Milton

¶1p. 124 Secunda species externæ efficientiæ vulgo dicitur CREATIO. Sed ante mundum conditum quid egerit Deus, insipiens nimis sit qui quærat; nec qui respondeat multo sapientior: nam quod rationem reddidisse se plerique arbitrantur, cum dicunt eum, 1 Cor. ii. 7. sapientiam in mysterio latentem ante sæcula præfinisse, elegisse nimirum, reprobasse, aliaque eo spectantia decrevisse, parum profecto hoc esset Deum ab æterno in iis decernendis totum fuisse occupatum, quæ spatio sex dierum perficienda, paucis annorum millibus varie gubernanda, tum demum immutabili statu in omne ævum vel ad se recipienda, vel ab se rejicienda erant.

¶2Creatum autem fuisse mundum in articulis fidei ponendum est. Heb. xi. 3. per fidem intelligimus compactum fuisse mundum verbo Dei.

¶3CREATIO est qua DEUS PATER VERBO ET SPIRITU SUO, HOC EST SUA VOLUNTATE, QUICQUID EST RERUM PRODUXIT, AD PATEFACIENDAM POTENTIÆ ET BONITATIS SUÆ GLORIAM.

¶4QUA DEUS PATER. Job. ix. 8. Qui extendit cœlos solus. Isa. xliv. 24. ego Jehova facio omnia; extendo cœlos solus, expando terram a meipso. et xlv. 6, 7. ut cognoscant gentes ab ortu solis, et ab occasu ejus, nullum esse præter me, me Jehovam, et nullum præterea; formantem lucem et creantem tenebras. Hæc, si quis est communis sensus, si quis loquendi usus, excludunt omnem alium non modo Deum, sed etiam, quicquid id esse potest, personam æqualem. Nehem. ix. 6. tu ille p. 125 Jehova solus es, tu fecisti cœlos, cœlos cœlorum. Mal. ii. 10. nonne Pater unus omnibus nobis est? nonne Deus fortis unicus creavit nos? Hinc ipse Christus Matt. xi. 25. Pater, Domine cœli ac terræ, et apostoli omnes. Act. iv. 24. cum 27. Domine, tu es Deus ille qui fecisti cœlum et terram, mare et omnia quæ in iis sunt — . adversus Filium tuum. Rom. xi. 36. ex eo et per eum, et in ipsum sunt omnia. 1 Cor. viii. 6. unus Deus Pater a quo omnia. et 2 Cor. iv. 6. quoniam Deus, qui dixit ut e tenebris lux splendesceret, est qui splenduit in cordibus nostris ad præbendam lucem notitiæ gloriæ Dei in facie Jesu Christi. Heb. ii. 10. ipse propter quem, et per quem sunt hæc omnia. et iii. 4. qui vero hæc omnia construxit est Deus.

¶5VERBO. Gen. i. per totum caput, dixit — . Psal. xxxiii. 6. verbo Jehovæ. v. 9. ipso dicente. Psal. cxlviii. 5. ipso præcipiente. 2 Pet. iii. 5. per Dei sermonem; id est, ut aliis in locis docetur, per Filium, qui hinc, ut videtur, Sermo dicitur. Joan. i. 3, 10. omnia per hunc facta sunt. mundus per eum factus est. 1 Cor. viii. 6. unus Deus Pater a quo omnia, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus per quem omnia. Eph. iii. 9. qui omnia hæc condidit per Jesum Christum. Col. i. 16. per eum condita sunt omnia — . Heb. i. 2. per quem etiam mundum condidit. hinc v. 10. tu creasti. Et per quidem præpositio nunc principalem denotat causam, ut Matt. xii. 28. per Spiritum Dei ejicio dæmonia. 1 Cor. i. 9. per quem vocati estis — . nunc instrumentalem, seu minus principem, ut his superioribus locis; non principalem, quia tum Pater ipse, a quo solo omnia, non esset principalis; non sociam, quia tum non diceretur, Pater Verbo et Spiritu, sed cum Verbo et Spiritu creavit; vel Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus crearunt: quæ formulæ loquendi in scriptura nusquam inveniuntur. Deinde esse a Patre et esse per Filium, non eandem notant efficientis causæ speciem: si non eandem, non sociam: si non sociam, certe principalior erit causa Pater a quo, quam Filius per quem omnia: est enim Pater non solum a quo, sed etiam ex quo, in quem, per quem, et propter quem sunt omnia, quod supra demonstratum est, ut qui omnes causas inferiores in se complectatur: Filius duntaxat est per quem omnia: causa igitur minus principalis. Sæpe p. 126 itaque occurrit, mundum creavit Pater per Filium; at nusquam eodem sensu, Filius creavit mundum per Patrem. Quod autem Filium nonnulli causam cum Patre sociam immo principalem fuisse creationis probare ex Apoc. iii. 14. conantur, principium creationis Dei, activum scilicet, ut ipsi ex Aristotele^la1 interpretantur; primum Hebræa lingua, unde ista elocutio desumpta est, istiusmodi usum vocis principii nusquam agnoscit; sed potius contrarium, ut Gen. xlix. 3. Reuben, principium potentiæ meæ. Deinde locus unus atque alter Pauli de ipso Christo planissimum facit passive hic principium significari: Col. i. 15, 18. primogenitus omnis rei creatæ, principium, primogenitus ex mortuis. ubi et accentus Græcus, idemque verbale passivum πρωτότοκος declarat non alia ratione fuisse Filium Dei primogenitum omnis rei creatæ, atque Filius hominis fuit πρωτότοκος sive primogenitus Mariæ, Matt. i. 25. et primogenitus inter multos fratres, Rom. viii. 29. id est, passive. Neque hoc denique omittendum est, non dici simpliciter principium creationis, sed creationis Dei: quod quid est aliud nisi earum rerum primum quas Deus creavit? quo pote ergo ipse Deus? Neque vero admittendum est illud a Patribus quibusdam pro ratione excogitatum, cur dicatur primogenitus omnis creaturæ, Col. i. 15. quia per eum nempe condita sunt omnia, v. 16: ad id enim significandum dixisset, qui erat ante omnem creaturam (quod illi Patres, violenter licet, iis verbis significari contendunt) non, qui erat primogenitus omnis creaturæ: quæ vox in se disertissime vim habet, ut superlativam, ita quodam in genere partitivam, quatenus productio genus quoddam videtur esse generationis et creationis; minime omnium quatenus homo primogenitus hic dici potest, cum non dignitate solum, sed etiam tempore, primogenitus dicatur, v. 16. nam per eum condita sunt omnia quæ in cœlis sunt — .

¶6Nec firmior est ille locus Prov. viii. 22, 23. etiamsi de Christo interpretandum esse caput illud concederemus: Jehova possedit me principium viæ suæ; ante sæculum inuncta fui — : Quæ enim possessa est, quæ inuncta, principalis esse non potuit. Principium autem viarum Dei p. 127 creatura etiam dicitur: Job. xl. 19. ille principium viarum Dei. Ad illud autem Proverbiorum cap. viii. quod attinet, crediderim, non Filium Dei, sed sapientiam, more poetico, quasi personam illic induci, ut Job. xxviii. a v. 20 ad 27. illa igitur sapientia, unde — ? jam tum videbat eam — .

¶7Alterum argumentum ex Isa. xlv. 12, 23. petitur: ego feci terram — ; mihi incurvabit. Hæc volunt a Christo dici, teste Paulo, Rom. xiv. 10, 11. omnes sistemur ad tribunal Christi: scriptum est enim, Vivo ego, dicit Dominus; mihi se flectet omne genu — . Atqui manifestum est ex loco parallelo Philipp. ii. 9, 10, 11. hæc dici a Deo Patre, qui tribunal illud omneque judicium dedit Filio, ut ad nomen Jesu omne genu se flectat — ; ad gloriam Dei Patris; vel, quod idem hic valet, omnis lingua confitebitur Deo.

¶8ET SPIRITU DEI. Gen. i. 2. Spiritus Dei incubabat, id est, virtus potius divina, quam persona aliqua, ut supra ostendimus, cap. vi. de Spiritu Sancto. Nam si persona erat, cur Spiritus nominatur, Filius reticetur, cujus opera factum esse mundum toties legimus; nisi potius Christus is fuit, quem Spiritum in vetere testamento aliquoties dictum supra ostendimus. Utut sit, si personam omnino volumus, non alia tamen quam ministra duntaxat videtur fuisse: postea enim quam Deus cœlum et terram creaverat, Spiritus tantummodo incubabat superficiei aquarum jam creatarum. Sic Job. xxvi. 13. Spiritu suo cœlos ornavit, Psal. xxxiii. 6. verbo Jehovæ cœli facti sunt, et Spiritu oris ejus totus exercitus eorum. Certe non magis ex ore Dei persona Spiritus videtur processisse, quam ex ore Christi, qui Spiritu oris sui antichristum absumet, 2 Thess. ii. 8. cum Isa. xi. 4. virga oris sui.

