WE have been requested to notice the historical argument in favor of trine immersion. It is a well-known fact that history is the main reliance of the trine immersionists. The Greek of the New Testament is decidedly against them. The analogies of the language of Scripture are against them. And the facts of Scripture are against them. But, fortifying themselves with historical statements, tracing the practice, as they claim, almost to the very time of the apostles, they do not find it very difficult to build up inferences from the Scriptures in their favor. The inferences in themselves are very weak, as we have before shown. They think these inferences are justified by the evidences drawn from history. And thus it every way appears that history is their chief dependence.
These people publish a paper in Illinois, at the head of which stands Eld. J. H. Moore. He has written a pamphlet of 64 pp., with the following pretentious title: "Trine Immersion traced to the Apostles; being a Collection of Historical Quotations from Modern and Ancient Authors, proving that a Three-fold Immersion was the Only Method of Baptizing ever practiced by the Apostles and their Immediate Successors." We think that neither the contents of the book nor the facts justify this flaming title.
Eld. Moore frequently quotes from Eld. James Quinter. Eld. Quinter wrote a tract entitled, "The Origin of Single Immersion." These two works have been forwarded to us with the request that they may be noticed. We will now comply with that request. We wish to make here a few statements which we hope the reader will bear in mind.
1. Nothing can be justly inferred from the early practice or the early mention of a practice among the successors of the apostles, inasmuch as the wildest errors and boldest innovations are found among the immediate successors of the apostles. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, quoted by Campbell in debate with Rice, says:—
"We are accustomed to look back to the first ages of the church with a veneration nearly bordering on superstition. It answered the purpose of popery to refer all their corruptions to primitive times, and to represent those times as exhibiting the models of all excellence. But every representation of this kind must be received with distrust. The Christian church, during the apostolic age, and for half a century, did indeed present a venerable aspect. Persecuted by the world on every side, she was favored in an uncommon measure with the presence of the Spirit of her divine Head, and exhibited a degree of simplicity and purity which has, perhaps, never since been equaled. But before the close of the second century the scene began to change; and before the commencement of the fourth a deplorable corruption of doctrine, discipline, and morals, had crept into the church, and disfigured the body of Christ. Hegesippas, an ecclesiastical historian, declares that 'the virgin purity of the church was confined to the days of the apostles.'"
Milner certainly could not be accused of undue prejudice against the early traditions and customs of the church, but he says:—
"Superstition had made, it seems, deep inroads into Africa. It was rather an unpolished region, certainly much inferior to Italy in point of civilization. Satan's temptations are suited to tempers and situations; but surely it was not by superstitious practices that the glad tidings of salvation had been first introduced into Africa. There must have been a deep decline. One of the strongest proofs that the comparative value of the Christian religion in different countries is not to be estimated by their distance from the apostolic age, is deducible from the times of Tertullian."
Very many of the innovations which finally gained a footing in the church are traced to Tertullian. He first mentions sprinkling in connection with Baptism. In his work "On Baptism," chap. 2, he says:—
"Without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much or not at all the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible."—Editor of Clark, Edinburgh; also in chap. 12. He is the first to mention sponsors in baptism, and other appendages to the rite, and we shall show that he is the first to mention trine immersion.
2. We are not to infer that an early practice was derived from the apostles because we find mention of the practice, but find no mention of its origin. Scarcely a single innovation or dogma peculiar to the Romish Church can be traced to its origin. The Catholics base their argument on this fact, that you cannot trace their origin; that being practiced so early, the practice must have been derived from the apostles. But Archbishop Whately draws an argument against them from this same fact; inasmuch as the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works, if these dogmas had been promulgated by the apostles we could easily trace them to that source. The following will illustrate this point. Bingham, in Antiquities of the Christian Church, speaking of the "Baptism of Bells," says:—
"The first notice we have of this is in the capitulars of Charles the Great, where it is only mentioned to be censured."—Book 11, chap. 4, § 1.
It was then in practice. Bishops baptized bells, but when and where this originated, how it came to be a part of Christianity, we have no means of ascertaining. Shall we therefore conclude that it was derived from the apostles?
