Major Premise: God is immortal. 1Timothy 1:17
Minor Premise: Man is created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27.
Conclusion: Therefore man is immortal.

This is easily quashed by another syllogism equally sound, thus:

1. God is omnipotent.

2. Man is made in the image of God.

3. Therefore man is omnipotent.

This conclusion, by being brought within the cognizance of our own senses, becomes more obviously, though it is not more essentially, absurd. It shows either that the argument for immortality drawn from the "image" of God, is unqualified assumption, or that puny and finite man is clothed with all the attributes of the Deity.

In what respect, then, is man in the image of his Maker? The only correct and safe rule of interpretation, applying to language in the Bible as well as elsewhere, is to allow every word its most obvious and literal import, unless some plain reason exists for giving it a mystical or figurative meaning. The plain and literal definition of "image" (see any good lexicon), is, "An imitation, representation, or similitude of any person or thing, sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise made perceptible to the sight; a visible presentation; a copy; a likeness; an effigy." We have italicized a portion of this definition as containing an essential idea. An image must be something that is visible to the eye. How can we conceive of an image of anything that is not perceptible to the sight, and which we cannot take cognizance of by any of the senses? Even an image formed in the mind must be conceived of as having some sort of outward shape or form. In this sense the word is used in the thirty-one times of its occurrence elsewhere in the Old Testament.

The second time the word "image "is used, it is used to show the relation existing between son and father, and is a good comment on the relation which Genesis 1:26, 27 asserts to exist between man and God. Genesis 5:3: "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." Every one would at once understand by this language, physical resemblance, and similarity of nature. Now put the two passages together. Moses first asserts that God made man in his own image, after his likeness; and a few chapters farther on he asserts that this same man begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. And while all must admit that this latter includes bodily form or physical shape, the theological schools tell us that the former, from the same writer and with no intimation that it is used in any other sense, must refer solely to the attribute of immortality. There is no room for any other conclusion than that just as a son is, in outward appearance, the image of his father, and possesses like mental and moral characteristics, so man possesses, not the attributes of God in all their perfection, but a likeness, or image, of him in his physical form and moral nature.

It may be said that the word "image" is used in a different sense in the New Testament, as, for example, in Colossians 3:9, 10: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Granting that the word here refers only to the inward nature, instead of the outward form, it must still ever be borne in mind that the point which popular theology has to prove is that man is immortal because in the image of God. This text is against that view; for that which is here said to be in the image of Him that created him, is not the natural man himself, but the new man which is put on, implying that the original image had been destroyed, and could be restored only in Christ. If, therefore, it meant immortality as used by Moses, this text would show that that immortality was not absolute but contingent, and having been lost by man, can be regained only through Christ.

Ephesians 4:24 shows how this new man is created: "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Nothing is said about immortality even in connection with the new man. It is simply a new moral nature.

Again: the word here translated image (eikon) is defined by Greenfield as meaning, by metonymy, "an exemplar, model, pattern, standard; Colossians 3:10." No such definition as this is given by Gesenius to the word in Genesis. So, though this Greek word may here have this sense, it affords no evidence that the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:26, 27 refers to immortality, and may not be confined to man's outward form and moral nature.

The same reasoning will apply to 1Corinthians 15:49, where the "image of the heavenly," which is promised to the righteous, is something which is not in possession of the natural man, but will be attained through the resurrection: "We shall also bear the image of the heavenly." It cannot, therefore, refer to the image stamped upon man at his creation, unless it be admitted that that image, with all its included qualities, has been lost by the human race -- an admission fatal to the hypothesis of the believers in the natural immortality of man.

In 1Corinthians 11:7 we read that man, as contrasted with woman, is "the image and glory of God." To make the expression "image of God" here mean immortality, is to confine it to man, and to rob the better part of the human family of this high prerogative.

In Genesis 9:6 we read: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Substituting what the image is here claimed to mean, we should have this very singular reading: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood [or taketh man's life], by man shall his blood be shed [or his life be taken]: for immortal made he man," so that his life could not be taken. Evidently the reference in all such passages is not only to "the human face divine," but to the whole physical frame, with its mental and moral capabilities, which, in comparison with all other forms of animated existence, is upright and godlike.