¶9SUA VOLUNTATE. Psal. cxxxv. 6. quicquid placet tibi. Apoc. iv. 11. propter voluntatem tuam.

¶10AD PATEFACIENDAM. Gen. i. 31. quicquid fecerat, bonum erat valde. 1 Tim. iv. 4. idem. Psal. xix. 2, 3. cœli enarrant gloriam Dei. Prov. xvi. 4. omnia operatus est propter se. Act. xiv. 15. ut a vanis istis p. 128 rebus convertatis vos ad Deum illum vivum, qui fecit cœlum et terram et mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt. et xvii. 24. Deus ille qui fecit mundum &c. Rom. i. 20. pervidentur æterna ejus tum potentia tum divinitas. Hactenus constat Deum Patrem causam esse primam rerum omnium efficientem.

¶11Materia autem prima quæ fuerit, varie disputatur. Moderni plerique volunt ex nihilo emersisse omnia; unde et ipsorum credo sententia orta est. Primum autem constat, neque Hebræo verbo בָּרָא, neque Græco κτίζειν, neque Latino creare, idem quod ex nihilo facere significari: immo vero unumquodque horum idem quod ex materia facere passim significat. Gen. i. 21, 27. creavit Deus — quæ abunde progenuerunt aquæ, marem et fœminam creavit eos. Isa. liv. 16. creavi fabrum, creavi interfectorem. Qui dicit ergo, creare est ex nihilo producere, neque exemplo probat principium quod aiunt dialectici. Nam et scripturæ quæ afferuntur loca receptam hanc sententiam nullo modo confirmant, sed contrarium potius innuunt, nempe non ex nihilo facta esse omnia. 2 Cor. iv. 6. Deus qui dixit ut e tenebris lux splendesceret. At has tenebras nequaquam fuisse nihil patet ex Isa. xlv. 7. ego Jehovam &c. formantem lucem et creantem tenebras. Si tenebræ sunt nihil, Deus certe creando tenebras creavit nihil, id est, creavit et non creavit, quæ contradicentia sunt. Et Heb. xi. 3. nihil aliud requiritur quod de sæculis, id est de mundo, per fidem intelligamus, nisi hoc, non ex apparentibus fuisse compacta quæ conspiciuntur. Non apparentia autem non sunt pro nihilo habenda, (neque enim pluralem admittit nihil, neque compingi ex multis tanquam ex nihilo quicquam potest) sed pro non apparentibus qualia nunc sunt. Addam et Apocryphos auctoritate scripturæ proximos. Sapient. xi. 17. Qui creavit mundum ex informi materia. 2 Macc. vii. 28. ex rebus quæ non erant. At Rachelis liberi non sunt Matt. ii. 18. Nec tamen sunt nihil, quod in lingua Hebræa frequenter occurrit; id est, in vivis non sunt.

¶12Ex materia igitur quacunque mundum fuisse conditum palam est. Actio enim et passio relata cum sint, nullumque agens extra se possit p. 129 agere, nisi sit quod pati queat, materia nimirum, Deus ex nihilo creare hunc mundum videtur non potuisse non ob virium, aut omnipotentiæ defectum, sed quia necesse fuit aliquid jam tum fuisse, quod vim ejus agendi potentissimam patiendo reciperet. Cumque itaque non ex nihilo sed ex materia esse facta hæc omnia et scriptura sacra et ratio ipsa suggerat, necesse est materiam vel fuisse semper extra Deum, vel aliquando ex Deo. Ut^la2 extra Deum semper fuerit materia, quamvis principium tantummodo passivum sit, a Deo pendeat, eique subserviat, quamvis ut numero, ita et ævi vel sempiterni nulla vis, nulla apud se efficacia sit, tamen ut ab æterno, inquam, per se materia extiterit intelligi non potest, nec, si ab æterno non fuit, unde tandem fuerit intellectu est facilius; restat igitur hoc solum, præeunte præsertim scriptura, fuisse omnia ex Deo. Rom. xi. 36. ex eo et per eum et in eum sunt omnia. 1 Cor. viii. 6. unus Deus Pater ex quo omnia, ut in Græco utrobique legitur. Heb. ii. 11. nam et qui sanctificat, et qui sanctificatur, ex uno sunt omnes.

¶13Primum hoc omnibus notissimum est quatuor esse genera causarum, efficientem, materialem, formalem et finalem. Deus cum prima, absoluta, et sola rerum omnium causa sit, quis dubitet quin omnes causas in se contineat et complectatur? Materialis igitur causa erit aut Deus aut nihil; nihil autem nulla causa est, et tamen formas etiam maxime humanas ex nihilo volunt: materia autem et forma velut causæ internæ rem ipsam constituunt; adeoque omnia aut duas tantummodo causas p. 130 habuerint, easque externas, aut Deus perfecta et absoluta rerum causa non fuerit. Deinde omnimodam, multiformem, et inexhaustam virtutem in Deo esse, eamque substantialem, non enim accidentalem, quæ pro voluntate ejus et gradus quosdam et quasi impensionem quandam et remissionem admittat, virtutem hanc omnimodam et substantialem inquam^la3 non intra se comprimere, sed emittere, propagare, atque extendere quatenus et quomodo ipse vult, quid aliud nisi summæ potentiæ summæque benignitatis est? neque enim materia illa res mala est, aut vilis existimanda, sed bona, omnisque boni postmodum producendi seminarium; substantia erat, nec aliunde quam ex fonte omnis substantiæ derivanda, indigesta modo et incomposita, quam Deus postea digessit et ornavit.

¶14Quod si quos offendit, quod imperfecta fuisse videatur, offendat eosdem quod Deus ex nihilo imperfectam primo et informem produxit. Quid autem interest, utrum ex nihilo imperfectam an ex se produxerit? quam enim imperfectionem a substantia ex Deo producta remotam volunt, eandem in efficientiam Dei transferunt: cur non enim ex nihilo Deus perfectissima prima omnia? sed materia non erat in suo genere imperfecta, accessione duntaxat formarum (quæ et ipsæ materiales quoque sunt) facta ornatior. At corruptibile ex incorruptibili prodire quid potest? Idem de virtute et efficientia Dei ex nihilo objici poterit. Verum materia, uti et forma et natura ipsa angelorum, incorruptibilis ex Deo prodiit, post peccatum etiam quoad essentiam incorruptibilis manet.

¶15At manet eadem difficultas, immo major; qui possit peccabile, ut ita dicam, ex Deo egredi? identidem quæro, qui possit ex virtute et efficientia, quæ ex Deo egressa est, tale quippiam exire? sed nec materia nec forma peccat; egressa tamen ex Deo; et alterius facta quid vetat, quin jam mutabilis per ratiocinia diaboli atque hominis ab ipsis prodeuntia contagionem contrahat et polluatur. At corpus e spiritu emanare non p. 131 potest; multo minus inquam ex nihilo: spiritus enim, ut substantia excellentior, substantiam utique inferiorem virtualiter, quod aiunt, et eminenter in se continet; ut facultas facultatem spiritualis et rationalis corpoream, sentientem nempe et vegetativam. Nam neque virtus et efficientia divina potuisset juxta communem sententiam corpora ex nihilo producere, nisi vis corporea quædam in substantia Dei fuisset; nemo enim dat quod non habet. Quin et corporale quiddam Deo attribuere non ipse dubitavit Paulus Col. ii. 9. in eo habitat omnis plenitudo deitatis corporaliter. Nec minus credibile est posse vim corpoream ex spirituali substantia emitti, quam spirituale quicquam posse ex corpore fieri; id quod et nostris corporibus in resurrectione tandem futurum speramus. Intelligi denique non potest, quo pacto Deus vere dicatur infinitus, si quicquam Deo potest accedere; accederet autem, si quid in natura rerum existeret, quod non ex Deo et in Deo prius fuerit.

