in Holy Writ is no such addition that man was to multiply according to his species or kind but it is nakedly put thus increase and multiply which are indifferent phrases without all determination of the principal efficient cause 2. From Gen. 5. vers 3. If Adam begat a Son according to his own image likeness it follows then that his Son was also begotten by him as to his Soul But the first is true therefore also is the latter so Answer We deny the antecedent because likeness may be understood to be external by reason of the body to the corruption of which the Soul was also subjected although it came into it from without 3. From Gen. 46. vers 26. whatsoever went forth from out of the loyns of the Parent that did not praeexist but the Souls of the sons c. Therefore c. Answer In this Saying is a Synecdoche of one part for another where the Soul is taken for the body as the Scripture also speaketh elsewhere as Psal 16.10 He will not leave my soul in the Grave c. 2. In this also may be said to be a metonymy of the form for the thing formed of the Soul for the thing animated 3. If the acception were proper this absurdity follows that the Soul is propagated from the Father only the Mother contributing nothing 4. From Job 14.4 Who can give a clean thing out of that that is unclean whence it followeth that from the impure Soul of the Father must proceed or come forth an impure Soul of the son Answer The particle From doth not always signifie the prinpal efficient cause but often times also the instrumental cause or that cause without which the effect cannot be produced and so is it to be understood in this place 5. From Psal 51. vers 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me Answer The Text speaketh of the iniquity and sin not of the Infant but of the generating Parents but if the sin were to be understood of the infant this is then the sense or meaning Behold my Soul being already in in-iniquity from a preceding fall is received into the Womb of my Mother 6. That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh John 3.6 Answer The word or term to be born importeth no essential dependence on him who begetteth for the Soul even already before its nativity being carnal that is having gained a vital aptitude unto Flesh coming forth from carnal Parents is called Flesh even as impure water derived through impure pipes when it breaks forth is so much the more impure 7. Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and by sin Death so Death is passed unto all men because all have sinned from this it follows that before Adam there was no sin Answer Adam in the Allegorical History of Moses is a figure of all mankind and this very Text doth shew that death is passed unto all men not upon that account that Adam only hath sinned but in as much as every single man hath sinned The Particle One signifies the same as First doth as in Mar. 16.2 Luke 24.1 John 20.1 Acts 20.7 8. Rom. 9.11 it is said that the Children who were not yet born had done neither good nor evil whence it is concluded that Souls before this earthly life had not committed sin Answer Not being as yet born are either such as exist before the union of Soul and Body or such as exist in that union the Text speaks of these latter not of the former because first they are expresly named Children 2. The determinate time in which they had committed neither good nor evil is denoted viz. when the Lord said The Elder shall serve the Younger which he then said when they were already alive and the Infants moved in the Womb and so being not yet born they may be said to have committed neither good nor evil actually although before the union somewhat of a fall had preceded and therefore the predicate is to be limited they had done nothing of good or evil viz. in the state of the earthly union of Body and Soul 9. From 2 Cor. 5.10 They argue thus If in the place where an account is to be rendred of all sins an account is to be rendred of those only which are proper to the body as every one hath done it followeth that without the body there is no sin But the former is true and therefore also the latter Answer The Antecedent is denyed 1. Because in the Text is found no such exclusive particle Only but from the greater part viz. the actual sins is the denomination of the judgment made therefore it may also be that that account must be generally rendred of original sin 2. Granting that an account was not to be given of this sin yet it doth not follow that it was not committed because 1. it would have been obliterated already by the general oblivion in the Soul 2. It should have already suffered punishment for it viz. it s being thrust down into this earthly Dungeon or Prison 10. From Hebr. 7. v. 5.9 10. Who paid Tythes in the loins of his Father He even as to his Soul is in his Father But c. Therefore c. Answer The Antecedent is denyed for this phrase to be in the loins of his Father signifieth nothing else than not to be as yet born and yet to be in a possibility to be born therefore such as is the Nativity such also is the possibility or power of being to be born Now the Nativity doth not admit of the concurrence of the Father otherwise than as an instrumental cause to prepare the matter for