But here the mystical interpretation of our current theology has thrown up what is considered an insuperable objection to this view; for how can man be physically in the image of God, when God is not a person, is without form, and has neither body nor parts? In reply we ask, Where does the Bible say that God is a formless, impersonal being, having neither body nor parts? Does it not say that he is a spirit (John 4:24)? -- Yes; and we inquire again, Does it not say that the angels are spirits? Hebrews 1:7, 14. And are not the angels, saying nothing of those instances in which they have appeared to men in bodily form, and always in human shape (Genesis 18:1-8, 16-22; 32:24; Hosea 12:4; Numbers 22:31; Judges 13:6, 13; Luke 1:11, 13, 28, 29; Acts 12: 7-9, etc., etc.) -- are not the angels, we say, always spoken of as beings having bodily form? A spirit, or spiritual being, as God is, in the highest sense, so far from not having a bodily form, must possess it, as the instrumentality for the manifestation of his powers. 1Corinthians 15:44.

Again: it is urged that God is omnipresent; and how can this be, if he is a person? Answer: He has a representative, his Holy Spirit, by which he is ever present and ever felt in all his universe. "Whither shall I go," asks David, "from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" Psalm 139: 7. And John saw standing before die throne of God seven lamps, which are declared to be "the seven Spirits of God," 10 and which are "sent forth into all the earth." Revelation 4:5; 5:6.

We now invite the attention of the reader to a little of the evidence that may be presented to show that God is a person, and so that man, though of course in an imperfect and finite degree, may be an image, or likeness, of him, as to his bodily form.

1. God has made visible to mortal eyes parts of his person. Moses saw the God of Israel. Exodus 33:21-23. An immaterial being, if such a thing can be conceived of, without body or parts, cannot be seen with mortal eyes. To say that God assumed a body and shape for this occasion, places the common view in a worse light still; for it is virtually charging God with a double deception: first, giving Moses to understand that he was a being with body and parts; and, secondly, under the promise of showing himself, showing him something that was not himself. And he told Moses that he would put his "hand" over him as he passed by, and then take it away, that he might see his "back parts," but not his "face." Has he hands? Has he back parts? Has he a face? If not, why try to convey ideas by means of language?

Again: Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders saw the God of Israel. Exodus 24: 9-11: "And there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone." Has he feet? Or is the record that these persons saw them a fabrication? No man, to be sure, has seen his face, nor could he do so and live, as God has declared. Exodus 33:20; John 1:18.

2. Christ, as manifested among men, is declared to be the "image" of God, and in his "form." Christ showed, after his resurrection, that his immortal, though not then glorified, body had flesh and bones. 11 Luke 24:39. Bodily he ascended into heaven, where none can presume to deny him a local habitation. Acts 1:9-11; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 8:1. But Paul, speaking of this same Jesus, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature." Colossians 1:15. Here the antithesis expressed is between God, who is invisible, and his "image" in the person of Christ, which was visible. It follows, therefore, that what of Christ the disciples could see, which was his bodily form, was the image to give them an idea of God whom they could not see. This of course would not exclude the moral attributes manifested by Jesus, but which could not be manifested without some bodily organization.

Again: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philippians 2:5, 6. It remains to be told how Christ could be in the "form `of God, and yet God have no form.

Once more: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," etc. Hebrews 1:1-3. This testimony is conclusive. It is an inspired declaration that God has a personal form; and to give an idea of what that form is, it declares that Christ, just as we conceive of him as ascended up bodily on high, is the express image thereof. It is said that the word "person," should here be rendered "substance." But this does not affect the conclusion in the least; for if there is substance, there must be shape, and the only indication given in the Bible of what that shape is, is the human form.

The evidence already presented shows that there is no necessity for supposing that the image of God, in which man was created, consists of immortality; and Paul, in his testimony to the Romans, forever destroys the possibility of making it apply to immortality. He says (Romans 1:22, 23): "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." `The word here rendered "uncorruptible" is the same word that is translated "immortal," and applied to God in 1Timothy 1:17. Now if God by making man in his image, stamped him with immortality, man is just as uncorruptible as God himself. But Paul says that he is not so; that while God is uncorruptible, or immortal, man is corruptible, or mortal. The image of God does not, therefore, confer immortality, though it does indicate the high organization and godlike nature of man.

2. The Breath of Life

Another expression, which is supposed by some to prove immortality for man, is the "breath of life," as applied to him in Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1:27 states, in general terms, the form in which man was created, as contrasted with other orders of animal life. In Genesis 2:7 the process is described by which this creation was accomplished. Finding no proof in the former passage that man was put in possession of immortality, we turn to the latter text to -examine the claims based upon that. The verse reads: "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."