¶16Cum igitur Deum omnia non ex nihilo, sed ex se produxisse, scriptura duce, videar mihi probasse, progrediendum censeo ad id quod necessario sequitur, cum non solum a Deo, sed ex Deo sint omnia, non posse quicquam rerum creatarum in nihilum interire. Et quoniam annihilationis hujus nulla in sacris literis omnino fit mentio, cur penitus explodenda sit, ad illam supradictam et firmissimam rationem alias quasdam adjiciam. Primum quia prorsus annihilari quicquam Deus nec velle nec proprie videatur posse. Non vult, quia facit omnia propter finem; nihil autem neque Dei, neque rei cujuspiam finis esse potest. Non Dei, quia ipse suimet finis est; non rei cujuspiam, quia rerum omnium finis est bonum aliquid: nihil autem neque bonum est neque aliquid. Ens omne est bonum, non ens non bonum: ex ente igitur et bono non bonum facere sive nihil, nec bonitati nec sapientiæ Dei consentaneum est. Non potest autem Deus, quia nihil faciendo, faceret simul et non faceret, quod contradictionem infert. Immo, inquis, facit, ut quod est non sit; at, inquam, in omni actione perfecta, duo sunt, motus et res motu facta; motus est actio abolendi; res motu facta est nulla, id est, nihil, effectum nullum; nullius autem effecti nullus est efficiens. p. 132 {¶17} CREATIONE est INVISIBILIUM vel VISIBILIUM.

¶18INVISIBILIUM saltem nobis, sunt cœlum supremum, qui thronus est et habitaculum Dei, et cœlites sive angeli.

¶19Partitio hæc est apostoli Col. i. 16. Invisibilium si non origini, attamen dignitati prior debetur locus. Cœlum enim supremum veluti summa arx et habitaculum Dei, (de quo Deut. xxvi. 15. 1 Reg. viii. 27, 30. cœli cœlorum — . Nehem. ix. 6. idem. Isa. lxiii. 15.) longe supra omnes cœlos est, Eph. iv. 10: ubi Deus quem nemo potest videre, lucem habitat inaccessam, 1 Tim. vi. 16. ex qua quidem luce amœnitatem et gloriam et quasi perenne quoddam cœlum emanasse et extitisse videtur, juxta illud Psal. xvi. 11. voluptates æternæ ad dextram tuam, Isa. lvii. 19. cujus nomen est inhabitans æternitatem, et sanctus; qui in sublimi et sancto habito.

¶20Et tale quidem majestatis suæ domicilium, non nisi nudiustertius, ab initio scilicet mundi, ædificasse sibi Deum verisimile non est. Profecto si est ulla Dei habitatio, ubi is gloriam et fulgorem majestatis suæ eximium in modum diffundit, cur potius cum hac tandem mundi fabrica fundatam, quam longe prius extructam existimem? Nec tamen sequitur cœlum esse æternum, nec æternum si sit, esse Deum; semper enim potuit Deus effectum quod libet, et quandocunque voluit, et quo ipse voluit modo producere. Lucem sine lumine concipere animo non possumus; nec ideo lumen idem esse quod lucem, aut par dignitate arbitramur. Sic etiam illa Dei quæ vocantur posteriora Exod. xxxiii. nec esse proprie Deum censemus, neque tamen non esse æterna. Simile quiddam de cœlo illo cœlorum, Dei solio et habitaculo, crediderim potius, quam ante primam hexameri diem Deum sine cœlo fuisse. Verum hæc eo a me dicta sunt, non quo ausim hac in re quicquam statuere, sed ut alios audacter nimium statuisse ostendam, qui cœlum illud invisibile ac supremum simul cum hoc aspectabili conditum primo die affirmare solent: de quo duntaxat scribendum cum proposuisset sibi Moses, deque hoc tantum visibili mundo universo, quid attinebat dicere quæ supra mundum erant? p. 133 {¶21} Cœlum beatorum, seu Paradisus, de quo Luc. xxiii. 43. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, et sinus Abrahæ Luc. xvi. 22. cum Matt. viii. 11. (ubi etiam Deus angelis et sanctis, quantum illi capiunt, se præbet conspiciendum, et post finem sæculi majorem in modum præbebit; 1 Cor. xiii. 12.) hujus cœli supremi videtur pars esse. Joan. xiv. 2, 3. in domo Patris mei mansiones multæ sunt. Heb. xi. 10, 16. expectabat civitatem illam — . potiorem expetunt, hoc est cœlestem; paravit enim eis urbem.

¶22In creatione mundi angelos plerique sub cœli nomine creatos debere etiam intelligi contendunt: et creatos quidem aliquando fuisse angelos facile credimus ex Num. xvi. 22. Deus spirituum. et xxvii. 16. idem. Heb. i. 7. Col. i. 16. per eum condita sunt invisibilia, sive throni — . Quod autem die primo aut sex dierum aliquo creati fuerint, fidentius, ut solet, quam solidius a vulgo theologorum asseritur ex illa maxime repetitione Gen. ii. 1. itaque perfecti sunt cœli et terra, omnisque exercitus eorum; nisi plus in conclusione ponere quam in præmissis, et angelos cœli aspectabilis exercitus atque indigenas facere voluerint: nam quod eos Deo creatori tum applausisse legimus Job. xxxviii. 7. creatos jam tum fuisse probat, non tum primum. Multi certe ex Patribus Græcis, et nonnulli ex Latinis, angelos, utpote spiritus corporeo hoc mundo longe prius extitisse censuerunt: immo apostasiam illam, ob quam tot eorum myriades cœleste solum pulsi verterunt, ante ipsa mundi primordia contigisse verisimilius est. Certe motum, et tempus, quæ mensura motus est, secundum prius et posterius, ante mundum hunc conditum esse non potuisse, quod vulgo creditur, nihil cogit assentiri; cum Aristoteles in hoc mundo, quem æternum esse statuit, dari nihilominus motum atque tempus docuerit.^la4

¶23Angeli sunt spiritus Matt. viii. 16. et xii. 45. Unum quippe hominem legio dæmonum insederat Luc. viii. 30. Heb. i. 14. spiritus qui — . Sunt natura ætherea; 1 Reg. xxii. 21. Psal. civ. 4. cum Matt. viii. 31. p. 134 Heb. i. 7. tanquam fulgur Luc. x. 18. unde et Seraphim dicti. Sunt immortales; Luc. xx. 36. mori non possunt. Sapientia insignes; 2 Sam. xiv. 20. Viribus potentissimi; Psal. ciii. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 11. 2 Reg. xix. 35. 2 Thess. i. 7. Sunt velocitate summa quasi alis induti; Ezech. i. 6. Sunt numero pene innumerabili; Deut. xxxiii. 2. Job. xxv. 3. Dan. vii. 10. Matt. xxvi. 53. Heb. xii. 22. Apoc. v. 11, 12. Creati sunt sanctitate et justitia integri; Luc. ix. 26. Joan. viii. 44. 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15. angeli lucis, ministri justitiæ. Matt. vi. 10. fiat voluntas tua sicut in cœlis. et xxv. 31. sancti angeli. Hinc et filii Dei sunt dicti; Job. i. 6. et xxxviii. 7. Dan. iii. 25. cum v. 28. etiam Dii; Psal. viii. 6. et xcvii. 7. Cum Deo tamen non conferendi; Job. iv. 18. angelis suis appositurus lucem. et xv. 15. cœlites non sunt mundi in oculis ejus. et xxv. 5. etiam sidera non pura essent in oculis ejus. Isa. vi. 2. binis tegebat faciem suam. Distinguuntur inter se officiis et gradibus; Matt. xxv. 41. Rom. viii. 38. Col. i. 16. Eph. i. 21. et iii. 10. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Apoc. xii. 7. Cherubim; Gen. iii. 24. Seraphim; Isa. vi. 2. et nominibus propriis; Dan. viii. 16. et ix. 21. et x. 13. Luc. i. 19. Michael; Judæ 9. Apoc. xii. 7. 1 Thess. iv. 16. cum voce archangeli. Jos. vi. 2. Cætera de angelis infra cap. ix. Plura de angelorum natura qui commentati sunt jam olim apostoli reprehensionem commeruere, Col. ii. 18. pedem inferens in ea quæ non vidit; et temere inflatus carnis suæ intelligentia.

¶24VISIBILIA sunt, mundus hic visibilis, quæque in eo continentur; et præ cæteris omnibus humanum genus.

¶25Mundi ejusque singularum partium creatio narratur Gen. i. Describitur Job. xxvi. 7. &c. et xxxviii. et passim in psalmis et prophetis. Psal. xxxiii. 6, 9. et civ. et cxlviii. 5. Prov. viii. 26, &c. Amos. iv. 13. 2 Pet. iii. 5. facturus autem hominem Deus, tanquam majus adhuc opus, consultanti similis præfatur Gen. i. 26. postea dixit Deus, faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram, secundum similitudinem nostram. Tam ergo animam quam corpus tunc fecit, qua maxime Deo similes sumus; ne quis factas tum animas præextitisse putet, quod quidam somniant, et refutantur Gen. ii. 7. finxit vero hominem Deus ex pulvere terræ, sufflavit- p. 135 que in nares ipsius halitum vitæ: sic factus est homo anima vivens. Job. xxxii. 8. certe spiritus hic in homine, et halitus Omnipotentis facit eos intelligentes. Nec inflavit duntaxat illum spiritum, sed in ipso quoque homine formavit, penitus indidit, suisque facultatibus ornavit atque distinxit. Zech. xii. 1. formans spiritum hominis in medio ejus.