the introduction of the Soul Therefore also the possibility or power of being to be born ought thus to be understood 11. From Ecclesiast 12.7 The Spirit returns to God who gave it whence they thus argue As the body is from the Earth so the spirit is from God and at the time of generation dust is given from the Earth Therefore also at that time the Spirit is given from God Answer We must distinguish between a giving which is originary and that which is participative this is meant in this place but not that For as although the body be taken out of the earth yet its matter originally does not then at last begin so although the spirit be given from God at the time of generation viz. by an universal concurrence yet it followeth not that it then at length beginneth 12. From Zach. 12.1 The Lord saith who formeth the Spirit of man in the midst of him if therefore the spirit of man is formed within him it did not praeexist Answer By Spirit in this place is to be understood the animal Spirit as often it is elsewhere Gen. 6.17 ch 7.15 compare the 15. verse importing the same sense almost of Psalm 33. even as also is the determination in the midst of him viz. it denoteth it to be in his bowels whence it is that it so follows not in respect to the Soul FINIS
then that which is preternatural but the separation of a Soul and a separate subsistence is preternatural but union is according to nature Therefore this must needs be before that and not on the Contrary Answer The argument is of that sort call'd by Logicians an Ignoratio Elenchi for by this Hypothesis it is no where taught that the Soul before its union with an earthly body is in a separate state simply considered but rather had been in an union with its more pure vehicles viz. the Aethereal and the Aereal and being at length separated from them it descended into this Terrestrial body 3. If God in the beginning had created separate Souls then he created not all things in a perfection agreeable and due to the nature of every one The Reason of the consequence is because the Soul attains to its proper and its connatural perfection in the body and not out of the body Answer This is the same Argument with the last and is so named Also we must distinguish betwixt bodies whereof three are such as to which the Soul hath a natural aptitude An Aethereal body such as is promised to us in sacred Writ an Aereal one and an Earthly one If therefore it be said That the Soul obtaineth her proper perfection in an earthly body only the assertion is denyed but if the Aethereal body be not excluded it is already said that according to this Hypothesis the Soul long since attained to this perfection 4. If Souls do exist before their bodies they are either on the way or in their native Country or in neither but none of these can be affirmed Therefore they do not praeexist Answer Souls are at first in their own Country where they sprang forth but after that in a neutral state or condition when they be fallen down into a state of sin but when they are let into these bodies they enter into the way of returning Therefore the minor proposition of the argument is false If Souls should praeexist without all doubt they could not utterly forget that State or Condition which yet it 's manifest that none of them remember any thing of therefore they did not praeexist Answer It will easily appear that the forgetfulness of their former condition doth evince nothing against the the praeexistency of Souls if we consider those things which either plainly take away or in a wonderful manner impair our memory in that life of all which we shall in this place find the concourse and in a greater degree and from more powerful causes than could ever happen to any man living Now those things which here in this world do plainly deprive us of our memory are most chiefly these 1. If opportunity be wanting of remembring any thing as it happeneth to them who rising from sleep dare swear that they dreamed nothing all that night yet afterwards occasion being given in the day-time they recover into their memories oftentimes a long tract of dreams 2. If we are disused to apply our minds to some things and thus when with great labour we have written some things whilst we were School-boys when we are grown up to be men for the most part we cannot own them for ours but that our names written in them can convince us 3. When some very remarkable change of constitution and temperament happens in our bodies either by some external accident or by some more vehement disease or by Old age Now all these principles of oblivion are more eminently found in the souls descent into this earthly dungeon than ever was possible to be done so long as she inhabited in the same For it 's far beyond all doubt that the difference between that scene of things which the Soul sees out of the body and that which she sees in the body is by far greater than that which is between those things which a man seeth sleeping and those which he sees waking Now the perpetual affairs of this present life bring into the Soul a very remarkable disuse as to the remembring of former things past Moreover their descent it 's probable happened mostly when they were in a state of silence in which perhaps