man; signifying that he is made holy, rather than that he is made immortal. And truly this would seem the correct exposition. For in the one, the christian is exhorted to be renewed in the spirit of his mind, and to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness;' and in the other, is declared to 'have put off the old man with his deeds, and to have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him ;'-where man is spoken of as again made in the image of God, and where the expression appears employed to denote moral resemblance.

Thus then the assertion that man was made in the image of God will not prove him immortal; or else the apostolic use of the phrase will show that since the fall this endowment is a gospel privilege.

§ 2. As to the difference of expression observable when man and the animals are respectively mentioned. The historian has given two accounts:

GENESIS, chap. i.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him male and female created he them:

:

28 And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

GENESIS, chap. ii.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is the latter statement which bears the weight of the present argument. And two things are relied on, namely, That God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and,

That man became a living soul.' These two facts are alleged as peculiarities, marking man off from all the animals, separating him from them by a whole infinity; he, it is said, has emphatically the breath of life, and he alone is made a living soul.

Now, suppose we find both these expressions used in reference to "all living things " without exception;-used so by the same writer-in the same book-and within a page or two of their first application to man;—must we not, in such a case, cease to attach any distinctive importance to them, and admit that either the phrase does not prove immortality, or else equally proves all things that have life to be immortal too? Let us see then how Moses has used these two phrases.

i. As to the term 'the breath of life,' if we turn to Genesis, chap. vii., we shall find it employed in reference to all the other creatures, the beasts, birds, &c.:—

13 In the self-same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.

14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

*

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Every reader sees at a glance that both man and the brute creation are alike comprehended under the one phrase - all flesh,' and—' every living substance;' and that of all alike and indiscriminately it is said—' in whose nostrils was the breath of life,' and of all alike 'wherein was the breath of life, that they died,' that they were destroyed.'

So then the term 'breath of life,' being applied to man in common with beasts and insects, cannot, in any degree, assist to prove him, as distinct from them, endowed with immortality.

ii. And as to the second expression, 'man became a living soul;' this is no more restricted to man than is the former. In Gen. i. 20, we read, 'God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.' Where, by universal consent, a closer translation would be as the margin testifies, a living soul;' so that it would read, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath a living soul.' Thus, precisely the same words are employed in reference to man, as to the other creatures. So much for the argument based on a supposed difference in the modes of speaking of man and the animals. But it has been said in reply, that the stress is to be laid, not on the phrase, breath of life,' nor, 'living soul,' but on the word became.' 6 "The force of the text, as an

argument is in the words 'man became a living soul.' A thing was created into that which it was not before, and which none of God's other earthly creatures are ever said to have become a person. It is this which constitutes the difference of expression when man is spoken of and when the animals are."*

I confess I do not see any great force in the remark, nor has the objector pointed out wherein the power to demonstrate an endless existence lies; so that I can but offer one or two observations on the supposed meaning, without being quite sure of really meeting the point which the writer had in his mind.

a. I may, however, decline the reviewer's substitution of the word person here for soul, which latter word is very properly used in our common version; although, of course, no one will deny that there are many passages where the word here rendered 'soul' is properly rendered 'person.' But the very gist of the present question is, Whether a phrase, which, by the same writer, on the same page, and in the same connection-is used indiscriminately of man and the other animals, can prove him as distinguished from them to be immortal, when all the difference that is observable lies in the fact that the word 'became' is applied

* Congressional Magazine, January, 1845.

o him. For, by reference to the original, it will be seen that the predicate, living soul,' is really used of the crea tures indiscriminately, so that in argumentative fairness the whole stress of the objection must be placed on the word became. And then the assertion to be examined is really this,-While of the creatures generally it is said that they had living souls, and they are called living creatures (the same word being used) it is said of man alone that he became a living soul; or, as the word is rendered by our translators, in the same connection, 'a living creature.' So that, in truth, this word became is to bear the infinite weight of an absolute and universal immortality!

b. The account given of the creation of man is, as might be expected, somewhat more detailed than that of the creation of the animals. Although, if we except the divine self-communing which Moses beautifully represents as preceding the creative act, and the phrase already noticed asserting man to be made in the image of God, the first of the two statements respecting the creation of man is not. very different from that which relates to the other creatures. For after saying that God created the heavens and the earth, that he made two great lights, and made the beast of the earth, and created great whales, &c., it is said, in precisely the same terms, 'so God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' From which statement, had there not been a subsequent and more detailed one, we should have inferred that both male and female of human kind were created just as all the animals before had been, as to the modus creandi.

But man being the most important of God's works on earth, and several reasons being to be answered by a somewhat fuller description, which would be both interesting and profitable, the historian, after having given a brief statement of the six days' work, returns to this one point and gives a rather more particular account; thus,—

Gen. ii. 7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ;--and man became a living soul.

From which we learn that God first of all made a man of earth; and then communicated to this, as yet inani• See in the original, Gen. i. 20, 21, 24, 30. ii. 7, 19. ix. 12, 16

mate organism, life. So that that (namely, the dust of the earth) which, on the first divine effort, became, what it was not before,' an organised body, by the next act became (again, what it was not previously) alive, or possessed of a living soul, or became a living soul. By which phrase the historian would not appear to express more than the result of God's breathing into him the breath of life, which breath of life having been breathed into the animals also, they first and he afterwards became alive. For there is no very obvious reason why, if Moses had given as detailed an account of the creation of the animals, he might not have expressed himself in the same way; seeing that 'out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,' as well as man. Now, since there is no life in dust, none in an animal form made of dust, and yet the creatures that were made thereof had the breath of life' (vii. 15-22) and living souls,' God must have communicated or breathed into them, when formed, the breath of life, and so they became, and only so, what they also were not previously, alive, or possessed of living souls, or became living souls or creatures; (for it is precisely the same word that is sometimes rendered 'souls,' sometimes creatures.')

6

Or if any one should object to this last phrase being applied to the creatures generally, it would be, I presume, because of some force which he conceives to lie in the word 'became;' since it is asserted that they had 'living souls,' and had the breath of life.' But to have life is to be alive. And I would have him ask himself what difference he can find in the inspired historian's mode of expressing himself that shall bear this infinite weight, sought to be put on the word 'became.' God certainly gave, or put into, or breathed into the animals 'the breath of life' (evinced by the fact that they had it) and they became alive. When, then, God breathes into the man, as yet inanimate, 'the breath of life' (precisely the same phrase) what is there in this communication of life, or the breath of life,' to him which at once endows the hitherto inanimate clay organism with immortality, when the same breath of life' communicated to all other creatures leaves them mortal? There is an infinite difference between the two, on the objector's view; yet where is it taught in the history? I ask. In the word 'became,' says the objector ;