Here the advocates of man's natural immortality endeavor to make a strong stand, as it is very proper they should do, unless they are prepared at once to abandon their theory; for certainly if in that inspired record which 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 evidence furnished upon which an argument for such an attribute can be based, their whole system falls into irretrievable collapse. The claim asserted -on the strength of this passage is that man is composed of two parts: the body formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed therein by God's breathing -the breath of life into the nostrils of that dust-formed body. Two representative men shall be allowed to speak -on this point, and state the popular view. Thomas Scott, D. D., on Genesis 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 rational soul, here denoted by the expression of breathing into his nostrils the breath of life.

Adam Clarke, D. D., on Genesis 2:7, says:

In the most distinct manner, God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body 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 whereas 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 frail nature, 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 easily extinguished!"

And in a note on Isaiah 2:22, where the prophet says, "Cease ye from man, whose breath 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 else should it be? The objection is not to its place in the body, which is the proper one for it, but to its frail and perishable nature."

To the same intent the psalmist speaks (Psalm 146:3, 4): "Put not your trust in princes, 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, conferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There was nothing naturally immortal, 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 that breath in itself considered. Hence it must follow that the "breath of life" confers immortality upon any creature to which it is given. Will our friends accept this issue? If not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no more upon man than upon any other recipient. And if they do accept it, we will introduce 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 Genesis 7:15 we read: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." It must be evident to every one, at a glance, that the whole animal creation, including man, is comprehended in the phrase "all flesh." But verses 21 and 22 contain stronger expressions still: "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. 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 with them; and all alike are said to have had in their nostrils the "breath of life." 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 any in this matter, must reside, as we have seen, in the breath itself, not in the 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 Genesis 2:7 the phrase "breath of life," as applied to man, is plural, "breath of lives" (see Clarke), meaning both animal life and that immortality which is the subject of our investigation. But, we reply, it is in the same number in Genesis 7:22, where it is applied to all animals; and if the reader will look at the margin of this latter text, he will see that the expression is stronger still, " the breath of the spirit of life,'' or of lives. The same plural form is also found in the expression, "the tree of life," in Genesis 2:9.

The language which Solomon uses respecting both men and beasts, strongly expresses their common mortality: "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; 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, and all turn to dust again." Ecclesiastes 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 affirm 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 reptiles all up to a level with man? We deny the charge that we are doing the one, and shall be pardoned for declining to do the other.

3. The Living Soul

Finding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed into man's nostrils at the commencement of his mysterious existence, it remains to inquire if it resides, as is so generally claimed, in the "living soul," which man, as the result of that action, immediately 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." Genesis 2:7.

On this point also it is proper to let the representatives of the popular view define their position. Professor II. Mattison, on the verse just quoted, says:

That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of Adam, is evident from the following considerations: The phrase `breath of life,' is rendered `breath 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 living 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 creation? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then the soul must have been superadded to his former material nature.

Dr. Clarke, on Genesis 2:7, as already quoted, says:

In the most distinct manner, God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body 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 of the importance to their system of maintaining this interpretation, they' very consistently rally to its support the flower of their strength. It is the citadel of their works, and they cannot be blamed for being unwilling to surrender it without a decisive struggle. For if there is nothing in the inspired 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 shaken 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 that body as it lay there perfect in its organization, and thrust therein, and then immediately 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 performing them after it leaves the body?

Heavy drafts are made on rhetoric, in favor of this superadded soul. Figures of beauty are summoned to lend their aid to the argument. 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 effort, after all their lofty flights and sweating toil, their conclusion comes out -- blank assumption. Why? -- Because they are endeavoring to reach a result which they are dependent upon the text to establish, but which the text directly contradicts. The record does not say that God formed a body, and put therein a superadded 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 difference: Before, he was a lifeless man; afterward, a living one. The organs were all there ready for their proper action. It only needed the vitalizing principle of the breath of life to set them in motion. That came, and the lungs began to expand, the heart to beat, the blood to flow, and the limbs to move; then were exhibited all the phenomena of vital physical action; then, too, the brain began to act, and there were exhibited all the phenomena of mental action -- perception, thought, memory, will, etc.

The engine is an engine before the motive power is applied. The bolts, bars, cylinders, pistons, pitmans, 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 velocity and power.