¶26Ex inspirato autem illo vitæ halitu non divinum quidpiam, quasi essentiæ divinæ partem, sed humanum tantummodo quod erat, pro rata virtutis divinæ portione, impertitum esse homini a Deo, ex aliis scripturæ locis uberrime cognoscas licet. Nam et cæteris quoque animantibus vitæ halitum inspiravit, ut facile ex Psal. civ. 29, 30. perspicitur; te recipiente spiritum eorum, exspirant, emittente spiritum tuum, recreantur: ex eodem igitur vitæ ac spiritus fonte omnia vivere animantia docemur; sicuti illum spiritum sive halitum vitæ recipiente ad se Deo, exspirant. Eccl. iii. 19. spiritum eundem omnibus ipsis esse. Neque aliud vox illa spiritus nisi aut halitum vitæ quem ducimus, aut facultatem vitalem, aut sensitivam aut rationalem, aut earum actum aliquem aut affectum, in sacris codicibus notat.

¶27Creato in hunc modum homine, tandem dicitur, sic factus est homo anima vivens; ex quo intelligitur (nisi ab ethnicis auctoribus quid sit anima doceri malumus) hominem esse animal per se ac proprie unum et individuum, non duplex aut separabile, aut ex duabus naturis inter se specie diversis atque distinctis, anima nempe et corpore, ut vulgo statuunt, conflatum atque compositum; sed totum hominem esse animam, et animam hominem; corpus nempe sive substantiam individuam, animatam, sensitivam, rationalem; halitumque illum vitæ nec divinæ partem essentiæ, nec animam quidem fuisse, sed auram quandam sive virtutem divinam efflatam, potentiæ tantum vitæ et rationis habilem, corpore organico infusam; cum ipse homo factus denique, ipse, inquam, totus homo anima vivens disertis verbis dicatur. Hinc illa vox anima, interprete apostolo, 1 Cor. xv. 45. animal redditur. Quicquid etiam corpori, idem animæ tribuitur: tactus, Levit. v. 2. cum anima tetigerit rem p. 136 ullam immundam. et passim: comedere, cap. vii. 18. anima quæ comederit ex ea. v. 20. anima quæ comederit carnem. et sæpius: esurire, Prov. xiii. 25. et xxvii. 7. et sitire, Prov. xxv. 25. ut aquæ frigidæ erga animam fessam. Isa. xxix. 8. et capi, 1 Sam. xxiv. 11. quamvis tu vexeris animam meam ut capias eam. Psal. vii. 6. et persequatur animam meam, et capiat.

¶28Quoties autem de corpore tanquam de trunco loquimur, tum anima vel idem quod spiritus, vel facultates ejus minus principes, vitalem puta vel sensitivam, significat; haud rarius itaque a spiritu quam a corpore distinguitur; ut Luc. i. 46, 47. 1 Thess. v. 23. integer spiritus, anima et corpus. Heb. iv. 12. usque ad divisionem et animæ et spiritus. Separari autem spiritum hominis a corpore, ita ut alicubi seorsim integer et intelligens existat, nec in scriptura sacra usquam legitur, et naturæ ac rationi plane repugnat; ut infra plenius ostendetur. Quin et de omni genere animalium dicitur Gen. i. 30. in quibus est anima vivens. et vii. 22. omne in cujus naribus halitus spiritus vitæ, ex omnibus quæ in sicco, interiit. nec tamen idcirco separatam alicubi existere brutorum animam creditur.

¶29Deus die septimo creare desiit, et universum opus creationis consummavit, Gen. ii. 2, 3.

¶30Videtur itaque anima humana a parentibus naturali ordine propagari, non immediate a Deo indies creari; quæ sententia cum Tertulliano et Apollinario, tum Augustino quoque et universæ ecclesiæ occidentali, tempore Hieronymi, ut ipse, Tom. II. Epist. 82. Greg. Nyssenus lib. de anima testatur, visa est verior. Ingens profecto opus et quodammodo servile die sexto reliquum erat Deo, et etiamnum restaret, a quo nec septimo quoque die posset requiescere, si adhuc quotidie tot animas crearet, quot nefaria sæpe hominum libido orbe toto terrarum procrearet humana corpora. Sed nec vis minor divinæ benedictionis in homine, quam in reliquis extitit animantibus, ut sui similem procrearet: Gen. i. 22, 28. Itaque et ex simplici costa matrem viventium sine afflatu repetito fabricavit Deus, Gen. ii. 22. et ipse Adamus ad similitudinem suam, ad imaginem suam filium genuit, cap. v. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 49. sicut ges- p. 137 simus imaginem terreni; atque hoc non corpore solum sed anima, sicuti Adamus ad imaginem Dei ratione animæ potissimum erat factus. Sic Gen. xlvi. 26. omnes animæ egressæ a femore Jacobi. Heb. vii. 10. Levi erat in femore Abrahami. hinc in scriptura soboles vocatur semen: et Christus dicitur semen mulieris. ero Deus tuus et seminis tui, Gen. xvii. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 44. seritur corpus animale. v. 46. spirituale non est prius, sed animale.

¶31Accedunt etiam rationes. Qui in peccato genitus sive formatus est et conceptus, (sicuti sumus omnes, non solus utique Davides Psal. li. 7.) is animam a Deo immediate qui potuit accipere, quin in peccato animam quoque a Deo acceperit? nam gigni et concipi quid aliud est nisi animam cum corpore accipere? Si animam a Deo immediate accepimus, certe puram: impuram enim quis ausit dicere? quod si puram, quomodo puram accipiendo, quæ potius impurum corpus sanctificet, in peccato concipimur? quo suo merito pura anima peccati corporalis rea facta est? At impuras, inquiunt, non creat Deus animas; sed tamen illa primitiva justitia defectas ac diminutas. Respondeo, creare puras animas primitiva justitia carentes, tum in corpora polluta ac vitiosa immittere, et in carcerem innocentes atque inermes corpori tanquam hosti tradere, cum intellectu cæcutiente, voluntate non libera, id est, iis plane viribus destitutas quæ ad resistendum vitiis corporum sufficiant, ejusdem esset injustitiæ atque impuras creasse impuritatis fuisset; ejusdem injustitiæ atque ipsum primum hominem Adamum primitiva illa justitia defectum ac diminutum creasse.

¶32Deinde, si peccatum ingeneratur atque traducitur a parentibus ad filium, necesse est id quoque ab iisdem generari, quod est peccati subjectum primum seu πρῶτον δεκτικόν, nempe animam rationalem; peccatum enim omne ab anima primo esse profectum nemo non fatebitur. Postremo, quo jure anima facta rea est in Adamo, quæ neque in Adamo neque ab Adamo unquam fuit? Addo et illud Aristotelicum, et puto verissimum:^la5 si anima est tota in toto, et tota in qualibet parte, qui p. 138 potest intelligi pars illa intima et nobilissima, semen scilicet humanum, parentum, vel saltem patris anima destitutum et vacuum, cum gignendo filio impertitur? omnem certe formam, cujus generis et anima humana est, ex potentia materiæ produci omnes fere consentiunt.

¶33Hujusmodi, puto, argumenta Augustinum eo redegerunt, ut negaret se vel legendo vel orando vel ratiocinando invenire potuisse, quo pacto cum animarum creatione peccatum originis defendatur: Epist. 28. ad Hieron. et 157. ad Optat. Quæ autem objici solent loca, Eccles. xii. 7. Isa. lvii. 20. Zech. xii. 1. indicant quidem nobiliorem illam animæ originem ex ore spirantis Dei; immediatam vero singularum creationem non magis probant, quam hæc sequentia corpus cujusque in utero immediate a Deo efformari demonstrant: Job. x. 8, 9, 10. manus tuæ fecerunt me. sicut lac fudisti. Psal. xxxiii. 15. formator cordis. Job. xxxi. 15. in utero fecit me. Isa. xliv. 24. Jehova, formator tuus ex utero. Act. xvii. 26. fecit ex uno sanguine totam gentem hominum. Non enim hinc sequitur, causas naturales vim suam solitam ad corpus procreandum non contulisse: nec ideo animam per patrem non esse traductam, quod in morte diversa tandem a corpore elementa pro origine sua repetit.

