is the forme of the body, or ra­ther of the man; so its owne form is the specificall difference, or individuall existence; which it hath as a reasonable soule, in the cōmon nature of man: pro­ceeding from the concurrence of all those causes.5. Instrumē ­tall. And herein that body or rather the corporal seed the perfection of the body, e­specially the pure spirits therein (wherewith the soule naturally unites it selfe,1 by reason of sym­pathy and familiarity which is betweene them) becomes an as­sisting or instrumentall cause. Lastly,6. Finall. the finall cause is the pre­servation of mankinde, and his owne glory by them, according to his first institution. Now all this is done in conception, soule 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 soule is propagated of the soule, after a spirituall manner; [Page 52]as the flame of one Lamp ligh­teth another (by promotion or multiplication) being blowne by the power of God,Simile. and sed with the oyle of the animall spirits. And that this may not seeme strange,Conclusi­ons con­cerning the soules originall. before I come to the proofe of it, I desire that these few Conclusions might be con­sidered.

1. Of the u­nion of the body and soule.First, that there is no such dia­metrall opposition betweene the soule & the body, but that they may be naturally coupled toge­ther. Indeed the soule is far from such a grosse & visible substance as the body is compounded of; yet is it not without some spiri­tuall kind of substance, and that not altogether simple. Neither doe I think the creatures of God to differ so much in kinde as in degree. Besides, it is manifest that the soule is of the lowest degree of spirits, and not onely capable of, but coveting union with corporall natures, and so [Page 53]according to the course of na­ture, may as well be propagated with them as united with them. Secondly,2. Of the u­nion of the soule with God. as any nature is more excellent; so it hath a: neerer u­nion with that first being wher­on it depends, & is more imme­diately moved by it? Now be­cause all natures doe subsist, and are sustained more or lesse im­mediately by that first being, ac­cording as their natures are nee­rer unto it, or farther removed from it; answerable whereunto the worke thereof is more or lesse immediate in them. Hence it followeth that the soule being more excellent, and confequent­ly neerer to God than any cor­porall creature can be: as he workes 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 [Page 54]some externall efficient cause. Now this in corporall generati­ons all grant to be the heavens, which being of a more excellent nature, send downe their influ­ences to inferiour creatures, by vertue of which (next unto God) they continue their kinds. But the soule, being a spirit, is a­bove all corporall creatures, and being made by Gods owne im­mediate hand onely at first it can have no other externall 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 con­curre, together in his genera­tion.

4. The true cause of mortality.Fourthly, Mortality proceeds not so much from generation as divine malediction. For had not [Page 55] [...]an sinned, it is confessed that [...]he body should have beene im­mortall as well as the soule. Al­ [...]hough therefore the soule were compounded and generated af­ter a corporall manner, without any immediate act of GODS power (none of which are true) yet if would not presently fol­low, that it must needs be mor­tall.

5. The cause of immor­talitie.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 immortalitie: and hence it appeareth that though the body which is produced by the power of nature, onely may dye and perish, yet the soule whose pro­duction is not without an im­mediate act of the Deity, can never dye, but by the same power omnipotent by which it lived.

[Page 56] How man is sinfull, and the soule im­mortall.Thus then it appeareth that though the soule be propagated in the manner aforesaid, yet it is neverthelesse immortall, since it is neither made of any corporall matter, nor produced onely by the power of nature; and God is never the more faulty, though wee be sinfull, because being wholy 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 mankinde is thereby so cor­rupted, and this pure ordinance of God in producing soules so defiled, that corruption passeth in the very conception, and we are stained with originall sinne, and so are liable to Gods eternall wrath,Psal. 51.5 Eph. 2.3. Rom. 11.16. Mat. 7.18. Gal. 6.7.8. so soone as we begin to be. It being a just and necessary law in nature, that as the roote is, such are the branches: and look what the tree is, such must the fruit be.

CHAP. VI. Scriptures to prove the soules im­mediate creation, answered.

The me­thode and reason of it.HAving thus declared the manner of the soules 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 explaine & prove the same. Wherefore after this generall entrance having presu­med to determine this so intri­cate a question, that wee may have the freer passage, my next indeavour shall be to cleare the same by removing out of the way such obstacles and objecti­ons as may seeme to oppose it. And the rather because they are such, as whereby I shall best ex­plaine my selfe, and shew that it may be so, and so afterward prove the more clearely that it [Page 58]is so: and thereby also take a­way that prejudice wherewith mens minds are forestalled, be­fore I proceed to the proofe of it.

Objecti­ons mar­shalled.Here therefore I must first en­counter with a whole army of Arguments, that seeme to be set in battaile aray against me; and then pitch a new field of reasons to maintaine what I have spo­ken. The arguments that come marching against me seeme to be ranged in two severall batta­lions: the former mainly inten­ding to fight for the immediate creation of the soule, the latter altogether against the propaga­tion of the soule; Those that most establish the soules imme­diate creation, are of two sorts: partly, Testimonies of Scripture, and partly, reasons drawne from them. Being thus greatly beset with enemies, I have notwith­standing great hope of victory; not onely because I have before [Page 59]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 doe 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 soule; that generall 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 soules; but they doe not declare how or by what meanes, God sendeth them into us. So that by his judgement they straine the Scripture too farre, who indea­vour to prove this immediate manner of the soules creation from them, and indeed if wee proceed to a particular exami­nation [Page 60]of them, wee shall finde that amongst all,Exod. 21.22.23.24. there is not scarce one that doth purposely speake, either of the originall of the soule, or the generation of man. As for example (to take them up in order) the first is drawne by consequence from a Law which God made concer­ning the hurting of a woman with childe: for which if it were so that her fruit did depart from her before it was informed with a soule (as they would have it) then he should have some light punishment onely; but if it were informed with a soule, & there­by perish; then he that did it should dye the death. And why (say they) should so small a pu­nishmēt be inflicted for the one, but because it was void of a rea­sonable soule before; & so great a punishment for the other, but because the soule was present, and so a man being slaine, the slayer must give life for life.

[Page 61] But first of all,Answer. this is to corrupt the Text, for the words truely translated be these: If men strive and hurt a woman with childe, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischiefe follow, or (as some reade it) death follow not,Geneva Bible. (for so it is in the Originall) he shall he surely punished, ac­cording as the womans husband will lay upon him, &c. and if a­ny mischiefe or death followeth then thou shalt give life for life, &c. This being the true Text in the Originall, from which wee ought not to swerve, it maketh nothing to their purpose: In­deed the Septuagint seemeth to reade it thus; Et non fuit efforma­tum, [...]. that is, and it hath not been informed, or enlived with a li­ving soule. And thus that the fruit may depart without a soul, they make the text depart from the true sence.

Secondly, if this should be gran­ted, this informing must be un­derstood [Page 62]of quickning, else no judgement could be given, see­ing none can know when the soule is infused: & if that should be the meaning, seeing they say the rationall soule comes after vegetation and sense, it must be needs that the childe can move before it hath a rationall soule, and so it shall still be uncertaine when a man shall deserve death by such a mischance, unlesse we could set downe the just time when God did infuse the soule, or feele when it is infused. But touching the quickning, there is more reason a man should dye for it after then before, though the soule be the same from the beginning, both because it is not so certaine 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 loose his life.

[Page 63] Lastly,3. this is to be understood of the mother, as well as of the childe. It her fruit depart from her, and yet death follow not, neither to her selfe, nor to it, a light punishment may serve, but if either dye, 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 soule; 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 goe in and out before them: and when God was about to take a­way Moses, he like a faithfull Steward, having a care that the people might be well governed after his departure, and know­ing how weak mans judgement is, and how apt to erre in choo­sing [Page 64]of Officers, entreats God by that Epethite, that he would choose for them. As if he should say, thou, oh father, from whom commeth every good gift; thou that givest spirit and wisdome to all men; thou that searchest the heart and tryest the reines; doe thou set a man over the con­gregation, that may be fit to goe in & out before thy people, &c. And that this is the sense, plain­ly appeareth by Gods answer:1. Vers. 18. Take yce Joshua, a man in whom is the spirit, &c. 2. Besides if it were meant simply of the soule (for which there is no shew 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 soules) 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 [Page 65]Lord, and he turneth them whe­thersoever he will: he orders both the thoughts and actions of men, according to his owne good pleasure, as is plaine from the words both before and after, and so is nothing to the purpose: and if it should be meant of the originall of the soule, whereof there was no occasion to speake in this place, yet the questiō still remaines, whether God formes them mediatly or immediately, by creation or propagation.

But that which is esteemed of more weight, is that of Salomon, 4. Eccl. 12.7. where resolving the parts of man at his death into the first principles, he saith, Then shall the dust returne to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall returne to God that gave it. But though this may prove the immortalitie of the soule,1. yet the immediate creation cannot be proved by it, but rather the contrary.2. For it is manifest that he hath relation to [Page 66]mans first creation, and that ne­cessarily in the one, else it should not be true For every mans bo­dy is not now made of the dust,3. but onely Adams, from whom we came, and therefore if wee will make a true Antithesis, it will follow, that neither is every mans soule created of nothing, but onely Adams, from whom all others come. So that this is rather Salomons meaning, as the body returnes to dust, whereof it was first made, so the soule returnes to God from whom it first came: but that was imme­diately from Adam, & so there­fore is this.

The next proofe 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 faile before me, and the soules which I have made: which some doe thus expound: If I should straightly marke what is done amisse, and severely punish your sinnes, then [Page 67]not onely the bodies which yee have received from your pa­rents, but even the soules which I have immediately created and infused into your bodies, would also perish: but who seeth 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 soule, signifieth breath, [...] and somtimes any creature that hath breath, and so the meaning is, those whom he made to live and breath, would faile and dye; which the soule cannot doe, 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.

[Page 68] Againe,6. Ezek 18.4 God saith by the Pro­phet Ezekiel; Behold all soules are mine, &c. But is little to the pur­pose, for here by soule is meant the whole person; for so it fol­loweth in the next words; The soule that sinneth shall dye. What shall the soule only be punished, and not the whole person ra­ther? Besides, if every soule be created of nothing, because it is Gods: then so should the body be, for that also is his.

There is yet another place al­ledged out of the old Testament,7. Zach. 12.1 to prove this, which as it seemes 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 formed by the Lord, then not by man, say some. But that followes not, for it may be by both. And ther­fore Augustine well answereth, [Page 69]it is not denyed, but; God for­meth every mans soule, but the question is whereof, whether of the substance of the parents soules, 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 Gods power herein (which I graunt) the scope of the place is answered, and yet the soule not immediately created. Againe, 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 soule immediately of nothing; but wee doe not reade that he created ever any other so since Lastly, it is to be noted, that the text saith not the Lord createth, [Page 70]but the Lord formeth the spirit of man, &c. and where did ever forming signifie creating of no­thing, de hoc postea.

To this purpose,8. Ioh. 5.15. (though to small purpose) some doe also produce, that saying of our Sa­viour, My Father worketh hither­to, and I worke: as if by this work­ing he meant the daily creating of soules: but his meaning was, not in the creatiō of new things, but in the preservation of the old: and not so much in the pre­servatiō 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 workes in the promulgation of the Gospel, as the words both before and af­ter doe manifest And though it be true, that God and Christ too (being essentially one) doe cause [Page 71]all these things that are done na­turally (for he is the Author of Nature) yet he is not properly said to worke that which nature worketh, because he is therefore said to rest, because he hath com­mitted these things unto nature.

Some also would seeme to wring it out of the words of the Poet Aratus, 9. Acts 17.28. cited by St. Paul; Wee are the off-spring of God. For such weak proofes as these, must serve where better is wanting, which poverty does indeede more weaken and discredit the case, than any way confirme the same. For his meaning is onely, that wee are of a divine nature, by reason of that spirituall and immortall soule that is in us, but how wo come by it, whe­ther by creation or propagati­on, neither did Paul here pur­pose to speake, nor the Poet e­ver dispute.

But most of all,10. Heb. 12 9 and most wor­thily of all, is that of the Apostle [Page 72]to the Hebrewes urged; and in­deed, almost all the rest have no inference at all to the purpose, and this no necessitie, nor (as we shall see) no just probabilitie: the wards are these; If wee [...]ad Fathers four bodies that corrected us, and wee gave them reverence; shall wee not much rather be in sub­jection unto the Father of spirits, and live. Whence they collect that earthly parents propagate the body onely, and God creates the soule of every man imme­diately.

But for Answer,Answer. first of all Beza, whose judgement is (i. e. is to be) reverenced, rendreth the sense of this place thus; If all men yeeld this right to naturall parents, to whom next to God we owe 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 spiri­tuall and everlasting life? And [Page 73]indeed what els can be the mea­ning? For if in the next place we consider the scope, it is to perswade to the patient suffe­ring of afflictions, and not to teach the originall of the soule Againe, if wee examine the words, we shall finde, that the word [...], flesh (for so it should be translated and not bodyes) cannot be meant of the body without the soule; for parents doe not correct a carkasse. Se­condly, the word, [...], of spi­rits, is not to be understood of a soule without a body, for God is the father of mens bodies too, and not of the soule alone; and lastly, the word, [...], chasti­cers, (as the parents are called) signifies such a chastisement, as when instruction is joyned with correction; but there can be no such correction of the body without a soule, a castigation being of an understanding man, and not of a body onely; and as [Page 74]the word, so the Antithesis makes it apparant that the A­postle in this place makes men­tion of a twofold castigation, the one carnall, the other spiri­tuall: so that not soule and bo­dy? but spirituall and carnall ca­stigation is here opposed. But be it that God is here in a peculiar right called the Father of soules, 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 mans soule 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 worke in the production of every mans soule, than in any other thing throughout the whole order of nature, and yet according to the course of nature too. And this [Page 75]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 finde brought for the immediate crea­tion of the soule) none of which doe infringe but rather confirme this mediate manner which I have propounded.

CHAP. VII. Reasons from the Scripture for the soules immediate Creation, an­swered.

From the Creation of Adams soule.THe reasons drawn from the Scripture to prove the im­mediate creation of the soule, are these; first, because Adams soule 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 originall of his soule and ours should be unlike, when as wee are both of one kinde. And [Page 76]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 learne the ori­ginall of our soules also from the beginning. But notwithstand­ing this, there is no more neces­sitie, nor indeed probability that our soules should be created of nothing, because his was: then that our bodyes should be still made of the slime of the earth, because his was. For every one knoweth there is one considera­tion in the first creatiō or things, and another in the producing of them afterwards, according to their kindes by ordinary gene­ration. And if this difference should alter the kinde, then it should doe 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 [Page 77]power of God; as well as Adam. But seeing it cannot vary the kind in them, it cannot by the course of nature doe so in us nei­ther. Nay, it seemes 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 soule onely. And the rather because the words Spiraculum vitarum▪ might well be rendred the Spirit of Soules. As who should say that spirituall nature which was the fountaine of all those soules which have beene 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 [Page 78]female, had power given them to propagate more of the same kinde;Gen. 7 15. & 6.17. so that it may seeme to be principally spoken for this cause, and therefore to be be­longing to man above all the rest, and chiefly in respect of the soule, which being made after such an immediate manner in man, is therefore of a farre dif­ferent and more excellent nature than the soules of bruites, but yet propagated as well as they.

From the creation of Eves soule.A second reason is drawne 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 aw difference in the creation of their soules: 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 [Page 79]principall intent to declare the originall 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 beene otherwise created than Adams was; then it is much more for­cible to prove that shee had no soule at all. For if that which was taken out of Adam made the body onely, then it is con­fessed he speakes nothing of the creation of her soule, but leaves us to guesse that it might be as Adams was; or rather that shee 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 bodyes onely, and not of their whole persons rather, according to the expresse words in the text. Thirdly, if it should be granted that her soule was immediately created of nothing, it were no­thing [Page 80]to the purpose: for this is still in the frist creation of man­kinde, and therefore no fit rule to measure the manner of mans propagation afterward. Lastly, it is at least to prove one un­knowne thing by another, there being no lesse doubt of the man­ner of the creation of her soule than of ours. But for my part seeing in things doubtfull that which hath most reason, is to be received as most reasonable: I should rather thinke her whole person both soule and body, to have beene made of Adams sub­stance than otherwise, and that for these reasons.

1. Because Moses speaketh no­thing of any more immediate creation of Soules, but of the first; He saith not, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of lives as into Adams: there is not the least word or ti­tle that can seeme to signifie any such matter, and what reason [Page 81]can be given that he who omit­teth not the circumstance of the manner of closing up Adams side againe, should overslip that mi­raculous worke of God in crea­ting another new soule, if he had done so. Neither is it sufficient to say, it was in vaine to repeate it, for it is no where affirmed; and if it were not needfull, why should it still be doubtfull, and men left onely to guesse at it.

Secondly, Not only doth Mo­ses not speake of any new crea­ted soule infused into her, but if only her body was made of that which was taken from Adam, (as is said) then for ought Mo­ses speakes of it, it may be que­stioned whither shee had any soule or no; which must needs be very absurd especially consi­dering it wa [...] his chiefe purpose to declare unto us the true be­ginning of every thing at the first. I doe not impute such an over-sight to the holy penman [Page 82]of God. Thirdly, so far is Mo­ses from teaching that, that he plainly affirmes the contrary; saying, that of that rib, he made a woman; not a body, speaking of her whole person, and not of a part onely; unlesse a woman may be a womā without a soule, 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 graunt that God did not onely take out the bare bone only out of Adams side, but some flesh together with it; which made Adam to say, this is not onely 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 onely; and not the life, spirit, & soule, that was in it, (af­ter the manner of the soules be­ing in such a substance) together with it Now it he tooke it thus [Page 83]whole together as it was, (the soule not being shut out of any part of the body;) how easie is it to conceive, how God might miraculously, in the first creati­on, seperate the whole matter of her person from Adam onely, 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 seperated from both sexes, and so perfected by degrees in naturall generation: yea, why may not this originall affinitie between the two sexes, give strength to the course of nature in producing more, by uniting them againe in genera­tion.

