II. That man consists of soul and body, ought not to be controverted. By the "soul" I understand an immortal yet created essence, which is the nobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a "spirit:" for though when these names are connected they have a different signification, yet when "spirit" is used separately, it means the same as "soul:" as when Solomon, speaking of death, says that "then the spirit shall return unto God, who gave it." (f) And Christ commending his spirit to the Father, (g) and Stephen his to Christ, (h) intend no other than that, when the soul is liberated from the prison of the flesh, God is its perpetual keeper. Those who imagine that the soul is called a spirit, because it is a breath or faculty divinely infused into the body, but destitute of any essence, are proved to be in a gross error by the thing itself, and by the whole tenor of Scripture. It is true indeed that while men are immoderately attached to the earth, they become stupid, and being alienated from the Father of lights are immersed in darkness, so that they consider not that they shall survive after death: yet in the mean time the light is not so entirely extinguished by the darkness, but that they are affected with some sense of their immortality. Surely the conscience, which discerning between good and evil answers to the judgment of God, is an indubitable proof of an immortal spirit. For how could an affection or emotion without any essence penetrate to the tribunal of God, and inspire itself with terror on account of its guilt? For the body is not affected by a fear of spiritual punishment; that falls only on the soul: whence it follows, that it is possessed of an essence. Now the very knowledge of God sufficiently proves the immortality of the soul, which rises above the world, since an evanescent breath or inspiration could not arrive at the fountain of life. Lastly, the many noble faculties with which the human mind is adorned, and which loudly proclaim that something divine is inscribed on it, are so many testimonies of its immortal essence. For the sense which the brutes have, extends not beyond the body, or at most not beyond the objects near it. But the agility of the human mind, looking through heaven and earth and the secrets of nature, () Luke xxiii. 46.

(f) Eccles. xii. 7.

(h) Acts vi. 59.

and comprehending in its intellect and memory all ages, digesting every thing in proper order, and concluding future events from those which are past, clearly demonstrates that there is concealed within man something distinct from the body. In our minds we form conceptions of the invisible God and of angels, to which the body is not at all competent. We apprehend what is right, just, and honest, which is concealed from the corporeal senses. The spirit therefore must be the seat of this intelligence. Even sleep itself, which stupefying man seems to divest him even of life, is no obscure proof of immortality: since it not only suggests to us ideas of things which never happened, but also presages of future events. I briefly touch those things which even profane writers magnificently extol in a more splendid and ornamented diction; but with the pious reader the simple mention of them will be sufficient. Now unless the soul were something essentially distinct from the body, the Scripture would not inform us that we dwell in houses of clay, (i) and at death quit the tabernacle of the flesh; (k) that we put off the corruptible, (1) to receive a reward at the last day, according to the respective conduct of each individual in the body. (m) For certainly these and similar passages, which often occur, not only manifestly distinguish the soul from the body, but by transferring to it the name of “man,” indicate that it is the principal part of our nature. When Paul exhorts the faithful to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, (n) he points out two parts in which the defilement of sin resides. Peter also, when he called Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, (2) would have spoken improperly, if there were no souls over whom he could exercise that office. Nor would there be any consistency in what he says concerning the eternal salvation of souls, or in his injunction to purify the souls, or in his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul, (p) or in what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that pastors watch to give an account of our souls, (q) unless souls had a proper essence. To the same purpose is the place were Paul

(¿) 2 Cor. v. 4.
(n) 2 Cor. vii. 1.

(i) Job iv. 19.
(m) 2 Cor. v. 10.
(p) 1 Peter i. 9, 22. ii. 11.

(1) 2 Peter i. 15, 14.
(0) 1 Peter ii. 25.
(9) Heb. xiii. 17.

"calls God for a record upon his soul," (r) because it could not be amenable to God, if it were not capable of punishment. Which is also more clearly expressed in the words of Christ, where he commands us to fear him, who after having killed the body is able to cast the soul into hell. (s) Where the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes between the fathers of our flesh, and God who is the only Father of spirits, (t) he could not assert the essence or existence of the soul in more express terms. Besides, unless the soul survived after its liberation from the prison of the body, it was absurd for Christ to represent the soul of Lazarus as enjoying happiness in the bosom of Abraham, and the soul of the rich man as condemned to dreadful torments. (u) Paul confirms the same point, by informing us that we are absent from God as long as we dwell in the body, but that when absent from the body we are present with the Lord. (v) Not to be too prolix on a subject of so little obscurity, I shall only add this from Luke, that it is reckoned among the errors of the Sadducees, that they believed not the existence of angels or of spirits. (w)