¶34Ad illud Heb. xii. 9. ubi patres carnis Patri spirituum in antithesi opponuntur, respondemus, hoc fieri sensu theologico, non physico, ac si pater corporis opponeretur Patri animæ; non enim caro hic sumitur, ut nec alibi credo, pro corpore anima carente, nec Pater spirituum pro Patre animæ, quoad opus generationis, sed pater carnis nihil aliud hic est quam pater terrenus, naturalis, qui in peccato genuit; Pater spirituum vel est Pater cœlestis, qui spiritus omnes, cum angelos tum hominum genus, olim creavit, vel Pater spiritualis, quod fideles etiam regenerat: juxta illud Joan. iii. 6. natum ex carne, caro; natum ex spiritu, spiritus. Et argumentum sic firmius procedit a castigationis fine, non a generatione; neque enim docetur hic quis nos quidve nostrum generaverit, sed quis utilius castiget atque erudiat. Eadem ratione hortari potuisset apostolus, ut se patrem spiritualem etiam reprehendentem ferrent. Deus p. 139 quidem tam carnis est Pater quam spirituum carnis, Num. xvi. 22. sed hoc loco id non agitur; ab agente aliud scriptura infirma fere argumenta exprimuntur.

¶35De anima autem Christi, satis erit respondisse, generationem illam supra naturam fuisse; ad hanc proinde controversiam discutiendam accommodari non posse. Verum et ille semen mulieris, semen Davidis secundum carnem dicitur, id est procul dubio secundum humanam naturam.

¶36Homo ad imaginem Dei cum esset formatus, necesse est naturali quoque sapientia, sanctitate, atque justitia fuisse præditum. Gen. i. 27, 31. et ii. 25. Eccl. vii. 29. Eph. iv. 24. Col. iii. 10. 2 Cor. iii. 18. Sine permagna autem sapientia ita subito nomina animalibus dedisse non potuit; Gen. ii. 20. Cur animam humanam exciperet quisquam, nescio. Nam et halitum vitæ cæteris quoque animantibus, ut supra, Deus inspiravit, et inspiratum ita materiæ penitus immiscuit, ut non secus atque formæ cæteræ, humana quoque forma ex potentia materiæ a Deo indita propagaretur et produceretur.

¶1p. 172 The second species of external efficiency is commonly called CREATION. As to the actions of God before the foundation of the world, it would be the height of folly to inquire into them, and almost equally so to attempt a solution of the question.¹ With regard to the account which is generally given from 1 Cor. ii. 7. he ordained his wisdom in a mystery, even the hidden mystery which God ordained before the world,—or, as it is explained, that he was occupied with election and reprobation, and with decreeing other things relative to these subjects,—it is not imaginable that God should have been wholly occupied from eternity in decreeing that which was to be created in a period of six days, and which, after having been governed in divers manners for a few thousand years, was finally to be received into an immutable state with himself, or to be rejected from his presence for all eternity.

¶2That the world was created, is an article of faith: Heb. xi. 3. through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.

¶3CREATION is that act whereby GOD THE FATHER PRODUCED EVERY THING THAT EXISTS BY HIS WORD AND SPIRIT, THAT IS, BY HIS WILL, FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE GLORY OF HIS POWER AND GOODNESS.

¶4WHEREBY GOD THE FATHER. Job ix. 8. which alone spreadeth out the heavens. Isai. xliv. 24. I am Jehovah that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. xlv. 6, 7. that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else: I form the light, and create darkness. If there be any thing like a common meaning, or universally received usage of words, this language not only precludes the possibility of there being any other God, but also of there being any co-equal person, of any kind whatever. Neh. ix. 6. thou art Jehovah alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens. Mal. ii. 10. have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? Hence Christ himself says, Matt. xi. 25. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth. So too all the apostles, Acts iv. 24. compared with v. 27. Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is .... the kings of the earth stood up .... against thy holy child Jesus. Rom. xi. 36. for of him, and through him, and to him are all things. 1 Cor. viii. 6. to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things. 2 Cor. iv. 6. for God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Heb. ii. 10. him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. iii. 4. he that built all things is God. p. 173 {¶5} BY HIS WORD. Gen. i. throughout the whole chapter—God said. Psal. xxxiii. 6. by the word of Jehovah were the heavens made. v. 9. for he spake, and it was done. cxlviii. 5. he commanded, and they were created. 2 Pet. iii. 5. by the word of God the heavens were of old,—that is, as is evident from other passages, by the Son, who appears hence to derive his title of Word. John i. 3, 10. all things were made by him: by him the world was made. 1 Cor. viii. 6. to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. Eph. iii. 9. who created all things by Jesus Christ. Col. i. 16. by him were all things created. Heb. i. 2. by whom also he made the worlds; whence it is said, v. 10. thou hast laid the foundation of the earth. The preposition per sometimes signifies the primary cause, as Matt. xii. 28. I cast out devils (per Spiritum) by the Spirit of God. 1 Cor. i. 9. God is faithful, (per quem) by whom ye are called,—sometimes the instrumental, or less principal cause, as in the passages quoted p. 174 above, where it cannot be taken as the primary cause, for if so, the Father himself, of whom are all things, would not be the primary cause; nor is it the joint cause, for in such case it would have been said that the Father created all things, not by, but with the Word and Spirit; or collectively, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit created; which phrases are nowhere to be found in Scripture. Besides, the expressions to be of the Father, and to be by the Son, do not denote the same kind of efficient cause. If it be not the same cause, neither is it a joint cause; and if not a joint cause, certainly the Father, of whom are all things, must be the principal cause, rather than the Son by whom are all things; for the Father is not only he of whom, but also from whom, and for whom, and through whom, and on account of whom are all things, as has been proved above, inasmuch as he comprehends within himself all lesser causes; whereas the Son is only he by whom are all things;² wherefore he is the less principal cause. Hence it is often said that the Father created the world by the Son,³—but never, in the same sense, that the Son created the world by the Father. It is however sometimes attempted to be proved from Rev. iii. 14. that the Son was the joint, or even he prin- p. 175 cipal cause of the creation with the Father; the beginning of the creation of God; where the word beginning is interpreted in an active sense, on the authority of Aristotle.⁴ But in the first place, the Hebrew language, whence the expression is taken, nowhere admits of this sense, but rather requires a contrary usage, as Gen. xlix. 3. Reuben, thou art .... the beginning of my strength. Secondly, there are two passages in St. Paul referring to Christ himself, which clearly prove that the word beginning is here used in a passive signification. Col. i. 15, 18. the first born of every creature, ... the beginning, the first born from the dead,—where the position of the Greek accent,⁵ and the passive verbal πρωτότοκος, show that the Son of God was the first born of every creature precisely in the same sense as the Son of man was the first born of Mary, πρωτότοκος, Matt. i. 25. The other passage is Rom. viii. 29. first born among many brethren; that is, in a passive signification. Lastly, it should be remarked, that he is not called simply the beginning of the creation, but of the creation of God; which can mean nothing else than the first of those things which God created; how therefore can he be himself God? Nor can we admit the reason devised by some of the Fathers⁶ for his being called, Col. i. 15. the first born of every creature,—namely, because it is said v. 16. by him all things were created. For had St. Paul intended to convey the meaning supposed, he would have said, who was before every creature, (which is what these Fathers contend the words signify, though not without violence to the language) not, who was the first born of every creature, an expression which clearly has a superlative, and at the same time to a certain extent partitive sense, in so far as production may be considered as a kind of generation and creation; but p. 176 by no means in so far as the title of first born among men may be here applied to Christ, seeing that he is termed first born, not only in respect of dignity, but also of time. v. 16. for by him were all things created that are in heaven.

¶6Nor is the passage in Prov. viii. 22, 23. of more weight, even if it be admitted that the chapter in general is to be understood with reference to Christ: Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting.⁷ For that which was possessed and set up, could not be the primary cause. Even a creature, however, is called the beginning of the ways of God, Job xl. 19. he (behemoth) is the chief (principium) of the ways of God. As to the eighth chapter of Proverbs, it appears to me that it is not the Son of God who is there introduced as the speaker, but a poetical personification of wisdom, as in Job xxviii. 20—27. whence then cometh wisdom?—then did he see it.

¶7Another argument is brought from Isai. xlv. 12, 23. I have made the earth .... unto me every knee shall bow. It is contended that this is spoken of Christ, on the authority of St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 10, 11. we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ: for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me. But it is evident from the parallel passage Philipp. ii. 9—11. that this is said of God the Father, by whose gift the Son has received that judgement seat, and all judgement, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow .... to the glory of God the Father; or, which means the same thing, every tongue shall confess to God.

