CHAPTER IV.

THE BREATH OF LIFE.

Gen. 1:27, states, in general terms, the form in which man was created, as contr
asted with other orders of animal life. In Gen. 2:7, the process is described by
which this creation was accomplished. Finding no proof in the former passage th
at man was put in possession of immortality (see preceding chapter) we turn to t
he latter text to examine the claims based upon that. The verse reads: And the Lo
rd God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life: and man became a living soul.
Here the advocates of mans natural immortality endeavor to make a strong stand, a
s it is very proper they should do; for certainly if in that inspired record whi
ch describes the building up of man, the putting together of the different parts
or constituent elements of which he is composed, there is no testimony that he
was clothed with immortality, and no hook furnished upon which an argument for s
uch an attribute can be hung, their whole system is shaken to its very foundatio
n.
The claim based upon this passage is that man is composed of two parts: the body
formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed 32therein by Gods
breathing into the nostrils of that dust-formed body the breath of life. We will
let two representative men speak on this point, and state the popular view. Tho
mas Scott, D. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:--
The Lord not only gave man life in common with the other animals which had bodies
formed of the same materials; but immediately communicated from himself the rat
ional soul, here denoted by the expression of breathing into his nostrils the br
eath of life.
Adam Clarke, LL. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:--
In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a b
ody and soul distinctly and separately created, the body out of the dust of the
earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself.
Critics speak of this expression in a different manner from theologians; for whe
reas the latter make it confer immortality, and raise man in this respect to the
same plane with his Maker, the former speak of it as suggestive of mans frail na
ture, and his precarious tenure of life itself. Thus Dr. Conant says:--
In whose nostrils is breath. Only breath, so frail a principle of life, and so ea
sily extinguished.
And in a note on Isa. 2:22, where the prophet says, Cease ye from man whose breat
h is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of? he adds:--
Not as in the common English version, whose breath is in his nostrils; for where el
se should it be? The objection 33is not to its place in the body, which is the p
roper one for it, but to its frail and perishable nature.
To the same intent the psalmist speaks, Ps. 146:3, 4: Put not your trust in princ
es, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he
returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
But let us examine the claim that the breath of life which God breathed into man c
onferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There was nothing naturally immo
rtal, certainly, in the dust of which Adam was composed. Whatever of immortality
he had, therefore, after receiving the breath of life, must have existed in tha
t breath in itself considered. Hence, it must follow that the breath of life confe
rs immortality upon any creature to which it is given. Will our friends accept t
his issue? If not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no mor
e upon man than upon any other being. And if they do accept it, we will introduc
e to them a class of immortal associates not very flattering to their vanity nor
to their argument; for Moses applies the very same expression to all the lower
orders of the animal creation.
In Gen. 7:15, we read: And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of al
l flesh, wherein is the breath of life. It must be evident to every one, at a gla
nce, that the whole animal creation, including man, is comprehended 34in the phr
ase all flesh. But verses 21 and 22 contain stronger expressions still: And all fle
sh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, an
d of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the face of the earth, and every ma
n. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land
, died.
Here the different orders of animals are named, and man is expressly mentioned w
ith them; and all alike are said to have had in their nostrils the breath of lif
e. It matters not that we are not told in the case of the lower animals how this
breath was conferred, as in the case of man; for the immortality, if there is a
ny in this matter, must reside, as we have seen, in the breath itself, not in th
e manner of its bestowal; and here it is affirmed that all creatures possess it;
and of the animals, it is declared, as well as of man, that it resides in their
nostrils.
It is objected that in Gen. 2:7, the breath of life as applied to man is plural, br
eath of lives (see Clarke), meaning both animal life, and that immortality which
is the subject of our investigation. But, we reply, it is the same form in Gen.
7:22, where it is applied to all animals; and if the reader will look at the mar
gin of this latter text he will see that the expression is stronger still, the br
eath of the spirit of life or of lives.
The language which Solomon uses respecting 35both men and beasts strongly expres
ses their common mortality: For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth b
easts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea,
they have all one breath; so that a man [in this respect] hath no pre-eminence
above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, an
d all turn to dust again. Eccl. 3:19, 20.
Thus the advocates of natural immortality by appealing to Moses record respecting
the breath of life, are crushed beneath the weight of their own arguments; for
if the breath of life proves immortality for man, it must prove the same for every
creature to which it is given. The Bible affirms that all orders of the animal
creation that live upon the land, possess it. Hence our opponents are bound to c
oncede the immortality of birds, beasts, bugs, beetles, and every creeping thing
. We are sometimes accused of bringing man down by our argument to a level with
the beast. What better is this argument of our friends which brings beasts and r
eptiles up to a level with man? We deny the charge that we are doing the one, an
d shall be pardoned for declining to do the other.
36
CHAPTER V.
THE LIVING SOUL.
