A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.

SECT. II.

WE will proceed to a second, and that is from Zech. 12. 1. The Lord which stretcheth forth the Heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. Here we see the Lords power described by a three-fold effect, the making of the Heavens, the laying of the earths foun∣dation, and making the spirit of man; Now it is plain, that the two former were by Gods immediate Creation, therefore the later must be: So that the Context doth evidently shew, That Gods making of the soul of a man within him, is no lesse wonderfull then the making Heaven and earth. This Text was also of old agitated by Austin in this controversie, and to answer it, he runneth to his old refuge of forming a thing immediately, and by natural propagation: God is not to be ex∣cluded (saith he) from having a special hand in giving being to the soul, yet it doth not follow, that therefore it must be by creation out of nothing. To this purpose they bring that of Job, Chap. 10. 10, 11. where Job attributeth the ma∣king and forming of his body to God, Hast thou not poured me out like milk, &c? Thou hast cloathed me with skin and flesh. So Psal. 139. 13, 14, 15. where Da∣vid acknowledgeth the wonderfull wisdom and power of God, in making his body, Then hast curiously wrought me; As the curious needle-woman doth some choice piece; now we cannot from hence prove, that therefore the body is of God by immediate Creation.

But this cannot weaken the Text, for we told you, That the Argument is not meerly from that expressing of forming the spirit of man within him, but from the upper two Attributes. Besides the Scripture tels us plainly of what materi∣als the body is formed of, whereas they who hold the propagation of the soul, are extreamly streightned and difficultated to say, what the soul is made of; They say, it is not ex animâ, but ab animâ. not of the soul, but from the soul of the Parent, but then are divided amongst themselves when they go to explicate, how the soul hath its being if not from Creation. Some say, it hath its being by a cor∣poral seminal manner, but then it must be a body, which Austin would constantly deny, for he dissents from Tertullian in that, though both held the natural Tradu∣ction of the soul, Austin I mean only suppositively, but Tertullian positively, yet he professeth his dissent from Tertullian, who made it a body. This therefore being thought absurd, others they tell us of an incorporeal and immaterial seed from the soul of the Parents, which causeth the soul of the child. To this purpose Tertullian in his book de animâ, distinguisheth of semen animale, which cometh from the soul, and semen corporeum, which cometh from the body. But this may easily be judged as absurd as the former: If therefore the Scripture, when it speaketh of the forming of mans spirit within him, had discovered the materials of which it is formed, as well as when it speaketh of the forming of the body, there would have been some pretence for the Argument. But calling it a spirit, and as you see in the Text, comparing the forming of it with the making of the Heavens and the Earth, this makes the creati∣on

of the soul more than probable. Tarnavius the Lutheran would likewise avoid this place (Comment. in loc.) by saying the Hebrew word Jahac doth most commonly signifie, not an immediate creation out of nothing, for so the Hebrew word Barah doth for the most, but a mediate out of some prejacent mat∣ter, yet indisposed; but this Rule being not universal, it hath no strength in it. Besides, the Hebrew word is in the Present tense, who formeth, so that it cannot relate to the making of Adam's soul at first. Indeed the fore-named Tarnavius doth from the participle Benani draw an Argument against us, saying, It doth not alwayes signifie actum secundum, but habitum and potentiam, and so maketh the sense to be God, who hath this power immediately to create the soul, if he will; but all will confess this to be forced; That is more considerable, when he saith, As God in stretching out the Heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth, is not thereby declared to create new Heavens, and a new earth every day; so neither is it necessary that he should create souls daily, but conserve the order appointed, as he doth, about the Heavens. The Answer is easie, there∣fore do the words relate to the Creation at first with the conservation of them, because new Heavens and new earths are not every day made; but both they and we do acknowledge new souls are every day produced, as often as a man is born, and God at first making Adam's soul by breathing into it, the same order is still to be conserved.

This Text thus cleared, we may adde as proofs also of the like kind, Isa. 42. 5. Though Austin thought by spirit there, might be meant the sanctifying Spirit of God; But that hath no probability. Psal. 33. 15. the Psalmist saith, God hath fashioned the hearts of men alike, or wholly throughout; By which is meant the soul of a man in all its thoughts and workings, because the soul puts forth its vital actions in the heart. That also is remarkable, which yet I find not mentioned by any in this Controversie, Jer. 38. 16. where Zedekiah maketh an oath to Jere∣miah, that he will not kill him, after this manner, Thus saith the Lord, who made us this soul, not this body, but this soul, (he putteth that into the oath,) inti∣mating what an heavy sinne it would be to kill a man that is innocent, seeing he hath his soul from God. I shall mention but one Text more, and that is in the New Testament, which seemeth clearly to demonstrate the creation of the soul, Heb. 12 9. We have had fathers of our flesh that corrected us, &c. Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of Spirits? I think this Text may put us out of all doubt, God is opposed as a Father to our natural parents; God is called a Father of Spirits, natural parents father of our flesh: Now if our souls did come from our parents, they might be called fathers of our spirits, as well as of our flesh: The Apostles Argument would have no force, if the Creation of the soul by God alone, and the generation of the flesh only by natural parents be not asserted: Thus Numb. 16. 20. as also Chap. 27. 16. God is there styled, The God of the spirit of all flesh, in a peculiar manner. It may be wondered, that though Austin busied himself so much in finding out of this Truth, diligently at∣tending to the Scripture, yet he never mentioned this place. Certainly, this Text might have removed his doubt, and made him wholly positive in affirming the creation of the soul.

That which I find later Writers reply to it, is, That God is called the Fa∣ther of Spirits in respect of Regeneration, because he sanctifieth and maketh holy.

But the opposition to our fathers of the flesh, evidently confuteth this; and withall they can never shew, that God is called a Father of Spirits, or a God of Spirits, but in respect of Creation, not Regeneration. It is true, the word spi∣rit may sometimes be used for a man as regenerate, as flesh is for a man wholly corrupt; but they can never shew that the word spirits in the plural number is taken for men regenerate.

Vse. Of Exhortation, To quicken up your attention to this Truth, do not think this is unprofitable and uselesse, that this Question is like those of which Paul complaineth, some doted, foolish and endlesse; No, it is very profitable, for in knowing the original of thy soul, how it cometh even from God himself, may it not shame thee to make thy self like a beast, as if thou hadst no better soul then they have? Prophanenesse and sottish ignorance do greatly oppose the na∣ture of thy soul. Why do men say in effect, Let us eat and drink, for to mor∣row we shall die, but as if they and beasts were all alike? And why is it that you see so many have no understanding, but that they are like the horse and the mule? Why doth the Scripture compare wicked men to so many kind of beasts, but because they live, as if God had put no rational soul into them? That though in the making of their bodies they differ from beasts, yet in their souls they do greatly agree.