Almighty Power of God; and therefore are prefented as strong props to our faith, when it is weak and staggering, for want of visible matter of encouragement, Ifa. xl. 22. and xlii. 5. Jer. x. 12. Job ix. 8. Pfal. civ. 2. q. d. Are my people in captivity, and their faith nonplus'd, and at a lofs, because there is nothing in fight that hath a tendency to their deliverance, no prepared matter for their falvation? Why let them confider who it was that created the heavens, and the earth, yea and their fouls also, which are so perplex'd with doubts, out of nothing; the same God that did this, can alfo create deliverance for his people, though there be no pre-exiftent matter to work it out of.

7.

Add to this that excellent place of * Solomon, in Eccl. xii. "Then fhall the duft return to the earth, as it was: and the fpirit to God who gave it." Where he thews us what becomes of man, and how each part, of which he consists, is beftowed, and disposed of after his diffolution by death. And thus he ftates it: The two conflitutive parts of a man are a foul and a body: these two parts have two distinct originals: the body, as to its material caufe, is duft; the foul, in its nature, is a fpirit, and as to its origin, it proceedeth from the Father of fpirits; it is his own creature, in an immediate way. He gave it : he gave it the being it hath by creation, and gave it to us, i. e. to our bodies by inspiration. Now qualis Genefis, talis Analyfis: When death diffolves the union which is betwixt them, each part returns to that from whence it came, dust to dust, and the spirit to God that gave it. The body is expressed by its material caufe, duft; the foul only by its efficient caufe; as the gift of God; because it had no material cause at all, nor was made out of any pre-exiftent matter, as the body was. And therefore Solomon here speaks of God, as if he had only to do with the foul, leaving the body to its material and inftrumental caufes; with whom he concurs by a general influence. It is God, not man alone, or God by man, that hath given us thefe bodies; but it is not man, but God alone, who hath given us thefe fouls. He therefore paffeth by the body, and

* Solomon refolves both the parts of man into their firft principles; as therefore he refolves the body into the duft, whence it was taken; fo alfo, if the foul had been made of an heavenly fubftance, or, (as Plato fays), of the foul of the world, Solomon would have refolved the foul into it; but when he fays fimply of the foul, that it returns to God who gave it, he teaches us, That it was created of nothing, into which it could not be refolved. Zanch,

fpeaks of the foul as the gift of God; becaufe that part of man, and that only, flows immediately from God, and, at death, returns to him that gave it. All thefe expreffions, The Father of fpirits, the former of the Spirit of man, the giver of the fpirit; how agreeably are they to each other, and all of them to the point under hand, that the foul flows from God by immediate creation? You fee it hath no principle out of which, according to the order of nature, it did arife, as the body had; and therefore it hath no principle into which, according to the order of nature, it can be returned, as the body hath; but returns to God, its efficient caufe: if reconciled, to a Father, not only by creation, but adoption; if unreconciled, as a creature guilty of unnatural rebellion against the God that formed it, to be judged.

II. God created and infufed it into the body, with an inherent inclination and affection to it. The nature of the four and body is vastly different, there is no affinity or fimilitude betwixt them but it is in this cafe, as in that of marriage. Two perfons of vaftly different educations, conftitutions, and inclinations, coming under God's ordinance, into the nearest relation to each other, find their affections knit and endeared by their relation to a degree beyond that which refults from the union of blood: So it is here. Whence this affection arifes, in what acts it is difcovered, and for what reafon implanted, will be at large difcovered in a diftinct branch of the following difcourfe, to which it is affigned. Mean while, I find myself concerned to vindicate what hath been here afferted from the arguments which are urged against the immediate creation and infufion of the foul, and in the defence of the opinion of its traduction from the parents. To conceal, or diffemble thefe arguments and objections, would be but a betraying of the truth I have here afferted, and give occafion for fome jealousy, that they are unanfwerable. To come then to an iffue; and first,

Object. 1. It is urged, that it is manifeft in itfelf, and genewally yielded, that the fouls of all other creatures come by generation, and therefore it is probable that human fouls flow in the fame channel also.

+ The body is neceffary to the foul, which is the perfection of the organical body, for it is not a feparate form, i. e. a form proper" ly fo called, therefore it requires matter, in fo much that the soul, when feparate from the body, ftill retains its relation and inclination to it, which is followed with the refurrection of the body. Came ron prælect. in Mat. p. 124.

Solut. There is a specific difference betwixt rational fouls, and the fouls of all other creatures, and therefore no force at all in the confequence. A material form may rife out of matter; but a fpiritual, rational being (as the foul of man is) cannot fo rife, being much more noble and excellent than matter is.

What animal is there in the world, out of whose foul the acts of reason fpring, and flow, as they do out of human fouls! Are they capable of inventing, (or which is much lefs) of learn ing the arts and fciences? Can they correct their fenfes, and demonstrate a star to be far greater than the whole earth, which to the eye feems no bigger than the rowel of a fpur? Do they foreknow the pofitions, and combinations of the planets, and the eclipfes of the fun and moon many years before they fuffer them? And if they cannot perform thefe acts of reafon, as it is fure they cannot, how much lefs can they know, fear, love, or delight in God, and long for the enjoyment of him! Thefe things do plainly evince human fouls to be of another fpecies, and therefore of a higher original than the fouls of brutes. If all have one common nature and original, why are they not all capable of performing the fame rational, and religious acts?