many myriads of Souls lay for many ages but if they might have descended not passing the state of silence there occurs to their memory examples of their former state or condition as it was with Christ in Joh. 17.5 Finally the descent into this earthly body is a greater mutation and much more apt to blot out former impressions on the memory than any one accident or any other disease which yet happening do often destroy in many persons all memory in this life But here again they object and say if a bare mutation of vehicles can introduce into the Soul an utter forgetfulness of all things formerly done it follows that it may also be feared that the like may happen to her after her departure out of this earthly body which is absurd because then memory remaineth wholly firm and Conscience will never cease to be and operate Answer These have a different consideration because between the former state of Souls and the present there interposes a state of silence and of inactivity in which all the superiour faculties viz. of Reason and sense to which memory belongs lie as it were benummed or asleep Now between the present state and the future there interposeth no such thing whence neither can follow an utter abolishing of memory 6. If God hath created Souls with a threefold vital aptitude to a threefold vehicle which is to be the last receptacle of fallen Souls it follows that God created them with a necessity of falling because every vital aptitude and consequently also that aptitude to an earthly vehicle flows from the essence of the Soul and by consequence is necessary Answer There is a distinction between a vital aptitude considered in it self and between its being deduced into act i st and therefore there belonged to her many vehicles it follows that when she hath laid down her earthly vehicle she must again assume another and consequently there needs no Resurrection of the flesh Answer We must distinguish betwixt the meaning of the word Flesh in the state or condition wherein it is now Flesh and in the further and larger acception thereof viz. when it is used for that that was Flesh now according to this latter and not according to the former acceptation is the Resurrection of the flesh to be understood for flesh as flesh shall not rise again because as the Apostle witnesseth 1 Cor. 15.51 We shall all be changed But that which sometime was flesh shall rise again and shall be changed into the nature of that its vehicle which is then competent to every Soul because every mutation of matter is not accidental to it and it is all one to its substance after what manner or shape its particles are formed for it is indifferent to Wax whether it represent the shape of a man or of an
apple whether it be melted or whether it be congealed there is nothing that will be lost from that substance which was our flesh whether it should be turned and attenuated into the consistence of Air or of Aether 8. If the Soul did praeexist at first in an Aerial vehicle it follows that after death also the like must be given unto it lest it be forced to make a leap But such a vehicle would be altogether incommodious to departing pious Souls because the Air is the habitation of Devils and full of Tempests Answer There are divers degrees in the Air nor is there any need that pious Souls should be after death shut up within the Atmosphere of the earth where these inconveniencies are but there may be found much higher places in the Air where is greater quiet 9. If the Hypothesis of Praeexistency is true it follows that a man may die oftener than once for if when a man departeth out of this life his vital aptitude to an earthly body be not yet expired it will be necessary that he should return unto such a like body untill a vital aptitude to an Aerial body shall awaken in him and upon this account he ought to die oftener than once which is absurd as Heb. 9.27 Job 16.22 2 Sam. 12.23 Answer 1. The saying of Heb. 9.29 that it may rightly be understood we must distinguish 1. betwixt the term Man largely taken for the Soul in what state or condition soever it be and more strictly for the Soul united with the body made out of the earth 2. Betwixt universal and particular judgment Paul therefore is thus to be unfolded that whatsoever Soul is united with its earthly vehicle it is appointed to it Once to be dissolved from this vehicle and then it must stand before a particular judgment where the Divine Justice inquireth whether he hath so lived as that he is to return to his former state or condition or not For the universal judgment followeth not upon the deaths of particular men 2. As to what is said in Job 16.22 it is answered that that is particular and speaks only of the Death of Job animadverted in himself that the end of his vital aptitude to a terrestrial vehicle did draw near therefore as an Holy man there was no need for him to fear a return to this earthly tabernacle Now from a particular to an universal the Consequence is never good 3. The argument out of 2 Sam. 12.23 doth in like manner labour under a fallacy called in Logick an argument from what is said limitedly to what is said simply For it was a particular case that the Soul of David's young Son was not so to return