soma, never of the sarx. In the Old Testament we have an allusion by Job to the resurrection of the basar, or flesh, by which we are evidently to understand "the body," a meaning which the word often bears. 77. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," for the reason that corruption cannot inherit incorruption. From the resurrection body the entire nutritive system shall disappear. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them." The nutritive system implies the circulation of the blood, by which the body is nourished, and that which is nourished-flesh. All these shall be absent from the soma pneumatikon. There will be no repair, as there shall be no waste. 78. Paul's beautiful and striking image of resurrection is the corn of seed sown in the earth. "Thou sowest not," he says, "the body that shall be, but a bare grain of wheat, it may be, or of some other grain." The following words are noteworthy" God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him." The body then which we lay down in the grave is not the body that shall be. Out of it God will give, or raise up, a body as it pleases Him. "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power; it is sown a psychical body; it is raised a pneumatical body." : As 79. "The most sublime efforts of philosophy," says Gibbon, can extend no further than feebly to point out the desire, the hope, or at most, the probability, of a future state." to the resurrection of the dead, the philosophers of Greece and Rome had no idea. When Paul preached it in Athens they turned the doctrine into ridicule. Their belief, or rather their unbelief, on this grand doctrine of Revelation, is expressed in the mournful utterance of Moschus on the death of Bion: "Our plants and trees revive, the breathing rose, But sleeps unwaking in eternal night." Compare this with the words of the Apostle, and how great is the contrast! "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Taught by these infallible oracles, we know incomparably more than heathen philosophy could ever attain to: "We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." The CHAIRMAN.-I am sure we all join in giving our most hearty thanks to Mr. Graham for this admirable paper. (Hear, hear.) I shall now be glad tothear any remarks that those present may desire to make upon the subject. Rev. J. JAMES.-I agree with our Chairman that we ought to offer our best thanks to Mr. Graham for his paper. It contains some admirable passages, some of which are most eloquent and most true, such as that in the 10th section, which speaks of the various growths of God's creatures, and that in the 16th section, which deals with the soul and the spirit. But at the same time, there are two or three points which have struck me in connection with this paper, and in regard to which I cannot altogether agree with Mr. Graham; and I should like to throw them out for general consideration-First of all, I think the title of Mr. Graham's paper is at variance with his argument, which favours a quadrupartite rather than a tripartite division of man's nature. Besides the body, Mr. Graham speaks of the animal soul, or that which we have in common with the brute creation; and then of the rational soul, which is something quite distinct from the animal soul, and also distinct from the spirit. There are, therefore, four parts of man's nature distinctly and elaborately described in this paper, with the exception of the first part, or body, of which very little is said, that being seemingly, for the most part, taken for granted as the basis of the human being. The body, soul, and spirit are the three parts spoken of by the apostle, and that gives us a tripartite division; but here we have the body, the animal soul, the rational soul, and the spirit; or a fourfold division. It appears to me to be one of the great faults of the paper that its argument really tends to a quadrupartite, and not to a tripartite division of man's nature. Then there is another reason why I think it would have been better to have had a different title for the paper; because it is one of which the main tendency is to show that in the Holy Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments (with the exception, perhaps, of the writings of St. Paul), that canon is always followed with which Mr. Graham commences his third section: "As a revelation to man as man, Sacred Scripture is written in the language of the people. Its style is popular." The paper might almost have been entitled "An Argument to show that in the Scriptures the uses of the words 'Soul' and 'Spirit' are Popular Uses, and not Scientific, except in the writings of St. Paul." The same may be said with regard to the word "heart." There are elaborate passages in this paper to show that nephesh and the other Hebrew words, and 4x and vεйμа, and * 1 Thess. v. 23. "All animals have the body, all the living soul (Gen. i. 20, 21); but the breath of life, breathed into the nostrils by God himself, is said of man alone. Cp. 'the body, soul, and spirit,' of ancient philosophy and of the Apostle Paul."-Bp. Harold Browne.—ED. the word "mind" also, are all used in a popular sense throughout the Bible, except where such words are used by St. Paul. That is what the paper really shows; not that the immortal spirit and the soul are identical or equivalent, but that they are common terms in the Bible, and are both used for one common substance, namely, the spirit. Of course I use the word "substance" in a philosophical sense. I confess that my own view of the subject, to go to the root of matter at once, is that the spirit of man alone will animate his body after the resurrection;* and that, as has been shown by a very able passage in the paper, the soul-the animal soul-will not survive after the resurrection. St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear upon the point that the body, at the resurrection, will be animated no longer by the soul of the flesh, but by the spirit alone. In short, this paper of Mr. Graham's only proves the unphilosophical character of the language of Holy Scripture. In popular language, man consists of two parts, soul and body; so entirely in popular use is the word "soul" used for spirit, that it was so used almost universally by the writers of the Old and New Testaments. But St. Paul, having a more methodical and systematic mind, expresses the difference distinctly and clearly in every passage. Indeed, I would undertake to show that in every passage that could be brought forward, where he uses the word "soul," he speaks of the animal soul. For example, in the 29th section of the paper, Mr. Graham has referred to the passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians, and pointed out that in the words translated "doing the will of God from the heart," the last word is vx, and not kapdia, yet equally expressive of the operation of the animal soul, as distinct from the spirit or rational soul. Now the dog is the most faithful servant to the man who has found out and secured its affections; there is nothing that it will not do for its master, it is always on the look-out to fulfil his wishes, as expressed either by the eye or in any other way, and having found a protector and a friend in its master, it