Obj. 2. But though it fhould be granted, that the foul of the first man was by immediate creation and inspiration from God; yet it follows not, that the fouls of all his pofterity must be fo God might create him with a power of begetting other fouls after his own image. The first tree was created with its feed in itself to propagate its kind, and fo might the first man.

too.

Sol. 1. Trees, animals, and fuch-like, were not created immediately out of nothing, as the foul of man was; but the earth was the pre-exiftent matter out of which they were produced by the word of God's bleffing and power; but man's foul was immediately breathed into him by God, and had no pre-existedt matter at all: And befides, all human fouls being of one fpe. cies, have therefore one and the fame original: The foul of the poorest child is of equal dignity with the foul of Adam. And if we confult Job xxxiii. 4. we fhall find Elihu giving us there the fame account, and almoft in the fame words, of the original of his foul that Mofes in my text gives us of the original of Adam's foul: "The Spirit of God hath formed me, and the "breath of the Almighty hath given me life:"

Sol. 2. But it is evident, fouls fpring not from the parent, as one plant, or animal doth from another; for they have their feed in themselves, apt and proper to produce their kind; but the feed of fouls is not to be found in man: It is not to be found

in his body; for then (as was faid before) a spiritual and nobler effence must be produced out of a material and baser matter, (i. e.) the matter muft give to the foul that which it hath not in itself, nor is it to be found in its foul; for the foul being a pure, fimple, and invisible being, can fuffer nothing to be defcinded from it, towards the production of another foul. A spirit, as the foul is, fubftantia fimplex et impartibilis; an uncompounded, and indifcerpible, or impartible being. Nor can it fpring partly from the body, and partly from the foul, as from con-caufes; for then it should be partly corporeal, and partly incorporeal, as its caufes are. "So that there is no matter, "feed, or principle of fouls found in man; and to be sure (as * "Baronius ftrongly argues) he cannot produce a foul without "pre-existent matter; for that were to make him omnipotent, "and affign a creating power to a creature." Besides, that which is generable, is also corruptible, as we fee trees, animals, &c. which are produced that way, to be; but the foul is not corruptible, as hath in part been already proved, and more fully, in the following difcourfe. So that Adam's foul, and the fouls of his polterity spring not from each other, but all from God by creation.

Obj. 3. If the foul be created and infufed immediately by God, either it comes out of his hands pure, or impure; if pure, how comes it to be defiled and tainted with fin? If impure, how do we free God from being the author of fin?

Sol. If the queftion be, whether fouls be pure or impure, as foon as they are united with their bodies? The anfwer is, they are impure, and tainted as foon as united: For the union conftitutes a child of Adam, and confequently a finful impure creature. But if it respect the condition and flate in which God created them, I answer with Baronius +. They are created "neither morally pure, nor impure; they receive neither purity nor impurity from him, but only their naked effence, and "the natural powers and properties flowing therefrom." He infpires not any impurity into them; for he cannot be the au

*Pater nequeproducit animam filii ex aliqua re præ-exiftente; neque producit eam ex nulla re præ exiftente : hoc enim eft creare; ergo nullo modo eam producit. Baronii differt. fecunda de Origine Animae, p. 120.

+ Animæ noftræ a Deo creante neque accipunt puritatem, feu juftitiam; neq; impuritatem et propenfionem ad malum: Sed tantum effentiam fpiritualem, et proprietates ab effentia dimanantes, Baroni exercit. p. 103

thor of fin, who is the revenger of it. Nor doth he create them in their original purity and rectitude; for the fin of Adam loft that, and God juftly withholds it from his pofterity. Who wonders (faith one) to fee the children, the palaces, and gardens of traitors to droop and decay, and the arms of his houfe, and the badge of his nobility, to be defaced and reverfed? That which is abused by man to the dishonour of God, may justly be destroyed (I add in this cafe, or with-held) by God to the detriment of man. Adam voluntarily and actually deprived himself, and meritoriously deprived all his posterity of that original righteoufnefs and purity in which he was created. As an holy God, he cannot infpire any impurity, and as a juft and righteous God, he may, and doth with-hold, or create them void and deftitute of that holinefs, and righteoufnefs, which was once their happiness and glory.

Ohj. 4. But how come they then to be defiled and tainted with original fin? It is confeffed God did not impure them, and the body cannot; for its being matter, cannot act upon a spirit; yea, of itself it is a dead lump, and cannot act at all.

Sol. What if this be one of those myfteries referved for the world to come, about which we cannot in this state folve every difficulty that may be moved? Muft we therefore deny its divine original? What if I cannot understand some mysteries, or anfwer fome questions about the hypoftatical union of the two natures, in the wonderful perfon of our Emmanuel? Must I therefore question whether he be vepoños, God-man? We muft remain ignorant of fome things about our fouls, till we come into the condition of the fpirits of juft men made perfect |. Mean time, I think it much more our concernment to study how we may get fin out of our fouls, than to puzzle our brains to find how it came into them.

But that the objector may not take this for an handsome slide, or go by to this great objection, I return to it, in a few particulars.

(1.) That I think not original fin follows either part fingly; it comes in neither by the foul alone, nor by the body alone, apart from the foul; but upon the union and conjunction of both in one perfon. 'Tis the union of these two which conftitutes a

Jenkins on Jude, Vol. 1. p. 5, 9.

Man fince the fall, being less than himself, understands not himfelf; nor will he fully, till he be fully restored to himself in glory. Norton's Orth. Evang. P, 237.