Fifthly, This is the more pro­bable, because herein we have a clear type of Christs incarnatiō, whose whole humanity, (as we shall herafter see) was also mira­culously made of the substance of the virgin onely, as Eves one­ly of Adam; a man of a woman [Page 84]onely, 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 shee was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, that is, of the same humane nature that he himselfe was both for soule and body, and al­so taken out or him. Neither needed he to say, soule or my soule; for flesh is usually put for the whole person; as where (e­ven in the same book) it is said, All flesh had corrupted their wayes: Gen. 6.12. which notwithstanding is chief­ly in regard of the soule. And least any should doubt of it, he presently addes. Shee shall he cal­lea woman, because shee was taken out of man: where he plainly af­firmes, that her whole person was taken out of man, and for that cause was named woman, which cannot possibly be under­stood of the body onely. I will [Page 85]therefore hereunto subjoyne the forgoing words of our Saviour; Let no man seperate what God hath joyned together, Mat. 19.6. and conclude that her whole person, as well soule 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 Adams. Act. 17.26. Where­fore from this reason I also con­clude the contrary, that seeing in all probabilities Adams soule 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 Christs soule was created of nothing, and he is like unto us in all things, sinne onely excepted (ergo, &c.) But first if it be necessary,1. From the creation of Christs soule. that wee should be like unto him in all things except sin, then it would follow that we should be con­ceived [Page 86]by the Holy Ghost, as he was, for that was without sinne; especially, if he might have been conceived without sin, without that worke, as by this doctrine it seemes he might, as afterward wee shall see.2. Secondly, it is not yet proved that Christs soule was immediately created of no­thing; yea, it may be denied by the same reason, for then wee should not be alike to him in all things except sin. If it be said that if Christs soule had beene traduced by ordinary generati­on, it must needs have beene sin­full, I graunt it; and therefore, I say, it was that his conception was extraordinary and superna­turall; for it being impossible in nature for a Virgin to conceive without man, therefore this was brought to passe by the miracu­lous power of the Holy Ghost, who seperated a part of the Vir­gin for that purpose, and suppli­ed what was wanting in nature [Page 87]by supernaturall power, which is signified in that it is said, Shee 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 sinne: yet it followeth not from hence, but his whole humanitie, both soule and body might be made of the same mat­ter that other mens are, so as he be not corrupted with sinne. Which how it may be, we shall heare in the proper place, where this also shall be brought as an Argument to prove the contra­ry: so weake are objections a­gainst the truth.

Lastly, Though it should be granted that Christs soule was immediately created by God, as the first Adams was; because it could not be propagated after the manner of mankinde with­out sinne, yet it would not fol­low, that all ours are therefore so, as they collect. Nay, the con­trary [Page 88]plainly appeareth; for, for the same cause that his must be created immediately to be with­out sinne, ours must be mediate­ly that they may be sinfull; and tor the same cause he cannot be propagated without sinne, we cannot be sinfull unlesse propa­gated.

And thus much for the Scrip­ture, and reasons drawne from them, to prove the immediate creation of soules. Whereby all men may see upon what weake grounds, this opinion is father­red upon the Scriptures. And now I am to encounter with the other troope of Arguments tak­en from the impossibilitie of the soules propagation.

CHAP. VIII. Whether propagation can stand with the spirituall nature of the Soule.

Objection ordered.From the probabilitie of the Creation, proceed wee now [Page 89]unto the impossibility of the pro­pagation of the soule. And in­deed the reasons oppugning the soules propagation are very ma­ny and forcible; and such as doe sufficiently prove that man can­not of himselfe alone (without some more special work of God) propagate his like as beasts doe theirs.1. From the nature of the soule. The reasons (that wee may not be confounded with the number of them) are either such as do more specially respect the nature of the soule, not without some respect to propagation: or else such as doe more speci­ally respect the nature of propa­gatiō, not without some respect to the soule. But before I come to the particulars, the generall answer to all may be this.

2. From the nature of propaga­tion.That all naturall reasons are taken from corporall generati­ons, and so doe onely prove that soules cannot be propagated as bodies are, which is not denyed. For neither doth the body pro­pagate [Page 90]the soule, neither yet is it propagated after a bodily man­ner: but the whol man generates the whole man after a manner convenient to either nature.

1. The soule supernatu­rall.The first objection is that the soule is supernaturall, and nature cannot produce any thing above nature. But first it cannot be pro­perly said that the soule is super­naturall. It is indeed above ele­mentary natures, and therefore I also deny, that it can be propa­gated of, or by the body alone. Againe, I say not that the whole man can beget his like, accor­ding to that common manner whereby other creatures are ge­nerated: but by the supernaturall power of GOD assisting him. And so though it were superna­turall, yet it is not against nature that it should be propagated, seeing as it is supernaturall, so it is supernaturally propagated.

2. Spirits cannot propagate.Secondly, It is objected that the soule is a simple spirit, like [Page 91]unto Angels: and therefore as one Angell cannot beget ano­ther, so neither can soules.

First, I answer,1. that we might with as good reason, reason thus; soules are like unto An­gels, and Angels cannot be uni­ted with bodies, therefore soules cannot.

2. Homo ge­nerat nec materiam nec for­mam, sed totū com­positum.Secondly, I doe not say that one soule doth beget another, but one man another. For gene­ration is not of matter, or forme onely, but of the whole com­pound, consisting of matter and forme.

Thirdly, though soules are of a simple spirituall substance, as are Angels in respect of elemen­tary; yet even Angels themselves and much more mens soules, are not without a spirituall kinde of composition. For to be simply simple, is proper onely to the nature of God.

Fourthly, Mens soules are of a farre more inferiour nature, [Page 92]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 sutable to corporall na­tures, with whom it pleased the Creator to unite them.

Lastly, We see it is the will of God, that soules should be pro­duced with bodyes, one after a­nother in a naturall order to the worlds 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 reasō or any reasonable man judge, whether it will follow, that because one Angell neither doth nor can beget another, therfore man cannot beget man; yea, God cannot by man pro­duce one soule out of another, though after a metaphysicall manner, as for the reasons afore­said we cannot throughly con­ceive.

[Page 93] 3. The soule is imma­teriall.Of the same kinde is that ob­jection, that the soule is imma­teriall, and the reason stands thus: Whatsoever is made, must be either of nothing, or of some matter pre-existing: now the soule is without matter, and therfore cannot be propagated, but must needs be immediately created of nothing. But I deny the soule is altogether immate­riall; for although it hath no e­lementary matter, yet it hath spirituall matter: For all created spirits, being compounded of act and potency, have a kinde of si­militude with corporall natures, both in regard of matter and forme; yea, even Angels them­selves. But by a kinde of trans­cendency, their matter is as our forme, and their forme as the forme of our forme: which be­cause we want fitter words, may indifferently be called spirituall matter and forme, which doe best of all agree with the inferior [Page 94]nature of the soule: And if it be said,The spiri­tuall mat­ter of the soule. it can have no such spiritu­all all matter. because then it must be of such a nature as may re­ceive contrary formes, as we see in the generation of all other creatures, by reason whereof the soule shall be made corruptible I answer, first, that though it be so in elementary generations, yet it followeth not in spirituall compositions, seeing their mat­ter is of an higher kind. Second­ly, Though nature cannot pro­duce one soule put of another, but by a corruptible course, yet it followeth not but the God of nature may. Thirdly, as the soule to speake properly, consists ra­ther of power than any parts: so the propagation is rather by promotion then than any deci­sion. Fourthly as the soule 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 materi­all [Page 95]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 im­mortall nature should be derived from another, by such a kind of generatiō as is very neere a crea­tion, by vertue of that first ordi­nation, and continual assistance of the father of spirits, on whom the soule hath so neere a depen­dence.

4. The soule corrupti­ble.Againe, it is objected that the soule 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 soule cannot be cor­rupted, it cannot be generated [Page 96]neither. But, first, if this corrup­tion should be graunted in the generation of the soule, it is one­ly in termino a quo, which cannot hinder the immortalitie of the soule that is propagated, neither doth it belong to the soule that doth propagate, for the genera­ration is of the soule generated, not of the soule generating. A­gaine, 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 potentiall being is turned into actuall 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 graunt there is a corruption in the soules generation, namely, it [Page 97]ceaseth to be in power onely when it is in act: and why then there is not something in man that is not the soule, but rather the seminary of the soule, as the seede is of the body, wee shall heare afterwards.

5. It can sub­sist by it selfe.Another argument is taken from the power that the soule hath to subsist by it selfe with­out the body after this manner: if the soule cannot be produced without the body, then can it not live without the body: and if the bodies generation be the cause of producing it, the bodies corruption must also cause the death of it; but the soule 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 hudled 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 [Page 98]was justly hissed out long a­goe: So that though no soule is produced by the body, yet no soule is produced without it. Secondly, it is not to be thought that any soule is produced by the body otherwise then by an assisting cause, or causa sine qua non; whether wee consider the body generating or generated: but this, I say, that the soule is not brought forth without the seede of the parents, and yet not by that as it is corporall onely, but as there is soule-seede, or ra­ther spirituall power in it: And thus the soule shall be no lesse a­ble to subsist by it selfe, although it be not propagated without the body, then a childe 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 soule doth [Page 99]subsist by it selfe alone, so long as it is united to the body, for ac­cording to the course of nature it cannot doe so; but after the death of the body, for as much as it is not made of mortall seede nor produced meerely by the power of nature, and therefore cannot die: it cannot doe other­wise but must but must of necessitie sub­sist by it selfe alone without the body.6. It cannot be hurt by the body. Of the same kinde is that objection, that as the body can­not corrupt or hurt the soule, so much lesse can the soule be pro­pagated by the body. For if it be absurd to say the soule is infe­cted with sin by the body, (be­cause that which is corporeall cannot worke upon that which is incorporeall) much more ab­surd is it that the soule should be generated by the body. But this also falleth beside without hur­ting, for though the soule can­not be generated of or by the body (which I also confidently [Page 200]affirme) yet this is no impedi­ment why it cannot be produ­ced out of the soule by the effici­ent power of God, to which the Body also may be an instrumen­tall cause in this as well as it is in all other ordinary actions of the soule.

7. It worketh in-organi­cally.Lastly, it is objected that see­ing the proper actions of the soule (as to understand and will) are performed without any help of the body: so also is the origi­nall 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 soule be perfor­med without any helpe at all from the body so long as the union lasteth. Secondly, for as much as the soule ordinarily doth neither understand nor will, without the assistance of the animall spirits, it followes (according to the former rule) [Page 201]that by the course of nature nei­ther is the originall without some operation of the body. And whereas it is said, the mind it selfe must be free from all mat­ters, that it may be the better a­ble to discerne the same; as the eye judgeth of colours: this may proceed not so much from the vacuity of matter, as the equall 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 patient, though proportio­ned to it, so is the soule above all matter, and yet agreeing with it. Answerable whereunto the ori­ginall (according to the former rule) must needs be more trans­cendent than the cōmon course of generation. Lastly, all those arguments are more forcible to prove that the soule cannot be united with the body: and being [Page 202]manifestly false in that, they have small probabilitie of truth in this.

CHAPTER IX. Whether the losse of seed be the losse of soules.

Objection from pro­pagation it selfe.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 it selfe, whether we consider the matter or man­ner of it; the matter conceived, or the manner of conception. As first, because many soules must be lost, because much seede is. Secondly, because the soule must come from two soules. Thirdly, the parents must loose part of their soules. Lastly, tou­ching the manner of concepti­on, if may well be questioned how this doctrine can stand [Page 203]with the time of conception;In one & the same wombe. the imperfect beginning and the va­rietie of conceptions in the same wombe. All which seeme to take away all power from man, for having any part in the pro­pagation of the soule: and these being the chiefe difficulties, if they may be well cleared, I doubt not but this doctrine will easily be received.

1. Obj. About the losse of soules.First therefore to begin with the first, which concernes the losse of seede, which although it may seeme difficult at the first, yet (I trust) may receive a rea­sonable answer; for the adver­saries of this doctrine doe thus reason against it: If the soule be propagated by the seede, what shall become of so much seede as is lost? either in sleepe, or by such dishonest means,Gen. 38.9. as Er and O [...]an practised, or which being received into the wombe, never commeth to conception? What (say they) shall so many soules [Page 204]be lost? or shall they be choaked in the wombe? or shall they re­maine alone without bodyes, seeing it is certaine, they are not to be accounted amongst the number of men? In a word, be­cause it cannot be denyed but much seede passeth from man which never commeth to per­fection, no not to conception; hence they conclude, that if the soule passeth in the seede, then many soules perish, and so the soule shall not be immortall.

How the soule is in the seede, & yet not lost with it.But these conceive not right­ly, yea, too basely and bruitishly of the soules generation; ima­gining that w^ch no man sound in his wits will goe about to maintaine. For by that which hath been said, it appeareth that the soule never passeth in the seede, but at the instant of con­ception, and from thenceforth a new soule remaineth in the conceived fruit. Neither can it be properly said that it passeth [Page 205]then, for as the soule is in the bo­dy, and yet not conteined of it, so it is alwayes in the seede, though not comprehended by it, and whensoever the seede proves not effectuall, the soule remaines as it was, what ever becomes of the seede; for the soule is never procreated but in conception, when both seedes meete in a due proportion, and become one, and when the effi­cient power of God concurring with all other naturall causes, doe out of the substance of the generating soules, produce ano­ther together with a body capa­ble of that divine forme.

Some resemblance whereof wee may see in the lighting of a Lamp or Candle;Simile. for as fire is the most spirituall of all corpo­rall substances, so by it wee may have the clearest resemblance in this case; the soule of man may well be compared to a spirituall flame, united to the body by the [Page 204] [...] [Page 205] [...] [Page 206]spirits, as the flame of the Lamp by the oyle; 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 soule is not kindled at every conjun­ction of seedes, but onely then when (as I said before) it is blowne by the efficient power of God, which meeting with all other naturall causes, out of the matter of these flames applied, this new heavenly flame (the soule) is produced. And as in that elementary inflammation the Lamp is not turned into the flame, but inflamed by another; so the corporall seede is not tur­ned into the soule, but informed with a soule by others. Which soule being a spirituall flame, not nourished by any elementa­ry matter as the other is, nor kindled without that everlasting breath whence it first came: it [Page 207]can never after be extinguished as the other may. And hence it commeth to passe, not onely that soules perish not when any seede is lost, but also that in case mans seede be mingled with o­ther creatures (as if sometimes happeneth) such unkindly con­ceptiōs are never informed with reasonable soules: not onely for that there is a want in the con­currence of all naturall causes; but because God doth not con­ferre his efficient power, but where and when he pleaseth. To conclude, therefore it appea­reth that soules are neither lost, nor choaked in the wombe; nor yet constrained to live alone without bodyes when the seede proves not effectuall, for then there is no soule 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 soule can proceede from two soules.

THe former objection being taken away,2. Obj. That the soule must be min­gled of the parents soule. we are to pro­ceed to the second, which is that if the soule be traduced from the parents, it must needs be as well from the mothers soule as the father, and if from both, then either there must be two soules, or else two soules must be min­gled together, and so grow in­to one, both which are no lesse than impossible, to which (al­though it seemes unanswerable) these things which shall be spo­ken, being throughly conside­red, I trust will give sufficient sa­tisfaction. For first, why might wee not for the same cause say, that there must be two bodyes also, one from the father and another from the mother? and if it be said that one partakes of [Page 109]both, how comes it to passe then, that it is sometimes like the father onely, & sometimes one­ly 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 worke of nature herein is above reason, what wonder if it be so in the soule also; yea, why should it not be so in that, much rather than in this? and if the former draw us onely to an admiration, but not to a negation of if, because the thing is apparent: why should not the latter doe so also, seeing in nature it is no lesse manifest then the former, both being brought forth together as wee see? To come a little neerer the matter,One crea­ture can­not be made of two souls. I would first of all de­mand how it commeth to passe, that among all living creatures of two divers seeds, that is to [Page 110]say, of the male and female is notwithstanding generated but one creature of the one kinde? Since as Philosophers truely teach, the species of things can­not be mingled no more than soules:Vide Scal. de subti. exer. 268. and the essence of every thing is indivisible; and two formes cannot be made one. Now seeing the seede of any creature conteines in it both matter and forme thereof: and is the same in potentiâ (as they speake) differing from the crea­ture it selfe onely so much as power differeth from act; that is, ability to be or doe, from be­ing or being done; how there­fore can it possibly be that one creature can be produced from two seedes in univocall genera­tions; seeing also that vegetative nature have therefore but one seede. These reasons made Ari­stotle deny that females had any seede at all, being onely as the ground wherein seede is sowen. [Page 111]Now if this be true, the point is cleare without any farther ope­ning; for then the soule procee­ding from the soule of the father onely, there shall not need be two soules, nor one mingled of two.How the soule 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 bodyes also) so it is cōcerning the soule more plainly, I say,The seede of both but one seede. that as the seede of either apart cannot properly be called seed-seed, because nei­ther of them alone conteines the matter and forme of the crea­ture, and is not Animal in poten­tiâ; but at the instant of concep­tion, [Page 112]when both seedes are so mingled that therein is contei­ned the power of producing the like, then onely it is rightly cal­led seede; and before, onely, be­cause it may be thus; for that is to be actually seede to have this potency in it: so as the seede 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 spi­rituall seede of the soule (if by way of resemblance I may so call it) is not in the severall seede of either sex (for there is no such materiall or locall division) but rather in both when but one. For in generation wee may not conceive one act to be made of two; but two in act doe make one. The mystery of which u­nion lyes in this, that the nature is one, and the sexes two, which againe united in one produce a third.

For by the spirituall seede of [Page 113]the parents soules,What the soules seed is, & how generated. I doe not meane any seperated matter, as the bodies is: but far otherwise: namely, that potentiall vertue in the parents soules, which in con­junction uniting their forces to­gether out of their owne matter doe enforme their seede with their nature, that is, a soule ap­prehended and united by the spi­rits therein. It being the ordi­nance of God that mans nature should be distinguished into two sexes, that by the more forcible union of both, the whole kinde might be preserved: And be­cause the soule is rather facultie than matter,The pro­duction of soules. the seed must needs be rather power than sperme. Now the reason why parents doe cōmunicate a soule to their issue,Gen. 2.24. is because in this conjun­ction two are made one flesh, not onely carnally, but the very soules doe so cleave together, that if it were possible they would lose their proper formes [Page 114]and become one, which though being tyed by nature or rather Gods seperation (which yet is not farre removed) they cannot effect; yet by the fitnesse of o­ther causes concurring, and the infinite power and wisdome of God so ordaining and assisting, another soule and creature like the former is produced.Things brecoing without seede. The like whereof we may see in aequivo­call generations, where when one thing is changing into ano­ther, even in the very change, a third most commonly is ingen­dred. And so here it is to be thought that in the interchang­ing of soules (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 steele; so is the soule by the pa­rents. [Page 115]By all which it plainly ap­peareth, that although the soule be received both from the fa­ther and the mother, and indif­ferently from both, yet it fol­loweth not therupon that there must be two soules, neither yet that two soules 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 onely one; and that no lesse simple, spirituall, and immortall, than either of the former.

CHAP. XI. How the soule can be propagable, and yet indivisible.