3. As it will not be safe to infer anything from a practice because it was early mentioned, so we may not infer its genuineness because it was generally received. (1) Party spirit ran high; opposition of parties was most bitter, and the weaker parties were very early crushed out by power, oftener than they were subdued by argument. (2) As it was adjudged by the empire "the primacy should remain with the elder Rome," so the authority of the empire was called in to put down everything which opposed the doctrines of the bishop of Rome. And by this means heresies were extirpated; and the writings of the heretics, being condemned, were destroyed. So we have only the writings of the orthodox party, which then meant, as it now means, the strongest party, and all the writings of that age of superstition and error have passed through the hands of those who were unscrupulous in molding everything to suit their purpose.
To show that we may not implicitly follow that which history affirms so early and so generally obtained, we refer to the fact that the historical testimony in favor of infant baptism makes it to have been both early and general. The evidence in its favor is far greater than that in favor of trine immersion. And with this was introduced in ant communion. Thus Dr. Schaff:—
"In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous system of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism, and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I., on the authority of John 6:53. In the Greek Church this custom continues to this day, but in the Latin, after the ninth century, was disputed and forbidden."—History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 516.
Bingham says infant communion existed in the days of Cyprian, an African bishop in the third century. The Greek Church to which trine immersion refers with such an air of triumph, affirm that trine immersion, infant baptism, and infant communion, all come down from the days of the apostles, and may all be deduced from the Scriptures. We have elsewhere shown the absurdity of claiming scriptural authority for trine immersion. In history it is not as strongly fortified as infant baptism. Of the three unscriptural rites above referred to, now held by the Greek Church, trine immersion has the least plausible argument in its favor.
And, 4. We must exercise due caution in receiving the statements of historians of the middle549ages; for (1) They know no more of the facts of the first centuries, personally, than we know. They derived their knowledge from those who wrote before themselves. (2) They lived in a day when almost unbounded confidence was placed in tradition; when almost any writing which was received and indorsed by the church was accepted as authority without further questioning. This will be seen as we present our argument.
We will now notice two statements by Eld. Quinter in his tract. He says:—
"Chrystal, in his book entitled, 'History of the Modes of Baptism,' quotes Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus, an author of an Ecclesiastical History and various other works, and who lived in the latter part of the fourth and early part of the fifth century, as follows: 'He (Eunomius) subverted the law of holy baptism, which had been handed down from the beginning from the Lord and from the apostles, and made a contrary law, asserting that it was not necessary to immerse the candidate for baptism thrice, nor to mention the names of the Trinity, but to immerse once only into the death of Christ.'"
This quotation is of no real value in this controversy; for, 1. There is not the slightest evidence in existence that trine immersion was handed down from the apostles. This was a common method of enforcing any and every practice, even before the time of Theodoret. 2. Theodoret himself was a zealous partisan on the orthodox side, who bitterly opposed dissenters; he lived when the controversy on the Trinity ran very high, and regard for the doctrine of the trinity was the main ground of the advocacy of three immersions. Theodoret wrote more in the spirit of a controversialist than of an impartial historian. 3. That his testimony is of no value on this particular point is shown by trine immersionists themselves, for they offer proof and argue directly that single immersion was both practiced and opposed before the time of Eunomius. This being so, these words, allowing that they were written by Theodoret, are of no worth. We shall refer to this again.
This next quotation is offered from Sozomen. We quote again from Eld. Quinter's tract:—
"The following is the language of Sozomen in regard to the origin of single immersion. It occurs in his Ecclesiastical History. He lived, according to Cave, about the year A. D. 404. 'Some say that Eunomius was the first who dared to bring forward the notion that the divine baptism ought to be administered by a single immersion; and to corrupt the tradition that has been handed down from the apostles, which is still preserved by all (or among all). . . . But whether it was Eunomius or any other person who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received the holy rite of baptism; for if, after having received baptism according to the ancient mode of the church (i. e., by trine immersion), they found it impossible to reconfer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been administered to themselves (i. e., single immersion unto the death of Christ). The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of baptism have not the power of administering it. Now, according to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of baptism in conformity with their mode of administration (i. e., single immersion) are unbaptized; and they confirm this opinion by their practice, inasmuch as they rebaptize (i. e., by single immersion) all those who join their sect, although previously baptized (i. e., by trine immersion) by the Catholic Church.'—Chrystal's History of the Modes of Baptism, p. 78."