Finding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed into mans
nostrils at the commencement of his mysterious existence, it remains to inquire
if it resides in the living soul, which man, as the result of that action, immedi
ately became. 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. Gen. 2:7.
On this point also it is proper to let the representatives of the popular view d
efine their position. Prof. H. Mattison, on the verse just quoted, says:--
That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of Adam, is ev
ident from the following considerations: The phrase, breath of life, is rendered b
reath of lives by all Hebrew scholars. Not only did animal life then begin, but
another and higher life which constituted him not only a mere animal, but a livin
g soul. He was a body before,--he is now more than a body, a soul and body united
. If he was a soul before, then how could he become such by the last act of creati
on? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then the soul must have
been superadded to his former material nature.--Discussion with Storrs, p. 14.
Dr. Clarke, on Gen. 2:7, says:--
37
In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a b
ody and soul distinctly and separately created; the body out of the dust of the
earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself.
To the same end see the reasonings of Landis, Clark (D. W.), and others. Aware o
f the importance to their system of maintaining this interpretation, they very c
onsistently rally to its support the flower of their strength. It is the redan o
f their works, and they cannot be blamed for being unwilling to surrender it wit
hout a decisive struggle. For if there is nothing in the inspired record of the
formation of man, that record which undertakes to give us a correct view of his
nature, to show that he is endowed with immortality, their system is not only sh
aken to its foundation, but even the foundation itself is swept entirely away.
The vital point, to which they bend all their energies, is somehow to show that
a distinct entity, an intelligent part, an immortal soul, was brought near to th
at body as it lay there perfect in its organization, and thrust therein, which i
mmediately began through the eyes of that body to see, through its ears to hear,
through its lips to speak, and through its nerves to feel. Query: Was this soul
capable of performing all these functions before it entered the body? If it was
, why thrust it within this prison house? If it was not, will it be capable of p
erforming them after it leaves the body?
38Heavy drafts are made on rhetoric in favor of this superadded soul. Figures of
beauty are summoned to lend to the argument their aid. An avalanche of flowers
is thrown upon it, to adorn its strength, or perchance to hide its weakness. But
when we search for the logic, we find it a chain of sand. Right at the critical
point, the argument fails to connect; and so after all their expenditure of eff
ort, after all their lofty flights, and sweating toil, their conclusion comes ou
t--blank assumption. Why? Because they are endeavoring to reach a result which t
hey are dependent upon the text to establish, but which the text directly contra
dicts. The record does not say that God formed a body, and put therein a superad
ded soul, to use that body as an instrument; but he formed man of the dust. That
which was formed of the dust was the man himself, not simply an instrument for
the man to use when he should be put therein. Adam was just as essentially a man
before the breath of life was imparted, as after that event. This was the diffe
rence: before, he was a dead man; afterward, a living one. The organs were all t
here ready for their proper action. It only needed the vitalizing principle of t
he breath of life to set them in motion. That came, and the lungs began to expan
d, the heart to beat, the blood to flow, and the limbs to move; then was exhibit
ed all the phenomena of physical action; then, too, the 39brain began to act, an
d there was exhibited all the phenomena of mental action, perception, thought, m
emory, will, &c.
The engine is an engine before the motive power is applied. The bolts, bars, pis
tons, cranks, shafts, and wheels, are all there. The parts designed to move are
ready for action. But all is silent and still. Apply the steam, and it springs,
as it were, into a thing of life, and gives forth all its marvelous exhibitions
of celerity and power.
So with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have seen was gi
ven in common to all the animal creation, that simply was applied which set the
machine in motion. No separate and independent organization was added, but a cha
nge took place in the man himself. The man became something, or reached a condit
ion which before he had not attained. The verb became is defined by Webster, to pas
s from one state to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change
from another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new properties or q
ualities, additional matter or a new character. And Gen. 2:7, is then cited as an
illustration of this definition. But it will be seen that none of these will fi
t the popular idea of the superadded soul; for that is not held to be simply a c
hange in Adams condition, or a new property or quality of his being, or an additi
on 40of matter, or a new character; but a separate and independent entity, capab
le, without the body, of a higher existence than with it. The boy becomes a man;
the acorn, an oak; the egg, an eagle; the chrysalis, a butterfly; but the capab
ilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences it. A superadde
d, independent soul could not have been put into man, and be said to have become
that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, that he, on receiving the breath of life, be
came a living soul. An engine is put into a ship, and by its power propels it ov
er the face of the deep; but the ship, by receiving the engine, does not become
the engine, nor the engine the ship. No sophistry, even from the darkest depths
of its alchemy, can bring up and attach to the word become a definition which will
make it mean, as applied to any body, the addition of a distinct and separate o
rganization to that body.
