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

SECT. IV.

Arguments from Scripture to prove the Souls Creation.

THe first Reason, which may appear in the defence of the Souls immediate Creation from God, is, From the historical Narration, which Moses makes of the beginning and original of Adam's soul: For as God when he was to cre∣ate man, did it in a more transcendent and glorious way, then when he made beasts, or the other creatures; For then he said, Let there be light, and, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures, that have life, Gen. 1. 20. And so, Let the earth bring forth the living creatures, the beasts after their kind; But when he comes to make man, then the expression is altered, Let us make man in our Image; and Gen. 2. 7. where we have the manner of the execution of this counsel, it is said, He formed the body of Adam out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; No such thing was done to other creatures: So that you see Adam's soul was from God immediately, though his body was from the earth; This breathing of life into Adam, was infusing of the rational soul. Some Ancients thought, that it was the bestowing of the holy Ghost upon Adam, and that he had his rational soul before; They compare it with Christs breathing on his Disciples, whereby was communicated the

holy Ghost. Now it is plain, they had their rational souls before.

This is vain, because by the breathing of this life, it's said, Adam became a living soul, so that he was but a dead lump of earth (as it were) before; And indeed this Text is so clear, that I know none of the Adversaries to the souls im∣mediate Creation do deny it: Now then, If the soul of Adam was by creation, Is it not probable that all other souls were in the like manner? What a great dispro∣portion would there be between Adam and us, if his soul was by creation, and ours by generation? Some have questioned, Whether it would not make a speci∣fical difference between Adam and us? But that is not to be affirmed; For Christ as man was of the same species with other men, though his Conception and Nati∣vity were miraculous: But the Argument from the Creation of Adam's soul, to the Creation of ours, though it be not cogent, yet it maketh it more then pro∣bable, because God at first did appoint that order, which afterwards was to con∣tinue; So he appointed the animate creatures, to multiply in their way, making their bodies and forms to be educed out of the power of the matter, (as Philoso∣phers expresse it, though very obscurely,) but he did not do so with Adam's soul; Can we think that our souls are lesse glorious and precious before God (I mean as meet creatures) then Adam's was? It is true, There was a necessity that A∣dam's body should be otherwise made then ours, because he was the first Parent, and so he could not be bygeneration; Thus the other living creatures they had their bodies at first out of the earth, or out of the water, not by generation, as after∣wards; Thus for the body there was a necessity, but then for the soul there was none at all; Why might not Adam's soul have been with his body out of the pre∣jacent matter, as well as it was with other living creatures? But because the soul of man is of an higher nature coming from God alone: This Argument will appear in further strength, if you consider that Eve, though she was made in such an extraordinary manner out of Adam, yet she had not her soul from him, but her body only; For when he awakened, see what he saith, This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; He doth not say, This is soul of my soul, and yet as Austin in this matter, though doubting, doth well argue,

That if Eve had had her soul from Adam, Quid charius potuit dicere (saith he) This would have been a more indeared and affectionate expression, to have called her soul of his soul, then flesh of his flesh.

It is true, some say, it is a synecdochical speech,

By flesh (they say) is meant whole Eve, her whole person soul and body;

but that is easier said than proved; No doubt if it had been so, Adam would have expressed it, as being a manifestation of greater unity, then what was in the body only: If you say, But why is it not said then, that God created Eve's soul, as well as Adam's? If God had so immediately breathed a soul into her, would not the Scripture have mentioned it? No, that is not necessary, it's enough, that we read what God did to Adam about his soul; and the Scripture saith, Genes. 1. 27. God created man in his Image male and female created he them. Thus you see they were both, as in respect of Gods Image made alike: So Chap. 5. 2. Male and female created he them, and called their name Adam; And thus much for the first Reason.

The second is more cogent, and that is taken from the soul of Christ, If Christ had his soul by creation, then we had ours also; The consequence is clear, because Christ is said to be like us in all things, sinne onely excepted; Hence it is, that he also would have assumed our humane Nature in an ordinary way of generation, but that it could not be without sinne; If then Christ became like us in all things, where∣in sin was not necessarily adherent, then if he had his soul by immediate Creation we had ours also.

This Argument doth divide the Adversaries to the Creation of the soul; For some say,

Christ had not his soul by immediate Creation, no more then we, but from his mother:

But the most wary will not say so: Austin in this controver∣sie

doth alwaies except Christs soul, and indeed there is this Argument which may nforce us to it, taken from the comparison that the Apostle maketh between Levi and Christ, affirming Levi did pay tythes in Abraham's loynes, but not Christ, Heb. 7. 9. Now if Christ was every way in Abraham's loynes, as Levi was, then must Christ have paid tythes in Abraham, as well as Levi, and so the Apostles Argument would be without any force.