These are the words ascribed to Sozomen by the trine immersionists. The following are the exact words of Sozomen copied from his History:—
"Some assert that Eunomius was the first to maintain that baptism ought to be performed by immersion, and to corrupt, in this manner, the apostolic tradition, which has been carefully handed down to the present day. . . . But whether it was Eunomius, or any other person, who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received the rite of holy baptism; for if, after having received baptism according to the ancient mode of the church, they found it impossible to reconfer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been administered to themselves. Thus, after having laid down certain principles, according to their own fancy, without any data, they proceed to bestow upon others what they had not themselves received. The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of baptism have not the power of administering it. Now, according to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of baptism in conformity with their mode of administration, are unbaptized; and they confirm this opinion by their practice, inasmuch as they rebaptize all those who join their sect, although previously baptized by the Catholic Church."
A fierce controversy long raged in the church as to whether baptism by heretics, or those who did not conform to the dominant party, was to be accepted as valid. It will be seen above that every reference to single and trine immersion was put into this extract, not by Sozomen, but by the man who quoted it in favor of trine immersion. They may indeed say that that is what Sozomen meant, but if Sozomen was not able to say what he meant, and needs to stand corrected at this day, then he is not competent to testify in this or any other case. It needs no words of ours to brand the course of Chrystal as dishonorable in palming on his readers this quotation for the words of Sozomen.
We do not dispute that trine immersion prevailed to a considerable extent in the days of Sozomen; but we strongly object to any controversialist making him many times say that which he never said at all. But our opposers may ask, What else could it mean, if trine immersion then existed? We answer, 1. If we could discover no other meaning, we still denounce the course as unworthy, of weaving into a historical quotation that which we think it means while it does not say it. The Catholic Church, in all her pious frauds, never went beyond this. 2. We find historical reference to sprinkling in the church about two and a half centuries before Sozomen wrote. Now inasmuch as Sozomen spoke disparagingly of immersion (not of single immersion as Chrystal unjustly makes him say) he may at that time have referred to sprinkling as the preferable mode. But, 3. Whatever mode Sozomen meant to indorse, it is condemned by his own words, for he speaks in favor of a "tradition handed down from the apostles." He knows but little of church history who does not know that tradition had obtained a standard position in the fifth century. And we promise to show also, that the first authority for trine immersion rested it on tradition only.
J. H. W.
The Sabbath School.
By Ellen G. White
CHRIST BEFORE THE DOCTORS.
The parents of Jesus yearly visited Jerusalem, in accordance with the Jewish law. Their son, Jesus, then twelve years old, accompanied them. In returning to their home, after they had gone a day's journey, their anxiety was aroused, as they missed Jesus. He had not been seen of them since they left Jerusalem. They supposed he was with the company. Inquiry and search were made among their acquaintances and relatives for their much-loved son; but no trace could be found of him. They hastened back to Jerusalem, their hearts heavy with sorrow. For one day of neglect they lost their son, Jesus, from their company, which cost them three days of anxious search, with sorrowful hearts, before they found him.
The doctors, and expounders of the law, always taught the people publicly upon especial occasions. It was upon one of these occasions that Jesus gave manifest proofs of superior wisdom, penetration, and mature judgment. The people were more surprised because the parents of Christ were poor, and he had not received the advantages of education. The question passed from lip to lip, Whence has this youth such wisdom, having never learned? While the parents of Christ were in search of him, they saw large numbers flocking to the temple; and as they entered it the well-known voice of their son arrested their attention. They could not get sight of him for the crowd; but they knew that they were not mistaken, for no voice was like his, marked with solemn melody. The parents gazed in astonishment at the scene. Their son, in the midst of the grave and learned doctors and scribes, was giving evidence of superior knowledge by his discreet questions and answers. His parents were gratified to see him thus honored. But the mother could not forget the grief and anxiety she had suffered because of his tarry at Jerusalem, and she, in a reproving manner, inquired why he had thus dealt with them, relating her fears and sorrow on his account.
Said Jesus, "How is it that ye sought me?" This pointed question was to lead them to see that if they had been mindful of their duty, they would not have left Jerusalem without him. He then adds, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" While they had been unmindful of the responsible charge intrusted to them, Jesus was engaged in the work of his Father. Mary knew that Christ did not refer to his earthly father, Joseph, but to Jehovah. She laid these things to heart, and profited by them.