makes no attempt to gain any other friend, but looks to him as its one source of happiness, and does everything it can for him out of its heart-in fact, i uxis. The dog is capable of performing great services, and doing ἐκ ψυχῆς. marvellous things for its master, its instinct rising almost up to the level of reason. In the same way, the affections of the heart and the energized powers of the body enable men and women to carry out into action the feelings within them; and St. Paul uses the phrase ik ʊxns in this place to show that the Christian's obedience is to be so completely a part of his being as to partake of the character of instinct-pervading his whole soul-animated body. It is just a parallel case to the use of philosophical terms. We all understand the fact that the sun does not go round the earth, and * See 1 Cor. xv. 44. "It is sown a natural body [owμa xid], it is ruised a spiritual body [σῶμα πνευματικόν].” does not rise or set; but we constantly use the phrase "rising" or "setting" as applied to the sun-we cannot help it, it is the popular language which we are always using; but when we use philosophical language, we attach totally distinct meanings to our terms. In concluding my observations, I should like to quote one passage from Juvenal, which is very clear and distinct. I only quote it to show that a tripartite division of man's nature is one that may be received and maintained against all comers. He says (I will not quote the original Latin) :-"In the beginning of the world, the common Creator endowed them "-the beasts that perish-"only with animam (a soul); but to us He gave animum quoque (a mind also), in order that we may be able to fulfil our destiny in governing the other creatures of the world." (Cheers.) Mr. S. HANSON.-As a stranger, I may perhaps be permitted to offer a few observations on this subject, and I will endeavour not to transgress the ten minutes' limit which I understand is imposed upon all the speakers here. I agree, upon one point, with the gentleman who has just sat down, for I think there is some confusion of thought in Mr. Graham's paper. With some parts I do most cordially agree, but I as cordially dissent from others. I agree with the tripartite division of man's nature, and I wish Mr. Graham had kept strictly to it; and also to the fact that this tripartite division is common to our human nature, and not applicable merely to regenerate man. But I totally disagree with the manner in which Mr. Graham has mixed up the soul and spirit in the course of his paper, assuming in many of the cases that they are used indifferently. In the third place, I altogether dissent from what he has said about the heart. While I agree most thoroughly in the tripartite division of man's nature, and believe that it can be well sustained and established by the Scriptures, I do not think that any of the philosophers of old maintained such a theory. By the light of the Scriptures, and especially of the New Testament, the doctrine is brought out most clearly, and St. Paul distinctly enunciates it, not only in that single passage in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, where the three parts are combined-"your whole spirit, and soul, and body" "—but in several other places, and particularly in the second chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is in that second chapter, especially, that the important point which has been ignored by Mr. Heard in his able book, is given, that every man has a spirit in him which is part of his constituted nature: "For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." Now that is a most important point in the teaching of St. Paul, because by Mr. Heard's view, that the spirit died at the Fall, and that man thenceforward consisted only of body and soul, he necessarily relegates the intellect of man to the soul, which I believe to be distinctly contrary not only to the teaching of the New Testament, but also of the Old. Mr. GRAHAM.--Mr. Heard duly contends for the torpidity of the spirit. He does not hold that it perished at the Fall. Mr. HANSON.-In different parts of his book Mr. Heard applies the terms "dormant," "dead,” and “unborn," to the spirit. Mr. GRAHAM.-He uses the words "dormant" and "dead" in the same sense. Mr. HANSON.-I have frequently talked the matter over with Mr. Heard, and he does relegate the power of discernment to the soul or to the rational soul. Here, again, I feel bound to say that it is most unscriptural to speak of the animal soul and of the rational soul. It is a distinction of the schools, as may be seen by any one who refers to Bishop Ellicott's discourse. In the fourth sermon, in his volume called "The Destiny of the Creature," the bishop gives an historical account of the annihilation, if I may so say, of the doctrine of the spirit in the fourth and fifth centuries, on account of the doctrine of Apollinarius. There is the fact that the "rational soul" was a term employed in those days, and especially by Augustine. It was brought into the Athanasian Creed in the words "of reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting," on account of the entire banishment of the spirit as a part of man. But in this paper of Mr. Graham's there is some confusion; because, on reading it over carefully this afternoon, and in following Mr. Graham's reading of it to-night, it seemed to me that if his view be correct, we might to all intents and purposes just as well have the popular division of soul and body only. But I maintain, and, were there time, I think I could prove, that there is abundant scriptural testimony to show that in no place have the two words translated "soul" and "spirit" a synonymous meaning. I have gone carefully into this subject, examining every passage where the words ruach, neshamah, and nephesh occur in the Old Testament, or vxǹ and veμa occur in the New: and I believe that the Spirit of God has carefully preserved the two words as entirely distinct; and I know of no single instance to the contrary, not forgetting the song of the Virgin Mary, where, as I believe, the fact that the two words are both used, shows that there is a distinctness of meaning between them. It is indeed most important in considering the tripartite nature of man, that we should preserve the distinctness of the soul equally with the distinctness of the body, or of the spirit. There is another point in the paper which I also strongly protest against, and that is the phrase "the essential unity of the two." I do not believe it can properly be said that there is an essential unity. Of course it is a very difficult thing to know how to express this, because in the same sense that we should assert the essential unity of the Deity of the Three in One-there is essential unity in these two terms; but just as there is a perfect distinctness of person and of office in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the same manner, if not in the same degree, do I see the perfect distinctness of the spirit and soul and body. Also I totally dissent from the idea that the soul will not be found in the raised man, whether saint or sinner; because with regard to the persons of whom Paul, in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, was alone speaking, you read that |