BY that which hath beene said,3. Obj. Parents soules di­vided. there is a way opened also, for the clearing of that o­ther difficulty, concerning the indivisible nature of the soule, which they say cannot possibly [Page 116]stand with the course of genera­tion. For if the soule be propa­gated from the patents, it must needs be, that either the whole soule of the father is traduced, and so the father shall be left soule-lesse; or else some part and portion of the soule, and so the soule shall be divisible: and the like may be said of the mothers soule,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 soule is not like these corporall 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 soule is tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte; wholly in the whole body, and wholly in every part. So that the soule 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, [Page 117]and therefore when one soule 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 deale somewhat more subtilly herein, as that learned both Philosopher and Divine Keckerman; who in his Physickes treating on this subject saith, that the soule is not united to the body by any physicall or corporall 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 soule [Page 118]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 vessell) 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 vaine quaere, whether the whole soule be in the whole body, or whole in every part. Now if this indeed be the truth (as indeed it commeth neerer to the pure na­ture of the soule) it is no whit lesse to the present purpose; seeing it followeth accordingly, that the soule is in the seede, and yet not conteined of it: and so the propagatiō thereof is rather a powerfull operation, than any locall division. For seeing all confesse that the essence of the soule, properly considered, con­sists not in parts, but in powers; it must needs be confessed like­wise that proportionably there­unto [Page 119]that the propagation of the soule is not by decision, where­by one part is seperated from another; but by promotion, whereby the same power is ef­fected in another, which it hath in it selfe; and this is the manner of propagation, which (as I said) is cōvenient to the nature of the soule. The rather is this to be received as agreeable to nature and reason, because if it be well observed, we shall finde that the very nature and essence of soules consist chiefly in their faculties: as corporall natures in their ele­mentary composition: and God himselfe in vertues: his nature, being, as well as being most knowne, in goodnesse, justice, mercy, &c. which perfections as they are too high to be essen­tiall to any created nature: so are they all that one essentiall ver­tue which is in God, or rather which is God himselfe. Now seeing the soules nature consists [Page 120]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 intellectuall natures, I meane one soule produceth a­nother, the soule 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 ne­verthelesse perfect in his minde that imparts it: so even the fa­culty it selfe (which in respect of corporall natures is as a reall no­tion) when it is propagated to a­nother, is neverthelesse perfect in him from whom it proceed­eth.

And that it is thus the proper­ty4. Spirituall natures may be communi­cated, can­not be di­minished. [Page 121]of spirituall natures to loose nothing themselves in commu­nicating their essence to others, may farther appeare by the te­stimony of that learned divine Zanchy; who in confuting the heretickes objection against the divinitie 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, then 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, spirituall natures whilest they are communicated, are neither wholly taken away, nor any­thing at all diminished. His words be these; Res enim spiri­tuales, dum communicantur; ne (que) tolluntur penitus, ne (que) etiam immi­nuuntur. Neither can it be said, that this is proper to God, seeing he affirmes it of all spirituall na­tures [Page 122]indifferently; yea what else can be meant by the indivisible­nesse of the soule, but that it is of such a nature as cannot be di­minished by taking ought from it? else how should it differ from corporall natures, for even they cannot be diminished if nought be taken from them? yet, I say, not that the soule can be parted at all, after the manner of divi­ding corporall natures; but this, I say, as the essence and forme of every creature is indivisible, no lesse than the soule, and yet they can out of themselves propagate their like, without making their forme or essence divisible, so may man produce his like with­out dividing his form or essence, which is his soule. For seeing the forme of a beast, as it is so, is as much indivisible as mans soule, and experience proves that they notwithstanding communicate their formes to their issue, why also may not parents give soules [Page 123]to their of-spring without divi­ding their own? especially con­sidering man is the most excel­lent creature, who must needs therefore excell in this faculty as well as in others. Neither can it be said,The soule not full of soules. that then his soule must be full of soules, no more then that other creatures should ther­fore 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 objectiōs which are taken from the matter conceived, I proceed now to those that concerne the manner of conception.

CHAPTER XII. How the manner of conception can stand with the soules generation.

TOuching the manner of conception,Objectiōs. three things [Page 124]especially are and may be ob­jected:1 First, it is doubted whe­ther conception be in the act of generation or afterwards.2 Se­condly, it should seeme by this, that the soule is imperfect at the first, and grows by degrees with the body.3 Lastly; it may be que­stioned, how superfetation, and the conception of twinnes, can stand with this manner of the soules propagation. And if these also can be well cleared, there is nothing more materiall 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 Phy­sitiās write) there must be a cer­taine concoction and preparati­on of the seede before concepti­on. First of all I might answer, that the ordinance of God here­in is so wonderfull as passeth all mens understandings, so as none can say directly how it is, either [Page 125]for the soule or for the body: it being one of those things which David professeth was too won­derfull for him,Psal. 139. vers. 6. and therefore much more for us. And yet if we make no questiō of the con­ception of the body, though we cannot conceive the manner how; why should we be more doubtfull and inquisitive about the soule, of which we know we are lesse able to conceive?

2. That the soule be­gins with the crea­ture.Secondly, I answer, that though it should be granted, that the more grosse and corporall parts of the seede doe (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 spiritu­all parts, and chiefly the soule is conceived in the first instant; I meane 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 [Page 126]must needs be, not only because spirituall natures are more quick and subtill, and so move in lesse time than corporall; and there­fore may doe that in a moment, which the other cannot doe but in a longer time; whence it is that in eating and drinking wee see the spirits are refreshed, and the man strengthened immedi­ately after he hath eaten, before ever the meat can be concocted; but also experiēce teacheth, that in the breeding of all creatures, the internall parts are perfect be­fore the externall, the more spi­rituall parts of the body, before those that are more grosse and corporall; and therefore it fol­loweth by like reason that the spirits in man have their perfe­ction before the body, and the soule 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 worke, there being one [Page 127]and the same cause of both. A­gaine, be it that there is such a concoction in conception, (as in respect of the body questionlesse there is) yet it cannot be denied, but the corporall parts are pre­pared & perfected by the other, which must needs therefore be first, and in the first instant; for that which beginneth must of necessitie be in the beginning; because all that is done after­ward is by vertue of that power wherewith it was informed at first. [...] For that power becoms the first act of the conceived fruit, and is the very soule of the crea­ture, wherewith if the seede be not informed at the beginning, all comes to nothing at the end.

And hence it is that if all cau­ses doe not fitly concurre toge­ther for the forming the seede with the soule at first, by whose working it may proceed to per­fection afterward, the whole worke is frustrated.

[Page 128] 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 soule be­ing of a more excellent nature in man, requires a more fit pro­portion, and due temper of all meanes, before such a heavenly flame can be kindled, and the seede informed and united ther­with, 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, quickning, &c. to every of which that time is allotted, wherein that worke most appeares, though natures work be one and the same from the beginning.

[Page 129] 2. Whether the soule be imper­fect at first.But here it will he objected, that if the soule be in the seede at the first conception, it must needs be very weake and imper­fect at the first, and so growing and increasing with the body, it must also decrease and dye with it.

For answer whereunto, I would first of all demand of them who hold that it comes by immedi­ate creation, how the soule of an infant newly quickened in the mothers wombe, can be as per­fect as when it is a perfect man? Surely there is not so much dif­ference (at least in tho soules ap­pearance) betweene conception and quickening, as is betweene quickning 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 soules as well the soules of beasts as of men, are essentially as perfect in the first [Page 130]instant of conception, as ever af­terward, yea, even the soule of a plant when it is in the seed, for though not being of such a fiery nature as living creatures, and wanting meanes to exercise its power, it may lye a while, yea, many years as dead (as Mustard­seed will doe) yet the vegetative soule in the effence thereof,Reasons proving the soules perfection in the first conceptiō. is as perfect as the most perfect plant, as plainly appeareth so soone as the meanes of growing is admi­nistred to it.1. Now if the soules of other creatures (which as they are soules doe neither in­crease nor decrease, no more than the soule of a man doth, may be perfect when they shew no perfection) no nor action at all, why should we thinke mans soule 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 soule, because it should then seeme to be imper­fect [Page 131]at the first, and so to grow up with the body: why should not that be as good against the immortalitie of the soule, that it seemes also to dye and decay with the body?3. yea why should it not be much stronger, seeing it may better stand with the na­ture of immortalitie to increase, & grow better, than to decrease and wax worse? But to put all out of doubt,4. seeing all confesse that the soule is [...], the prime act or first mover, and essentiall forme of the creature; it must needs be perfect at the first, and alwayes the same. For reason teacheth that that which is first, and gives 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 soule of the soule. And seeing the soule is the essentiall forme, it must needs be unchangeable also: for it is impossible the forme should [Page 132]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 immortall seede, and not brought forth without the immediate hand of GOD. It skilleth not therfore whether the soule can see, heare, or rea­son, when it is in the seede: it sufficeth that it hath that spiri­tuall and divine nature, which when the organs are perfected, is able to doe it. Herein it is with the soule as with the body; the child newly conceived hath not the fashion of an humane body; yet is there all that is essentiall to the nature of it, as will in time appeare; so is there all that is es­sentiall to the soule in concepti­on: but the bodily parts requi­ring time hath it imperfectly, the soule being spirituall and a­bove time, hath it perfectly in the first instant: yet in this case [Page 133]the soule, must stay for the ex­pression of it selfe, till the body be perfected; and then all those (seeming) new-come perfecti­ons, are to the soules as cloths to the body: onely accidentall or­naments, and externall habits, which doe not alter it indeed, but onely in shew.

3. Of con­ception of Twinnes.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 wayes, it makes no matter; for if nature hath power to worke so diversly for pro­ducing of bodies, there is no que­stion but that both God and na­ture is able to indue them with soules accordingly. And it is suf­ficient for the point in hand, that howsoever the manner of gene­ration be, there is (at least of the soule whereof we dispute) but one conception of one, and that at once, which once is in propa­gation. [Page 134]For though among o­ther creatures, the receiving of the seede 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 powerfull to produce soules, as nature is to bring forth bodies: and for the other, we must needs thinke, either that the former is a propagation to the latter, or else the latter a perfecting of the former (otherwise there would be divers bodyes too, any or all of which rightly understood, may well stand with this man­ner of the soules 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 then this, I thinke no modest or reasonable man will or need inquire; but rather [Page 135]conclude this point as the Psal­mist begins it;Psal. 139.14. I will praise the Lord, for I am fearfully and won­derfully made; marveilous are thy workes, and that my soule knoweth right well.

Conclusi­on of all the obje­ctions.Thus we have seene (I hope) sufficient reason, that it is not a­gainst reason, that God should produce one soule out of the spi­rituall matter of another, by the helpe 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, & clee­red the way by answering all the materiall objections that I can meet with; whether from divine or naturall 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 soules pro­pagation.

The me­thode ob­served in proving the soules propagati­on.AS the former arguments to disprove this mediate man­ner of the soules propagation, were of two sorts; Scripture, and naturall reasons; so also shall the arguments to prove the same be. For seeing God hath a two-fold voyce, the one speaking in the Booke of the Scriptures, and the other in the Booke of the Crea­tures; when the divine Oracles of the former cannot be heard, we must give eare to naturall reasons drawne out of the lat­ter: the voyce of natures agree­ing with the Scriptures, being indeed the voyce of God. The proofes from the Scripture, shall be of two sorts likewise, either direct testimonies, or reasons drawne from them. And againe [Page 137]the testimonies shalbe first from the old, and then from the new Testament, which we will take up in order as wee shall meet with them.

And first that this doctrine may not seeme new, I will prove it even from the beginning of the world, beginning first with the testimony of God himselfe, 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. Gods first Instituti­on. Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Here with­out any limitatiō, 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 onely. 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 [Page 138]be any colour of doubt how this is to be understood, seeing God spake the very same immediate­ly before,Verse 22. even to the fishes and fowles. For, saith the Text, God blessed them, saying, be fruitfull and multiply, and fill the waters, &c. As therefore God so framed their natures, and gave such power unto them, that the like might produce the like unto it selfe, as touching the whole crea­ture: so if we will beleeve 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 effectuall to the ba­sest creatures, should not only be effectual in man the most excel­lent? especially so grossely de­fective, as that man should not be able to propagate man, but some imperfect formelesse peice of a creature, which indeed is so unnaturall, as no man knowes [Page 139]what to call it. For the body of a man can be no more termed man, than the carcase of a bruite beast, can be called a bruit beast: and shall a beast, upon whom there is no such blessing expresly pronounced in Scripture, be ac­knowledged to doe more this way in his kinde, than man who was most expresly 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 performe? for it is ma­nifest, that God did not onely blesse, but command them, and it is no lesse manifest, did extend to the whole man. Now if Gods cōmand reacheth to the whole man, and mans power reacheth onely to the body, or carcase; how can it be avoided but Gods command, shall be in vaine and unreasonable, if not unjust? If in this worke the chiefe part be­longs to God, it cannot with [Page 140]reason be ascribed to man; nei­ther can God command him to doe all (according to his kinde, that is the law of nature) if he can doe 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 onely for the bringing forth of the body, but also, and espe­cially, of the soule, that being the chiefe part of the creature: so that this blessing and com­mand of God doth principally resp [...]ct the soule in every crea­ture. Whence it followeth that it is more absurd to deny the propagation of the soule, 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 voyce & ordinance of God, be no lesse [Page 141]effectuall in man, then it is in the rest of the living creatures propagating: then according to the ordinance of God, man be­getteth whole man, soule and body. But the Antecedent is true, as appeares in the text, and therefore all so the consequent.

2. Gods re­sting from his labour.Secondly, It appeareth that God so ordered the nature of all creatures in the beginning, that they might persist of themselvs, and multiply their kinds by the power of nature; that so he him­selte might not need to be al­wayes 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 worke 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 a­worke to create thousands of new souls every day at our plea­sure.Obj.

[Page 142] 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 kinde.

1 But first there is no such limi­tation extant there, nor in any other place of Scripture, & ther­fore it is to be rejected as a vaine imagination of mans braine.

Secondly, This is a direct beg­ging of the question; 2 for they graunt it generally in all the workes of nature, yea, in every particular, excepting onely this exceptiō of their own: notwith­standing Moses speaketh alike of both, ascribing no more to one than to another.

3 Thirdly, It is most absurd to say, God rested from creating more kinds: but not from crea­ting more particulars of the same kinde: because to create new things of nothing is more properly a worke of creation, [Page 143]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 worke 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.

4 Lastly, otherwise God should not have ceased at all, for it can­not be denied, but there are new kinds cōtinually brought forth, and not onely in aequivocall ge­nerations, but by such copulati­ons as are out of kinde, whereby it commeth to passe, that there are divers kindes 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 chiefly, if not onely, from immediately [Page 144]creating new substances of no­thing. From this place of Scrip­ture therefore I reason thus: If God absolutely ceased from the worke of Creation, then also he ceased from the creatiō of souls: but the Antecedent is true, ther­fore the consequent.

3. The crea­tion of Eve.Thirdly, we reade that God of the rib of Adam as of a living body formed Eve, but wee doe not reade, that he breathed into her nostrils the breath of lives, as he did into Adams, which cer­tainly if it had beene done, the Scripture would not have passed over in silence: especially see­ing it was Moses chiefe purpose, to declare the originall of all things: but contrarily, he plainly affirmeth, that of that he made a woman: and speaking of her whole person, he saith, that shee (that is, Eve the woman) was ta­ken out of man; and addeth more­over, that therefore shee was called wo-man: Gen 2.22, 23, 24. and farther affirmeth, [Page 145]that therefore by marriage God made them one flesh againe, and for that cause others should be so united also: besides divers other reasons alledged before, which need not here to be re­peated.

4. The pro­mised seedFourthly, 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 breake the Serpents head. Now the body it selfe being without reason, what is it being compared to the Ser­pent? Wherefore by seede in this place must needs be meant the whole nature of man, which Christ tooke of the Virgin Ma­ry: For whole man was concei­ved and borne of her, except sin onely; as afterward we shall see. Neither is this to prove one doubtfull thing by another: for it is out of doubt, that by seede is here meant both body & soule: [Page 146]unlesse we shall say, that Christ redeemed us by a body without a soule. And if this soule was re­ceived from Eve, as her seede, as well as his body, I thinke there is none will make question of ours.

5. Adams of­spring. Gen. 5.3.Fifthly, Very forcible also if it be well considered, is that where Moses saith, Adam gat a sonne in his owne likenesse, after his owne I­mage. Whence it appeareth ma­nifestly, that he was the parent of the whole nature, and not of one part onely: for this Image is opposed to the Image of God spoken of in Adam before: which Image and likenesse was not in the body, for then it Would fol­low that God had a body, but in his soule in respect of his minde 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 [Page 147]his innocency, in his own Image and likenesse, chiefly in regard of the soule, and those divine gifts wherewith it was endued: so Adam in his corrupted estate begat a sonne in his own Image and likewise, not in regard of the body only, but chiefly in respect of the soule, and in that, corrupt and sinfull like himselfe.

6. Gods 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 seede after thee. Where by seede must needs be meant that which is borne of seede, to wit, whole man, and not the body onely, for that without the soule of it selfe 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 him­selfe the God of the dead, unlesse the soule at least be still living, much lesse will he call himselfe the God of a senslesse substance, [Page 148]inferiour to the issue of brute beasts.Obj. Either thorefore GOD must here promise to be the God of an unreasonable brute, or else Abrahams seede must conteine more than a body, yea, extend in selfe as indeed it doth to the whole man, as well soule as bo­dy, that is to say, persons consi­sting of both, for to such onely is this promise made.Ans. Neither is it for any man here to except & say, that the whole man may be said to proceede from man, though the soule 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 onely the least part of the mat­ter, and nothing at all of the forme: it cannot be avoided but the Scripture doth here plainly affirme, that the whole man con­sisting [Page 149]of soule and body, is the seed, issue, and of-spring of man: & consequently begotten, born, and brought forth by the seed of man.

7. The souls that descē ­ded from Jacob.Seventhly, When the Scrip­tures doe expresly affirme, that sixty-six soules descended from the loynes of Jacob: doth it not plainly teach that the soules of children doe descend from their parents? Neither can the force of this place be avoyded, by say­ing that the soule is here by a Metonymy put for the body, or by a Synecdoche the whole soule put for the vegetable and sensible part of the soule; 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 soule. The falshood of these conceits doth plainly appeare out of the Ante­cedent and consequent of the Text; for a little before it is said, [Page 150] these are the sonnes of Rachel which were borne unto Jacob, fourteene soules in all; and immediately af­ter; the sonnes of Joseph were two soules: so that it is evident in the text, the soules signifie sonnes, viz. the whole person and na­ture of man. Although there­fore hereby is not meant soules onely, but persons; according to the proprietie of the Hebrew tongue: yet why in this case should the holy Ghost speake of the whole person, if onely the least part of him be thereby meant. Neither can I thinke the Hebrew tongue so double, or the holy penman so much mis­taken, as to say onely soules de­scended, if bodyes onely did: yea, how absurd is it, when by the rules of interpretation, the proper litterall sense is alwayes to be retained, unlesse some ma­nifest falshood or absurditie doe necessarily follow upon it: and When wee must fly unto some [Page 151]tropicall sense, it must be fetched out of the Text it selfe, if it may be, here we should depart from both, onely to confirme 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 speakes of the whole, we must understand but the least part: and when it names the soule, yet it meanes the body onely.

