applied to him, ought to be translated differently from what it is, when applied to them, they were assuming the very thing to be proved, and instead of confining themselves to a fair and faithful and simple exhibition of what the inspired writers have said, which is the sole business of the translator, leaving it to others to explain difficulties, and reconcile apparent incongruities, they were guilty of usurping the province of the commentator, and the controversialist, and of betraying the confidence reposed in them, by rendering their translation a vehicle for the advancement of their own private views and prejudices.* And yet never was a departure from those maxims, which should invariably regulate the conduct of translators, more ill judged, or uncalled for than this. If it be admitted, as it must be, that the same words are employed in the original Hebrew, to denote the life of the inferior animals that are employed to denote the life of man, and if it be admitted also, as it must be, if our opponents deal candidly, that there is nothing on the face of the texts themselves to justify a diversity of translation, it clearly follows, that if in Genesis ii. 7. the phrase ' is rendered living soul, it is capable of being rendered in the same way in verse 19th of the same chapter, and in the 20th, 21st, 24th, and 30th verses of the preceding chapter, and if they denote an immaterial and immortal principle in the one case they must denote the same in the other also. There is no way in which those who have been accustomed to defend the propriety of the reading in the authorised version

* See some admirable remarks on the duties of a translator of the Holy Scriptures in Dr. Campbell's preliminary dissertations.

+ In Revelation xvi. 3. the Greek words un woa are translated living soul, where living creature would have answered better, as it is evidently of the fish that the inspired writer is speaking.

can extricate themselves from the difficulty and awkwardness of the situation in which they are placed, except by candidly admitting, that the possession of a principle of life, common to man with the inferior animals, is all that is meant by the phrase translated living soul in Genesis ii. 7.* 2. The signification of the Hebrew word was and of the corresponding Greek word may be ascertained by consulting some of the most approved Lexicons. To save time and avoid a needless parade of learning, let me just refer to two works of this description, which, with all their defects, are of standard merit, and, I have reason to think, in the hands of almost every biblical scholar, I mean Parkhurst's Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. From an examination of these we find, that the grand primary meaning of both words is breath, and their chief secondary, and derived meanings, a breathing frame, or the body that by breathing is sustained in life; a living creature, or a creature that lives by breathing; life considered as connected with breathing; and personality considered as connected with life. What deserves to be remarked is, that by the confession of Parkhurst himself, who seems to have been any thing but favourable to the views which I entertain

xn

* As the Septuagint is uniform in translating ' by the words woa so does the Vulgate uniformly render it by the phrase anima vivens. Le Clerc's paraphrase is Homo animal factus est. S. Castellio has it ex quo esset animans homo effectus. T. Beza translates the same words as quoted in 1 Corinth. xv. 45, animal vivens. When we turn to some of the English translations, we find Dr. Geddes rendering Genesis ii. 7. thus man became a living person. Archbishop Newcome, and after him the improved version, translate 1 Corinth, xv. 45, And so it is written, the first man, Adam, became a living animal, &c. Dr. Macknight leaves this latter passage as ambiguous as he finds it. His words are, “for thus it is written, the first man Adam, from whom men derive their animal body, was made a living soul, an animal whose life depended on the presence of his soul in his body." Mr. Locke, in his valuable paraphrase and notes, says, much more to the point, " And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made a living soul, i. e. made of an animal constitution, and endowed with an animal life."

B

πνευμα

with regard to what man naturally possesses, as may be seen by consulting his Greek Lexicon at x No. 6, and No. 2, he was unable to meet with a single passage in the Old Testament in which he could unhesitatingly say, that we has the sense which we commonly attach to the English word soul. I have given his own words in a note.* It is of no avail to object that

in classical writers, means frequently the mind, or thinking principle in man, because, as Dr. Campbell has shown, with invincible power of argument, it is not by classical, but hellenistical usage, or by the way in which Greek words are employed in the Septuagint and New Testament, that their scriptural signification, in doubtful cases, is to be ascertained. But if it still be insisted, that classical authority is entitled to some deference, let be observed, that in the classics themselves is perhaps as often used in the sense of life, or animal life, as in any other, and that even though I admit the fact of its also signifying the mind, or thinking principle, or intellectual part of man, this is merely a secondary meaning, like that of personality, derived from the former, and which, from the disputes

*“As a noun W hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul: I must for myself confess, that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Genesis xxxv. 18, 1 Kings xvii. 21. 22, Ps. xvi. 10, seem fairest for this signification. But may not in the three former passages be most properly rendered breath, and in the last a breathing or animal frame?"