To the inquiry of Prof. Mattison, If he was a soul before, then how could he become
such by the last act of creation, it may be replied, The antithesis is not based
upon the word soul, but upon the word living. This will become evident by tryin
g to read the passage without this word: And the Lord God breathed into his nostr
ils the breath of life, and man became a soul. That is not it. He became a living
soul. He was a soul before, but not a living soul. To thus speak 41of a dead so
ul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used the terms.
See Num. 6:6: He shall come at no dead body, on which Cruden says, in Hebrew, dead
soul.
Kitto, in his Relig. Encyclopedia, under the term Adam, says:--
And Jehovah God formed the man (Heb., the Adam) dust from the ground, and blew in
to his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living animal. Some of our
readers may be surprised at our having translated nephesh chaiyah by living anim
al. There are good interpreters and preachers who, confiding in the common trans
lation, living soul, have maintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-em
inence above the inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal sp
irit. But, however true that distinction is, and supported by abundant argument
from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting unfaithfully if we
were to assume its being contained or implied in this passage.
The abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures for mans immortal spi
rit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose. But this admission that no
thing of the kind is implied in this passage, is a gratifying triumph of fair an
d candid criticism over what has been almost universally believed and taught.
But we are not left to our own reasoning on this point; for inspiration itself h
as given us a comment upon the passage in question; and certainly it is safe to
let one inspired writer explain the words of another.
42Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:44, and onward, is contrasting the first Adam with the seco
nd, and our present state with the future. He says: There is a natural body and t
here is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a li
ving soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Here Paul refers directly
to the facts recorded in Gen. 2:7. In verse 47, he tells us the nature of this m
an that was made a living soul: The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second
man is the Lord from Heaven. In verse 49, he says, And as we have borne the image
of the earthy, have been, like Adam, living souls, we shall also bear the image o
f the heavenly, when our bodies are fashioned like unto his glorious body. Phil.
3:21. In verses 50 and 53, he tells us why it is necessary that this should be d
one, and how it will be accomplished: Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and bl
ood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorrupt
ion. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.
Putting these declarations all together, what do we have? We have a very explici
t statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was made, was of th
e earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly in its freedom from a de
caying nature, did not possess that incorruption without which we cannot inherit
the kingdom of 43God, but was wholly mortal and corruptible. Would people allow
these plain and weighty words of the apostle their true meaning upon this quest
ion, it would not only summarily arrest all controversy over the particular text
under consideration, but leave small ground, at least from the teachings of the
Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man.
But the terms living soul like the breath of life, are applied to all orders of th
e animate creation, to beasts and reptiles, as well as to man. The Hebrew words
are nephesh chaiyah; and these words are in the very first chapter of Genesis fo
ur times applied to the lower orders of animals: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Gen.
1:21, Dr. A. Clarke offers this comment:--
Nephesh chaiyah; a general term to express all creatures endued with animal life,
in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the half-reasoning elephant do
wn to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the polype, which seems equally to sh
are the vegetable and animal life.
This is a valuable comment on the meaning of these words. He would have greatly
enhanced the utility of that information, if he had told us that the same words
are applied to man in Gen. 2:7.
Prof. Bush, in his notes on this latter text, says:--
The phrase living soul is in the foregoing narrative repeatedly applied to the in
ferior orders of animals which 44are not considered to be possessed of a soul in t
he sense in which that term is applied to man. It would seem to mean the same, t
herefore, when spoken of man, that it does when spoken of beasts, viz.: an anima
ted being, a creature possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing
all the physical functions by which animals are distinguished, as eating, drink
ing, walking, &c.... Indeed it may be remarked that the Scriptures generally aff
ord much less explicit evidence of the existence of a sentient immaterial princi
ple in man, capable of living and acting separate from the body, than is usually
supposed.
And there is nothing in the term living to imply that the life with which Adam was
then endowed would continue forever; for these living souls are said to die. Re
v. 16:3: And every living soul died in the sea. Whether this means men navigating
its surface or the animals living in its waters, it is equally to the point as s
howing that that which is designated by the terms living soul, whatever it is, is
subject to death.
Staggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the terms living soul are ap
plied to all animals, the advocates of mans immortality then undertake to make th
e word became the pivot of their argument. Man became a living soul, but it is not s
aid of the beasts that they became such; hence this must denote the addition of
something to man which the animals did not receive. And in their anxiety to make
this appear, they surreptitiously insert the idea that 45the animal life of man
is derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher nature w
as imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into him, and the li
ving soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work, The Immortality of the S
oul,[A] p. 141, says: Hence something was to be added to the mere animal life deri
ved from the dust of the ground. Now Mr. L. ought to know, and knowing, ought to
have the candor to admit, that no life at all is derived from the dust of the gr
ound. All the life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God br
eathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no matter how they
obtained it, possessed as well as he.
A. The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked Carefully Co
nsidered. By Robert W. Landis. New York: Published by Carlton and Porter. This is
a work of 518 pages, and being issued under the patronage of the great Methodis
t Book Concern, we take it to be a representative work, and shall occasionally r
efer to its positions.