8. Scriptures that pur­posely speake of mans ge­neration.Eighthly, As this doctrine is cleare by the testimony or Mo­ses from the creation of the world, and the first institution of nature; so also from those Scriptures which doe purpose­ly speake 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 soule is said [Page 152]to be conceived in the wombe, and brought forth by the vertue of generation as well as the bo­dy. The first wee finde in the booke of Job, 1. Iob 10.8.10, 11. where in making his moane to God, he useth these words: Thine hands have made me, and fashioned me together round about: — Hast thou not pow­red me out as milke, and curdled me like theese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinewes. The o­ther we have in the Book of the Psalmes, where David speaketh unto God in this manner; Thou hast possessed my reines; 2. Psal. 139.13.15.16. thou hast covered me in my mothers wombe: — 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 masse (or whole substance) yet being imperfect and in thy booke all, my members, were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was [Page 153]none of them. To omit the omis­sion (although it is very unlike­ly that Job and David here de­scribing so precisely the manner of mans conception, breeding & bringing forth into the world: wherein Gods power, wisdome, [...] 1. [...] and goodnesse, is most of all to be magnified; should pretermit that wonderfull worke of the creation &c infusion of the soule, if it had beene knowne and be­leeved in their dayes) this onely I would know, how, if the soule be immediately created by God, they could so perēptorily (with­out any exception or limitation) affirme that the whole man was formed in the wombe, powred out as milke, curdled like cheese, &c. which that they both joynt­ly affirme, will plainly appeare, if we cōsider these three things: Man, or me, secret place, and masse or substance. For the first, it is manifest they doe not here­in speake of their owne persons [Page 154]onely, as being a matter proper to them alone, but in this they ranke themselves with all man­kinde, so as man here signifies all mankinde, male and female (as Moses uses the word) soule and body,Gen. 1.27. & 5.1.2. and one as well as the other. When therefore they both expresly affirme, that man is conceived in the wombe, it followeth that all men and wo­mens soules, have heir originall together with their bodyes. As for the terme secret place, it sig­nifieth the wombe of the mo­ther, where the childe is concei­ved, which is expresly named where he saith, thou hast covered me in my mothers wombe: there­fore when David saith, he was wōderfully formed in a secret place, he intimateth that the concepti­on of the whole man, is made in the wombe. Lastly, the word masse, or substance, which he ad­deth afterwards, makes it yet more manifest, for it signifieth [Page 155]all whatsoever is in man, which is also proved by the words that follow after: for he saith, that this whole masse or substance of man which is formed in the wombe, was described in the booke of Gods providence, and who dare deny but soule as well as the body was from all eternitie knowne 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 masse or substance be conceived in the wombe of his mother, then his rationall soule, together with his body, is propagated out of or by vertue of the seede. But whole man together with his whole masse or substance, is [Page 156]conceived in the wombe of his mother; therefore the rationall soule, together with the body, is brought forth by vertue and power of the seede.

9. Davids confessi­on.Ninthty, Like unto these also is that other speech of the Pro­phet David; where he confesseth that not his body onely, but he himselfe; both soule and body was conceived in sin. So are his words:Psal. 51.5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquitie, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Whence it appea­reth, not onely that the whole man is conceived in the wombe, but that he is bred and borne in sin; yea corrupt and sinfull even from the very first conception, which as (wee shall afterward see) could not possibly be if the soule were immediately created by God. And least we should not take knowledge of this, or knowing if think it more strange than true; he setteth before it this speciall note of observation, [Page 157] Behold as being a matter worthy to be knowne, and beleeved of all men.

Jeremies approba­tion.Tenthly, The Prophet Jere­my likewise, or rather the Lord by the Prophet speaketh thus: Before I formed thee in the wombe, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the wombe I sanctified thee. Whence also it appeareth, not onely that the whole man, the soule as well as the body is formed in the wombe; but also that the soule 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 mothers wombe: yea, before he was borne, even from the time of his first forming in the wombe. And seeing such sanctification and speciall knowledge of God cannot be ascribed to a body [Page 158]without a soule; it will follow that as all are sinfull, and some in part sanctified, even from the very conception, neither of which can be without a soule: so all doe receive both soule and body together at the very first conception.

11. Salomons resolutionEleventhly, Hereunto may be added that of Salomon, which was before alledged to prove the contrary, where he saith; Then shall the dust returne 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 formed man of the dust of the ground, and the soule returnes to God who first brea­thed into Adams nostrils the breath of lives. Now if Salo­mons meaning be, that looke as the body ariseth from the earth, so the soule comes from God (whence some would inferre the immediate creation of the [Page 159]soule) it holds much more strongly, that the soule is not immediately given of God, but mediately by the meanes of na­ture; seeing we have not our bodies neither immediatly from the earth, but mediately by pro­pagatiō from Adam, from whom both soule and body is commu­nicated to posterity, and both by the gift of God. To conclude, therefore as our bodyes come from the dust, so doe our soules from God: but our bodyes come by propagation from Adam; and therefore (by this argument) so doe our soules soules 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 soules propa­gation: his words be these; The Lord formeth the spirit of man with­in him. Now to forme in the Scri­pture never signifieth to create of nothing, as God did in the be­ginning: [Page 160]but to frame of some matter pre-existing, [...] Non est [...] Gen. 1.1.2.7. as when the Lord formed Adams 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 soules of men of some matter, it must be either of the soules 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.

Againe 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 soule: than which, what in so few words can so fitly and fully expresse [Page 161]the manner of the soules propa­gation; being formed in concep­tion of the spirituall matter of the parents soules, by the power and vertue of the seede in gene­ration. And yet not meerely 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 externall ef­ficient, the nature of the soule 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 soule, though it be not a creation, it is as neere to a creation as can be: and though it be by propagation, yet it is not meerly by propagation, but some way above it: and so it is in a manner a kinde of meane betweene creation and propaga­tion. For according to these words of the Prophet, the soule is formed of the spirituall matter of the parents soules, within the [Page 162]conceived fruit, not without the omnipotent power of God.

So that by all these testimo­nies it appeareth (I thinke) suf­ficiently, that this doctrine went currant in the time of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets: and (I beleeve) never was once questioned in those first ages of the world.

CHAP. XIV. Testimonies out of the new Testa­ment, proving the soules pro­pagation.

THis doctrine is no lesse, if not much more clearely 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 [Page 163]sinned. Where he maketh no such division of soule 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 soules I am sure as well as bodyes) were in Adam, yea, and sinned in him too; which is absurd to say, and impossible to be without soules. 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 joyned together without appa­rent warrant from his word? how much more then in this, for which it is confessed there is no warrant there at all?

And yet least 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; [Page 164]because he was the stocke of all mankinde (or ra­ther of the bodyes of all man­kinde;) the holy Ghost, I say, foreseeing our aptnesse to erre, 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 sonnes) was yet in the loynes of his Father (grand­father, yea, and great grand-fa­ther) 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, soule and body together: and for that cause paid tithes for his posteri­tie while they were yet in his loynes. And if Isaa [...] Jacob, and the whole tribe of Levi, were once in the loynes of Abraham; we need not doubt, but we were all in like manner once wholly in Adam, and consequently are [Page 165]now wholly propagated from him.

2. The An­gell Ga­brell.Againe, that we may not deny it, unlesse we will deny Christ and our owne salvation. The Scriptures teach, that Jesus Christ as concerning his huma­nitie was the sonne of the virgin Mary, and so of David his Fa­ther: for so said the Angell Ga­brell, being sent unto her;Luk 1.31, 32. Thou shalt conceive in thy wombe, and bring forth a sonne: and againe, 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 soule and body, as themselves confesse.Per sy [...]oc­doch [...]n. Neither can it be denyed, for it is there opposed to his Divinitie, as the words immediately following doe manifestly declare: and all [Page 166]Interpreters acknowledge.

Whence it necessarily follow­eth, that the soul of our Saviour was the seede of David, even the fruit of his loynes 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 feare to do it? yea, why should we not feare to doe otherwise? Is it not safer to follow such a guide, than to run a way by our selves for w^ch we have no warrant? And see­ing as the Apostle elsewhere af­firmeth,Heb. 4.15. He was made like unto us in all things, except sinne; why should wee make any doubt, but it is so with us also, as it was with him? Especially considering the whole currant and full streame of the Scriptures run this way, even from the beginning. And not onely concerning him, as where it is said,Gen. 3.15. & 22.18. the Seede of the Woman shall breake the Serpents head; and, in thy seede shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. 5.10.11. as [Page 167]we heard before: but also all o­ther places speaking of his or our generation, comprehends both soule and body under the name of seede, 1 Chron. 1, 2, 3, &c. Mat. 1. Luk. 2. Mat. 19.6. without any ex­ception, making the soule no lesse the seede of man than the body, and the body no more than the soule; and neither of them more or lesse propaga­tion than the other, and this throughout the whole Scrip­ture, without any the least word to the contrary. And therefore, I say againe, let no man dare to seperate what God hath so joy­ned together.

4. Our Savi­our him­selfe.Lastly, Unlesse we will make God the Author of sin, and con­sequently deny God that made us; we must confesse the truth of this doctrine, proved from those words of our Saviour, where speaking both of the na­turall and the new birth of man, he saith;Ioh. 3.6. That which is borne of the flesh is flesh, and that which is [Page 168]borne of the spirit is spirit. Whence I reason thus; If the soule were immediately created by God, it should not be flesh that is cor­rupt and sinfull, 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 sinfull, 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 originall sin, or else make God the Author of evill, if the soule 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 feare not to conclude, that [Page 169]the soule is not borne of the spi­rit, I meane, 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 lesse than a whole Jury of witnesses▪ first God himselfe, then Adam, Moses, Job, David, Salomon, Je­remy, Zachary, Peter, Paul, the Angell Gabrell, and our Saviour Christ himselfe; and if humane Testimonies would serve the turne, it were not hard to shew more than twelve Legions of Saints, learned and unlearned, that have lived and dyed in this beliefe. It being the received doctrine of the westerne Chur­ches in Saint Hieromes time, as was before declared: but if these will not satisfie, much lesse would those, and therefore I omit them.

CHAPTER XV. The propagation proved from the Doctrine of Originall sinne.

Reasons proving the soules propaga­tion.BEsides the Testimonies of Scripture, this mediate man­ner of the soules propagation, may farther be demonstrated by reasons drawne from them; whereof there are two onely most materiall, and indeed ne­cessary to be considered: the one concerning the doctrine of originall sin,1 and the other tou­ching the incarnation of our Sa­viour; 2 which two, being the maine difficulties in this questi­on; the one hindering the soules immediate creation, the other the immediate propagatiō ther­of; if these two can be cleared, but especially if both doe agree together to confirme this do­ctrine, there will remaine no more place of disputation about it; and therefore I purpose to in­sist [Page 171]so much the longer in them both.

1. Originall sinne.And for the better clearing the first reason drawne from the Doctrine of Originall sin, I will first make way to it by a gene­rall description of these three things: First, Originall sinne; 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 goodnesse of God in creating.
• 3. From the course of na­ture in propagating.

Of all which, I will speake as briefly and plainly as I can, and according to that divine light which is revealed in the Scrip­tures.

First therfore it must be shew­ed out of the Scripture, whether there be any originall sin or no, and what it is. For the first, that [Page 172]the streame of mans being, first poysoned in Adam the foun­taine, hath infected every man that comes into the world with sinne, is manifest through the whole Scripture.Proofes out of the Scripture. By one man (namely Adam) sin entred into the world, and death by n="a" Rom. 5.12. sin: in the day that he did eate of the forbidden fruit, wee 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 originall sin: so that in A­dam all dyen="d" 1 Cor. 15.22., because in Adam all did sinn="e" Rom. 5.12.: Hence it was that by and by after all the imagina­tions of the thoughts of his heart were onely evill continually n="f" Gen 6.5: yea, evill even from his youth n="g" Gen. 8.21: And now who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane n="h" Iob 14.4.: And what is man that he should be cleane n="i" Iob 15.14., and he that is borne of a woman, that he should be righteous, sayth Job. Hence even David confesseth of himselfe, I was borne in iniquitie, and in sin did my n="k" Psal. 51.5. mother conceive [Page 173]me: and of others, he saith, the wicked are estranged from the wombe n="l" Ps. 58.3., they goe astray as soone as they are borne. Esay also cal­leth man a transgressor from the wombe n="m" Isa. 48.8 and Jeremy saith, the heart of man is deceitfull above all things, and desperately wicked n="n" Ier. 17.9.: hence also it is that the Apostle saith, Wee 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" Ioh. 3.6. Ioh. 3.3.5.; and ex­cept a man be regenerate and borne againe, he cannot enter into nor see the Kingdome of God.

Reasons to prove it.Besides, Reason teacheth, that like begets like, as touching the substance and accidents proper to the kinde,1. according to the Rule, Generatum sequitur natu­ram generantis; Beasts bring forth beasts; Serpents, serpents, and sinfull man, a sinfull of-spring: We cannot gather grapes of thornes, Mat. 7.16. [Page 174] nor figges of thistles; but an evill tree bringeth forth evill fruit; and corrupt Adam sinfull men, other­wise how could Infants justly be punished with death, seeing death is the wages of sinne. And why were Infants circumcized, and women purified after child­birth under the law, but to shew that all that commeth of mans seed, is defiled with sin. Againe, cōmon experience sheweth the fruit of this bitter roote to bud forth in childrē, even from their very cradles, and that by incli­nation before they can learne by imitation. The necessitie 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, shews that there floweth a double evill from the first Adam, namely the [Page 175]guilt and corruption of nature. If we had not this double sinne, we should not need this double remedy.

What ori­ginall sin is.And now that we see we are thus infected, let us inquire a little more narrowly into the nature of it. It appeares by that which hath beene said already, that all men are become sinfull through Adams sin, having lost those now supernaturall gifts, wherewith he and we with him were at first indued; and in stead therof, are all over infected with a venomous qualitie, or inclina­tion to all manner of evill, cau­sing ignorance and blindnesse in the minde, stubbornesse and re­bellion in the will disorder in the affections, making the sen­ses sensuall and beast-like, all the members of the body instru­ments of unrighteousnesse, and the whole man a slave to the de­vill; and that from our first be­ing, even so farre as nature can [Page 176]reach (as well potentially as a­ctually ever since Adams sinne, which groweth up with us from the wombe and in time (if we live) brings orth the fruits of un­righteousnesse, in our thoughts, words, and actions, by reason whereof we are not onely cor­rupt, but guilty of Gods wrath, and lyable to eternall damnati­on from our first being. Now it is called Originall sin,Why it is so called. first, be­cause it was from the beginning, even as soone as ever Adam sin­ned: secondly, because it is with us from the beginning, even in conception, as soone as we doe actually begin to be: and third­ly, because it is the beginning of all actuall 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 dwels in us, The law of our members, The sin that incloseth us on every side, Heb. 12.1. Concupiscence, Iam. 1.14. and the like. And as we use the word, it is some­times [Page 177]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 onely: consisting of the priva­tion of goodnesse, and inclina­tion to evill, before rehearsed. These grounds being laid down, we may make a full definition of it after this manner.

Definitie Originalis peccati.Originall sin is the depravati­on of the whole nature of man, consisting of the privation of o­riginall righteousnesse, and an inclination to all manner of e­vill; derived from Adam to all his posteritie by naturall gene­ration, whereby they stand guil­ty of eternall death: in which definition, wee may see all the essentiall causes of originall sin: the subject, or materiall cause, is the whole nature of man, all men, and every part of all men, soule, body, understanding, will, memory, affections, senses, and [Page 178]severall members of the body, as they constitute the person of a man propagated from Adam. The formall cause is the depra­vation of the same, whereby e­very man is deprived of origi­nall righteousnesse, and prone to every sin that can be commit­ted. The efficient cause, the sin­ning will of Adam; the instru­mentall cause, naturall generati­on: and the end and effect of it, guilt and punishment: misery and death here, & eternall dam­nation hereafter.

More briefly, Originall sinne is by some defined to be the de­pravation of mans nature, con­sisting of the privation of righte­ousnesse, and inclination to evill, contracted from the generation it selfe, and derived from Adam to all his posteritie. For as sick­nesse is not onely a privation of health, but also an evill affection of the body, arising from the di­stemper of the humours: so ori­ginall [Page 179]sin is not onely the want of righteousnesse, but also an in­clinablenesse to unrighteousnes, arising from the sin of Adam, and conveyed unto us by natu­rall propagation. In a word, it is our potentiall sinning in A­dam, whereby according to the law of nature, we are both cor­rupt and guilty. And so much for the generall nature of origi­nall sinne.

Creation what it is.Now for the second, what Creation is, we shall not need many words. Improperly Crea­tion is taken sundry wayes, som­times for the determination, and decree of God to create, as where Wisdome saith,Ecclu. 24. He created me in the beginning before the world; that is, he decreed to create and re­veale me in the Church. Some­times for renovation, & chang­ing, not of the substance, but the qualitie of a thing:Ps. 51.10. So David prayeth, Create in me a cleane heart, O God. Sometimes for the [Page 180]naturall 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 formes to the mat­ter, unto which it hath no natu­rall power of it selfe. And for that cause doe require an omni­potent hand to effect if; so as creation properly taken belongs to God onely. Neverthelesse, 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, unlesse the whole substance be produ­ced by the omnipotent power [Page 181]of God out of nothing; and not at all, unlesse 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 naturall faculty, whereby a living crea­ture, by feede of generation, be­gets his like, for the continuati­on of the kinde. It is a faculty, commonly accounted a species of the vegetative faculty, but is indeed the naturall perfection of a living creature, whether ve­getative, sensitive, or rationall; and it is the most excellent, and the most naturall faculty, being ingrafted into nature, with a speciall charge & blessing from God in the creation, and is ther­fore most desired and conse­quently most natural to all crea­tures that have life;Gen. 1.22.28. whereby like begets like; univocall which is most properly so called, when as a creature brings forth the like to it selfe, as a plant comes [Page 182]of a plant, and a Lyon of a Ly­on: and aequivocall 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 kinde, for nature ay­meth 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 seede of generation, which as the fa­culty it selfe is most excellent: so is the matter of it the perfe­ction of mans nature, as the seed of a tree, the sap whereof hath passed through roote, body, branch, leafe, bud, and all: and so conteines the nature of the whole: so is the seede of man [Page 183]the quintessēce of nature, which having passed through all the degrees of concoction, and con­teining the whole kinde of man, is reserved by nature in a place convenient for the procreation of another of the same kinde. Now because this generation is the affection or rather perfe­ction of the whole compound, consisting of matter and forme, a man cannot be said to propa­gate the matter alone, but the whole creature, so as to speake properly, generatiō is not either of the matter, or of the forme, but of a certaine third thing, consisting of matter and forme. 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 potentiall being in him into act by naturall generation, which is the onely meanes whereby A­dams [Page 184]nature is derived unto us.

Difference betweene generatiō and crea­tion.And here to conclude, it shall not be amisse to observe the dif­ferences between naturall gene­ration, and immediate creation; the chiefe whereof are these.

