soul. I forget who it is, but some one has said that the body is the house in which the soul lives, but the soul is the house in which the spirit lives, and I think that illustrates the case very admirably—at least it appeals to me more than anything else. Death comes and separates the body from both soul and spirit; it does not disintegrate the soul from the spirit, for they, being inseparable, go together to their eternal resting-place, and the soul and the spirit are capable of being really touched, both together, by the higher power of the Holy Spirit, as in the twelfth verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit"; not separating but dividing between them, reaching into the spirit and renewing it. The soul, I imagine, is often touched, but the spirit not reached, and that accounts for the fact that in the New Testament the spirit is sometimes spoken of as going to heaven, and the soul is sometimes spoken of as going to heaven: they are adopted as one, because when the spirit has received its higher life it has sanctified the soul. We come to the crucial text of St. Paul, where he prays that God will sanctify them in body, soul, and spirit. When a man is converted from sin, his affections are brought into play, and his body is brought into subjection, and the whole man becomes sanctified. It begins in the spirit, passes through the soul, and the moral and ethical part of man, and is then distributed through the members. That is the exposition of it. (Cheers.)

Rev. EDWARD WHITE.--I have listened to the proceedings of this evening with interest, and would be glad to be allowed to offer one or two observations. The first subject on which I should like to say a word is the use of Scriptural language. It has been proved this evening that if there be any exact or scientific language at all in the Bible, it is not uniformly employed. A remark made by Mr. Graham appears to me to be quite sound, that the only approach to scientific language on the soul is to be found in the Epistle to the Corinthians. If we look back to the Old Testament, we find it is truly said in the book of Job that there is a spirit in man. But I always guard myself when quoting from Job, for there were three or four friends of Job whose utterances were not always the utterances of wisdom, and in fact they are condemned at the end as not having spoken according to the mind of God; and when any of these discourse philosophically I will not be bound by his statements. But why should there have been a greater exactness then than now? I apprehend that they spoke then as now, indifferently of soul or of spirit. There is a passage in Ecclesiastes which is of great importance, for in the third chapter it is said: "Who knoweth the ruach of man that goeth upward, and the ruach of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Now there the sacred writer speaks of the animating principle of the beast under the name of "ruach," and this proves that it is in vain to look for strict and scientific language in the Bible. The only approach to it is in that important passage on the creation of man, on which St. Paul comments in the First Epistle to the Corinthians-"God formed man of the dust of the earth, and he became a living soul." English writers

attach to that phrase the idea that it was some high distinguishing principle in man, but the same thing is said of the animals that died in the Deluge. I consider that St. Paul argues on this very identity in the 15th chapter, when he says that "the first man Adam was made a living soul, but the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." There, undoubtedly, St. Paul makes a strong distinction between the Psyche and the Pneuma; and his words are a comment on the nephesh hhayyah; but, be it observed, St. Paul introduces the distinction to show that the first man was xoikoç, a man of dust, an animal man, while the second man is a spirit from heaven. As to St. Paul's language, which is more precise than that of the other writers, turn to the second chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he distinguishes between the ψυχικός and the πνευματικός. The ψυχικός is different from the TVενμarikòs, not in that he has not mind, or spirit, or feeling, but in that he has not the spiritual feeling, and is unable to comprehend the divine relations, while the TVενμariò comprehends all things. There has been a controversy in the Christian church for many years on the question whether the natural man possesses pneuma. Mr. Heard and others hold that every man has a body, soul, and spirit; but there are others who hold with Mr. Gosse that man has only body and soul, and that Pneuma is the result of regeneration. And they are not without some support from the Bible; for our Lord's own words to Nicodemus are strong, where he says "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," and "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Mr. TITCOMB.-Mr. Heard believes that everybody has the Pneuma, but in a dead or torpid state until regeneration.

Mr. WHITE.-Yes, that is so. One of the most able advocates of the opposite theory, Dr. William Morris, cites, against Mr. Heard, two passages-first, "That which is born of the spirit is spirit," and then that passage from St. Jude: "Fleshly men not having spirit." It may be said that that is merely rhetorical language, and that men, until born of God, may be said not to have spirit apart from their animal life; but those who are learned in the theory, maintain it most stoutly, reminding one of Luther in his battle with Zwingle, when he said "There are the words, This is my body -I defy you to contradict them."