No emphasis can be attached to the word became: for everything that is called a li
ving soul must by some process have become such. Whatever was or is first became
what it was or is.
Take the case of Eve. She was formed of a rib of Adam, made of pre-existent matt
er. It is not said of her that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of life
, or that she became a living soul; yet no one claims that her nature was essent
ially different from that of Adam with 46whom she was associated, as a fitting c
ompanion.
And it will be further seen that this word became can have no value in the argumen
t, unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that whatever becomes a
nything must forever remain what it has become.
Defenders of the popular view, by such reasoning reduce their argument to its la
st degree of attenuation; but here its assumption becomes so transparent that it
has no longer power to mislead, and needs no further reply.
CHAPTER VI.
WHAT IS SOUL? WHAT IS SPIRIT?
The discussion of Gen. 2:7 (as in the preceding chapter), brings directly before
us for solution the question, What is meant by the terms soul and spirit, as ap
plied to man? Some believers in unconditional immortality point triumphantly to
the fact that the terms soul and spirit are used in reference to the human race,
 as though that settled the question, and placed an insuperable embargo upon all
further discussion. This arises simply from their not looking into this matter
with sufficient thoroughness to see that all we question in the case is the popu
lar definition that is given to these terms. We do not 47deny that man has a sou
l and spirit; we only say that if our friends will show that the Bible anywhere
attaches to them the meaning with which modern theology has invested them, they
will supply what has thus far been a perpetual lack, and forever settle this con
troversy.
What do theologians tell us these terms signify? Buck, in his Theological Dictio
nary, says: Soul, that vital, immaterial, active substance or principle in man wh
ereby he perceives, remembers, reasons, and wills. On spirit, he says: An incorpor
eal being or intelligence; in which sense God is said to be a spirit, as are the
angels and the human soul. On man, he says: The constituent and essential parts o
f man created by God are two: body and soul. The one was made out of dust; the o
ther was breathed into him. This soul, he further says, is a spiritual substance; a
nd then, apparently feeling not exactly safe in calling that a substance which h
e claims to be immaterial, he bewilders it by saying subsistence, and then adds, im
material, immortal.
This position strikes us as considerably open to criticism. On this definition o
f soul, how can we deny it to the lower animals? for they perceive, remember, reaso
n, and will. And, if spirit means the human soul, the question arises, Has man two
immortal elements in his nature? for the Bible applies both terms to him 48at th
e same time. Paul, to the Thessalonians, says: And I pray God your whole spirit a
nd soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
. Does Paul here use tautology, by applying to man two terms meaning the same thi
ng? That would be a serious charge against his inspiration. Then has man two imm
ortal parts, soul and spirit both? This would evidently be overdoing the matter;
for, where one is enough, two are a burden. And further, on this hypothesis, wo
uld these two immortal parts exist hereafter as two independent and separate bei
ngs?
This idea being preposterous, one question more remains: Which of these two is t
he immortal part? Is it the soul or the spirit? It cannot be both; and it matter
s not to us which is the one chosen. But we want to know what the decision is be
tween the two. If they say that what we call the soul is the immortal part, then
they give up such texts as Eccl. 12:7: The spirit shall return to God who gave i
t; and Luke 23:46, Into thy hands I commend my spirit, &c. On the other hand, if th
ey claim that it is the spirit which is the immortal part, then they give up suc
h texts as Gen. 35:18: And it came to pass as her soul was in departing (for she
died); and 1 Kings 17:21, Let this childs soul come into him again.
And, further, if the body and soul are both 49essential parts of man, as Mr. B.
affirms, how can either exist as a distinct, conscious, and perfect being withou
t the other?
Foreseeing these difficulties, Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, distinguishes bet
ween soul and spirit thus: Soul (Heb. nephesh, Gr. ). One of three parts of whi h man
was an ientl
believed to onsist. The term , is sometimes sed to denote the vital
prin iple, sometimes the sentient prin iple, or seat of the senses, desires, af
fe tions, appetites, passions. In the latter sense, it is distingished from [m]
, th highr rtiol tr. This distictio rs i th Stgit, d so
mtims i th Nw Tstmt. 1 Thss. 5:23. Th h qots Olshs o 1 Thss.
5:23, s syig: For whilst th [sol] denotes the lower region of the spirital ma
n,-- omprises, therefore, the powers to whi h analogos ones are fond in animal
life also, as nderstanding, appetitive fa lt
, memor
, fan
,--the [m] icld
s thos ccitis which costitt th tr hm lif.
So it sms tht, ccordig to ths xositors, whil th Hbrw hsh, d G
rk sch, slly trsltd sol, dot owrs commo to ll iml lif, t
h Hbrw rch, d th corrsodig Grk m, sigify th highr owrs,
d cosqtly tht rt which is sosd to b immortl.