First, Creation is the worke of God by himselfe; Generation is the worke of nature from God: Secondly, Creation is wrought onely by the word & command of God by his onely becke and will; generation is performed in a naturall order pre-ordeined of God.Vide Po­lan. Synt. lib. 5.6.2. Thirdly, Creation is meer­ly of nothing, not of any matter or substance, but of nothing at all; generation is of some mat­ter pre-existing indeede, old matter putting on new formes. Fourthly, Creation is done in a moment, without any time, be­ing by an infinite vertue, which is not capable of any time; gene­ration cannot be but in time, be­ing perfected by degrees and in succession of time. Fifthly, In [Page 185]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 diversitie of formes. Lastly, the order of creation is one, and of generation another; for in creation the privation is before the habit, power before act, darknesse before light; but in generation, the habit is be­fore the privation, sight before blindnesse, & light before dark­nesse. And so much for the ge­nerall description of Originall sin, Creation, and Propaga­tion.

CHAP. XVI. How the nature of the sin descen­ding, confirmes the soules propa­gation.

The na­ture of the sinne.IT appeareth by the former de­scription of Originall sinne, which is proved by the scripture, & confessed by all, that it is not onely a losse of originall righte­ousnesse, but an hereditary infe­ction or spirituall corruption, w^ch hath over-spread the whole nature of man: which two, as they are the maine things in o­riginall sin, so the one necessa­rily followeth the other. For the soule ceasing to be good, it must needs become evill; 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 evill, and therefore being deprived of goodnesse, corruption follows as darknesse succeeds in the place of light.

[Page 187] The meanes of deriving itWhereas therefore some make originall sin, to consist of guilti­nesse & corruption, as the parts of it; and to be derived from A­dam by imputation and propa­gation, guiltinesse by imputati­on, and corruption by propaga­tion; it appeareth that guilti­nesse is no part of originall sin, but an effect of it; and conse­quently, that imputation is not properly the meanes of convey­ing it to us, but an effect of the other. And as that depravation or corruption onely is proper­ly originall sin, and guiltinesse comes onely by reason of cor­ruption; so propagation onely is properly the meanes whereby it is derived unto us, and impu­tation is onely in regard of pro­pagation. For as we should not have beene guilty, if we had not beene corrupt; so sin should not have been imputed, if it had not beene propagated. And as we were potentially guilty in Adam, [Page 188]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 streame thereof runs in naturall propagation.

Objectiōs from the nature of sinne.But here it will be objected, that sin is such an accident, as cannot by the course of nature be communicated to posteritie.

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 then it should be created by God, but a meere of privation, the want of that which should be, and not any thing that should not be; as darknesse 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, onely light is absent, and such a manner of [Page 189]thing (or nothing rather) is sin said to be. And if it should be grāted, that it is somwhat more, namely, an evill qualitie, besides that then it must needs be crea­ted of God as good qualities are, it must needs be either in the soule or in the body, yea, in the soule and not in the body; for sin is a spirituall thing, if it be a­ny thing.

2. Not by the soule.Now if it be a qualitie of the soule, it cannot be conveyed to posteritie, for such habits and indowments of the minde, as are not engrafted into nature, but happen from without as this did, cannot be propagated, ac­cording to the Proverbe, Ex grammatico non nascitur gramma­ticus, but they are gotten by art and industry, and so they will grant that Adams 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 corporall and elementary quali­tie, [Page 190]besides that it cannot then be sinfull, it cannot descend to po­steritie neither, because it is not inherent in the principles of na­ture, but an externall accident which nature hath no sense of; for what is nature the worse for Adams taking the forbidden fruit? yea, what if he had cut off his owne armes, his children should not have bin 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 posteritie, for all children have not the sicknesses of their pa­rents, how much lesse their sins then, which are not naturall ei­ther to soule or body.

These things,Ans. I confesse, have a shew of truth, but I deny the power of it in them all for dis­proving originall sin, not doub­ting to make it appeare, that all these doe agree together to con­firme [Page 191]this onely way of sinnes propagation.

1. Privation of good.For first, let it be granted, that sin in regard of substance, is no­thing but a privation of good­nesse; then it will follow, that it cānot subsist without some sub­ject, which must also be good, because every substance is crea­ted by God;It is in a good sub­ject. so that evill cannot be but in a good subject.

Againe, being a privation, it can have no efficient cause,2. Hath no efficient cause. for to speake properly, it is no effect but a defect rather. And if evill can have no cause,3. It comes from a good God much lesse can it be caused by the chiefe 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 darknesse; which cannot pos­sibly be; for light alwayes in­lightens; and no darknesse can proceed from light; for though we reade, that God commanded light to shine out of darknesse, [Page 192]yet for darknesse to proceede from light is altogether impos­sible; and even so it may stand with the nature of God, to bring good out of evill, but not evill out of good.

4. There can be no evill 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 chiefes: contrary to the devillish con­ceits of the Manichees, of a good God, and an evill God.

5. It may be propaga­ted.Lastly, Though it be an acci­dent, yea, a privation, yet it is not a meere negation, & though it be but an accident, yet even an accident is his imperfection, and sometimes the accident of a sub­stance prevailes as much as the substance it selfe: so that though it be but a privation, yet it may [Page 193]have a being in nature:Malum est in rerum naturâ e­tiamsi per se nihil est else A­ristotle was much over-seene in making privation one of the principles of nature: and if that be so necessary in generation, why should we thinke this im­possible to be generated? and though it cannot hang in the ayre, 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 evill.

But if this will not satisfie, it is farther to be considered, that originall sin is not onely a pri­vation of goodnesse, but also a corrupt qualitie and inclination to evill, as appeares by the for­mer description, an [...] the proofe of it; and may farther be mani­fested by the punishment and consequents of the same. For a meere privation of happinesse were a sufficient punishment for a meere privation of goodnesse: but we know that Adam and all his posteritie, have not only lost [Page 194]Paradise, but gained a great deale of labour, paine, sorrow and mi­sery. Neither was the earth onely 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 fruitfull of evill,Gen. 3.17, 18. thornes, thistles, and the like. Teaching us that there is an evill qualitie in sin as well as a privation of goodnesse.

3. Seated in the Soule.Against this it is objected, that if it be an evill qualitie, it must cleave either to the soule, or to the body, or both. If to the soule, it cannot descend, because such endowments of the mind as are not ingrafted into nature, can­not be propagated, according to the proverbe, &c.

To which I answer,Ans. 1. first, that even those arts which are least naturall, are not altogether ex­cluded in generation, nay, expe­rience proves that children for the most part are like their pa­rents, [Page 195]even in such faculties as these, whether they be inclined to Husbandry, Horse-manship, Merchandise, Navigation, or the liberall sciences: howsoever they are often crossed in their inclinations.

Secondly,2. It is commonly seene, that children are like their parents also in the faculties of the minde, as in acutenesse of understanding, firmnesse of me­mory, soundnesse of judgement, and the like.

Thirdly,3. It is well knowne that the affections of the soule, which are yet neerer to the na­ture of sin, are very commonly cōmunicated to posteritie, whe­ther concupiscible or irascible, as covetousnesse, wrathfulnesse, mirth, sadnesse, feare, boldnesse, and the like: whence is that o­ther Proverbe, Partus ventrem sequitur.

Lastly,4. It is manifest, that sin cleaves to the will it selfe, which [Page 196]is the fountain of the affections. For as there are certaine naturall principles of knowledge, as of good and evill, which were at the first ingrafted into the un­derstanding: so there are cer­taine naturall 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 mans failing and Gods curse upon it, they are carried a contrary way, by meanes whereof we are now corrupt and sinfull. Now if sin cleaves thus to the will, whence these affections proceede, yea, pierceth into the most inward and purest parts of the soule, whence it spreads it self through the whole man; it must needs be propagated much better (or ra­ther) than the affections which are removed a degree farther from the soule, and how much more then, better than those ex­ternall acts, which are not natu­rall, [Page 197]but meere habits gotten by use and industry: which never­thelesse in regard of naturall apt­nesse unto them, may also after a sort be propagated unto poste­ritie.

4. Cleaving to the bo­dy.Yet is not sin so seated in the soule, 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 soule the body is infected, and by them both sin propagated.

Which may further appeare.

1 First, if we consider, that not the soule 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 sinfull not of it selfe, but as a part of the person of man.

2 Secondly, being a corrupt qua­litie of the body, though acci­dentall, and not ingrafted into [Page 198]nature at the first; yet why may it not be propagated as well as the gout & leprosie (whereunto sin is resembled in the Scripture) especially considering these are no lesse accidentall, unnaturall, yea, and contrary to created na­ture at the first, and are not now common to all mankinde as sin is.

Lastly, If it be granted, that nature does alwayes follow the first institution, notwithstanding externall accidents, yet this is such an externall accident as it is also internall: yea, farther I af­firme that sin is now no lesse in­grafted into our nature (I meane the whole nature of man,5. Ingrafted into na­ture it selfe. How sin is ingrafted into mans nature and propaga­ted with it. consi­sting of soule and body) than if the first, and yet without fault in God. Which that I may plainly manifest, and so cleare all in a word, I would know of the ad­versaries of this doctrine, whe­ther that wisdome and holinesse [Page 199]which was at first in Adam, was such as might and should have beene communicated to his po­steritie, if he had not sinned or no? If yes (as no reasonable man can deny it) then 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 ver­tues which were in Adam, were good qualities created by God, & ingrafted into him at his first creation: whereas our vices are neither such qualities,Obj. 2. nor so in­grafted 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 vertues were no more qualities created by God, than our vices are. For God did onely so recti­fie the will of Adam in his first [Page 220]creation, that it had a dispositi­on, and inclination to good, by the exercise whereof those ha­bits of the minde are in time gotten which wee call vertues: and contrarily, from the evill disposition of the will, proceeds those evill customes which wee 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 ingrafting 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 evill; so he gave him a free will to evill, though he were good. Neither was he at the first en­dued either with vertues or ha­bits, save onely that same habi­tu [...] inchoatus, which is called [...]; a disposition or inclination wherby he was carried to good,Adam had evill in power and goodnesse in act. yet not so strongly but he could as freely will evill also; whereby [Page 221]it came to passe, that he had e­vill in power as well as good­nesse in act. So that the seede and power of the one was in­grafted into his nature no lesse than the act of the other, even in the beginning: which power al­so we see soone 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 naturall to him as the other; and consequently as easie to be propagated. For however some conceive of it, for my part I see no reason to perswade me, that Adam was ever more incli­ned, or had more power to good than to evill; but that God made him, as Ecclesiasticus saith,Ecclus. 7.29. right, that is, as I understand it in e­quall 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 cōdition▪ in which he was created; so that it might [Page 222]appeare, it pleased God so to or­der the matter, that he fell from it, by so small an inticement as an apple. Now so farre forth as he had naturall power to sin by creation; so farre sin might be derived by propagation, all will confesse: and why then when Adam▪ through his owne folly, and Gods just wrath upon him for the same, had lost the former freedome together, and brought upon himselfe a necessitie of sin­ning; should not the corruption be propagated much more, be­ing so much more increased? To conclude, therfore 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 posteritie, now he is fallen; as well and as much as his good­nesse might & should have been if he had not fallen: yea so much more, by how much goodnesse more properly belongs to the [Page 223]nature of God, and evill 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 originall 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 soule, cannot justly be united to a sinfull body.

THe necessitie of the soules mediate propagation, will farther appeare, if wee consider the impossibilitie of the immedi­ate creation thereof, without in­justice in God in respect of Ori­ginall sin: seeing a soule new created, can neither be justly u­nited,It justly united. nor corrupted when it is united with the body; for tou­ching [Page 224]the former, first I would know, how it can agree with the goodnesse and justice of GOD, to put an innocent soule (as he createth it) before it hath sinned into such a condition, as where­in it shall he lyable straight my to eternall torments: yea, and perhaps presently damned for anothers fault?Obj. it will be said, that it is not lyable before faul­ty; for so soone as it is united to the body, it is guilty of Adams sin.Ans. 1. I answer, first it must be shewed how a soule 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 a­nothers fault Secondly,2. I must aske why then God makes such an union, as whereby it shall be both lyable and faulty?Obj. 2. If it be said, that it was the eternall de­cree of God,It was the decree of God. which neither nee­ded nor could be reversed for A­dams sin: and so the evill is not [Page 225]from God, but from the vertue, or rather vitiousnesse of the uni­on which Adam caused by his sin, whereby it cōmeth to passe that so soone as they are con­joyned, both are guilty, which is meerly accidentall in respect of God.

Ans. 1. It cannot be proved that it is.To this I answer. First that wee cannot thus hide our selves under Gods 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 sinfull through A­dams sin, yet this must be by some just meanes, which if it be by this course of propagation onely, 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 one­ly just and naturall way of sins conveyance, for which cause God would have all men to pro­ceed [Page 226]from one: and not that o­ther, which for ought yet said, seemeth to be an unjust course of mans devising.

And as it cannot be proved that it is,Ans. 2. It may be proved that it is not. so it is easie to prove that it is not Gods decree, be­cause it is contrary to his word. For if the soule be created good, it must needs be unwilling to en­ter into this sinfull 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 inforced to sin. God cannot justly force it into the body, nor punish it for doing that which himselfe cau­sed. Now God forbid that wee should once imagine such a thought of him.Gen. 18.25 Shall not the Judge of all the world doe righte­ously? Zeph. 3.5. Can Justice it selfe deale unjustly? No verily: in equi­tie it selfe there can be no ini­quitie.

[Page 227] Againe,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 soule to be thus united▪ and set into such a condition, is a punishment of A­dams sin. Now since Gods ju­stice & very nature proclaimes, that the innocent child shall not be punished for the fathers of­fence: how can a good soule be punished in so high a degree for the sin of another who was not the father of it, no nor of the same kinde (for Adam was not a soule but a man) without inju­stice, yea cruelty in God? how justly might such a poore soule complaine of God in this case, to be so farre from mercy as to be unjust? and how justly may the unjust Anabaptists cry out of us as they doe, that we make God the Author of sin? The Lord hath taughtus in his word, that he abhorres such courses: for my part therefore I am so [Page 228]farre from beleeving this doc­trine, that I quake to thinke of it.

CHAP. XVIII. That a soule newly created by God, cannot be infected with Originall sinne.

2. Not just­ly corrup­ted.AS the soule 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 soule, 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 soule: and if it could corrupt the soule, yet not with originall sin.1. Not by [...]he body. That the body alone can­not be corrupt and sinfull, may easily appeare by many reasons.

[Page 229] 1. It cannot be corruptFirst, even the thing it selfe de­clares that the simple substance of the body, is no more capable of vertue or vice than a stone; for sin can be onely in a subject that hath power to understand, will, and move of it selfe: which the body of it selfe cannot doe, but onely by reason of the rea­sonable soule. So that the body cannot make the soule, but it is the soule that makes the body sinfull;Rom. 6.13. and so the Apostle also implyeth, that our members are the soules instruments of sinne. Although therefore the body may be cholericke, melancholy, &c. all the world know, that ele­mentary qualities, humors, and affections, are not of themselves sinfull, but naturally good, and so rather dispose to good than to evill.

Againe,2 The body hath no­thing in it of spirituall nature, but onely that which is bodily; and therefore cannot have sin,3 [Page 230]which is of spirituall nature: it being a spirituall evill, even as obedience to God is a spirituall good.

4 Moreover, if neither plants having life, nor bruites having both life & sense, cannot be said to be sinfull, because they want reason; much lesse can the bo­dy, the senslesse and livelesse bo­dy of man be infected with sin without the soule.

5 Lastly, That which the body hath not first, with that it can­not infect the soule in being uni­ted with it, but the body hath not first in it ignorance, unbe­liefe, &c. in which the soules tainture originally consisteth; and therefore cannot infect the soule thereby in being united with it, and consequently not with originall sin neither.

2. It cannot corrupt the soule.But let it be granted, contrary to all reason and truth, that the body is first infected with origi­nall sin; can the body fasten the [Page 231]same upon the soule? Nothing lesse.

1 And not onely because it is a spirit, and bodies can work one­ly corporally, according to their natures, so as the impuritie of the body can neither affect nor infect the purest spirituall soule: but also because the soule is the first mover, and commander of all actions in the body.

2 Now if mens soules be created sound and sincere, free from the contagion of sin; every way ab­solute, as were the soules of our first parents, and so joyned unto their bodies: why doe they not by vertue of that divine nature, restore the ruine of that building which was defiled by the sin of Adam? why doe they not clense and cleanse and purge the blots and filth of the body? seeing they doe sit as Judges in the bo­dy, and rule and guide it accor­ding to their owne pleasure.

If it be said that sin sometimesObj. [Page 232]begins in the body, as Davids eye when he saw Bathsheba bathing of her selfe; it is easily answered. For,Ans. 1. first, the eye as a bodily part seeth not, but the soule by the eye; Oculus non videt, sed ani­ma per oculum.

2 Secondly, His sin was not at all in seeing her, but in lusting after her in his heart & soule, w^ch lust conceiving,I am. 1.14 by consent, brought forth death in act: and there­fore in his confession he ascends by this streame to the originall fountaine,Psal. 51.5. namely, that originall sin wherein he was conceived. Wherefore if the soule be crea­ted good, and so infused into the body, there is more reason that it should sanctifie the body, than that the body should corrupt it: and according to this doctrine, it may much better be maintai­ned that all men have originall righteousnesse, because the soule comes from God, than that we have originall sin, because the [Page 233]body comes from Adam.

3. It cannot corrupt it with ori­ginall sin.But let this also be granted, that the soule is corrupted by yeelding obedience to the body, as Adam did to Eve, yet we can­not have originall sin ever the more for this, for the souls yeel­ding obedience to the body, and following the sinfull motions thereof (if any such there be) is actuall sin: and not that origi­nall corruption wherewith the whole man is infected by des­cending from the loynes of A­dam, in whom as the Apostle saith, We all sinned, Rom. 5.12. and which onely was before proved to be originall sinne. Not actually to commit something against the will of God is originall sin: but that in-bred home-bred brea­thing of sin which is the spawne of all sin; which if it be seated in the body, how it can corrupt that new created pure soule, without any provocation or in­ticement to sin, cannot possibly [Page 234]be imagined. Againe, if Origi­nall sin most properly consisteth in ignorance of minde, averse­nesse of will, and perversenesse of affections, none of which can be immediately in the body: how can it give these things to the soule? and that originall sin consists mainly in these, besides the testimony of Scripture, and all orthodox Writers, it is ma­nifest in reason; for that from which actuall sin commeth, in that doth originall sin consist; now all actuall sin springs from ignorance, unbeliefe, &c. and therefore therein especially ori­ginall sin must needs consist. To conclude, seeing the body alone cannot possibly have originall sin, nor give that which it hath not; Originall sin cannot possi­bly come by the body.