The CHAIRMAN.-There is no article in the Greek, is there?

Mr. WHITE.-No, it is not "the spirit." As to the argument in Mr. English's paper, I do not like to say all I feel about it. I could speak more strongly in Mr. English's presence than I would venture to do behind his back. I cannot compliment him on his clearness. For example, taking the case of the ladies, if we are to argue anything from the silence of the Scriptures, the inference from the books of Moses is that women have neither souls nor spirits, as there is not a word in the Scriptures about their souls or spirits at all. But would not that be a monstrous exaggeration? As to the survival of the psyche, what is the inference which is to be drawn from the statement of Our Lord-" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both body and

psyche in hell"? If the New Testament doctrine were that only the Pneuma survived, there ought to be some clear statement to that effect.

Mr. JAMES BATEMAN.-So far, you have all united in pulling Mr. English's paper to pieces; now I should like to throw in a word on the other side. I differ from its metaphysical deductions, but I think it valuable in the shaft it has sunk into other matters bearing on the relation of the Pneuma and the Psyche to being. In pneumatology-the science of spirits-there are two distinct divisions, one referring to spirits as living things, the other referring to the science of ethics and morals, and philosophy and metaphysics, as deducible from the relation between body, soul, and spirit. I thought the discussion would have turned on spirits as such, and I thought it might have been a very useful discussion too. If we gathered together the evidence contained in Scripture on spirits clean and unclean, we might find very valuable matter to assist us to form a true judgment on many points which are now controverted. We all know of the abomination of "spiritualism," and there are many who believe that the agencies at work are really the spirits of the departed; but I utterly repudiate the notion. They are not the spirits of the departed, but I believe them to be unclean spirits that are wandering about-far more numerous than man, and quite conscious that the time is coming when they will be cast into the abyss; and as the end draws near, we may be sure that they will be more and more active for evil; and hence the many ways in which they now bewilder men's minds. That is one line of thought which I conceived we might enter upon, and indeed it would be very useful to do so upon another occasion. But the paper deals with the sleep of death, and moral probation after death, and space and time in Hades. Now all those things are most interesting, bearing, as they do, on the controversy between Protestants and Romanists. Moral probation after death brings us into the domain of purgatory, and it would be very useful to see what Scripture teaches, or rather does not teach, upon that point. If we could get a clear notion of the distinction between body, soul, and spirit, we would be greatly assisted in forming a proper view on all the above important matters. Mr. White has told us that he thinks the language of Scripture on these points is not scientific. Now I venture to differ from him, because I think there is a marvellous scientific accuracy in Scripture. Take two instances bearing upon the question before us: one is in the book of Ecclesiastes, where there is a contrast drawn betweeen the spirit of man and the spirit of the beast; and it is said: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" the customary inference being that man, after death, ascends to the skies, while the beast returns to its mother earth. But our best Hebrew scholars say that the word there is not "spirit" in the sense of being a part of our nature, but "spirit" in the sense in which it is used in other passages as breath. Here, then, we have a most graphic description. The breath of the beast, pumped out through its nostrils, goes down to the earth, but the breath of man ascends.

Mr. GRAHAM.-But it is more than breath that goes up to God.

Mr. BATEMAN.-Yes, we know that, when it is meant of the glorified spirit, but I maintain that in this instance it is only breath that is meant, and therefore there is nothing to interfere with the scientific accuracy of cognate passages. While I dissent very much from the metaphysical deductions of Mr. English's paper, I think it will eventually be found that he is right in this threefold distinction of body, soul, and spirit. Together they make up our present selves; but in the future state the spirit or Pneuma will exist, though I doubt whether the Psyche will, seeing that it is essentially related to our flesh and blood. But I believe that the more we examine into these things, the more perfectly and scientifically accurate shall we find the language respecting them in Scripture. (Cheers.)