In returning from Jerusalem with the crowd, talking and visiting engrossed their minds, and Jesus was forgotten for an entire day. His absence was not observed until the close of the day. Joseph and Mary had been honored of God in an especial manner, in being intrusted with the responsible charge of the Saviour. Angels had heralded his birth to the shepherds, and God had directed the course of Joseph, to preserve the life of the infant Saviour. But the confusion of much talk had led to the neglect of their sacred trust, and Jesus was not brought to mind for an entire day, by those who should not have forgotten him for a moment. They returned their weary way, sad and fearful to Jerusalem. They recalled the terrible massacre of innocent children by the cruel Herod in hope of destroying the king of Israel. When their anxiety was relieved by finding Jesus, they did not acknowledge their own neglect of duty, but their words reflected on Christ—"Why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Jesus, in most respectful language, inquires, "How is it that ye sought me?" But these words modestly reflect the censure upon themselves, in remembering them to be engrossed with matters of no special importance, if they had not permitted the trouble of searching for him. He then justifies his course: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" While he was engaged in the work he came to the earth to perform, they had neglected the work his Father had especially intrusted to them. They could not fully comprehend the words of Christ; yet Mary, in a great measure, understood their import, and laid them away in her heart to ponder over in the future.
Not one act in the life of Christ was unimportant. Every event of his life was for the benefit of his followers in future time. This circumstance of the tarry of Christ in Jerusalem teaches an important lesson to those who should believe on him. Many had come a great distance to keep the passover, instituted that the Hebrews might keep in memory their wonderful deliverance from Egypt.
This ordinance possessed a mournful interest to the Son of God. He saw in the slain lamb a symbol of his own death. The people who celebrated this ordinance were instructed to associate the slaying of the lamb with the future death of the Son of God. The blood, marking the doorposts of their houses, was the symbol of the blood of Christ which was to be efficacious for the believing sinner, in cleansing him from sin, and sheltering him from the wrath of God which was to come upon the impenitent and unbelieving world, as the wrath of God fell upon the Egyptians. But none could be benefited by this special provision made by God for the salvation of man unless they should perform the work the Lord left them to do. They had a part to act themselves, and by their acts were to manifest their faith in the provision made for their salvation.
Jesus was acquainted with hearts. He knew that as the crowd returned in company from Jerusalem, there would be much talking and visiting which would not be seasoned with humility and grace, and the Messiah and his mission would be nearly forgotten. It was his choice to return from Jerusalem with his parents alone; for in being retired, his father and mother would have more time for reflection, and for meditation upon the prophecies which referred to his future sufferings and death. He did not wish the painful events which they were to experience in his offering up his life for the sins of the world, to be new and unexpected to them. He was separated from them in their return from Jerusalem. After the celebration of the passover, they sought him sorrowing three days. When he should be slain for the sins of the world, he would be separated from them, lost to them, for three days. But after that, he would reveal himself to them, and be found of them, and their faith rely upon him as the Redeemer of the fallen race, the advocate with the Father in their behalf.—Great Controversy, Vol. II.
GOD IS JUDGE.
By R. F. Cottrell
SOME people trouble themselves about what will be done with the mass of men—how justice can be administered to men of so different and various dispositions of mind, arising from the difference in their phrenological organization. If they could see how the Judge of the earth could solve this difficulty, perhaps they would seek God. And they seem to think their own disposition will in justice excuse them from any responsibility in regard to their future destiny.
To such I would say, You need not fear that the Creator of all has not wisdom enough to judge mankind in righteousness. Do not concern yourself on this point. God asks you to turn to him and be saved. You can, if you will. And your responsibility begins and ends with your own individual case. If you will see to that, God will take care of the rest. Will you turn to him and live, or will you refuse because you are unable to judge the world, and die?
R. F. Cottrell.
Why does the skeptic ever insist on telling
The Ground-Swell of Fear and Remorse
Why does the skeptic ever insist on talking about a religion which he says is a fable? Why does the stock-broker ever and unceasingly talk up a bad lot left on his hands? Why did the foes of our Master refuse to be satisfied, until not only the victim of their hate was crucified and buried, but a seal must be placed on his grave, and a guard patrol the tomb night after night? They could not hush those mutterings of fear and remorse. There may be but a breath of wind, yet there comes to the silent ship resting on the silent ocean a ground-swell that ever rocks it, but not to repose. Thus men try to seal down their sins and lock the sepulchre that they cannot further disturb their peace, but all in vain.—Presbyterian.
Judgments and Mercy
God often sends judgments, because we will not own his hand of mercy.