Bate, in his Critica Hebræa, is of the same mind with Parkhurst. After having defined the meaning of WDJ to be, To breathe out, respire, take breath; the animal frame, that which lives by breathing; it is the animal part of all creatures ; the person in rational creatures ; Gen. xxxv. 18, merely of the breath going out; he adds, "WD is never, that I know of, the rational soul. It is no more the soul than the brain is the understanding, or the heart the will," &c. "They who leave the S.S. and reason from the nature of matter to prove we have a soul, and that it is naturally immortal, are paving the way to a disbelief of both points." It is the vital frame, whether alive or dead, the thing that once breathed, though not then, Isaiah liii. 10, 11, his vital frame, life, or he himself, shall make the atonement, and not by sacrifice."

relative to the subject, existing among the different sects of philosophers, it is clear, did not necessarily imply immateriality, or immortality. Fortified by the authorities which I have produced, and by others which, if necessary, I have still in reserve, I have no hesitation in maintaining, that when, in Genesis ii. 7, and in the corresponding passage 1 Corinth. xv. 45, Adam is declared in our translation to have become a living soul, nothing more is meant, than that God having breathed into his nostrils the breath of life he became a living creature, or a creature that lives by breathing. Perhaps all that I have been stating will be better understood, by the unlearned reader, if the verse itself, Genesis ii. 7, be analysed, and the several steps of the process there enumerated be pointed out. 1. God formed the body of Adam. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. 2. God conferred life on this body by enabling it to breathe. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. 3. In consequence of this, that which had formerly been an inanimate lump, or mass, became a creature endowed with a principle of life, evinced by and connected with breathing. And man became a living soul, or a living breathing creature. In the whole process I can discover, from the text itself, nothing more than this.*

* To those who are desirous of inquiring farther, I would mention the following works, as throwing light upon the subject: Buxtorf's Lexicon; in which WJ is translated anima, animus, mens, vita, corpus animatum, halitus; item, anima concupiscens, concupiscentia, appetitus, cadaver, corpus exanime. As a verb, respirare. The high authority of Buxtorf will, of course, have due respect paid to it by all Hebrew scholars. E. Castellus' Lexicon Heptaglotton; where, by the way, after rendering WD halitus, breath, or breathing, without producing any authority or reason for the difference, he translates that word in Gen. i. 20, anima sensitiva, and in Gen. ii. 7, anima rationalis. J. C. Biel, in his Novus Thesaurus Philologicus, sive Lexicon in LXX et alios interpretes, translates vx, anima, animans, mens, voluntas, vita, kalitus, homo, animal, corpus exanime, cadaver,

In the third, and last place, it may be objected, that as Adam is declared in Genesis i. 26. 27. to have been created in the image, and after the likeness of God, it is impossible to understand these phrases in any other sense than as intimating that he was originally possessed of an immaterial and immortal principle. But even this objection, with whatever force it may have struck the minds of some, is answered and removed with the utmost ease. Indeed wherever it is broached, or entertained, it argues dreadful ignorance of scripture, and is a mere begging of the question. It admits of a threefold answer :— 1. Although Adam is declared to have been made in, or after the image, or likeness of God, he is no where declared to be God's image or likeness. 2. Adam's likeness to God, or his possession of the divine image is explained by Genesis i. 28, in which he is invested by God himself, with absolute dominion over the earth, and every living thing upon it, in this respect, faintly, but obviously resembling him, to whose sovereign control all things are subject. 3. The complete answer to the objection is found in Romans v. 14. in which Adam is declared to have been the figure or type of him that was to come, viz, the Messiah. A very slender aquaintance with scripture is sufficient to show us that the Lord Jesus, as the Messiah, and not Adam, is the image, likeness, or representative, of the invisible God, Coloss. i. 15, John xiv. 9, Heb. i. 3. Now as God himself never was

ego ipse, tu ipse, ille ipse, but not spiritus. Dr. Campbell's note on Matthew xxvii, 50 is worth perusing. It is impossible to understand Gen, xxxv. 18. in any other sense than as her life, or breath, was in departing, or as she was dying. So 1 Kings xvii. 21. 22, The child's breath, or life, is clearly meant. In Ps. xvi. 10 the translation I conceive to be neither more nor less than this, thou wilt not leave my body, formerly animated by a principle of life, or thou wilt not leave me, or me myself, in the gravę,