50Now lt s iqir wht mig th scrd writrs ttch to ths trms. As 
lrdy sttd, th origil words from which sol d sirit r trsltd, r
, for sol, hsh i th Hbrw, d sch i th Grk, d for sirit, rc
h i th Hbrw, d m i th Grk. To ths o o is t librty to ttc
h y rbitrry mig. W mst dtrmi thir sigifictio by th ss i w
hich thy r sd i th scrd rcord; d whovr gos byod tht, dos viol
c to th word of God.
Th word hsh occrs 745 tims i th Old Tstmt, d is trsltd by th
trm sol bot 473 tims. I vry istc i th Old Tstmt whr th wor
d sol occrs, it is from hsh, with th xctio of Job 30:15, whr it com
s from d-vh, d Is. 57:16, whr it is from shh-mh. Bt th mr s of
th word sol dtrmis othig; for it cot b climd to sigify  immort
l rt, til w somwhr fid immortlity ffirmd of it.
Bsids th word sol, hsh, is trsltd lif d livs, s i G. 1:20, 3
0, i ll 118 tims. It is trsltd rso, s i G. 14:21, i ll 29 tims.
It is trsltd mid, s i G. 23:8, i ll 15 tims. It is trsltd hrt
, s i Ex. 23:9, i ll 15 tims. It is trsltd body, or dd body, s i N
m. 6:6, i ll 11 tims. It is trsltd will, s i Ps. 27:12, i ll 4 tims.
It is trsltd tit, s i Prov. 23:2, twic; 51lst, s i Ps. 78:18, tw
ic; thig, s i Lv. 11:10, twic.
Bsids th forgoig, it is rdrd by th vrios roos, d by th words,
brth, bst, fish, crtr, ghost, lsr, dsir, &c., i ll forty-thr
diffrt wys. Nhsh is vr rdrd sirit.
This sol (hsh) is rrstd s i dgr of th grv, Ps. 49:14, 15; 89:
88; Job 33:18, 20, 22; Is. 38:17. It is lso sok of s libl to b dstroy
d, killd, &c., G. 17:14; Ex. 31:14; Josh. 10:30, 32, 35, 37, 39, &c.
Prkhrst, thor of  Grk d  Hbrw Lxico, sys:--
As  o, h-hsh hth b sosd to sigify th siritl rt of m, or
wht w commoly cll his sol. I mst for myslf cofss tht I c fid o s
sg whr it hth dobtdly this mig. G. 35:18; 1 Kigs 17:21, 22; Ps.
16:10, sm first for this sigifictio. Bt my ot h-hsh, i th thr
formr ssgs, b most rorly rdrd brth, d i th lst,  brthig,
or iml frm?
Tylor, thor of  Hbrw Cocordc, sys tht h-hsh sigifis th iml
lif, or tht ricil by which vry iml, ccordig to its kid, livs. G
. 1:20, 24, 30; Lv. 11:40. Which iml lif, so fr s w kow ythig of th
mr of its xistc, or so fr s th Scritrs ld or thoghts, cosist
s i th brth, Job. 41:21; 31:39, d i th blood. Lv. 17:11, 14.
Gsis, th stdrd Hbrw lxicogrhr, dfis hsh s follows:--
52
1. Brth. 2. Th vitl sirit, s th Grk sch, d Lti im, throgh whi
ch th body livs, i. ., th ricil of lif mifstd i th brth. To this
h lso scribs whtvr hs rsct to th sstc of lif by food d dri
k, d th cotrry. 3. Th rtiol sol, mid, ims, s th st of fligs,
ffctios, d motios. 4. Cocr. livig thig, iml i which is th hsh
, lif.
Th word sol i th Nw Tstmt coms ivribly from th Grk (ps he); whi h
word o rs 105 times. It is translated sol 58 times; life, 40 times; mind, 3 t
imes; heart, twi e; s, on e; and
o, on e.
Spirit in the Old Testament is from two Hebrew words nshah-mah and ra h.
The former o rs 24 times. It is 17 times rendered breath, 3 times, blast, twi
e, spirit, on e, sol, and on e, inspiration. It is defined b
Gesenis, Breath,
spirit, spoken of the breath of God, i. e., a) the wind, b) the breath, breathin
g of his anger. 2. Breath, life of man and beasts. 3. The mind, the intelle t. 4
. Con r. living thing, animals.
The latter, ra h, o rs 442 times. Spirit in ever
instan e in the Old Testame
nt is from this word, ex ept Job 26:4, and Prov. 20:27; where it is from nshah-ma
h. Besides spirit it is translated wind 97 times, breath, 28 times, smell, 8 tim
es, mind, 6 times, blast, 4 times; also anger, orage, smell, air, & ., in all
sixteen different wa
s.
