416

then the hypothesis of the corporal nature being the
root and ground of sin, and the sole vehicle of its trans-humb
fusion to posterity, would seem more probable. But then
again it would be hard to account for the iniquity we find
in spirit, both in the human and infernal, which hah
no relation to body, and which is constantly transacted
without it.

If the corruption of human nature be carried down
merely from body to body; is it in the least reconcileable
to the wisdom and goodness of God to suppose, that he
continually creates innocent and pure souls for such a
situation, as must necessarily place them in the road to
eternal destruction? To say, as Aquinas doth, melius est
sic esse secundum naturam quam nullo modo esse,* implies
a boldness which is not to be justified, when it is remem-
bered, that our Lord declared concerning a person in a
state of dereliction, It had been good for that man, if he had
never been born.

As the body returns to the dust, from which it was taken; so the spirit ascends to God, who originally created it, and whose image it bears. But this only specifies the sublime nature of the human soul, and cannot affect the question before us, as I presume, in any respect. It doth not lose, but continue its nature, by traduction; whereas the contrary opinion supposes, that God is ever creating new and new spirits out of nothing, only to inform sinful, wretched, and corrupting bodies. The Lord stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him, Zech. xii. I as his one great work of creation, and then rested from ALL HIS WORK which he had made, Gen. ii. 3. * Sum. Theol. 1æ Sec. Quæst. 83,

Great stress hath been laid upon this last cited text of Zech, xii. 1. and upon Eccles. xii. 7. and especially upon Heb. xii. 9. but, nothwithstanding, it is with all deference apprehended, that these passages do not relate to the intrinsic merits of the question on either side.

With respect to the first; that God formeth the spirit of man within him, it may be observed, with equal truth, that he doth the same to his body without him: for (says the Psalmist) My substance [i. e. of bone, or body] was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, &c. And, again, Thy hands have made me and fashioned me, Ps. cxxxix. 15. and cxix. 73. There are many other scriptures to the same purpose: but it is not necessary to quote them, for surely nobody will deny that God created all things. This is not the elenchus of the subject. The prophet is evidently stating God's power in the first creation, and places with it the forming of man's spirit, as an act of the same power, and (if the tenses be observed) of the same time. If there be any relation, therefore, in the text, to our present matter, it concludes against the opposite opinion; unless it can be explained, that God is Now stretching forth the heavens, and Now laying the foundations of the earth, as he is Now supposed to be creating souls.

As to the text of Eccles. xii. 7. it fairly implies, that, at death, the two grand constituents of man's nature return to their first principles; the dust to the earth, and the spirit to God, who originally breathed it into man. There is no controversy here but with atheists. The text concludes nothing in the topic before us, because

it doth not state any time concerning the communication of the spirit to the body.

But the greatest dependence hath been made upon the term FATHER of spirits applied to God, and upon the antithesis to fathers of our flesh, which occur in Heb. xii. 9. "Here (it hath been observed) it seems evident, s 16.22 that our souls flow not to us in the material channel of fleshly generation or descent, as our bodies do, but immediately from God their proper father, in the way of creation." To this, it may be answered, in the first place, that the term father, applied to God in this case, doth not mean his generation of souls out of his own proper substance, but solely his creation of them, as of all other things: and, in this sense, he is the father of the dew, Job xxxviii. 28. and the father of our bodies. Thus says Isaiah: O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter, and we all are the work of thy hand, Isa. lxiv. 8. So another prophet inquires, Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Mal. ii. 10. The word Father, therefore, can only mean here the same as Creator, and respects God's work of original creation, and not the present time; unless it can be proved (contrary to the scripture,) that his works [i. e. of creation] were NOT finished from the foundation of the world; and that God did NOT rest the seventh day from all his works, or cease to act in creation. There is indeed another kind of work, concerning which (as our Lord says) My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; but this wholly and solely relates to the purposes of salvation, and, in no one instance, to what is properly called creation, or making beings out of nothing. And

this work, respecting man, is not applied to the genera tion of the soul, but its regeneration, or renewal in Christ Jesus.

As to the antithesis, if the impartial reader will care. fully view the whole scope and context of the passage, he may possibly own, that it turns upon no such point as is alledged, but upon one of a very different kind. The apostle is speaking of the trials and afflictions of God's people, as permitted and exercised by him; and he draws this argument of consolation for them, from the practice of earthly parents towards their children; that as these corrected their offspring with a fatherly chastisement, and yet received reverence, from the conviction that it could not proceed from hatred, but love; so God, his people's heavenly Father, their Father in divine and spiritual things, their everlasting Father in Christ which is at once the most glorious and most gracious sense of the term, only chastened them for their profit, that they might be partakers of his holiness; and that, therefore, their very life consisted in a due subjection to him. This appears to be the precise intention of the apostle's argument; and it is rather surprising, how men of learning and piety, in order to bolster up a subject of their own opinion, should have wrested these words in support of it; when it is hardly possible, that St. Paul could have any thing in view, which seems altogether so much out of his way, as the question under consideration.

St. Austin and others have asserted, in order to

avoid an inconsistency, which they do not always avoid, that the body may sin without the concurrence of the soul; because the apostle says, The flesh lusteth against the Spirit. But this is an ignoratio elenchi; for the apostle means, by the flesh, what he calls in another place the carnal mind, φρόνημα της σαρκος, the minding of the flesh, or the act of the mind in and for the flesh, which is opposed to the Spirit of God, because it is enmity itself against him. It will not be easy to conceive, how body, as such (which is what St. Austin states,) can exercise enmity, or possess it, in the sense of the apostle, who evidently refers it to the carnality of the mind.

But Austin himself, in another place, sets this matter right. He tells us plainly, that the sin of man did not originate from his body only, but also from his soul; that the flesh is often put for the whole man, in the scriptures; and that, for this reason, even the sins of the mind are frequently attributed to the flesh. Nay, further, he affirms, that the principle of sin came from the soul, and not from the body. Corruptio corporis (says he) quæ aggravat animam, non peccati primi est causa, sed pœna: nec caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed ANIMA PECCATRIX fecit esse CORRUPTIBILEM CARNEM.† In short, it is not easy to reconcile this excellent father to himself, upon his hypothesis, and it is far less easy, in my humble opinion, to reconcile the hypothesis itself to some fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

† De Civit. Dei. c. 2, 3. Here Tertullian will agree with him; for he tells us, that when the flesh is charged with sinfulness in the scripture, it is because the soul cannot commit many sins with out its instrumentality, such as drunkenness, murder, and the like. De Anima, c. 40.

There