¶8AND SPIRIT. Gen. i. 2. the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;⁸ that is, his divine power, rather than any person, as has p. 177 been already shown in the sixth chapter, on the Holy Spirit. For if it were a person, why is the Spirit named, to the exclusion of the Son, by whom we so often read that the world was created? unless indeed that Spirit were Christ, to whom, as has been before proved, the name of Spirit is sometimes given in the Old Testament. However this may be, and even if it should be admitted to have been a person, it seems at all events to have been only a subordinate minister: God is first described as creating the heaven and the earth; the Spirit is only represented as moving upon the face of the waters already created. So Job xxvi. 13. by his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens. Psal. xxxiii. 6. by the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (spiritu) of his mouth. Now the person of the Spirit does not seem to have proceeded more from the mouth of God than from that of Christ, who shall consume that wicked one with the spirit of his mouth, 2 Thess. ii. 8. compared with Isai. xi. 4. the rod of his mouth.

¶9BY HIS WILL. Psal. cxxxv. 6. whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that did he in heaven and earth. Rev. iv. 11. for thy pleasure they are and were created.

¶10FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE GLORY OF HIS POWER AND GOODNESS. Gen. i. 31. God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. See also 1 Tim. iv. 4. Psal. xix. 1. the heavens declare the glory of God. Prov. xvi. 4. Jehovah hath made all things for himself. Acts xiv. 15. that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God which made heaven and earth and the sea, and all things that are therein. xvii. 24. God that made the world and all things therein. Rom. i. 20. for his eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen.

¶11p. 178 Thus far it has appeared that God the Father is the primary and efficient cause of all things. With regard to the original matter of the universe, however, there has been much difference of opinion.⁹ Most of the moderns contend that it was formed from nothing, a basis as unsubstantial as that of their own theory.^1-2 In the first place, it is certain that neither the Hebrew verb בָּרָא, nor the Greek κτίζειν, nor the Latin creare, can signify to create out of nothing.^2-2 On the contrary, these words uniformly signify to create out of matter. Gen. i. 21, 27. God created .... every living creature which the waters brought forth abundantly .... male and female created he them. Isai. liv. 16. behold, I have created the smith .... I have created the waster to destroy. To allege, therefore, that creation signifies production out of nothing, is, as logicians say, to lay down premises without a proof; for the passages of Scripture commonly quoted for this purpose, are so far from confirming the received opinion, that they rather imply the contrary, namely, that all things were not made out of nothing. 2 Cor. iv. 6. God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness. That this darkness p. 179 far from being a mere negation, is clear from Isai. xlv. 7. I am Jehovah; I form the light, and create darkness. If the darkness be nothing, God in creating darkness created nothing, or in other words, he created and did not create, which is a contradiction. Again, what we are required to understand through faith respecting the worlds, is merely this, that the things which were seen were not made of things which do appear, Heb. xi. 3. Now the things which do not appear are not to be considered as synonymous with nothing, (for nothing does not admit of a plural, nor can a thing be made and compacted together out of nothing, as out of a number of things)^3-2 but the meaning is, that they do not appear as they now are. The apocryphal writers, whose authority may be considered as next to that of the Scriptures, speak to the same effect. Wisd. xi. 17. thy almighty hand that made the world of matter without form. 2 Macc. vii. 28. God made the earth and all that is therein of things that were not. The expression in Matt. ii. 18. may be quoted, the children of Rachel are not. This, however, does not mean properly that they are nothing, but that (according to a common Hebraism) they are no longer amongst the living.

¶12It is clear then that the world was framed out of matter of some kind or other. For since action and passion are relative terms, and since, consequently, no agent can act externally, unless there be some patient, such as matter, it appears impossible that God could have created this world out of nothing; not from any defect of power on his part, but because it was necessary that something should p. 180 have previously existed capable of receiving passively the exertion of the divine efficacy. Since, therefore, both Scripture and reason concur in pronouncing that all these things were made, not out of nothing, but out of matter, it necessarily follows, that matter must either have always existed independently of God, or have originated from God at some particular point of time. That matter should have been always independent of God, (seeing that it is only a passive principle, dependent on the Deity, and subservient to him; and seeing, moreover, that, as in number, considered abstractedly, so also in time or eternity there is no inherent force or efficacy) that matter, I say, should have existed of itself from all eternity, is inconceivable. If on the contrary it did not exist from all eternity, it is difficult to understand from whence it derives its origin. There remains, therefore, but one solution of the difficulty, for which moreover we have the authority of Scripture, namely, that all things are of God.^4-2 Rom. xi. 36. for of him, and through him, and to him are all things. 1 Cor. viii. 6. there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things: where the same Greek preposition is used in both cases. Heb. ii. 11. for both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one.

¶13In the first place, there are, as is well known to all, four kinds of causes,—efficient, material, formal, and final.^5-2 Inasmuch then as God is the primary, and absolute, and sole cause of all things, there can be no doubt but that he comprehends and embraces within himself all the causes above-mentioned. Therefore the material cause must be either God, or nothing. Now nothing is no cause at all; and yet it is con- p. 181 tended that forms, and above all, that human forms, were created out of nothing. But matter and form, considered as internal causes, constitute the thing itself; so that either all things must have had two causes only, and those external, or God will not have been the perfect and absolute cause of every thing. Secondly, it is an argument of supreme power and goodness, that such diversified, multiform, and inexhaustible virtue should exist and be substantially inherent in God (for that virtue cannot be accidental which admits of degrees, and of augmentation or remission, according to his pleasure) and that this diversified and substantial virtue should not remain dormant within the Deity, but should be diffused and propagated and extended as far and in such manner as he himself may will. For the original matter of which we speak, is not to be looked upon as an evil or trivial thing, but as intrinsically good, and the chief productive stock^6-2 of every subsequent good. It was a substance, and derivable from no other source than from the fountain of every substance, though at first confused and formless, being afterwards adorned and digested into order by the hand of God.^7-2

¶14Those who are dissatisfied because, according to this view, substance p. 182 was imperfect, must also be dissatisfied with God for having originally produced it out of nothing in an imperfect state, and without form. For what difference does it make, whether God produced it in this imperfect state out of nothing, or out of himself? By this reasoning, they only transfer that imperfection to the divine efficiency, which they are unwilling to admit can properly be attributed to substance considered as an efflux of the Deity. For why did not God create all things out of nothing in an absolutely perfect state at first? It is not true, however, that matter was in its own nature originally imperfect; it merely received embellishment from the accession of forms, which are themselves material.^8-2 And if it be asked how what is corruptible can proceed from incorruption, it may be asked in return how the virtue and efficacy of God can proceed out of nothing. Matter, like the form and nature of the angels itself, proceeded incorruptible from God; and even since the fall it remains incorruptible as far as concerns its essence.

¶15But the same, or even a greater difficulty still remains—how that which is in its nature peccable can have proceeded (if I may so speak) from God? I ask in reply, how anything peccable can have originated from the virtue and efficacy which proceeded from God? Strictly speaking indeed it is neither matter nor form that sins; and yet having proceeded from God, and become in the power of another party, what is there to prevent them, inasmuch as they have now become mutable, from contracting taint and contamination through the enticements of the devil, or those which originate in man himself? It is objected, however, that body cannot emanate from spirit. I reply, much less then can body emanate from nothing. For spirit being the more excellent substance, virtually and essentially contains within itself the inferior one; as the spiritual and rational faculty contains p. 183 the corporeal, that is, the sentient and vegetative faculty.^9-2 For not even divine virtue and efficiency could produce bodies out of nothing, according to the commonly received opinion, unless there had been some bodily power in the substance of God; since no one can give to another what he does not himself possess. Nor did St. Paul hesitate to attribute to God something corporeal; Col. ii. 9. in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Neither is it more incredible that a bodily power should issue from a spiritual substance, than that what is spiritual should arise from body; which nevertheless we believe will be the case with our own bodies at the resurrection. Nor, lastly, can it be understood in what sense God can properly be called infinite, if he be capable of receiving any accession whatever; which would be the case if anything could exist in the nature of things, which had not first been of God and in God.

¶16Since therefore it has (as I conceive) been satisfactorily proved, under the guidance of Scripture, that God did not produce everything out of nothing, but of himself, I proceed to consider the necessary consequence of this doctrine, namely, that if all things are not only from God, but of God, no created thing can be finally annihilated. And, not to mention that not a word is said of this annihilation in the sacred writings, there are other reasons, besides that which has been just alleged, and which is the strongest of all, why this doctrine should be altogether exploded. First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything altogether. He is not p. 184 willing, because he does everything with a view to some end,—but nothing can be the end neither of God, nor of anything whatever. Not of God, because he is himself the end of himself; not of anything whatever, because good of some kind is the end of everything. Now nothing is neither good, nor in fact anything. Entity is good, non-entity consequently is not good; wherefore it is neither consistent with the goodness or wisdom of God to make out of entity, which is good, that which is not good, or nothing. Again, God is not able to annihilate anything altogether, because by creating nothing he would create and not create at the same time, which involves a contradiction. If it be said that the creative power of God continues to operate, inasmuch as he makes that not to exist which did exist; I answer, that there are two things necessary to constitute a perfect action, motion and the effect of motion: in the present instance the motion is the act of annihilation; the effect of motion is none, that is, nothing, no effect. Where then there is no effect there is no efficient.