53Spirit in the New Testament is from the Greek, (m) i vry istc. Th orig
il word occrs 385 tims, d bsids sirit is rdrd ghost 92 tims, wid,
oc, d lif, oc. Prkhrst i his Grk Lxico, sys: It my b worth rm
rkig tht th ldig ss of th old Eglish word ghost is brth; ... tht g
host is vidtly of th sm root with gst of wid; d tht both ths words
r li drivtivs from th Hbrw, to mov with violc; whc lso gsh,
&c.
Pm is dfid by Robiso i his Grk Lxico of th Nw Tstmt, to m
, rimrily, 1. A brthig, brth, brth of ir, ir i motio. 2. Th sirit
of m, i. ., th vitl sirit, lif, sol, th ricil of lif rsidig i t
h brth brthd ito m from God, d gi rtrig to God.
W ow hv bfor s th s d dfiitios of th words from which sol d s
irit r trsltd. From th fcts rstd w lr tht  lrg vrity of
migs ttchs to thm; d tht w r t librty whrvr thy occr to giv
 thm tht dfiitio which th ss of th cotxt rqirs. Bt wh  crt
i mig is ttchd to ithr of ths words i o lc, it is ot syig t
ht it hs th sm mig i vry othr lc.
By  dishoorbl rvrsio o this oit som hv trid to hold  to ridicl
 th dvocts 54of th viw w hr dfd. Ths, wh w rd i G. 2:7, th
t Adm bcm  livig sol, th ss dmds, d th mig of th word so
l will wrrt, tht w th ly it to th whol rso; Adm, s  comlt b
ig, ws  livig sol. Bt wh w rd i G. 35:18, Ad it cm to ss, s
hr sol ws i drtig, for sh did, w giv th word, ccordig to othr o
f its dfiitios,  mor limitd sigifictio, d ly it, with Prkhrst, t
o th brth of lif.
Bt som hv mt s hr i this mr: Mtrilists tll s tht sol ms th
 whol m, th lt s s how it will rd i G. 35:18; Ad it cm to ss
s th whol m ws i drtig; for sh did. Or thy will sy, Mtrilists tl
l s tht sol ms th brth; th lt s try it i G. 2:7: Ad Adm bcm
 livig brth.
Sch  cors, whil it is o crdit to thir mtl cm, is ttrly disstro
s to ll thir clims of cdor d hosty i thir trtmt of this imort
t sbjct. Whil w r ot t librty to go byod th ltitd of mig whic
h is ttchd to th words sol d sirit, w r t librty to s whtvr d
fiitio th circmstcs of th cs rqir, vryig of cors i diffrt 
ssgs. Bt i th whol list of dfiitios, d i th tir s of th word
s, w fid othig swrig to tht immtril, 55iddt, immortl rt, c
bl of  coscios, itlligt, ctiv xistc ot of th body s wll s
i, of which th olr rligios tchrs of th dy dvor to mk ths wo
rds th vhicl.
Ad ow w wold commd to th tttio of th rdr othr stdos fct,
th brig of which h cot fil to rcit. W wt to kow if this sol
, or sirit, is immortl. Th Hbrw d Grk words from which thy r trsl
td, occr i th Bibl, s w hv s, svt hdrd tims. Srly, oc
t lst i tht log list w shll b told tht th sol is immortl, if this i
s its high rrogtiv. Svt hdrd tims w iqir if th sol is oc s
id to b immortl, or th sirit dthlss. Ad th ivribl d ovrwhlmig
rsos w mt is, Not Oc! Nowhr, thogh sd so my hdrd tims, is t
h sol sid to b dyig i its tr, or th sirit dthlss. Strg d 
ccotbl fct, if immortlity is  isrbl ttribt of th sol d s
irit!
A ttmt is somtims md to rry th forc of this fct by syig tht th
immortlity of th sol, lik tht of God, is tk for grtd. W rly, Th i
mmortlity of God is ot tk for grtd. Althogh this might b tk for gr
td if ythig cold b so tk, yt it is dirctly ssrtd tht God is immo
rtl. Lt ow th dvocts of th sols trl immortlity 56rodc o txt w
hr it is sid to hv immortlity, s God is sid to hv it, 1 Tim. 6:16, or
whr it is sid to b immortl, s God is sid to b, 1 Tim. 1:17, d th qs
tio is sttld. Bt this cot b do; d th igobl shift of th tk-for
-grtd rgmt flls dd to th floor.
CHAPTER VII.
THE SPIRIT RETURNS TO GOD.
Ecclsists 12:7: Th shll th dst rtr to th rth s it ws, d th si
rit shll rtr to God who gv it. It is trl for m to l first d mo
st dirctly to thos sorcs from which thy xct th most fficit hl. So
th dvocts of ms trl immortlity, wh t to th tsk of showig wht s
critrs thy rgrd s cotiig roof of thir ositio, lmost ivribly m
k thir first l to th txt hr qotd.