Jesus’s First Visit to the Temple
Cunningham Geikie, in his "Life of Christ," commenting on the first visit of Jesus to the temple, says: "In the school in which Jesus was found, a number of Rabbis were present, perhaps because it was the Passover season. The gentle Hillel—the Looser—was perhaps still alive, and may possibly have been among them. The harsh and strict Shammai—the Binder—his old rival, had been long dead. Hillel's son, Rabban Simeon, and even his greater grandson, Gamaliel, the future teacher of St. Paul, may have been of the number, though Gamaliel would, then, like Jesus, be only a boy. Hanan or Annas, son of Seth, had been just appointed high priest, but did not likely see him, as a boy, whom he was afterwards to crucify. Apart from the bitter hostility between the priests and the Rabbis, he would be too busy with his monopoly of doves for the temple, to care for the discussions of the schools, for he owned the shops for doves on Mount Olivet, and sold them for a piece of gold, though the Law had chosen them as offerings suited for the poorest from their commonness and cheapness.
Among the famous men, then, apparently, living in Jerusalem, was Rabbi Jochanan Ben Zacchai, afterwards reputed a prophet, from his once crying out—when the temple gate opened of itself—"Temple, temple, why do you frighten us? We know that thou wilt shortly be destroyed, for it says—'Open, Lebanon, thy gates, and let fire devour thy cedars.'" Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Targumist, revered by his nation; Rabbi Ben Buta, who, though of Shammai's school, was almost as mild as Hillel, and, like him, had a great reputation for Rabbinical sanctity; now blind these many years, for Herod had put out his eyes; Dosithai of Jethma, a zealous opponent of Herod; Zadok, who had taken part in the rising of Judas the Gaulonite; Boethus, father of one of Herod's wives—the second Mariamne—once high priest, and now the head of the courtly Herodian and Roman party; Nicodemus, who afterwards came to Jesus by night, and the rich Joseph of Arimathea,—in a grave given by whom Jesus was afterwards to lie, were all apparently, then alive. But we can only conjecture in whose presence Jesus sat, for dates are sadly wanting."
Frugality and Old Age
Frugality proves an easy chair for old age.
RETURN OF THE SPIRIT TO GOD.
By John Nevins Andrews
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl. 12:7.
THIS text is the exact counterpart of Gen. 2:7. "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."
One text teaches how man was first formed. The other makes known the process of his dissolution. What God did in creating, death undoes by dissolving. How did death get the power to step in and undo the Creator's work? Man forfeited his right to live by sinning against God. Death entered by sin. Rom. 5:12. Death, then, has an evil parentage. In fact, it has a bad character in the book of God; it is not a friend, but an enemy; and so serious and formidable a foe is it that its destruction is made the subject of special promise to the people of God. 1 Cor. 15:26. The power of death Satan himself has controlled. Heb. 2:14. Death came from the devil, just as life came from God.
God gave to man life, and instructed him that if he would obey him he should continue to live. Gen. 2. The devil telling Eve that she should, by sinning, be introduced to a higher life, brought death upon our race. Milton's idea that death is the child of sin and Satan, is strictly true.
But many of the present time believe death to be the gate to endless joys! Death, as they imagine, is the door whereby the Christian enters Heaven! By what means was this door created? By man's rebellion against God. Who was the chief agent in promoting this transaction? The devil! What does Jesus call him because of this work? A murderer. John 8:44. If death is the door of Heaven, Satan has filled the office of door-keeper of Heaven, for he has had the power of death.
One of the principal proofs quoted to show that men reach Heaven by dying, is found in our text which is so often quoted. "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Does this prove that death ushers men into Heaven? Please consider before you answer. If so, please observe that this text is not descriptive of the case of the righteous only; it is spoken of death as the common lot of man. Then we get all men into Heaven by dying, whatever may become of them afterward. Can it be true that every wicked man is to enter the gates of the holy city when he dies? See Rev. 21:27; 22:14, 15.
But does not this text really teach the entrance of the righteous into Heaven at death? Not unless it does that of the wicked also; for the text is descriptive of the common portion of mankind. The infirmities of old age are first described, and then the dissolution of man in death. The fact is, Solomon is admonishing the young men to attend to the service of God before these infirmities come on which lead to final dissolution. If it were only one class spoken of, it would be rather the wicked than the righteous, for Solomon would not have a young man grow up to these infirmities and consequent dissolution unprepared.