2. Not by the soule.Neither can it proceed from the soule, if it be created good, but it will be said it may; for in the instant of creation God de­priveth 1 [Page 235]it of supernaturall gifts for Adams sin; 2 which though it putteth not evill into the soule, yet evill necessarily followeth; and hence is originall sin.3 But neither can I see how this can stand; for first if God deprives it so soone as it is made, it should be not onely absurd, but a vaine worke, to doe and straight way to undoe againe. Secondly, It should be unjust neverthelesse; for he had beene as good never to have given it goodnesse, as presently to take it away againe. Thirdly, Seeing they say it is created in infusing and infused in creating: they must needs grant that he creates it without supernaturall gifts, (unlesse it be infused with them, w^ch is worse) and so they cannot say, if is de­prived of that which it never had. Fourthly, I answer,4 that if God createth it without those gifts which are supernaturall to us, he creates it evill; for so are [Page 236]we without supernaturall gifts, and a man may as well imagine a God without goodnesse, as a good soule without such gifts. Fifthly,5 However it be for crea­tion or privation, naturall or su­pernaturall goodnesse: if God so makes it, as it must needs be evill (as they say) he makes it evill; for what is it to make an evill one, if not to make one that can­not be good? yea, that is the greatest evill: for to be necessa­rily evill, is not onely nought, but worst of all.6 Sixthly, This were unjustly to punish the in­nocent for the guilty, as wee heard before. Lastly, though all this might justly be,7 yet wee are never the neerer to originall sin. For this is not our sinning in A­dam, but our being made sinfull for Adam. So that if the soule be created good, we cannot possi­bly be thereby infected with ori­ginall sin.

8 In the last place therefore it [Page 237]will be said, that it comes nei­ther by the soule 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 physicall touching, but because in the union we become Adams sonnes (he receiving and loosing both for himselfe 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, flyes to this as the last refuge; yet with reverence to so wor­thy an instrument, I must seeke for better satisfaction. True it is that originall sin is neither pud­dle nor stench, yet it is a spiritu­all Leprosie, hereditarily descen­ding from Adam to all his natu­rall posteritie, and infecteth the whole man, both body & soule, with all the parts and powers of both: And I would know how, if the soule be pure, and the bo­dy sinfull, the infant at first, is [Page 238]halfe holy and halfe corrupt, which is absurd, and if both be cleane at the first, can the uni­ting of them make both un­cleane? can two goods (as both are confessed apart) make one e­vill?2. Goods cannot make one evill. nay, rather they are so much the better, being conjoyned, ac­cording to that common saying, Vis unita fortior: neither will it serve the turne to say it is impu­ted, and so we are reputed cor­rupt, for so it can be onely, if it be imputed onely in this.2. Imputati­on insuffi­cient. Indeed Christs righteousnesse 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; 1 it being lawfull to shew kindnes without cause,2 but not to inflict punishment, as afterwards we shall see; 3 besides, it cannot be justly imputed nei­ther, unlesse the whole man be propagated; as was before, and shall be againe more fully pro­ved. [Page 239]But we are not onely guil­ty of his sin,4 but by him really corrupt our selves. For is origi­nall sin onely imputed corrupti­on? no, it is a reall infection al­so: and that is it whose originall I enquire for, which if it be nei­ther from the soule nor from the body, nor the union of both, it is not at all this way: but see­ing it is certaine, both by Scrip­ture & experience, that we have both: certaine it is also, that we have our whole corrupt nature, both soule and body from A­dam.

CHAPTER XIX. That Originall sinne cannot passe but by propagation.

FRom the impossibility of the soules creation, wee proceed now to the necessitie of the pro­pagation thereof in respect of o­riginall sin: the former being not [Page 240]more contrary to the nature of God, then this is agreeable to the course of nature:

1 For, first, as by Gods ordina­tion, originall sin passeth from one to all mankinde, so by pro­pagation all mankinde proceeds out of one.

2 Secondly, As originall sin o­verspreads the whole man both soule and body; so according to the course of nature, the whole man both soule and body is pro­pagated.

3 Thirdly, As originall sin is seated chiefly in the soule, ac­cording to the Scriptures: so the soul especially is propagated ac­cording to the course of nature.

Wherefore that the truth of the one may appeare in Scrip­tures as well as the other is ma­nifest in nature,1 I will prove first that Originall sin cannot passe but by propagation:2 secondly, that it cannot be propagated un­lesse the whole man be.

[Page 241] 1. The ne­cessitie of proving this.The first, that originall sin can no way justly descend to us, but by propagation: being the chie­fest must chiefly 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 wee may justly be pu­nished for Adams sin, though we had never beene borne of him; even as when one brother spends the estate which he received for himselfe and all the rest. And so indeed all must hold that hold the immediate creation of the soule, else there can be no origi­nall sin: which course (being as I thinke) unequall, is as far from God as God is from injustice.

1. The scrip­tures teach this and none o­thers. [...].First therefore this may ap­peare by the cleare 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 onelyRom. 5.12. [Page 242]that Adam was then all men, that is, the stocke and roote 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 posteritie, because they were in him. For if the death threatned to him for sin, passed upon all, because all were in him; it is plaine, that the sin for which that death was threatned, 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 wee 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 wee are come out of him. So that Adams sin is ours by im­putation, and by propagation: but by imputation onely, be­cause [Page 243]by propagation: yea so by this that▪ the other may well loose the name. For it is not the imputing of anothers sin to us which was not ours: but by pro­pagation that is made ours na­turally, which was before po­tentially onely. And thus by the order of nature (which is the rule we must goe by in this) his sin is as truly ours, we being po­tentially in him, as his owne.

The An­tithesis sheweth there can be no o­ther.This also farther appeareth by the Antithesis which the Scrip­ture maketh betweene 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 mans disobedience many were made sin­ners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5.19. And a­gaine, If one dyed for all; 2 Cor. 5.14. then are all dead. Whence it appeareth that as Adam was the stocke of mankinde, in whom all men were by nature; so was Christ [Page 244]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 eternitie 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 er­rour.Mark this difference or rather similitude betweene grace and nature. For they are deceived that thinke Adams sin to be imputed as Christs righteousnesse: 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 kindnesse must bee shewed without cause, the other a work of justice, wherein punishment ought not to be inflicted but up­on [Page 245]due defect. So that if we will here make a true Antithesis, we must say, that as in Christ wee fulfilled the Law, suffered death, and are now in the seate of sal­vation, because we are in him as members of his body by grace: so in Adam wee did eate 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 Adams sin shall be as truely ours by nature, as Christs righteousnes is by grace▪ For as Christ derives his righte­ousnesse to his childrē by grace, so Adam communicates his sin to his children by nature. The meanes whereby Christ doth it is by spirituall regeneration: Adam by naturall generation. Now therefore I conclude, that as Christs righteousnesse can be no way imputed unto us, but by meanes of regeneration, where­by wee are ingrafted into him, [Page 246]and made members of his body by the ordinance of grace: so A­dams 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 Iustice required it.Againe, it is contrary to Gods law of justice, that one should be punished for anothers fault, yea, even innocent children for their wicked parents, much more ma­ny thrifty brethren for one pro­digall. Hence it was that the Lord abhorred that wicked pro­verbe of the Israelites;Ezek. 18.2, 3, 4 The fa­thers have eaten sowre grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge; as I live saith the Lord, yee shall not use this proverbe, &c. the soule that sinneth it shall dye. And againe, he saith,Vers. 20. The son shall not beare the iniquitie of the father, neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne; the righteousnesse of the righ­teous shall be upon him, and the wic­kednesse of the wicked shall be upon [Page 247]himselfe. True it is indeed the Lord will visit the sins of the pa­rents upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation: but himselfe saith, it is of them that hate him. Exod. 20.5 And not simply for their fathers sins, but for their owne: 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 lesse con­trary to justice than to the Lords own practise;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 onely the Scriptures but also daily experience yeeld innume­rable examples: and perhaps the more to confute this errour. On the other side, what can be more [Page 248]just and naturall 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 evill, so must the fruit be:Rom. 11.16 and divinitie allowes that if the roote be holy, so should the branches be. And hence God is just in making this order, might easily be cleared, but neede not here to be disputed.

Christs righteous­nes proves it.Lastly, The originall righte­ousnesse of Christs humane na­ture plainly proves it; for he was freed from this corruptiō by his extraordinary generation: and why should hee herein differ from us to free him from sinne, if we be not hereby sinfull? A­gaine, if Adams sin be imputed unto us simply for that wee are men, as Adam was (because whatsoever he received or lost, was for all mankinde as well as for himselfe;) it cannot be avoi­ded but it must be imputed to Christ so far forth as he is man, [Page 249]as well as unto us. But God for­bid that we shuld say, Christ was sinfull. Woe were us if this were true. And yet true it must needs be, if the being man will make us sinfull; for that his sin is to be imputed to all men: If, I say, the meere being man, without be­ing meere man will doe 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 onely free, but sanctified from the womb, and holy from his first conception, as presently wee shall see.

CHAP. XX. That Originall sin cannot be pro­pagated, unlesse the whole man be.

We sinned in Adam onely as we were in him.IT being evident that originall sin cannot passe, but by pro­pagation. I proceed now to prove that it cannot be propa­gated, unlesse the whole man be; and this will easily follow upon the former grounds; for as we sinned in Adam, onely as wee were in him; so we are sin­full from him, onely as wee 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 origi­nall sin from him. For it is im­possible wee should be in him, and sin in him, in that respect wherein we neither were in him nor could sin in him, that i [...], [Page 251]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 bo­dyes onely, then they onely and not wee sinned in him: yea, e­ven they did not sin in him, for bodyes simply considered, can­not sin, as wee heard before: and therefore to say wee sinned in our bodyes onely, is as much as to say, we did not sin at all. Besides,The whol man is the subject of sin. it is manifest that nei­ther the body nor the soule 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 sinfull.Obj. And why else is the law given to the whole man? and [Page 252]the whole man rewarded or pu­nished,Ans. according to his vert­uous, or vitious manner of living? If any object,Obj. 2. that the soule cannot be punished alone after death:Ans. 2. I answer, Neither is it simply as a soule, but as the soule of a wicked man. If they reply, that so our soules sinned in A­dam, not as our soules, but as the soules of-men. I answer (nay, they must answer themselves) that according to their doctrine, the soule never was before, and so had no being in nature, no not potentially: much lesse was it the soule 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 soule and body: and that not by I wot not what imaginary imputation, but really and truly, as I was po­tentially in him by the law of nature: it necessarily followeth [Page 253]that I was naturally and really in him, in my whole person, both soule 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 wee. For what is mortall man, that he should contradict the holy Ghost; or seeke a new way when God hath chalked out the old? Wherefore I con­clude, that as none can partake of Christs righteousnesse, un­lesse the whole man be regene­rated and borne againe, by and from his grace,Ioh. 3.3. so none can par­take of Adams sin, unlesse the whole person be generated, by and from his nature.

CHAP. XXI. That the whole man cannot be pro­pagated, unlesse the soule be.

1. The whol cannot be without the essen­tiall parts.IN the last place it remaines to prove, that if the whole man doe; the soule 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 beleeve, that the whole man may be said to be in Adam, though the soule comes from God. I deny not but it may be said, but I cannot see how it can be said truely. For what can be more false and absurd, than to say the whole was in Adam, but not the essen­tiall 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 [Page 255]or rationally. But what is their reason? man gives the subsi­stence to the person, and the soule 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 onely to provide, I know not what, a bo­dy (it should be) without a form; which at the most is but the least part, and therfore not the whole nor halfe.

2. The con­junction if it put them in one case. cannot yet bring them from one place.But they say, man conjoynes both natures together, whereby it doth subsist by it selfe as a per­son. But neither is this true, for the conjunction is (they say) no body knows how long after cō ­ception; and therefore not man but the woman must doe it a­lone. And yet hot shee neither, for they say, God doth create it in the infusion and infuse it in the creating. But say that God gave the soule to the parents, [Page 256]and they did unite them, would it follow that the conjunction of both, makes both to come from Adam? Why doe 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 lesse the greater; & that the baser should attend the more noble, rather than the most noble to waite on the baser: 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 soule doth. The vanitie of this reason (that the whole man comes from Adam, because the body doth) may appeare by the like. If a lame man should have a woodden leg joyned to his bo­dy,Simile. might it be said his whole body grew in the wood, because his leg did? nothing lesse. And yet is not the woodden leg so [Page 257]much inferiour to the body, as the body is to the soule. Any childe therefore may take away these stilts from such a lame rea­son as this is.

3. It could not be in Adams 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 Adams 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 A­dams time, for the whole man had not being in nature (nor not potentially in respect of the soule) many hundred yeares af­ter; neither could it be in our time, for Adam was dead like­wise many thousand yeares be­fore we had any being, especial­ly in respect of the better part of the soule: and so consequently never was, contrary to those Scriptures, and the doctrine of originall sin. It must needs be [Page 258]therefore that the whole man, as well soule body, forme as matter, even the whole com­pound was potentially in Adam (as the whole tree in the roote or seede, many graines of wheat in one) and so being naturally propagated from him, doth par­take of his nature both in soule and body.

Else marke what absurdities will farther follow.Absurdi­ties. That wee were in Adam in that wherein we were not:1. 2. we sinned without that without which wee 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 soules.5. Then also Adam shall be still full of soules, which yet he never had:6. and (that I may not be endlesse in that which is needles) who can abide a speech so contrary to it selfe, the whole was in Adam, but not that which is the whole? All which are ra­ther [Page 259]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 questiōn.HAving thus shewed out of the Scriptures the necessity of the souls propagation, by rea­son of originall sin; I proceede 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 onely excepted: and it is taken for gran­ted, that his soule was created of nothing: this is used not onely as one of the chiefe weapons to maintaine 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. [Page 260]It is very necessary therfore ful­ly to cleare this point, and to shew 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 soule of our Saviour was not immediately created of nothing, may appeare; first, be­cause it is more than is in the Scripture.1. The holy Ghost in the description of Christs incar­nation, saith nothing of any such thing, no notwithstanding it is thought to be such a notable, yea, such a necessary way to cleare 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 reasō is it,3. that when the foure Evangelists were so carefull, to set forth every mate­riall circumstance (touching his [Page 261]birth, life, death, &c.) so as that which is wanting in one, is sup­plied by another; yet in this a­lone, which is the chiefe 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 soule was created of nothing: and shall wee then father our imaginations upon the Scrip­ture? yea, why or how dare man speake where the holy Ghost is silent? know,Deut. 14.2 that cur­sed is he that addeth ought to the word of God?

Scriptures against it.But not onely doe the Scrip­tures not speake it, but they plainly affirme the contrary: as where it saith,Gen. 3.15. The seed of the wo­man shall breake the Serpents head: and in thy seede shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. & 22.18. Where by [Page 262] seede is meant the whole nature of man which Christ tooke: and how can it be denied then, but his soule as well as his body was their seede. Againe, Christ was made of the seede of David ac­cording to the flesh, Rom. 1.3. that is, his whole humanity; for it is there opposed to his divinitie As also where it is said, God raised up Christ, Act. 2.30. of the fruit of his loynes 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 soule and body.

3. Then A­dams sin must be imputed to him.Againe, If his and all soules be immediately created by God, then the imputation of Adams 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 Adams sin be imputed unto all men, eo nomine, even because they are men, it cannot be avoided, but it must [Page 263]light upon him also, so far forth as he is man. And thus they must needs fall into that which they so much feare; the making of Christs humane nature sin­full: so slippery is it to walke out of the right way, though never so warily.

4. His soule and body conceived together.This appeareth also in that his soule and body were concei­ved together both at once: and not after the perfecting of the vegetative and sensitive soules; as they say it is with us. For this is generally confessed, because the divine nature is immediate­ly united to the soule, and by the soule to the body: so that unlesse we should say, that his body did subsist by it selfe 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 Embrio) which no man. I be­leeve, is so brutish to affirme: it must of necessitie be granted [Page 264](so forcible is the truth) that however it is with us, his soule 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 soules and bodyes also conceived together as his was. And if it be graunted that all souls are present at the first con­ception; there will be small rea­son to thinke they come by im­mediate creation.

5. His mira­culous cō ­ception.Besides, it is manifest from the manner of his conception; for if his soule had come immedi­ately from God, he might have beene 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 soules doe come immediately from God, Originall sin cannot possibly come by propagation: [Page 265]but either because God bereaves it of supernaturall gifts, whereby it becomes evill; or by the uni­on with the body at the instant whereof it is guilty of Adams sin, because the soule of man. But seeing Christs soule so soone as it was, was together with the body one person with the eter­nall word: he must needs be ex­empted from the common con­dition of men, and so even (by their doctrine) neither could be bereaved of those gifts; nor guil­ty of Adams sin, being more than a man. Neither can it be said,Generati­on not e­vill. that there is evill in the act of generation, for that is naturally good;1. and the soule (they say) is not then present:2. and the bo­dy alone is not capable of sin: no though the soule were pre­sent, if (as they say) man propa­gate the body onely. Where­fore if his soule had been imme­diatly created by God, he might well have bin propagated with­out [Page 266]sin. But the assumption that this could not be, is no lesse ap­parent, if for no more but this; that if it could, no question it should. For God and nature doe nothing in vaine; and wee can­not deny the truth of that say­ing, Frustra fit per plura quod fie­ri potest per pauciora. So that ei­ther this extraordinary worke of the holy Ghost was in vaine, or else Christs soule was not im­mediately created.

6. The con­fession of the adver­saries.Lastly, For the confirmation hereof, I will only adde one rea­son more, taken from the rea­soning of the Adversaries unto this Doctrine, who therefore prove the holy Ghost not to be Christs father (though he over­shadowed the Virgin) because the matter of his humanitie was not from the holy Ghost, but from the Virgin. From whence I might conclude;

1 First, That Christs soule comes not immediately from God; for [Page 267]then the greatest part of his hu­manitie should have beene from the holy Ghost: because all ex­ternall workes of God are com­mon to each person in Trinitie.

Secondly,2. That his soule was taken from the Virgin, for they say his humanitie was: whereof I am sure the soule is the princi­pall part: yea, that without w^ch it cannot be humanitie.

But that which I doe especi­ally conclude from hence is, that if the holy Ghost cannot be Christs father, because he gave not the matter of his humanitie, Christ cannot be the son of A­dam nor David according to the promise: no nor the son of man (and so no Saviour) unlesse he receive the matter of his huma­nitie (whereof the soule is the chiefe part) from them. And herein indeed they speake the truth, for it is impossible to be a naturall father to that whereun­to we give not the whole mat­ter, [Page 268]yea and forme too: as wee shall see when wee 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 Christs whole humanitie, both soule and body, was traduced from Adam: that is, deduced out of his substance, though not af­ter the common manner, but se­perated from the person of the Virgin onely by the miraculous worke of the holy Ghost, which useth to be takē from both sexes in ordinary generation. And though a soule cannot by the power of nature be produced of one soule, no more than a body: yet it being performed by super­naturall power, it is a true soule no lesse than the body is a true body; and both together makes a true man, no lesse than Eve was a true woman (whom A­dam called bone of his bone, Gen. 2.23. and flesh of his flesh, even his other [Page 269]selfe-woman) although shee was taken onely out of man. For that which the Apostle spake in a spirituall sense, is true also lit­terally, that Wee 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 onely: as well as Eve, who was made one­ly of a man: yea, much more be­cause she was immediatly made perfect at the first: and he con­ceived of seede, formed, nouri­shed, and brought forth by de­grees: like unto us in all things excepting onely 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 correspōdency, yea, double con­cordancy in the four-fold produ­ction of mankinde, to wit, in A­dam and us▪ Eve and Christ: im­mediately and mediately: after this manner.