I th xmitio of this txt, d ll othrs of  lik tr, lt it vr b
rmmbrd tht th qstio t iss is, Hs m i his tr  costitt 
lmt, which is  iddt tity, d which, wh th body dis, ks rig
ht o i itrrtd cosciosss, big cbl of xrcisig i  still hig
hr dgr ot 57of th body th fctios of itlligc d ctivity which it
mifstd throgh th body, d dstid, whthr  sbjct of Gods fvor, or o
f his thrtd d mritd wrth, to liv so log s God himslf xists.
Dos this txt ssrt ythig of this kid? Dos it stt tht from which v
sch  ifrc c b drw? W ivit th rdr to go with s, whil w d
vor to cosidr crflly wht th txt rlly tchs. Or oots l t
o it s dirct tstimoy. Lt s s how fr w c go with thm.
1. Solomo, dr  sris of btifl figrs, sks i Eccl. 12:1-7, of th
lyig dow of m i dth. Grtd.
2. Dst, or th body, d sirit r sok of s two distict thigs. Grtd.
3. At dth, th sirit lvs th body. Grtd.
4. Th sirit is disosd of i  diffrt mr from th body. Grtd.
5. This sirit rtrs to God, d is thrfor coscios, ftr th dissoltio
of th body. Not grtd. Whr is th roof of this? Hr or ths bgi to d
ivrg from ch othr. Bt how cold it rtr to God if it ws ot coscios?
Aswr: I th mr Job dscribs. If h [God] st his hrt o m, if h g
thr to himslf his sirit d his brth, ll flsh shll rish togthr, 
d m shll tr gi to dst. Job 34:14, 15. This txt sks of 58Gods gthri
g to himslf th brth of m; somthig which o o soss to b cbl of 
srt coscios xistc. Ovr gist this roositio w r comlld to
mrk, Assmtio.
6. This sirit is thrfor to xist forvr. This coclsio lso w fil to s
, ithr xrssd, or v i th rmotst mr, imlid. Ths th vitl oi
ts i th vidc r wholly ssmd.
Bt if th sirit hr dos ot m wht it is olrly sosd to m, wht
is its sigifictio? Wht is it tht rtrs to God? It will b oticd tht i
t is somthig which God gv to m. Ad Solomo itrodcs it i  fmilir m
r, s if lldig to somthig lrdy rcordd d wll drstood. H mks 
vidt rfrc to th crtio of m i th bgiig. His body ws formd of
th dst; d i dditio to this, wht did God do for m or giv to him? H
brthd ito his ostrils th brth of lif. This is th oly sirit tht is
distictly sok of s hvig b giv by God to m. No o clims tht this
, lik th body, ws from th dst, or rtrs to dst; bt it dos ot thrfor
 follow tht it is coscios or immortl.
Ldis, . 133, flls ito this wrog mthod of rsoig. H sys:--
If th sol wr mortl, it too wold b giv  to 59th dst, it wold rtr
lso to th rth. Bt God ffirms tht it dos ot rtr to th rth; d th
rfor it is distict from th mortl d rishbl rt of m.
Th brth of lif is distict from th body, d did ot com from th dst of
th grod; bt to sy tht it c xist i  coscios stt iddt of th
body, d tht it mst liv forvr, is grodlss ssmtio.
If sirit hr ms th brth of lif, how, or i wht ss, dos it rtr to
God? Ldis, . 150, ths flsly trts this oit lso: How c th ir w br
th, h sks, rtr to God? Btw th brth of lif s imrtd to m by God,
vitlizig th iml frm, d ir cosidrd simly s  lmt, w rh
d thr is  brod distictio. Solomo is showig th dissoltio of m by tr
cig bck th sts tk i his formtio. Th brth of lif ws brthd it
o Adm i th bgiig; by which h bcm  livig sol. Tht is withdrw fro
m m, d s  cosqc h bcoms iimt. Th th body, drivd of its
vitlizig ricil, hvig b formd of th dst, gos bck to dst gi.
Tht th brth of lif cm from God to m, o will dy. Do thy sk how it
rtrs to him? Tll s how it cm from him, d w will tll how it rtrs.
I th sm ss i which God gv it to m, i tht ss it rtrs to him.
Tht is ll thr is of it. Th xltio 60is rfctly siml, bcs o d
ivisio of th roblm is comrhdd jst s sily s th othr. It is  s
y thig to tr off with  flit sr  xltio which if llowd to st
d, tks th vry brth of lif ot of  chrishd thory.
