But this cannot weaken the Text, for we told you, That the Argument is not merely from that expressing of forming the spirit of man within him, but from the upper two Attributes. Besides the Scripture tells us plainly of what materials the body is formed of, whereas they who hold the propagation of the soul, are extremely straitened and difficultated to say, what the soul is made of; They say, it is not ex animâ, but ab animâ. not of the soul, but from the soul of the Parent, but then are divided amongst themselves when they go to explicate, how the soul hath its being if not from Creation. Some say, it hath its being by a corporal seminal manner, but then it must be a body, which Austin would constantly deny, for he dissents from Tertullian in that, though both held the natural Traduction of the soul, Austin I mean only suppositively, but Tertullian positively, yet he professeth his dissent from Tertullian, who made it a body. This therefore being thought absurd, others they tell us of an incorporeal and immaterial seed from the soul of the Parents, which causeth the soul of the child. To this purpose Tertullian in his book de animâ, distinguisheth of semen animal, which cometh from the soul, and semen corporeum, which cometh from the body. But this may easily be judged as absurd as the former: If therefore the Scripture, when it speaketh of the forming of mans spirit within him, had discovered the materials of which it is formed, as well as when it speaketh of the forming of the body, there would have been some pretence for the Argument. But calling it a spirit, and as you see in the Text, comparing the forming of it with the making of the Heavens and the Earth, this makes the creation ⟨p. 193⟩of the soul more than probable. Tarnavius the Lutheran would likewise avoid this place (Comment. in loc.) by saying the Hebrew word Jahac doth most commonly signify, not an immediate creation out of nothing, for so the Hebrew word Barah doth for the most, but a mediate out of some prejacent matter, yet indisposed; but this Rule being not universal, it hath no strength in it. Besides, the Hebrew word is in the Present tense, who formeth, so that it cannot relate to the making of Adam's soul at first.
But this cannot weaken the Text, for we told you, That the Argument is not meerly from that expressing of forming the spirit of man within him, but from the upper two Attributes. Besides the Scripture tels us plainly of what materials the body is formed of, whereas they who hold the propagation of the soul, are extreamly streightned and difficultated to say, what the soul is made of; They say, it is not ex animâ, but ab animâ. not of the soul, but from the soul of the Parent, but then are divided amongst themselves when they go to explicate, how the soul hath its being if not from Creation. Some say, it hath its being by a corporal seminal manner, but then it must be a body, which Austin would constantly deny, for he dissents from Tertullian in that, though both held the natural Traduction of the soul, Austin I mean only suppositively, but Tertullian positively, yet he professeth his dissent from Tertullian, who made it a body. This therefore being thought absurd, others they tell us of an incorporeal and immaterial seed from the soul of the Parents, which causeth the soul of the child. To this purpose Tertullian in his book de animâ, distinguisheth of semen animale, which cometh from the soul, and semen corporeum, which cometh from the body. But this may easily be judged as absurd as the former: If therefore the Scripture, when it speaketh of the forming of mans spirit within him, had discovered the materials of which it is formed, as well as when it speaketh of the forming of the body, there would have been some pretence for the Argument. But calling it a spirit, and as you see in the Text, comparing the forming of it with the making of the Heavens and the Earth, this makes the creation ⟨p. 193⟩of the soul more than probable. Tarnavius the Lutheran would likewise avoid this place (Comment. in loc.) by saying the Hebrew word Jahac doth most commonly signifie, not an immediate creation out of nothing, for so the Hebrew word Barah doth for the most, but a mediate out of some prejacent matter, yet indisposed; but this Rule being not universal, it hath no strength in it. Besides, the Hebrew word is in the Present tense, who formeth, so that it cannot relate to the making of Adam's soul at first.