A double harmony in the four-fold productiō of man­kinde. Adam made immediately with­out man or woman.

Other men mediately, both of man and woman.

Eve partly both waies, of man and woman.

Christ also both wayes, of no man but woman.

Thus by the same authoritie that they would prove our soules created of nothing,Conclusi­on. be­cause Christs 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 confirme this, and none of all for, but a­gainst that.

CHAP. XXIII. That Christs humanitie was never clensed from sinne.

The pu­ritie of Christs Incarna­tion.COncerning the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, it is cōmonly said, [Page 271]that the holy Ghost did sanctifie a part of the Virgins 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 onely, but of her whole person aswell soule as bo­dy, whereof his humanitie was formed: 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 humanitie both soule and body was taken from the substance of the Virgin: and the latter, how thus it could be free from sin, wee are now to shew. For the ground whereof, I will first prove,1. that it was not clean­sed from sin,2. and then shew how he could be incarnate without [Page 272]sin. The former I will prove, first,1. because it could not be sin­full; and secondly,2. if it had beene sinfull, it could never have beene sanctified.

That Christs humanitie was not sinfull.The first, that that part of the Virgins substance which was as­sumed by the divine nature, was never sinfull, may appeare;

1 First, Because all substances, as they are meere substances, were created by God exceeding good, & have their dependance on him: yea, even the substance of the devils themselves.

2 Secondly, Meere substāce can­not possibly be capable of sinne, because that cannot be without a personall subsistence, know­ledge and will to encline and move it selfe to good or evill: which meere substance simply considered cannot doe, whether it be of the soule or body.

3 Thirdly, Sin is not essentiall to the nature of man, but onely an accident or evill qualitie, [Page 273]cleaving to the person of him in whom it is, and so cannot pro­perly be said to the substance of mans nature.

4 Fourthly, Even evill affections and actions themselves (though they be so called) are not simply sinfull, 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 sinfull. Now if those be not, much lesse can the bare sub­stance of man be sinfull: but one­ly the man whose substance it is.

5 Fifthly, If every part of mans substance should be sinfull, then it followes that the haires upon our heads are even infected with it, and much more such abor­tives as perish before the soules infusion: and consequently must all rise at the day of Judgement againe to suffer (without Christs sarisfactiō) infinite punishments. [Page 274]None therefore is to be accoun­ted sinfull, but onely that which necessarily serves to make up the perfect person of a sinner: and so much, so, is sinfull, and must and shall be punished in it selfe, or Christ.

6 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 onely persons can be sinfull.

7 Seventhly, It is manifest it could have no actuall sin, and originall sin is not of that nature (as was before shewed) that it cannot come to us neither by the soule nor body, nor union of both, if it be created: and by propagation onely; if it be pro­pagated; for which cause Christ onely was freed from the ordi­nary course of propagation.

[Page 275] 8 Lastly, If meere substances be sinfull, it cannot be shifted but Christ was infected with origi­nall sin; for his substance was in Adam, in as much as he was his sonne, and so by this doc­trine must needs be sinfull.This doc­trine not so well cleared of old. But this seemes to be graunted by Divines, and therefore they say, that the holy Ghost did in the same moment that it was assu­med, cleanse that masse where­of his body was made from sin: and so it was sanctified from the first conception in the Virgins wombe. Whereof we give this reason, that it became not the eternall sonne of God personal­ly to assume unto himselfe a na­ture, stained, defiled, and pollu­ted with sin. And farther they say, that indeed Mary was a sin­ner, but the masse 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 graunted, [Page 276]that the substāce wherof Christs humanitie was made, was sin­full before it was assumed. This point not being so well cleared, hath much troubled the Church in former ages: being assailed with divers dangerous errours, why else did the Marcionites and Manichees hold that Christ had an incorporeall or heavenly body; w^ch was not takē from the Virgin, but only passed through her? and what else caused Apolli­narius to hold; that Christ had no humane soule, but only a bo­dy which was insould with the deity, but to free him from sin?

2. If it had been sin­full, it could ne­ver have been sanc­tified.That we may therefore fully cleare this truth from all such phantasticall opinions; I deny that it can be truly and properly said that Christs humanitie was ever sinfull. And not onely for the former reasons, but because if it had beene sinfull, it could never have beene sanctifièd; the Sonne of God could never have [Page 277]beene incarnate, nor any man ever saved. For who should have purged away that sin? the holy Ghost? nay; there is one onely Mediatour between God and man, the man Christ Jesus: 1 Tim. 2.5. and it is through his blood that wee have re­demption, Eph. 1.7. even the forgivenesse of sinnes: Col. 1.14.20. and it is the blood of his crosse, that reconcileth all things. 1 Pet. 1.2. And againe,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 bloud of Christ onely cleanseth from sin. Yea, but the holy Ghost also sanctifies. It is true,Obj. Mat. 3.11. Ioh. 3.5. Rom. 8.14 the holy Ghost doth now sanctifie the e­lect, purg out sin, & infuse grace: but all by vertue of Christs re­demption. For if he had not first (I meane in the order of nature) takē away the guilt by his bloud no man could have been sancti­fied by the Spirit. Now this he [Page 278]could not doe by his own huma­nitie, for it was impossible that he shuld purge sin, by that blood which he had not: & therfore if it had been necessary, that Christ should have takē away the guilt & corruption of his own nature, (w^ch could not be but by the same nature taken) before he tooke it; it had been impossible, that ever Christ could have bin incarnate. Yea, but God is omnipotent. True,Obj. 2. but his omnipotency can­not work cōtradictions, & such is this: we must take heed there­fore how we hold this, lest at un­awares we shut out Christ from being a Saviour, and our selves and all other from salvation by him. Now then if his substance was never sinfull, the worke of the holy Ghost herein was not to cleanse it from sin, but to sepe­rate that w^ch was not sinfull in it selfe, from a sinfull creature, that so being free, it might be assured by the divine nature, & subsist in the person of the same.

CHAPTER XXIV. How Christs Incarnation was free from corruption?

How Christ was free from sin.THis ground being laid, wee have a faire way opened for the freeing of our Saviour Christ from sin in every respect, al­though his soule and body came from Adam as well as ours: which we shall more fully con­ceive by shewing how it was,1. How free. and why it was so.1. His per­son free. For the first, seeing neither the substance of soule or body, can be sinfull, as it is substance, but as both toge­ther are a person; for as much as Christs soule & 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 huma­nitie free. nor could sin in Adam, yet see­ing his humanitie was in him, [Page 280]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 humanitie without the divi­nitie 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 originall 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 humanitie free also. If it be fur­ther said, that though he be not sinfull as Christ, nor yet as ha­ving the meer substance of man: yet he must needs be sinfull as his substance was belonging to the person of corrupt Adam, in whom it was, and afterwards to the sinfull Virgin; that cannot be neither. For though it were sinfull as a part of their persons, yet as it was so it was none of [Page 281]his. Christ never assumed the person of the Virgin (for one person cānot be another though sin were not) but he tooke her nature or substance only, which because it was good in it selfe, though sinfull as hers, the holy Ghost did seperate it (by an un­usuall course) from belonging to her person (and so being by it selfe it was sinlesse) and then it was instantly assumed by the e­ternall 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 w^th supernaturall gifts, and exalted above all men and Angels. And thus also was his substance sinlesse, although it was the substance of the sinfull Virgin. And to conclude,Ioh. 1.29. 1 Pet. 1.19. thus is he the immaculate Lambe that taketh away the sinnes 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 [Page 282]conception. For it neither might nor could be performed after the manner of mans sinfull propa­gation.1. It could not be by man. Because if man had mi­nistred the matter of his huma­nitie after the ordinary way, it should have been sinfull in part: that is, as man gave it to be a part of Christs person, or indea­voured 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 soule were immediatly created, were so lit­tle, as there could be no origi­nall sin, as we heard before.) So that by propagation the huma­nity of Christ which is the whol person, so farre as man could in this cause have effected, should have beene sinfull. And though not meerely as humanitie, yet [Page 283]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 su­pernaturall 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 indue mens soules with supernaturall gifts: & therfore most of all in the in­carnation of our Saviour Christ, which was absolutely the most holy of all GODS externall workes.

And this (as I am undoubted­ly perswaded) is the true doc­trine [Page 284]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 onely excepted: made of the same substance both for soule and body, and therefore true man; and yet not sinfull. He was in Adam in respect of his humanitie as well as we: and yet sinned not in him as we did. In the consideratiō of all which, we may well say with the Apo­stle, Without controversie, 1 Tim. 2.16. great is the mystery of godlinesse.

Why this truth hath beene so long ob­scured.Thus I hope, I have suffici­ently manifested, both by Scrip­ture and reasons drawne from them, that soules are not imme­diately created of God of no­thing, but all mediately propa­gated from Adam: yea, Christs 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 [Page 285]uncertainties, concerning the soules originall, but clearely 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 beene long obscured, and both ac­counted doubtfull, and almost curious, because difficult to be knowne.

CHAP. XXV. Naturall reasons, proving the soules propagation.

The na­ture and validitie of naturall reasons.HItherto wee have proved the soules propagation; by testimonies and reasons drawne out of the Scripture: and now wee are to proceed to naturall reasons, which in worth and au­thoritie are to be regarded next the former: they being the word of God wrought, as the other is [Page 286]his written word: the one we call the voice of nature, the o­ther the word of grace: the one mediatly manifested in the crea­tures, the other immediately re­vealed by himselfe. For if na­ture be (as is no lesse commonly than truly said, ordinaria dei po­tentia) the ordinary power of God, as miraculous workes 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 chiefly concerneth nature, so the resolution thereof ought chiefly 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 natures testimony were in this of sufficient credit alone. And if we will hearken to nature, I doubt not to make [Page 287]it appeare, that there is nothing more manifest in nature, than this mediate manner of the souls propagation: and when as well nature as divinite concludes for it, I see not with what reason it can be gainsaid.

1. Reason from the nature of reason.The first naturall reason which I will produce, shall be from the nature of reason it selfe: which teacheth not to beleeve any thing for which wee have no reason, Scripture, nor experi­ence. Some things our senses teach us to beleeve, as the ver­tues of the Loadstone, for w^ch 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 conteines the parts, which we would beleeve without Scriptures or experi­ence, onely by reason. And some things wee receive from Scrip­ture, as the Trinitie in the Uni­tie, which cannot appeare either by sense or reason, but onely by [Page 288]faith.2. But none of these can ma­nifest the soules 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 soule newly created since the first in the beginning? is it likely that God should continually do such wonderfull workes, which the Scripture never spake of, and whereof there can no example be given? yea, is it not contra­ry to all sense and reason, that God should worke a perpetuall miracle, and that the most om­nipotent worke that can be, and yet this onely among all the workes of God should be omit­ted in the Scripture? If there were such a thing as this, wee should neede none other Argu­ments to confute all the Atheists and Epicures in the world: this therfore of all other should have beene revealed, if it had beene so.

[Page 289] 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 beleeve it. Neither is it unreasonable one­ly, but as it seemeth to me a most unnaturall opinion: cleane contrary to the whole order of nature, and end of all GODS extraordinary workes. For al­though the supreame goodnesse of GOD would not content it selfe 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 chiefly manife­sted in the vertues which are es­sentiall to himselfe onely, and the end of all his workes is to manifest himselfe, which as it is the greatest good, is this greatest glory: he therefore could not without disparagement to his own excellency, worke alwayes immediately in the matters of his creatures, as in creating new substances of nothing, but one­ly [Page 290]in bringing to an higher per­fection, by qualifying them with his owne essentiall vertues, so farre 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 & unnaturall too, to disturbe the order of all Gods workes in exempting man one­ly? Nay, then let nature goe to wracke, and every thing be done miraculously, for the whole or­der of nature is broken, and in­stituted in vaine. And for my part, I thinke that God would have rather created men toge­ther when he made Adam (as he did Angels) than thus to conti­nue creating to the worlds end.

[Page 291] 3. From the end of GODS workes.But it pleased the wisdome of God to make choice of this course, not onely 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 worke no more in the substāce of his crea­tures than needs must: but also for the meanness of ours, which require his working by meanes, after a naturall order,2. Unfit for us. proportio­nable to that reason he hath gi­ven us (which onely our nature was capable of) the better to manifest himselfe unto us.3. Against the order of grace.

Againe, that so he might pro­pagate his Church of mankinde successively by course of nature,4. A vaine worke 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 a­gaine most fitly and justly in another Adam Christ Jesus by grace.

And lastly, that he might not work perpetuall miracles, which [Page 292]onely 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 vaine for him to doe 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 meane 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 wee have not our whole man as well soule as bo­dy [Page 293]from him. For if we receive onely the least part of our selves, that is, our bodies from him, then he doth not beget a man, that is to say, a reasonable crea­ture, but onely I wot not what formelesse matter or dead car­kase: for such an uncouth thing is the body without the soule: and though a soule comes after­ward from another,Obj. Ans. that's no­thing to the parents, for they beget onely the former: and I trow it is unjust to make them father that which they never begate. So that by the course of nature, if man doe not beget the whole man, he cannot possibly be said to be a father to the whol man.

No father without giving the forme.This farther appeareth for that by the law of nature, it is not the giving of the matter a­lone, much lesse the matter of the body onely that makes a fa­ther, for that is of the elements: in the conveyance whereof the [Page 294]father is as it were an instru­ment onely: but the forme is properly and immediately his, which if he doe not propagate to his of-spring, he can no more be a father to his children, than to fleas or lice, that breed of his matter, but without his forme, than which, what grosser absur­ditie can be in nature.

3. Else he cannot be a father to the bo­dy.Besides, man should then be so farre 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 forme, and that comes only from God; he onely is a father to the whole man rather: yea, is not there much more reason to say, God onely is our father, because the soul, the more noble part, comes from him; than that Adam is, because the baser part the body, [Page 295]and yet not the body neither, but something like the body comes from him? I suppose any reasonable man will graunt it, without any farther reason.

4. Else he can beget nothing.And thus he cannot be father to our bodyes, unlesse to our soules also: yea, it is impossible in nature, that he should beget any thing without the soule. For, there can be no naturall body without forme, and no forme of a humane, body but the soule.

If therefore man doth not propagate the soule, together with the body, he cannot pro­pagate any thing but a meere 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 forme simply considered, cannot be said to be generated, but the creature, con­sisting of matter and forme: and therefore when I say the soule [Page 296]is generated or produced, it is to be understood joyntly 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.Againe, 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 soule 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 soule comes from an higher principle; for it is not onely an indecorum, and a grosse deformity in nature, that man should be left destitute of that power which is given to brute beasts in so maine a thing, yea, even the highest degree of naturall perfection: but also it casts an aspersion upon GOD [Page 297]himselfe, as if he were over­seene in endeavouring to make a creature subject to the lawes of nature, of so high perfecti­on, as could not be subjected thereunto: and so God should faile in his workmanship, and be constrained to helpe him­selfe, and worke perpetually in creating soules, notwithstand­ing his creating all Angels toge­ther, which could not be pro­pagated, and instituting natu­rall meanes for the rest, that so he might rest, and yet cannot.

7. Like be­gets like.Yea, doe not the contrary di­rectly follow, and not onely 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, [Page 298]shall any beast bring forth ano­ther, which shall be able to per­sist of it selfe, and bring forth more; and shall the God of all creatures make mans nature so lame and imperfect, that he and he onely cannot goe alone as well as they, unlesse God leade him? If this be true, God shall be the most step-father to man, and man the worst creeple of all Gods 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 soule comes from God, who is a mans father, the whole mans, I meane? not Adam, for he is the father of our bodies onely; nor God, for our soules only come from him. If then neither God nor Adam be our father, whose sonnes I beseech you are wee? By this doctrine he is a wise childe that knowes his owne father. Per­haps [Page 299]it will be said, wee are the sonnes of both. But then every one must have two fathers, an infinite and a finite father. Oh strange absurditie, and no lesse ridiculous than impossible▪ for how can both be, when by the lawes of nature neither can▪ To be short, either they must make GOD and Adam both one, or else every childe 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 onely in the features of the body, but in the faculties of the minde also. Now though all soules be essen­tially alike, and this is not al­wayes true, neither in soule 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 [Page 300]like the parents, so much is the whole man propagated from him.

CHAP. XXVII. Reasons from the nature of the soule.

Everyman must have two souls.NEither is this kinde of pro­pagation more agreeable to the ordinary course of gene­ration, than to the nature of the soule it selfe: 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 soules; for if the rationall soule be infused by God after the per­fecting of the vegetative and sensitive soules, as they are cal­led (though in truth both be performed by one soule, as wee see in beasts) I would know [Page 301]what soule it was that did in­forme and shape the fruite be­fore, giving it vegetation and sense? These things cannot pos­sibly be done without of soule, which if it were not the ratio­nall, was some other unreaso­nable soule, such as is in beasts; and so every man must have two soule. For wee see by ex­perience, the former did not pe­rish at the comming of the lat­ter, as it is in the forme of cor­poreall substances, when one perish, then another succeeds; but here both, remaine, and therefore either must be min­gled and made one with the rea­sonable scule (which cannot be unlesse it be corruptible;) or else every man must have two soules, one reasonable and ano­ther unreasonable: which opi­nion is verily as farre from rea­son, as the soule is from being unreasonable.

Againe,2. The soule is an essen­tiall [Page 302]part of man,The soule the chiefe part of man. and the very forme 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 himselfe, should not be able to propagate such an essentiall part as the soule is: especially seeing it is graunted he can propagate such an acci­dent as sin is. Yea, how can this doctrine possibly be true, that man should propagate that w^ch is unnaturall, & not that which is naturall; an unnaturall acci­dent, and not a naturall essenti­all part? sin which cannot be without the soule, and not the soule without which there can be no sin.

3 The soule compared with o­ther spi­rits.This also will farther appeare, if we compare the nature of the soule with other spirits. For it is observed by the learned, and manifest even to the ignorant, that GOD hath created three [Page 303]sorts of spirits in the world.

First, Angels, which are so spirituall that they cannot be joyned with bodyes.

Secondly, The spirits of beasts, &c. which are so corporall, that they cannot be seperated from bodyes.

Thirdly, Mens soules, as a mean which can both live with­out bodyes (as after death) like Angels; and united with bodies, as in this life like beasts.

Againe, we see it is the will and ordinance of God, that An­gels should neither increase nor decrease: corporall spirits (as I may call them) both increase and decrease: and that soules should increase and multiply, but never decrease or perish. Doe not then the order of na­ture teach then, that as Angels ate immediatly created by God onely, and the spirits of beasts altogether mediately propaga­ted, so the soules of men, which [Page 304]are the meane 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 meane betweene creation and propagation. It were to disturbe the order of nature, to confound the nature of the soule, and to make a mingle-mangle of the orderly workes of God, to de­ny it.