into an earthly vehicle so as again to become the Son of David and in the very daies of David should return unto him yet from thence we may not argue universally 10. From this Hypothesis of Praeexistency it follows That the Heavenly glory of the life to come is unconstant and may be lost For if Souls can fall down from their former glory what hinders but that they also can fall from that which is to come Answer The promises in the Holy Scriptures do hinder in which an incorruptible Crown is promised to the faithful for a special reward 1 Cor. 9.25 and that which never will fade away 1 Pet. 5.4 Whence it is that Paul testifies that we shall rise again in incorruption 1 Cor. 15.42.52 And this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality vers 53. that Death may be swallowed up in victory vers 54.55 together with Sin the sting thereof Hosea 13.14 11. From this Hypothesis it follows that divers Souls may enter into one body because they are said to want the use of reason and sense nor actually to have any but a plastick faculty which cannot discern whether any other Soul is entred in already or not Answer We must distingish betwixt a formative entrance and that which is not formative the first is when the vital centre of the Soul obtaineth its place in that point of matter in which the spirit of the Universe hath already determined the primary seat of the soul Although therefore a thousand Souls should enter together into one material body yet only one amongst them all could obtain the formative ingress viz. such a one as whose vital point should possess or occupy the primary point of the matter which seeing it is indivisible cannot be obtained by more than one nor can it possibly be said that more or many can together possess one and the same point or be homocentrick for should it be so that would come to pass either of purpose or by chance the first cannot be because the use of Reason and Sense is absent nor can the other be because the matter of the vehicles which are not to be laid aside without a reason or cause doth hinder in which notwithstanding that this homocentricity be allowed penetration of dimensions cannot be avoided 12. From this Hypothesis it will follow that the other Planets also are to be inhabited by men Because that some of them being nearer to that place of happiness from whence these Souls are fallen down are greater than this earthly Globe Answer The consequence is denyed because that there will be a want of seminal matter duely prepared For God placed Adam in this Globe of Earth as the first preparer of such matter out of the bounds of which men from thenceforth will not be CHAP. VIII Containing the Arguments of the adverse part which they take from holy Scripture 1. THe first place is out of Genesis 1. vers 28. thus Whoever by the power of Gods command Increase and multiply do multiply themselves according to their kind they no less propagate themselves as in respect of Soul as well as of body because to the constitution of the species or kind of things animate there as much belongeth a Soul as a body But men by vertue of Gods command do multiply themselves according to their species or kind Therefore c. and by consequence Souls do not praeexist Answer We allow the whole Argument but deny the consequence to the conclusion For men can propagate themselves also as to Soul though the Soul be not taken from out of their substance for a man whilst he generateth prepareth nothing but matter convenient to the introducing of a Soul and so he is a cause without which the effect cannot be produced by reason of the introduction of Souls just as he who prepares matter or fewel for the fire is the cause without which the fire cannot be introduced and thus also he multiplieth fires which notwithstanding come from without thus also magnetical bodies or Loadstones can by rubbing only multiply themselves if viz. they be rubbed upon Iron although the subtile matter which combineth therewith cometh from without 2. These things being thus premised in a humane manner we answer to the minor proposition by denying it for
c. The minor is proved from Psalm 39.12 1 Peter 2.11 CHAP. IV. Containing Arguments drawn from Holy Scripture to prove the Praeexistency of the Soul of the Messiah IF Christ's Soul did praeexist then did all Souls praeexist But the first is true as presently shall be taught from Holy Scripture Therefore c. the major is proved because Christ is in all things like unto us sin excepted Now by and in the Reason of all Souls there is the same manner of duration The minor is proved 1. Because Christ hath long since often appeared to the Patriarchs He often conversed with Moses He delivered the Children of Israel out of Aegypt He accompanied them in the Wilderness and led them into the Land of Canaan c. witness besides innumerable places in the Old Testament that of Paul 1 Cor. 10.4 and that of John 1.11 2. Because he himself testifieth that he had a glory with his Father before the World was made Joh. 17.5 But this was not the Glory of his divine nature because that was in its own nature immutable Therefore it was the glory of his Soul which already did praeexist 3. Moreover He himself testifieth thus I came but from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and return unto the Father As in John 16.28 4. John 3.13 No man ascendeth into Heaven but he who descended from Heaven the Son of Man c. 5. John the Baptist testifieth of him That he came from above John 3.31 6. Again Christ himself saith Joh. 6.32 My Father giveth unto you the true bread from Heaven for he is the true bread of God who descended from Heaven 7. Vers 38. I descended from Heaven 8. The living Father hath sent me This is the bread which descended from Heaven Joh. 6.57.58 compare herewith vers 41. 