III. A solid proof of this point may also be gathered from man being said to be created in the image of God. (x) For though the glory of God is displayed in his external form, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat of his image is in the soul. I admit that the external form, as it distinguishes us from brutes, also exalts us more nearly to God: nor will I too vehemently contend with any one who would understand, by the image of God that

While the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes

Beholds his own hereditary skies. (y)

Only let it be decided that the image of God, which appears or sparkles in these external characters, is spiritual. For Osiander, whose perverse ingenuity in futile notions is proved

(r) 2 Cor. i. 23.

(s) Matt. x. 28. Luke xii. 4, 5.

(t) Heb. xii. 9. (u) Luke xvi. 22. (v) 2 Cor. v. 6, 8. (w) Acts xxiii. 8. (x) Gen. i. 27.. y) Ovid's Metam. lib. 1. Dryden's Translation.

by his writings, extending the image of God promiscuously to the body as well as to the soul, confounds heaven and earth together. He says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fixed their image in man, because even if Adam had remained in his integrity, Christ would nevertheless have become man. Thus according to him, the body which had been destined for Christ was the exemplar and type of that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where will he find that Christ is the image of the Spirit? I grant indeed that the glory of the whole Deity shines in the person of the Mediator; but how shall the eternal Word be called the image of the Spirit, whom he precedes in order? Lastly, it subverts the distinction between the Son and Spirit, if the former be denominated the image of the latter. Besides, I could wish to be informed by him, how Christ in the body which he hath assumed resembles the Spirit, and by what characters or lineaments his similitude is expressed? And since that speech, "Let us make man in our own image," (2) belongs also to the person of the Son, it follows that he is the image of himself; which is altogether repugnant to reason. Moreover if the notion of Osiander be received, man was formed only to the type or exemplar of the humanity of Christ; and the idea from which Adam was taken was Christ, as about to be clothed in flesh: whereas the Scripture teaches in a very different sense, that man was "created in the image of God." There is more. plausibility in the subtlety of those who maintain that Adam was created in the image of God, because he was conformed to Christ who is the only image of God. But this also is destitute of solidity. There is no small controversy concerning "image" and "likeness" among expositors who seek for a difference, whereas in reality there is none, between the two words; "likeness" being only added by way of explanation. In the first place, we know that it is the custom of the Hebrews to use repetitions, in which they express one thing twice. In the next place, as to the thing itself, there is no doubt but man is called the image of God, on account of his likeness to God. Hence it appears that those persons make themselves ridiculous whe

(2) Gen. i. 26.

display more subtlety in criticising on these terms, whether they confine zelem, that is, "image," to the substance of the soul, and demuth, that is, "likeness," to its qualities, or whether they bring forward any different interpretation. Because, when God determined to create man in his own image, that expression being rather obscure, he repeats the same idea in this explanatory phrase, "after our likeness;" as though he had said that he was about to make man, in whom, as in an image, he would give a representation of himself by the characters of resemblance which he would impress upon him. Therefore Moses, a little after, reciting the same thing, introduces the image of God, but makes no mention of his likeness. The objection of Osiander is quite frivolous, that it is not a part of man, or the soul with its faculties, that is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the earth whence he was taken; it will be deemed frivolous, I say, by every rational reader. For when the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore made subject to death; nor on the other hand, when man is called a rational animal, does reason or intelligence therefore belong to the body. Though the soul therefore is not the whole man, yet there is no absurdity in calling him the image of God with relation to the soul; although I retain the principle which I have just laid down, that the image of God includes all the excellence in which the nature of man surpasses all the other species of animals. This term therefore denotes the integrity which Adam possessed, when he was endued with a right understanding, when he had affections regulated by reason, and all his senses governed in proper order, and when in the excellency of his nature he truly resembled the excellence of his Creator. And though the principal seat of the Divine image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its faculties; yet there was no part of man, not even the body, which was not adorned with some rays of its glory. It is certain that the lineaments of the Divine glory are conspicuous in every part of the world: whence it may be concluded, that where the image of God is said to be in man, there is implied a tacit antithesis, which exalts men above all the other creatures, and as it were separates him from the vulgar herd. It is not to be