¶17Creation is either of things invisible or visible.

¶18The things invisible, or which are at least such to us, are, the highest heaven, which is the throne and habitation of God, and the heavenly powers, or angels.

¶19Such is the division of the apostle, Col. i. 16. The first place is due to things invisible, if not in respect of origin, at least of dignity. For the highest heaven is as it were the supreme citadel and habitation of God. See Deut. xxvi. 15. 1 Kings viii. 27, 30, heaven of heavens. Neh. ix. 6. Isai. lxiii. 15. far above all heavens, Eph. iv. 10. where God dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto, 1 Tim. vi. 16.^1-3 Out of this light it appears that pleasures and glories, and a kind of perpetual heaven, have emanated p. 185 and subsist. Psal. xvi. 11. at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. Isai. lvii. 15. the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place.

¶20It is improbable that God should have formed to himself such an abode for his majesty only at so recent a period as at the beginning of the world. For if there be any one habitation of God, where he diffuses in an eminent manner the glory and brightness of his majesty, why should it be thought that its foundations are only coeval with the fabrick of this world, and not of much more ancient origin? At the same time it does not follow that heaven should be eternal, nor, if eternal, that it should be God; for it was always in the power of God to produce any effect he pleased at whatever time and in whatever manner seemed good to him. We cannot form any conception of light independent of a luminary; but we do not therefore infer that a luminary is the same as light, or equal in dignity. In the same manner we do not think that what are called the back parts of God, Exod. xxxiii. are, properly speaking, God; though we nevertheless consider them to be eternal. It seems more reasonable to conceive in the same manner of the heaven of heavens, the throne and habitation of God, than to imagine that God should have been without a heaven till the first of the six days of creation.^2-3 At the same time I give this opinion, not as venturing to determine anything certain on such a subject, but rather with a view of showing that others have been too bold in affirming that the invisible and highest heaven was made on the first day, contemporaneously with that heaven p. 186 which is within our sight. For since it was of the latter heaven alone, and of the visible world, that Moses undertook to write, it would have been foreign to his purpose to have said anything of what was above the world.

¶21In this highest heaven seems to be situated the heaven of the blessed; which is sometimes called Paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4. and Abraham's bosom, Luke xvi. 22. compared with Matt. viii. 11. where also God permits himself to be seen by the angels and saints (as far as they are capable of enduring his glory), and will unfold himself still more fully to their view at the end of the world, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. John xiv. 2, 3. in my Father's house are many mansions. Heb. xi. 10, 16. he looked for a city which hath foundations ..... they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly ..... for he hath prepared for them a city.

¶22It is generally supposed that the angels were created at the same time with the visible universe, and that they are to be considered as comprehended under the general name of heavens. That the angels were created at some particular period, we have the testimony of Numb. xvi. 22. and xxvii. 16. God of the spirits, Heb. i. 7. Col. i. 16. by him were all things created ...... visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, &c.^3-3 But that p. 187 they were created on the first, or on any one of the six days, seems to be asserted (like most received opinions) with more confidence than reason, chiefly on the authority of the repetition in Gen. ii. 1. thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them,—unless we are to suppose that more was meant to be implied in the concluding summary than in the previous narration itself, and that the angels are to be considered as the host who inhabit the visible heavens. For what is said Job xxxviii. 7. that they shouted for joy before God at the creation, proves rather that they were then already in existence, than that they were then first created. Many at least of the Greek, and some of the Latin Fathers, are of opinion that angels, as being spirits, must have existed long before the material world;^4-3 and it seems even probable, that the apostasy which caused the expulsion of so many thousands from heaven, took place before the foundations of this world were laid. Certainly there is no sufficient foundation for the common opinion, that motion and time (which is the measure of motion) could not, according to the ratio of priority and subsequence, have existed before this world was made; since Aristotle, who teaches that no ideas of motion and time can be formed except in reference to this world, nevertheless pronounces the world itself to be eternal.^5-3 p. 188 {¶23} Angels are spirits, Matt. viii. 16. and xii. 45. inasmuch as a legion of devils is represented as having taken possession of one man, Luke viii. 30. Heb. i. 14. ministering spirits. They are of ethereal nature,^6-3 1 Kings xxii. 21. Psal. civ. 4. compared with Matt. viii. 31. Heb. i. 7. as lightning, Luke x. 18. whence also they are called Seraphim. Immortal, Luke xx. 36. neither can they die any more. Excellent in wisdom; 2 Sam. xiv. 20. Most powerful in strength; Psal. ciii. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 11. 2 Kings xix. 35. 2 Thess. i. 7. Endued with the greatest swiftness, which is figuratively denoted by the attribute of wings;^7-3 Ezek. i. 6. In number almost infinite; Deut. xxxiii. 2. Job xxv. 3. Dan. vii. 10. Matt. xxvi. 53. Heb. xii. 22. Rev. v. 11, 12. Created in perfect holiness and righteousness; Luke ix. 26. John viii. 44. 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15. angels of light ...... ministers of righteousness. Matt. vi. 10. thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. xxv. 31. holy angels. Hence they are also called sons of God,^8-3 Job i. 6. and xxxviii. 7. Dan. iii. 25. compared with v. 28. and even Gods, Psal. viii. 5. xcvii. 7. But they are not to be compared with God; Job iv. 18. his angels he charged with folly. xv. 15. the heavens are not clean in his sight. xxv. 5. yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. Isai. vi. 2. with two wings he covered his face.^9-3 They are distinguished one from another by offices and degrees;^1-4 Matt. xxv. 41. p. 189 Rom. viii. 38. Col. i. 16. Eph. i. 21. and iii. 10. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Rev. xii. 7. Cherubim, Gen. iii. 24. Seraphim, Isai. vi. 2. and by proper names; Dan. viii. 16. ix. 21. x. 13. Luke i. 19. Michael, Jude 9. Rev. xii. 7. 1 Thess. iv. 16. with the voice of the Archangel. Josh. v. 14. See more on this subject in the ninth chapter. To push our speculations further on this subject, is to incur the apostle's reprehension, Col. ii. 18. intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.

¶24THE VISIBLE CREATION comprises the material universe, and all that is contained therein; and more especially the human race.

¶25The creation of the world in general, and of its individual parts, is related Gen. i. It is also described Job xxvi. 7, &c. and xxxviii. and in various passages of the Psalms and Prophets. Psal. xxxiii. 6—9. civ. cxlviii. 5. Prov. viii. 26, &c. Amos iv. 13. 2 Pet. iii. 5. Previously, however, to the creation of man, as if to intimate the superior importance of the work, the Deity speaks like to a man deliberating:^2-4 Gen. i. 26. God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness. So that it was not the body alone that was then made, but the soul of man also (in which our likeness to God principally consists); which precludes us from attributing pre-existence to the soul which was then formed,—a groundless notion sometimes entertained, but refuted by Gen. ii. 7. God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; thus man became a living soul. Job xxxii. 8. there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Nor did God merely breathe that spirit into man,^3-4 but moulded it in each individual, and infused it throughout, enduing and embellishing it with its proper faculties. Zech. xii. 1. he formeth the spirit of man within him.

¶26We may understand from other passages of Scripture, that when p. 190 God infused the breath of life into man, what man thereby received was not a portion of God's essence, or a participation of the divine nature, but that measure of the divine virtue or influence, which was commensurate to the capabilities of the recipient.^4-4 For it appears from Psal. civ. 29, 30. that he infused the breath of life into other living beings also;—thou takest away their breath, they die ...... thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created; whence we learn that every living thing receives animation from one and the same source of life and breath; inasmuch as when God takes back to himself that spirit or breath of life, they cease to exist. Eccles. iii. 19. they have all one breath. Nor has the word spirit any other meaning in the sacred writings, but that breath of life which we inspire, or the vital, or sensitive, or rational faculty, or some action or affection belonging to those faculties.