4. The na­ture of the soule it selfe.And this is no lesse apparent, if wee consider the nature of the foule alone, then compared with others. For it is to be conside­red, that the soule is the lowest nature of all incorporeall spirits, indued with power to use the bodily organs, to those purposes whereunto they were ordained by nature: but chiefly by its ra­tionall faculty, to get knowledg of all sensible things, which sen­ses ar [...] [...] proportioned by God, that the reasonable soule by [Page 305]them get all its naturall know­ledge. Ye [...] even but knowledge of God himself [...], doth ordina­rily arise from sense, onely or­dered by reason: and reason it selfe is a meane betweene the sense of beasts, and intelligence of Angels. And therefore God hath united the soule 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 worke me­diately by the body. For the soule 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 workes, are naturally and me­diately by these corporall na­tures, so also is the originall, [Page 306]and could not otherwise have such union and sympathy with the body. But yet as the nature and workes also are some wayes extraordinary, without and a­bove all elementary natures, so proportionably thereunto, God hath an extraordinary and su­pernaturall worke in producing of it.

5. The facul­ty of pro­pagation seated in the soule.Another reason that the soule is propagated, may be because the faculty of propagation be­longs as well to the soule as the body: yea, hath originally the chiefe seate in the soule onely. 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 soule, which is the first principle, and principall cause of all actions: unlesse wee should graunt more soules than one, and disturbe, yea, destroy the uniforme go­vernment of nature, by placing divers commanders in one bo­dy. [Page 307]Now if the soule 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 soule must produce a soule, and cōsequently the whole man the whole man.

6. The soule present in concepti­on.Adde hereunto that the soule doth accompany the seede, and perfecteth the body from the very first conception, which not onely the ancient Philosophers. acknowledge as most agreeable to nature and reason; whence it is that nothing is more cōmon with Aristotle, Arist. de [...] gen. anim. l. 1. cap. 3. than that the power of the soule is in the seed, making its owne house, fitly framing the bodily organs, and bringing them to the highest perfection that the first consti­tution [Page 308]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 soule, as the most acute Scali­ger abundantly proveth.Scal. Ex­erc. 6. Sect. 5. And if the soule informes the seede 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 seede, than immedi­ately created by GOD? Yes doubtlesse: Neither need any doubt how the rationall soule, can [...] the seede without organs, know that the chiefe, yea, the only immediate organs of the soule are the spirits, and these are as well in the seede, as in the most perfect body.

The souls worke in the Em­brio.Although therefore there are, as yet, no eyes or eares, for the soule to heare or see with, yet there is worke enough for it, to heate and coole, moysten and [Page 309]dry; and thereby to seperate and conjoine, to thicken and thinne, to extend and contract, to make rough and smooth, to harden and soften: these and such o­ther are the workes of the soule, whereby it doth ordaine, place, number, and forme the seede. For though they be the prime and secondary qualities of the elements, yet in such a naturall body, all are do [...] by the power of the soule, 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 soules procreation, because even elementary bodies cannot be produced without a more excellent efficient than themselves. For wee see that all naturall things, yea every plant that growes out of the earth, besides the materiall cause the elements, whereof it is com­pounded, and the seede whence it receiveth the forme, hath [Page 310]also an externall efficient cause, which certainly is the influence of the celestiall Orbes, who by causing motion, gives it the first hint and power of growing. And seeing the soule hath such similitude with these corporall natures, that though they have not matter and forme as they have; yet having a spirituall kinde of composition, which for likenesse justly meriteth the name: therefore as the spiritu­all matter and forme thereof is propagated from the parents by the seede; so it must also have a spirituall externall efficient cause more excellent than it selfe, which can be no other but the immediate power of God the father of spirits. For as all naturall bodyes have an efficient cause correspondent to their natures, which in course of nature cannot be good im­mediately with whose nature they have so small affinitie, yea, [Page 311]so great contrarietie: but these heavenly powers, with whom they have such sympathy, be­ing of the same corporall na­ture, though of a more excel­lent temper: so the efficient cause of our soules must needs be agreeable to their natures, which cannot be the Starres, which are far inferior, but God who is also a spirit, and of a more excellent nature than our spirits; even as the Sunne is more glorious than these earth­ly substances: betweene whom there is such sympathy, that e­ven as plants welke and fade, without the force of their effici­ents, that heavenly lampe the Sunne, and the rest of those ce­lestiall orbes; but grow and flou­rish with them: so how a soule seperated from God and one u­nited unto his and injoying the beames of his grace, is either mi­serable or happy: we know in part, but cannot perfectly com­prehend.

CHAP. XXVIII. Reasons from other considerations.

Rarenesse of humane conceptiō.BEsides these arguments ta­ken from the ordinary course of generation, and the nature of the soule, divers other probable reasons may be produ­ced. As first, the often failing, and indeed rarenesse of humane conception in comparison of o­ther creatures, as common ex­perience teacheth. Now if the soule be created after the per­fecting of the body, then the first conception and breeding beeing by the power of nature onely, why shoud there not bee as much frequency and certain­ty in the propagation of man­kind as of other creatures? This rarenesse of humane conception doth intimate unto us, that it is not by the power of nature a­lone that man is conceived in [Page 313]the wombe, but that there is some more speciall worke of God in it, than in the generati­on of other creatures. And if it cannot be denyed but God hath such a speciall worke in the con­ception of man, why should we not thinke that the soule 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 worke in every man genera­tion.

2. God shuld be tyed to nature.And this may farther appeare, not only by testimony of Scrip­ture, which makes conception to be a speciall worke of God, and never mentioneth any ex­traordinary power, in the quick­ning & giving of soules to chil­dren: as when Rachel rashly cry­ed oud; Give me children or else I dye; Jacob gravely answereth, Am I in Gods stead? And so when Boaz went in unto Ruth, it is said, the Lord gave her conception: but [Page 314]even reason it selfe will evince it. For is it not an absurd thing, that God should waite our lei­sures, and be set on worke at our pleasures? And yet this must needs be, if God create soules af­ter the forming of the body; for then the former being done by the power of nature, God shall be bound to give soules imme­diately whensoever nature pro­duceth bodyes: unlesse hee should suffer children to be born without soules or corrupt and kill their bodyes before they be informed, (and so indanger 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 mans soule according to a particular immediate and new creation: but according to his almighty blessing, powerfull or­dinance, and constant conser­ving [Page 315]providence: which though it be somewhat more immedi­ate in this than in other cases, yet it is still within the lists of nature, nature it selfe so requi­ring.

3. The ex­cellency of mans nature re­quires it.Yea farther it followeth, both by divine and naturall reason, that as God hath from eternitie 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 mans conception above all other creatures. Which what can it be in the course of nature, but that he is the immediate ef­ficient of mens soules, whereby he blesseth or blasteth, furthers or hinders, mans conception at the first, and so by a speciall providence, orders the same ac­cording to his owne most wise decree. And hence it is that men cannot propagate either what or when they will.

[Page 316] 4. God and nature should worke in vaine.Againe, Otherwise this ab­surditie will also follow, that there are many children, begot­ten, conceived, formed, quick­ned with sense, and so well nigh perfected, and yet dying before the rationall soule be infused, they shall never rise againe at the end of the world; that God might be glorified in their sal­vation or damnation, unlesse he should then create new soules for un-informed bodyes. And this besides crossing the word of God, which teacheth that all that are conceived in sinne, must be punished in Christ or themselves, for the satisfying of Gods Justice: wee must ab­surdly frustrate the workes both of God and nature, notwith­standing, neither can doe any thing in vaine.

5. Unnatural concepti­ons voyde of reason.Furthermore, It is manifest that not nature alone, but the efficient power of God is joy­ned with the propagation of [Page 317]soules, because it is wholly de­nyed to such copulations as are out of kinde. For nature alone would make a mixture, where­as notwithstanding, we see that some kinde of creatures, as Apes and Satyres, which (as it is pro­bable) were at first begotten by such unkindly conjunctions, are not indued with reasonable soules 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 soulelesse, and voyde of reason: although it cannot be denyed but naturall sense may be and is the more perfect in them, and so they more craftie than other crea­tures. They therefore make a monstruous and prophane min­gle-mangle that would have man propagate his like by the power of nature meerely, as o­ther creatures doe.

[Page 318] 6. Soules in­fused in a­dulterous generati­ons.On the other side it is plaine also, that it is not altogether immediately created by GOD without naturall meanes, be­cause it is not denyed to chil­dren that are unlawfully begot­ten: for then God should seeme to approve of that which is e­vill. For albeit it is true (as it is commonly answered) that it is good in God to make stollen corne grow, because that order of nature is good, though the action of stealing bee naught, and there is no reason he should alter that good institution of nature, for the personall corrup­tion of some men: yet this hel­peth them not at all, who main­taine the immediate creation of the soule, but onely freeth him in regard of this mediate man­ner and naturall order in propa­gating soules, which is indeed this way sufficiently answered. But if (as they say) there be no naturall order for the soules [Page 319]propagation, but they come im­mediately from God (he not being bound to infuse soules, but where he pleaseth) he can­not be free from tollerating, if not allowing and approving of evill in this behalfe. Whereas in the other, though he be not bound neither (unlesse by his owne 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 soule, seeing wee see by daily experience, that na­ture by vertue of Gods first or­dination, doth out of the dead matter of the elements, conti­nually produce so admirable powers, as seeing, hearing, &c. yea, common sense, phantasie, memory, and all those cogita­tive vertues which are in brute beasts; the manner of which working is above humane rea­son to conceive: how can it seeme strange that the God of [Page 320]nature by his owne speciall assi­stance, should out of that farre more excellent and divine na­ture in man, produce others like unto it, though we cannot con­ceive the manner how? Even this well weighed, will adde no small credit to this truth a­mongst the wise.

The cor­porall seed a fit in­strument.Lastly, That the corporall seede is a fit instrument for na­ture to use in so high a worke, 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 soule, appeareth in that Ele­phants, who being of a more excellent temper, and comming neerer to the nature of man than other creatures, doe both live longer, and are (as I may say) [Page 321]indued with more reasonable parts than others. So that al­though the soule cannot arise out of any elementary temper (as appeareth by the immortall nature, which even naturall rea­son is able to demonstrate;) yet there is no question, but it may bee instrumentally furthered or hindred thereby, yea even in the most excellent workes of reason, this beeing indeed one of the maine reasons in nature, why one man excelleth another in wisedome. Now then seeing the Spirits in humane seed are of such a transcendent nature, not meerely corporall, but approa­ching very neere to the nature of the soule, whereby they are soone acquainted and easily u­nited, and used as the hand of the soule, even in the most di­vine operations of reason: why should they not much more be a fit instrument for the convey­ance of the soule in naturall ge­neration. [Page 322]And thus I have fi­nished my taske in proving this manner of the soules propagati­on, both by divine and naturall reason.

CHAP. XXIX. An answer to some objections a­gainst this manner of propaga­tion.

BUt now me-thinkes I heare some call me backe, say­ing, I contradict my selfe in that I say, and that even this meane way hath its extremi­ties. Having therefore shewed that the soule of man can nei­ther be immediately created by God, not yet meerely propaga­ted by man, and proved this middle way betweene both, both by Scripture and naturall reasons: I will now in the last place (that there may remaine [Page 323]no just scruple to cavill at) brief­ly answer some few Objecti­ons, which I conceive may be made more directly, even a­gainst this meane manner of the soules procreation, and so con­clude.

The Objections are these foure:Objecti­ons.

First, That the soule shall not be immortall, if it may be resolved into a former princi­ple, namely, Adams soule from whence all came.

Secondly, God shall hereby still worke immediately in the creation of soules, and so shall not yet have ended his worke, 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 helpe from God than they.

Lastly, God shall still be tou­ched with sin, in being the im­mediate efficient of our sinfull [Page 324]soules. All which may be as ea­sily answered as objected.

1 Obj. That the soule must be mortall if it pro­ceed from another.For the first, first, although it is true, that all mixt bodyes may be againe resolved into their former principles the elements, whereof they are compounded, and out of which they arise: yet this is no impeachment to the soules immortalitie. For the comparison is unequall, and the causes nothing like, unlesse wee should say that all bodyes must returne into Adams also, whence they came as well as soules.

Secondly, Mixt bodyes are not the simple elements, but compounded of them: where as our soules are of the same na­ture, and no lesse 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 mortall, because corruption and death comes not onely, nor [Page 325]so much from propagation or composition, as from divine malediction, for death is the wages of sinne, without which even Adams body should have beene immortall, as well as his soule.

Lastly, To this objection I will oppose an infallible conclu­sion, viz. that nothing can re­turne to nothing, but by the same meanes 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, doe by nature resolve into them againe: but because mens soules cannot be propagated from their pa­rents, but by the immediate power of GOD concurring, hence it necessarily followeth, that neither can they be againe dissolved or annihilated but by the same omnipotent power. This therefore doth invincibly prove, so farre is it from dis­proving [Page 326]proving the soules immorta­litie.

2 Obj. That God still works in creating Soules.For the second, that God shall not yet rest from his la­bour, but be still set aworke in the creation of soules.

1 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.

2 Secondly, Which is more, here is no new substance created of nothing, but onely produced out of former matter.

3 Thirdly, It nothing oppugnes Gods resting, to worke imme­diately in some things, as by his holy Spirit in the hearts of Gods Elect:Ioh. 5.17. in such things the Fa­ther worketh hitherto and the Sonne likewise.

Lastly, This worke is no part of creation properly, but of pre­servation, which is ordinarily either mediate or immediate Mediate, so all elementary crea­tures, [Page 327]and individuall natures, are preserved by God; but by the meanes of nature or rather naturall meanes: but now na­ture it selfe, (or as I may say) the very nature or Symmetry of nature, is preserved by his owne immediate power, there being no nature above nature, but onely his to preserve it. And by the same immediate power it must needs be that the pro­duction of soule is conserved: the excellency of whose nature, is such as can have no naturall or mediate efficient cause, and therefore of necessitie it must be his immediate providence one­ly, and that even by course of nature.

3 Obj. That ma [...] shall still be inferi­our to o­ther crea­tures.To the third objection, that if mans generatiō requires more helpe from God than other creatures, his nature shall there­in be still inferiour to theirs.

I answer, That no creature can propagate the like alone, no [Page 328]more than he; and that he doth as much in the generation of his like, as any other creatures doe in theirs. For it is well knowne, that in generation, besides the matter and forme, which pro­ceeds from the generators, it is necessary that there should bee an efficient power, comming from an externall cause, which all grant to be the influence of the celestiall Orbes; whence is that common Proverb amongst Philosophers; Sol & homo gene­rant hominem; now seeing man gives the matter and forme of the whole man, soule and bo­dy, though in regard of his soule, he hath a more excellent efficient than they, or rather the same efficient after a more ex­cellent manner, that is, imme­diately: this is so farre from dis­paraging, that it exalteth mans nature above all other creatures in the world. Neverthelesse, if man did not give both matter [Page 329]and forme, this were indeed justly objected, and he should be herein according to the or­der of nature inferiour 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 sinne in being the immediate efficient of our sinfull soules, is easily an­swered: for God is simply the efficient cause of the soule, and not of sin, but that comes from our corrupt parents, who sup­ply the matter of the whole man, corrupt and sinfull 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 meerly acciden­tall 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 himselfe, but he by his fall corrupting himselfe, hath like­wise corrupted all his posteritie, [Page 330]albeit God still performes his part as perfectly as ever, in con­ferring of his efficient power for the producing of them. Thus then we see how the generati­on of men, which should have been perfect, is become sinfull through out faults, and not Gods, and why then God did not make man new againe, 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 summe of the premisses.

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 explaine it, so now me thinkes it is so plaine [Page 331]and easie, that I feare nothing more than that I have insisted too long in the proofe of that which I thinke no man can or will deny; yet considering that such is the curiositie of some in this age, that are wittily acute, and such also the difficultie and necessitie of understanding this doctrine aright, that a mans life were well bestowed in giving full satisfaction therein; this short discourse I hope will not seeme over-long to the judici­ous.

1. The origi­nall of the Soule.I conclude therefore as be­fore, first, that the soule is nei­ther immediately created by God of nothing, nor yet meer­ly propagated by man without his immediate power: but that he hath instituted a naturall or­der whereby the whole man be­gets the whole man, both soule and body, and as well the one as the other. Not the soule the body, nor the body the soule, [Page 332]neither the soule the soule a­lone, nor the body the body a­lone, yet in this order, the soule the soule onely immediately, but mediately by the body: and the body the body onely imme­diately; but mediately by the soule. And thus in man the whole propagation, the whole, as concerning matter and forme as well as other creatures: al­beit in the one the immediate power of GOD concurreth as an efficient cause, and naturall meanes onely, in the other.

2. [...]he im­ [...]ortali­ [...] of the [...]le.From this naturall yet divine beginning, I also conclude the immortall nature and everla­sting continuance of the soule. For seeing it is not produced by the power of nature alone, nor yet made of any corporall mat­ter, but spirituall both for mat­ter & manner, wherein it excel­leth all other creatures, though united through Gods instituti­on to the naturall generation: [Page 333]it must needs transcend the con­dition of all corporall creatures, as well in the end as in the ori­ginall, and so can be no lesse than immortall, though we goe no higher than the rules of na­ture.

3. Originall sinne.Hence also I conclude, that all Adams off-spring are infec­ted with that staine of nature which he contracted to him­selfe 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 sin­full soules proceeding not from him but our sinfull parents, and so not being corrupted by him, but by our selver in Adam.

4. Christs incarna­tion.And lastly, hereby also ap­peareth the puritie of Christs in­carnation, who, though he were true man like unto us, and made of the same substance both for soule and body, yet was not [Page 334]propagated after the common manner of men, to avoide that infection of sin which wee re­ceive in propagation.

Reasons to beleeve without reason.Now if any cannot conceive, through the subtle conceit they have of it, how the soule should minister any matter to the pro­ducing of another (which I con­fesse is hardest;) yet considering that most of the most learned ancient Fathers and Schoolmen in former times, have allowed aêreall bodyes even to the An­gels themselves: it cannot be thought absurd, that I ascribe such a spirituall composition to soules, as hath such a neere re­semblance unto corporall mat­ter and forme, as may well stand both with this manner of propagation and the divine na­ture of the soule. And if thus much be not granted, it cannot appeare in nature neither, how it can be united with the body, the one being in my conceit as [Page 335]hard to conceive as the other. But seeing I see the one is, I be­leeve the other may be. And further I adde that, that though this did seeme to disagree with reason, yet wee ought rather to beleeve it than the other which we plainly see doe disagree with Religion. But to conclude, see­ing wee see the reason why wee cannot see the reason, let us not be so vainely curious to enquire, of that which we know certain­ly we cannot certainly know, let us content our selves a while not heathenishly to reason, but Christianly to beleeve, and shortly after this life,Phil. 3.15. all these things shall be revealed unto us.