Bt thr is  grv objctio lyig gist th olr xositio of this txt
, which mst ot ss oticd. It is ivolvd i th qstio, Wht ws th st
t or coditio of this sirit bfor God gv it to m? Ws it  iddt
, coscios, d itlligt big, bfor it ws t ito Adm, s it is clim
d tht it ws ftr Adm got throgh with it, d it rtrd to God? Solomo v
idtly dsigs to stt rsctig ll th lmts of which m is comosd, 
s is xrssly sttd of th body, tht thy rsm th origil coditio i wh
ich thy wr, bfor thy cm togthr to form th comot rts of m. W
kow it is rgd tht th xrssio rsctig th body, tht it rtrs to th
 dst s it ws, is good grod for  ifrc tht th sirit rtrs ot s i
t ws. Evry ricil of logic rqirs th vry oosit coclsio. For, hvi
g st th mid o tht id of smss of coditio, d th rfrrig s t
o th sorc from whc th sirit cm, d sttig tht it gos bck to tht
sorc, th lgg is s good s  ffirmtio tht it gos bck to its origi
l coditio lso, d mst 61b so drstood lss  xrss ffirmtio is
md to th cotrry. Th qstio is thrfor rtit, Ws this sirit bfo
r it cm ito m,  coscios big, s it is climd to b ftr it lvs h
im? I othr words, hv w ll hd  coscios r-xistc? Is th mystry of
or Lords icrtio rtd i vry mmbr of th hm rc? Ys! if ol
r thologis rightly xli this txt. Ad th mor drig or rcklss sirits
mog thm, sig th logicl sqc of thir rsoig, boldly vow this o
sitio.
Mr. Ldis (to whom w mk occsiol rfrc s  xot of th olr t
hory) rcoils t th id of r-xistc, d clims (. 147) tht th sirit
dos ot rtr s it ws, bt cqirs  morl chrctr, d so is chgd fro
m wht it ws wh first crtd d giv to m! Oh! th, wh Adms body ws f
ormd of th dst of th grod  sirit ws crtd (from wht?) d t ito i
t. Whr did h lr this? To wht w rvltio hs h hd ccss to bcom 
cqitd with so rmrkbl  fct? Or whc drivs h his thority to mf
ctr sttmts of this kid? His sol swlls with idigtio ovr som whom
h styls mtrilists, d whom h ccss of mfctrig scritr. Tho th
t syst  m shold ot, dost tho? Nothig is sid of th crtio of  sirit
i coctio with th 62formtio of Adms body. Th body hvig b formd, Go
d, by  gcy, ot crtd for th ros, bt lrdy xistig with himslf,
dowd it with lif, d Adm bcm  livig sol.
Hvig ths rtflly itrodcd th id tht th sirit ws crtd for th occ
sio, Mr. L. tks  this rsoig which shows tht if th sirit is coscio
s ftr lvig th body, it mst hv b bfor it trd it, d, lyig
to it  trm dobtlss sggstd by his ow fligs i viw of th ssmtios
to which h ws himslf obligd to rsort, clls it silly. Nvrthlss hr is
th rock o which thir xositio of this txt ivitbly d holssly fod
rs.
Thr is othr cosidrtio ot withot its brig o this qstio. Th wor
ds, Ad th sirit shll rtr to God who gv it, r sok romiscosly of l
l mkid. Thy ly lik to th rightos d wickd. If th sirit srvivs
th dth of th body, th sirits of th rightos wold, s  trl cosq
c, scd to God, i whos rsc thy r romisd fllss of joy. Bt do
th sirits of th wickd go to God lso? For wht ros? Th immdit dsti
tio slly ssigd to thm is th lk of fir. Is it sid tht thy first g
o to God to b jdgd? Th w sk, Whr dos th Bibl oc ffirm tht  rs
o is jdgd wh h dis? O th cotrry, th Scritrs 63ivribly lc th
 Jdgmt i th ftr, d ssrt i th most xlicit trms tht God hs 
oitd  dy for tht ros. Acts 17:31.
Ths th Bibl doctri of th Jdgmt is dirctly cotrdictd by this viw. A
ccordig to th Scritrs o m hs yt rcivd his fil jdgmt; yt, cco
rdig to th viw dr xmitio, th sirits of ll who hv vr did, good
d bd, rightos d wickd, hv go to God. For wht ros hv th sir
its of th wickd go to him? Ar thy thr still? Dos God so dl with rbl
s gist his govrmt--giv thm Hv from o to six thosd yrs, mor
or lss, d hll ftrwrd? Awy with  viw which itrodcs sch icosistc
is ito Gods dligs with his crtrs.
How ifiitly rfrbl tht viw which lo th rcord wrrts; tht is, th
t th sirit tht rtrs to God who gv it is th brth of lif, tht gcy
by which God vivifis d sstis ths hysicl frms; sic this, so fr s
th rcord gos, is jst wht God did giv to m i th bgiig, sic th d
fiitio of th trm sstis sch  lictio, sic this sirit, withot d
oig violc to ithr thoght or lgg, c rtr to God i th sm ss
i which it cm from him, d, bov ll, sic this viw hrmoizs ll th r
cord, d voids thos icosistcis d cotrdictios i which w fid ors
lvs ivitbly ivolvd 64th vry momt w drtk to mk th sirit m
 srt tity, coscios i dth d immortl i its tr.