¶27Man having been created after this manner, it is said, as a consequence, that man became a living soul;^5-4 whence it may be inferred (unless we had rather take the heathen writers for our teachers respecting the nature of the soul) that man is a living being, intrinsically and properly one and individual, not compound or separable, not, according to the common opinion, made up and framed of two distinct and different natures, as of soul and body,—but that the whole man is soul, and the soul man, that is to say, a body, or substance individual, animated, sensitive, and rational; and that the breath of life was neither a part of the divine essence, nor the soul itself, but as it were an inspiration of some divine virtue fitted for the exercise of life and reason, and infused into the organic body; for man himself, the whole man, when finally created, is called in express terms a living soul. Hence the word used in Genesis p. 191 to signify soul, is interpreted by the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 45. animal.^6-4 Again, all the attributes of the body are assigned in common to the soul: the touch, Lev. v. 2, &c. if a soul touch any unclean thing,—the act of eating, vii. 18. the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity; v. 20. the soul that eateth of the flesh, and in other places:—hunger, Prov. xiii. 25. xxvii. 7.—thirst, xxv. 25. as cold waters to a thirsty soul. Isai. xxix. 8.—capture, 1 Sam. xxiv. 11. thou huntest my soul to take it. Psal. vii. 5. let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it.

¶28Where however we speak of the body as of a mere senseless stock, there the soul must be understood as signifying either the spirit, or its secondary faculties, the vital or sensitive faculty for instance. Thus it is as often distinguished from the spirit, as from the body itself. Luke i. 46, 47. 1 Thess. v. 23. your whole spirit and soul and body. Heb. iv. 12. to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. But that the spirit of man should be separate from the body, so as to have a perfect and intelligent existence independently of it, is nowhere said in Scripture, and the doctrine is evidently at variance both with nature and reason, as will be shown more fully hereafter. For the word soul is also applied to every kind of living being; Gen. i. 30. to every beast of the earth, &c. wherein there is life (anima vivens, Tremell.) vii. 22. all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died; yet it is never inferred from these expressions that the soul exists separate from the body in any of the brute creation.

¶29On the seventh day God ceased from his work, and ended the whole business of creation; Gen. ii. 2, 3.

¶30It would seem therefore, that the human soul is not created daily by p. 192 the immediate act of God, but propagated from father to son in a natural order;^7-4 which was considered as the more probable opinion by Tertullian and Apollinarius, as well as by Augustine, and the whole western church in the time of Jerome, as he himself testifies, Tom. II. Epist. 82. and Gregory of Nyssa in his treatise on the soul.^8-4 God would in fact have left his creation imperfect, and a vast, not to say a servile task would yet remain to be performed, without even allowing time for rest on each successive sabbath, if he still continued to create as many souls daily as there are bodies multiplied throughout the whole world, at the bidding of what is not seldom the flagitious wantonness of man.^9-4 Nor is there p. 193 any reason to suppose that the influence of the divine blessing is less efficacious in imparting to man the power of producing after his kind, than to the other parts of animated nature; Gen. i. 22, 28.^1-5 Thus it was from one of the ribs of the man that God made the mother of all mankind, without the necessity of infusing the breath of life a second time, Gen. ii. 22. and Adam himself begat a son in his own likeness after his image, v. 3. Thus 1 Cor. xv. 49. as we have borne the image of the earthy; and this not only in the body, but in the soul, as it was chiefly with respect to the soul^2-5 that Adam was made in the divine image. So Gen. xlvi. 26. all the souls which came with Jacob out of Egypt, which came out of his loins. Heb. vii. 10. Levi was in the loins of Abraham: whence in Scripture an offspring is called seed, and Christ is denominated the seed of the woman. Gen. xvii. 7. I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 1 Cor. xv. 44. it is sown a natural body. v. 46. that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural.

¶31But besides the testimony of revelation, some arguments from reason may be alleged in confirmation of this doctrine. Whoever is born, or p. 194 shapen and conceived, in sin,^3-5 (as we all are, not David only, Psal. li. 5.) if he receive his soul immediately from God, cannot but receive it from him shapen in sin; for to be generated and conceived, means nothing else than to receive a soul in conjunction with the body. If we receive the soul immediately from God, it must be pure, for who in such case will venture to call it impure?^4-5 But if it be pure, how are we conceived in sin in consequence of receiving a pure soul, which would rather have the effect of cleansing the impurities of the body; or with what justice is the pure soul charged with the sin of the body? But, it is contended, God does not create souls impure, but only impaired in their nature, and destitute of original righteousness. I answer, that to create pure souls destitute of original righteousness,—to send them into contaminated and corrupt bodies,—to deliver them up in their innocence and helplessness to the prison house of the body, as to an enemy, with understanding blinded and with will enslaved,—in other words, wholly deprived of sufficient strength for resisting the vicious propensities of the body—to create souls thus circumstanced, would argue as much injustice, as to have created them impure would have argued impurity; it would have argued as much injustice, as to have created the first man Adam himself impaired in his nature, and destitute of original righteousness.

¶32Again, if sin be communicated by generation, and transmitted from father to son, it follows that what is the πρῶτον δεκτικόν,^5-5 or original subject of sin, namely, the rational soul, must be propagated in the p. 195 same manner; for that it is from the soul that all sin in the first instance proceeds, will not be denied. Lastly, on what principle of justice can sin be imputed through Adam to that soul, which was never either in Adam, or derived from Adam? In confirmation of which Aristotle's argument may be added, the truth of which in my opinion is indisputable.^6-5 If the soul be equally diffused throughout any given whole, and throughout every part of that whole, how can the human seed, the noblest and most intimate part of all the body, be imagined destitute and devoid of the soul of the parents, or at least of the father, when communicated to the son by the laws of generation? It is acknowledged by the common consent of almost all philosophers, that every form,^7-5 to which class the human soul must be considered as belonging, is produced by the power of matter.

¶33It was probably by some such considerations as these that Augustine p. 196 was led to confess that he could neither discover by study, nor prayer, nor any process of reasoning, how the doctrine of original sin could be defended on the supposition of the creation of souls.^8-5 The texts which are usually advanced, Eccles. xii. 7. Isai. lvii. 16. Zech. xii. 1. certainly indicate that nobler origin of the soul implied in its being breathed from the mouth of God; but they no more prove that each soul is severally and immediately created by the Deity, than certain other texts, which might be quoted, prove that each individual body is formed in the womb by the immediate hand of God.^9-5 Job x. 8—10. thine hands have made me ..... hast not thou poured me out as milk? Psal. xxxiii. 15. he fashioneth their hearts alike. Job xxxi. 15. did not he that made me in the womb make him? Isai. xliv. 24. thus saith Jehovah .... he that formed thee from the womb. Acts xvii. 26. he hath made of one blood all nations of men. We are not to infer from these passages, that natural causes do not contribute their ordinary efficacy for the propagation of the body; nor on the other hand that the soul is not received by tra- p. 197 duction from the father, because at the time of death it again betakes itself to different elements than the body, in conformity with its own origin.

¶34With regard to the passage, Heb. xii. 9. where the fathers of the flesh are opposed to the Father of spirits, I answer, that it is to be understood in a theological, not in a physical sense, as if the father of the body were opposed to the father of the soul; for flesh is taken neither in this passage, nor probably any where else, for the body without the soul; nor the father of spirits for the father of the soul, in respect of the work of generation; but the father of the flesh here means nothing else than the earthly or natural father, whose offspring are begotten in sin; the father of spirits is either the heavenly father, who in the beginning created all spirits, angels as well as the human race, or the spiritual father, who bestows a second birth on the faithful; according to John iii. 6. that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The argument, too, will proceed better, if the whole be understood as referring to edification and correction, not to generation; for the point in question is not, from what source each individual originated, or what part of him thence originated, but who had proved most successful in the employment of chastisement and instruction. By parity of reasoning, the apostle might exhort the converts to bear with his rebuke, on the ground that he was their spiritual father. God indeed is as truly the father of the flesh as of the spirits of flesh, Numb. xvi. 22. but this is not the sense intended here, and all arguments are weak which are deduced from passages of Scripture originally relating to a different subject.

¶35With regard to the soul of Christ, it will be sufficient to answer that its generation was supernatural, and therefore cannot be cited as an argument in the discussion of this controversy. Nevertheless, even he is called the seed of the woman, the seed of David according to the flesh; that is, undoubtedly, according to his human nature.

¶35 cont.There seems therefore no reason, why the soul of man should be p. 198 made an exception to the general law of creation. For, as has been shown before, God breathed the breath of life into the other living beings, and blended it so intimately with matter, that the propagation and production of the human form were analogous to those of other forms, and the proper effect of that power which had been communicated to matter by the Deity.

¶36Man being formed after the image of God, it followed as a necessary consequence that he should be endued with natural wisdom, holiness, and righteousness. Gen. i. 27, 31. ii. 25. Eccles. vii. 29. Eph. iv. 24. Col. iii. 10. 2 Cor. iii. 18. Certainly without extraordinary wisdom he could not have given names to the whole animal creation with such sudden intelligence, Gen. ii. 20.^1-6