But it may be (and indeed it is urged by Austin and others,)

This will prove Levi's soul to have been in Abraham, else Levi could not have been said to have paid tythes in him, but as because Christs soul was not in Abraham originally, therefore he did not pay tith, so neither might Levi

To this therefore the solid Answer is, That the reason why Christ did not pay tythes in Abraham, in the Apostles sence, was not because his soul was im∣mediately from God, for so also was Levi's, but because Christ was of Abraham only, Quoad corpulentam substantiam, not seminatam rationem, his fleshly substance was from Abraham, but not by natural propagation; he was from Abraham only materialiter not effectivè, whereas Levi was both waies, and hence he cometh short of Christ.

Thirdly,* 1.1 If so be that the soul of the parents did beget or multiply the souls of children, then this would hold also in Angels; for the multiplication of another must needs be acknowledged a perfection, where the subject is capable of it; Certainly, generation of another is not in it self an imperfection. for then in the blessed Trinity, the Sonne could not be begotten of the Father, but generation as in creatures denoteth imperfection. If then souls may come from souls, why not Angels from Angels? but this is acknowleged by all, That no Angel can produce another, but that there are as many and no more or less then was at first Creation. As for that example of the soul producing another, as we see one candle light another, that is nothing to this purpose; for therefore doth the candle inlighten another, because there is prepared and fitted matter to receive this light; so that its from prejacent materials the light is produced; but how can this be applied to the soul which is wholly spiritual, what preexistent matter that can be made of?

Fourthly,* 1.2 If so be the soul be not by immediate Creation, then it must be mate∣rial, corporal, and mortal: for although this consequence is denied, yet the evi∣dence of natural reason will commend this. Its traduced (saith Tertullian) and is a body, yet is immortal: It is by propagation (say the Lutheran Divines) and yet is not a body but a spirit, and immortal: But above all, those abomina∣ble Mortalists, they make it to be only the crusis of the body, of which opinion Galen also is said to be, and so they make it mortal: We see then, that its neces∣sary to have a sound judgement about the original of the soul, for the Mortalists have fallen into that deep pit of heresy, because they erred in this first. It is with men, as they say of Fishes, they begin to putrify in the head first, and so com∣monly men fall into loose opinions, and then into loose practises: But this rule must be acknowledged, That whatsoever depends upon matter in being, doth also depend upon it in existency: It's Aquinas his rule, (as you heard,) Quicquid de∣pendet à materiâ in fieri, depend quoad esse et existere; That is the reason, why the souls of all beasts are mortal, because they depend upon the matter in being, They cannot be produced but dependently on that, and therefore their souls cannot subsist without their bodies; As it is plain, the souls of men do after death, till the resurrection; So that this Doctrine is injurious, and derogatory to our spiritual and immortal souls.

Fifthly,* 1.3 If souls were not by immediate Creation, but by natural propagation from the parents, then either from the mother alone or from the father alone, or from both together.

This Argument Lactantius of old (as Cerda in Tertull. alledgeth him) formed

to himself, and answers; it's neither of those waies but from God. Not from the Father alone, because David doth bewail his mothers co operation hereunto, Psal 51, Iniquity did my Mother conceive me. Not the Mother alone, because the Father is made the chief cause of conveighing this original sinne by the A∣postle, he layeth it upon Adam, more then Eve, though Eve is not excluded; Not from both together, for then the soul must be partible and divisible, part from the Father and part from the Mother, and so it cannot be a simple sub∣stance. Under this Argument Meisuer doth labour, and confesseth, it is inex∣plicable how the soul should come from the parents, though he assaieth to give some satisfaction.

Lastly,* 1.4 There is something even of nature implanted in us, to believe our soules come from God; who hath not almost some impression upon his conscience, to think, that he had not his soul from his parents? even nature doth almost teach us in this thing; Hence the wisest Heathens have concluded of it as Plato, and also Aristotle, who confuteth the several false opinions of Philosophers about the soul, (for it was a doubt as Tertullian (lib de animâ) expresseth it) whe∣ther Aristotle was parasior sua implera, aut aliena inantre) and affirmes it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to come from without, and that it is a divine thing: Thus it was with some Heathens, though destitute of the Light of Gods Word, yet in some∣things they did fall upon the truth, (as saith Tertullian) The Pilot in a tempestu∣ous black night puts into a good haven, sometimes prospero errore, and a man in a dark place gropeth and finds the way out sometimes, caecâ quâdam felicitate: Thus did some Heathens in some things.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg. 3.
• * 1.2

  Arg. 4.
• * 1.3

  Arg. 5.
• * 1.4

  Argum. 6.