51. 9. 1. Cor. 15.47 10. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of man c. They are the words of Paul Phil. 2.5 6 7. All which together with the foregoing words can by no means be understood of the Divine Nature of Christ which can neither be varied nor moved from place to place by reason of his divine Excellency and Omnipresence which is essential to him and by consequence they must necessarily be meant of the Soul of Christ which praeexisted long before its earthly body from whence a most certain argument may be framed That the Souls of all other men did praeexist 11. Compare herewith Heb. 1.6 The Father bringeth in the first begotten into the World Which is to be understood according to his humanity 12. 1 John 3.5.8 He who is manifested or appeareth he doth not then begin to be in being CHAP. V. Containing Arguments taken from humane Authority yet are such as in their kind are Sacred 1. LEt the Apostles of our Lord be here produced even when they were not as yet illuminated who were addicted to this opinion and yet were not corrected by our Lord as is manifest 1. in that that they asked him concerning him who was born blind Joh. 9.2 2. In that that they said that some thought that he was John the Baptist others Elias others Jeremias or one of the Prophets as in Matth. 16.14 Which assertion cannot stand unless upon the foundation of Praeexistency nor yet was it corrected by our Lord as without all doubt had it contained in it any thing that was erroneous it would have been by him who was the most holy and the most benign Master or Teacher 3. In that that when our Lord said That he came out from the Father they presently answered Behold now speakest thou plainly and speakest no proverb Joh. 16.29 2. Let Clement of Alexandria come forth next who often in his writings makes mention of this opinion nor ever once redargueth it as erroneous For in his Stromat 1. He thus saith It is manifest that the Barbarians did especially honour their Lawgivers and Lords calling them Gods for they thought together with Plato that some good Souls having left their supercelestial abode did make a descent into this inferiour Orb and having assumed bodies became partakers of all those miseries which are obvious in Generation and became sollicitously careful of mankind to whom they gave Laws and taught Philosophy And then in his 3. Book he saith when he disputeth against the Marcionites and alledges many places out of Plato which do partly directly and partly indirectly include this opinion amongst which is that out of his Phaedo viz. That there is a Secret brought down to us by Tradition that we men are in this life as it were in a Prison So also is that other where he citeth Heraclitus also Pythagoras and Socrates together with Plato That Death is but what we see when up and awake but what we see in sleep is a Dream But most agreeable of all is what he quoteth out of Philolaus the Pythagorean The Ancient Divines and Poets do testifie that the Soul is conjoyned to this earthly body by way of a punishment and that she is all the while she remaineth therein as it were buried But against this he saith nothing In the same Book although he mightily sets himself against Julius Cassian yet he useth these words This Noble wit is of an opinion which accordeth more with the mind of Plato viz. that the Soul which is divine and from above beiâ—â— effeminated with lust doth descend into Generation and Corruption Yea in his Protrept he expresly saith That Christ did again call back into Heaven those who were thrown down upon and to the Earth 3. Let Origen follow next who more openly did propagate this opinion so as there is no need to give any Quotations out of him 4. Moreover Synesius Bishop of Cyrenia who in his 105. Epistle saith expresly In good truth I shall never design to be of the opinion that the Soul in its existence comes after the Body And in his 3â— Hymn As a drop from Heaven I was poureâ— forth on the earth Restore me to my spring whence I flowed in this banisht wandring birth 5. To these joyn Arnobius who in his 1. Book against the Gentiles saith thus Do we not all owe unto God this in the first place That we are That we are called men That being either sent from him or fallen thorough blindness we are detained in the chains of a Body 6. Prudentius appears next who in his Hymn at the funeral Solemnities of the deceased singeth after this manner See now how to the faithful is made plain The bright path of the ample Paradise again And man may freely now approach that grove Which the sly Serpent took from him above There O thou best of Guides I humbly pray Command that thy Servant-maid this Mind