The CHAIRMAN.-I will not detain you very long, but I must say a word or two before this discussion closes. I do not quite agree with the paper before us, but I should like to make some defence for it on one or two points; and whether we agree with it or not, we must admit that it has been written in a very inoffensive tone. I will not believe anything which I do not consider reasonable. We are told to give a reason for the hope that is in us, and we are rebuked for not exercising our reason and judging what is right, and I will never give up the notion that all true religion must be reasonable. As for the rationalists, as they are called, I can only say that they are not entitled to the name. In those very remarkable papers which Dr. Irons read last session on Human Responsibility, he referred to the Compteists, who consider themselves inductive philosophers; but, as he pointed out, they do not make any induction of all the facts that relate to the Pneuma and the Psyche; but I maintain that they will in the end, be bound to take notice of many things that are not now "dreamed of in their philosophy." (Cheers.) I think that Mr. Row's gallant attack on Mr. English was not altogether opportune. We must not take our own interpretation of words that an author may use, but we must take his interpretation of them; and according to Mr. English's definition of the Psyche, he meant nothing derogatory to women, but just adduced the point that women are more religious than men, because they have less Pneuma, which leads to intellectual effort. Everybody admits the fact that there is a great difference between women under the Christian dispensation and under the old dispensation and among the heathen; and without going into Roman Catholic views about the blessing of redemption having come to us immediately through the Blessed Virgin Mary, who had faith in God's promise, and was chosen to be the vehicle for the coming of our Blessed Lord, we may think that if Adam blamed Eve for the fall, we had the redemption brought to us by Mary-the one was as blameworthy as the other was praiseworthy. But these sexual recriminations are altogether unworthy. As to the animals, Mr. English's reply to Mr. Titcomb would be that those animals have intelligence as well as affections; for he implied that they had a conscience, an intelligence, and an intellect. At least it must be admitted (he would say) that they have Pneuma as well as Psyche; but that does not, therefore, put them on a level with man. Although Mr. English speaks of

the soul dying with the body-with which I do not agree-still he believes in the resurrection of the body in a purified and different condition with the Psyche. That differs from Mr. Bateman's idea in saying that the spirit would be found in another world, and not the soul.

Mr. GRAHAM.-Mr. English's words are that the Psyche dies.

The CHAIRMAN.-And yet he believes in the resurrection of the body with the soul-his theory is not that that the soul perishes utterly. But we shall resume this subject in April, when Mr. Graham will read his paper. The Meeting was then adjourned.

THE REV. W. W. ENGLISH'S REPLY.

I desire to make a few remarks upon two or three points in the speeches and criticisms on my paper.

The Place of Reason.-I think Mr. Row has put reason out of its proper place in regard to the Christian religion, and, if he will forgive me saying it, he has also put it out of its proper place in ratiocination when he takes my words "the Pneuma is a foundation quite incapable of bearing the superstructure which we mean when we speak of what is holy and just and good,” and insists that it is a "strictly logical consequence" to say that God, being Himself Pneuma, according to my statement, would be "neither holy, just, nor good." I am not aware of any "logical" rules which justify one in reasoning from man's tripartite nature to what is true of God, the Great Spirit. I think there is one logical rule which forbids this, or rather convicts it of the charge of fallaciousness. What I maintain is that the terms holy, just, and good, as regards man, refer to what is psychical and ethical rather than pneumatical and rational, not meaning of course that Pneuma has nothing to do with holiness, justice, and goodness, but that Psyche rather than Pneuma is the foundation of these. The sentimental theory of conscience implies priority of feeling, not feeling to the exclusion of reason, in its exercise. I thought I had guarded myself sufficiently against this misinterpretation of my words in section 20, where I say "Pneuma has its part to fill, &c., but is not the basis of either religion or morality." Nor is Mr. Row more fortunate in convicting me of a "misquotation," for I think he quotes one passage and I another. Nor yet can I admit that my views use the ladies "badly" where I give them, psychologically speaking, their proper place. Indeed when I say they are more religious than men, because of their psychological propensities, I do them simple justice. Because St. James uses Psyche in an "unfavourable" sense, I hope Mr. Row did not mean it to be inferred that therefore the ladies, having Psyche in predominance, could not be more religious than men, as I had stated. Nor did I argue from "Adam's rib" in favour of anything distinctive of woman, but from the passage in Genesis, coupled with St. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. xi. 7-9, which has evidently escaped Mr. Row's notice. Reason, Mr. Row admits, cannot "discover everything," but contends that when God has revealed a thing "reason is the only thing that is capable of dealing with it." I deny the proposition entirely,