On the general subject, see Baxter, On the Soul; Drew, Immateriality and Immortidity of the ISonl; Dod- dridge, Lectures, p. 92-97 ; Flavel, On the Soul; Locke, On the Understandiny ; iVIoore, Immortality of the Soul ; Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy. See Si'IKIT.
SOUL, Immateriality of. See Imjiateriality.
SOUL, Ijimortality of. See Immortality'.
SOUL, Origin of. Respecting the manner of the propagation of the soul among the posterity of Adam, the sacred writers say nothing. The text (Eccles. xii, 7) gives us, indeed, clearly to understand that the soul comes from God in a different manner from the body, but what this manner is it does not inform us. The texts (Isa. xlii, 5; Job xii, 10) which are frequently cited in this connection merely teach that God gave to m&n%reath and life, and so do not relate to this subject. Nor can anything res|)ecting the manner of the propa- gation of the soul be determined from the appellation Father of sjririts, -which was commonly given to God among the Jews, and which occurs in Heb. xii, 9 (see Wettstein, ad foe). This appellation implies nothing more than that as man is the father of an offspring of the same nature with himself, so God, who is a Spirit, produces spirits. It is doubtless founded upon the de- scription of God (Numb, xvi, 22) as "the God of the spirits of all flesh." The whole intjuiry, therefore, with regard to the origin of human souls is exclusively philo- sophical, and scriptural authority can be adduced nei- ther for nor against any theory which we may choose to adopt. But notwithstanding the philoso|)hical nat- ure of this subject, it cannot be wholly passed by in systematic theology, considering the influence which it has upon the statement of the doctrine of original sin. It is on account of its connection with this single doc- trine (for it is not immediately connected with any oth- er) that it has been so much agitated by theologians, especially since the time of Augustine. They have usually adopted that theory respecting the origin of the soul which was most favorable to the views which they entertained respecting the native character of man.
Hence the followers of Augustine and of Pelagius, the advocates and opponents of the doctrine of native de- pravity, are uniformly ranged on opposite sides of the question concerning the origin of the soul. There have been three principal hypotheses on this subject, which will now be stated.
1. The Hypothesis of the Pre - existence of Souls. — Those who support this hypothesis, called Prceexisti- ani, affirm that God, at the beginning of the world, created the souls of all men, which, however, are iu)t miited with the body before man is begotten or born into the world. This was the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and his followers, and of the Cabalists among the Jews. Among these, however, there is a difference of opinion, some believing that the soul was originally destined for the body, and unites with it of its own ac- cord; others, with Plato, that it pertained originally to the divine nature, and is incarcerated in the body as a punishment for the sins which it committed in its heav- enh' state. This hypothesis found advocates in the an- cient Christian Church. Some Christians adopted the entire system of the Platonists, and helil that the soul was a part of the divine nature, etc. Priscilliaiuis and his followers either held these views or were accused of holding them by Augustine {I)e Hares, c. 70). All who professed to believe in the pre-existence of the soul can- not be proved to have believed that it was a part of the divine nature. This is true of Origen, who agreed with the Platonists in saying that souls sinned before they were united with a body, in which they were impris- oned as a punishment for their sins (see Huetius, in his Origeniame, lib. ii, c. 2, quajst. 6). The pre-existence of the soul was early taught by Justin Martyr (Dial, cum Tryphone Jud.). This has been the common opinion of Christian mystics of ancient and modern times. They usually adhere to the Platonic theory, and regard the soul as a part of the divine nature, from which it proceeds and to which it will again return. This doc- trine of the pre-existence of the soul is, however, almost entirely abandoned, because it is supposed irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin. If the mystics be ex- cepted, it has been left almost without an advocate ever since the time of Augustine.
2. The Hypothesis of the Creation of the Soul. — The advocates of this theory, called Creatiani, believe that the soul is immediately created by God whenever the body is begotten. A passage in Aristotle (/>e Gene?: ii, 3) was supposed to contain this doctrine — at least, it was so understood by the schoolmen ; and, in truth, Aristotle appears not to be far removed from tlie o])iiiion ascribed to him. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodorct, among the fathers in the (ireek Church, were of this o|)inion, and Ambrose, Hilary, and Jerome in the Latin Church. The schoolmen almost universally professed this doc- trine, and generally the followers of Pelagius, with whom the schoolmen, for the most part, agreed in their views with regard to the native character of man ; for these views derived a very plausible vindication from the hypothesis that the soul was immediately created by God when it was connected with the body. The argu- ment was this : If God created the souls of men, he must have made them either pure and holy or impure and sinful. The latter supposition is inconsistent with the holiness of God, and consequently the doctrine of the native depravity of the heart must be rejected. To affirm that God made the heart depraved would be to avow the blasphemous doctrine that God is the author of sin. The theory of the Creatiani was at first favored b}^ Augustine, but he rejected it as soon as he saw how it was employed by the Pelagians. It has continued, however, to the present time to be the common doctrine of the theologians of the Komish Church, who in this follow after the schoolmen, like them making little of native depravity, and mucli of the freedom of man in spiritual things. Among the Protestant teachers, INIe- lancthon was inclined to the hypothesis of the Creati- ani, although, after the time of Luther, another hypoth-