So with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have seen, was given 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 change took place in the man himself. The man became something, or reached a condition which before he had not attained. The verb "became" is defined by Webster, "to pass 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 qualities, additional matter, or a new character." And Genesis 2:7 is then cited as an illustration of this definition. But it will be seen that none of these will fit the popular idea of the superadded soul; for that is not held to be simply a change in Adam's condition, or a new property or quality of his being, or an addition of matter, or a new character, but a separate and independent entity, capable, 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 capabilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences it. A superadded, independent soul could not have been put into main, and he be said to have become that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, that he, on receiving the breath of life, became a living soul. An engine is put into a ship, and by its power propels it over 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 kind of body, the addition of a distinct and separate organization to that body.

To the inquiry of Professor 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 trying to read the passage without this word: "And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils 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 of a lifeless soul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used the terms. (See Numbers 6:6: "Dead body," nephesh math, "dead soul" [Cruden]. The same in Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 19:13; Haggai 2:13.)

Kitto, in his Religious Encyclopedia, under the term "Adam," says:

"And Jehovah God formed the man (Hebrew, the Adam) dust from the ground, and blew into 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 animal.' There are good interpreters and preachers, who, confiding in the common translation, `living soul,' have maintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-eminence above the inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit. 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 man's immortal spirit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose. But this admission that nothing of the kind is implied in this passage, is a gratifying triumph of fair and candid criticism over a very popular, but wholly unfounded religious dogma.

But we are not left to our own reasoning on this point; for inspiration itself has given us a comment upon the passage in question; and certainly it is safe to let one inspired writer explain the words of another.

Paul, in 1Corinthians 15:44 and onward, is contrasting the first Adam with the second, and our present state with the future. He says: "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.'' Here Paul refers directly to the facts recorded in Genesis 2:7. In verse 47 he tells us the nature of this man 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 of the heavenly," when our bodies are fashioned like unto his glorious body. Philippians 3:21. In 1Corinthians 15:50, 53 he tells us why it is necessary that this should be done, and how it will be accomplished: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." "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 explicit statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was made, was of the earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly in [[45]] its freedom from a decaying nature did not possess that incorruption without which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but was wholly mortal and corruptible. Would people allow these plain and weighty words of the apostle their true meaning upon this question, it would not only summarily arrest all controversy over the particular text under consideration, but leave little ground, at least from the teachings of the Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man.

But the term "living soul," like "the breath of life," is applied to all orders of the animate creation; to beasts and reptiles as well as to man. The Hebrew words are nephesh hhayah; 13 and these words are in the very first chapter of Genesis four times applied to the lower orders of animals: Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Genesis 1:21, Dr. Adam 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 down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the polyp, which seems equally to share 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 words "living soul," as applied to man in Genesis 2:7, are the very same words that are rendered "living creatures," and applied to the lower orders of animals in chapter 1.

Professor Bush, in his notes on Genesis 2:7, says:

The phrase "living soul" is in the foregoing narrative repeatedly applied to the inferior orders of animals, which are not considered to be possessed of a "soul" in the sense in which that term is applied to man. It would seem to mean the same, therefore, when spoken of man that it does when spoken of beasts; viz., an animated being, a creature possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing all the physical functions by which animals are distinguished, as eating, drinking, walking, etc. . . . Indeed, it may be remarked that the Scriptures generally afford much less explicit evidence of the existence of a sentient, immaterial principle 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. Revelation 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 showing that that which is designated by the term "living soul," whatever it is, is subject to death.

Staggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the term "living soul" is applied alike to all animals, the advocates of man's immortality then undertake to make the word "became" the pivot of their argument. Man "became" a living soul, but it is not said 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 the animal life of man is derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher nature was imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into him, and the living soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work, "The Immortality of the Soul," 14 p. 141, says: "Hence something was to be added to the mere animal life derived 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 ground. All the life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God breathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no matter how they obtained it, possessed as well as he.

No emphasis can be attached to the word "became;" for everything that is called a living 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 matter. 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 essentially different from Adam's, with whom she was associated as a fitting companion.

And it will be further seen that this word "became" can have no value in the argument unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that whatever becomes anything must forever remain what it has become. Remember that the question before us is, whether or not man's soul is immortal, and will live forever despite all contingencies. He might reach a certain condition, and lose it again. The fact that he had reached it, would not prove that he would forever retain it. (See the argument on the use of the word "image "in the New Testament, presented in the first part of this chapter.) Now if it should be conceded (which it is not) that man, by becoming a "living soul" became exempt from death so long as he retained that position, the real and vital question whether he must always remain so, would still be untouched.