It is the unbuilding of the man after the infirmities of old age have worn out all his strength, that Solomon describes; it is not his translation to Heaven. The Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground. Death causes that dust to return to the earth as it was before it formed the man. If God does the first work, it is not God that destroys it. No, indeed. An enemy is the doer of all this.
"The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." There is a record of the giving of the spirit by God. When he had formed the man from the dust, he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now when death dissolves the man, this very thing which God gave to man, returns. What comes from God returns to God, just as what comes from earth returns to earth. Then, says one, what better proof can we have that men are happy with God when they die? Who can deny a blissful existence to the spirits of men in the presence of God? And what will you do now with all the texts you adduce to show that in death there is no remembrance of God; that the thoughts of men perish in death; that they sleep in silence till the heavens pass away; that they are to be satisfied when they wake in Christ's likeness; and that if there were no resurrection there would be no advantage obtained even by faithful Paul? Do not set these ideas aside too hastily; they are all ideas of men inspired of God. See Ps. 6:5; Isa. 38:18, 19; Ps. 146:4; Job 14:12, 13; Ps. 17:15; 1 Cor. 15:32.
But if the spirit goes back to God, must it not be happy in his presence? And must it not know infinitely more than while the man lived? Those who ask such questions overlook one point in the text, and that point is the key to the whole subject. That which goes to God once came from him. You infer that in returning to God the spirit enters upon a blissful existence in his presence. Have you well considered the point? It exists in God's presence, after it has returned, with just as conscious an existence as it had before it came from him. No more goes back than came. It is no more exalted when it leaves man to go back to God, than when it left God to come to man.
Did the spirits of the dead once live with God, then leave him and come and live with men, and then return to live again with God? It would be very absurd to affirm it. Somebody ought to remember something about living once in the presence of God before living in this world of sorrows. Why not some one recollect about this?
But if that be so, how much better off to have allowed us to stay in Heaven when we were there, than to send us into this world of sorrow, pollution, and crime. To be sure, if this text be rightly expounded by the popular exposition, everybody gets back when they die; but even then how much better is dissolution than creation! How much more beneficent the work of Satan in introducing death which returns us all to Heaven, than the work of the Creator which took our happy spirits all out of Heaven to live in sorrow, sin, and pain!
The reader will see that there is just as much of blissful existence for the spirit after this life as before it. What came from God to enable the man to live, returns to God when he ceases to live.
There has been one grand act of the Creator in which he bestowed that upon man which at death he takes from him. God gave to Adam, when he formed him, the breath of life, and man, thus formed, became a living soul. It even says God breathed this into man's nostrils. This was what gave Adam life. Elihu tells us that "the breath of the Almighty" gave to him "LIFE;" i. e., by giving it to the common father of mankind. Job 33:4.
What God gave to Adam was not an angel of glory to dwell in his body formed of dust. If it had been, what a misfortune to that heavenly being! No; it was simply "LIFE." Having made the man, God gave him life. When man had forfeited his right to live, God told him he must return to the ground out of which he was taken. Gen. 3. And so when Adam closed his eyes in death, the great Creator took again to his own keeping that life which Adam gave up. God designs that men shall live again. He holds all in his hand till the hour shall arrive to give them life the second time. Jesus said that he laid down his life that he might take it up again. John 10. And so when dying commended his spirit, or life, to his Father's hands.
Adam had his life from God. We have ours from Adam. Adam forfeited his right to live or God would never have taken from him that breath of life by which he was made alive. That being taken from him he had just as much life as he had before it was given him, which was none at all. That which God breathed into his nostrils being taken from him by the Author of his existence, has just as much thought and knowledge as before being given to Adam, which was no knowledge at all.
He did not put within Adam a living, conscious, organized being from glory, but the man being organized out of dust, God put the principle of life in him, i. e., he made him alive.
Our life is from Adam. It is not immortal life. The facts are too palpable to believe thus of ourselves. Life is transmitted from parents to children. What vast multitudes of living beings perish without ever seeing the light, i. e., without ever being born. Yet they had life. And so life exists in that which precedes embryotic existence. But in all this there is no immortality. We cannot take from the first Adam what he had not to give. Nor can we find in death, which is the fruit of sin, the door back into that Paradise from which sin caused us to be expelled. But, thank God, the second Adam can give us a life that shall never end. "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. Death cannot convey us to the presence of God; but the resurrection shall show us the path of life, and "so shall we ever be with the Lord."