mal. The evμηтikóv he sometimes called рETTIкóν, the nutritive, or ζωτικόν, vitative; the θυμικον, or passional, he calls αισθητι Kóv, æsthetic. The ecclesiastical fathers, however, received not the phraseology of Plato, but of the Jews; which also the New Testament writers had approved. They always distinguish between πνεῦμα, (spirit,) ψυχή, (soul,) and σῶμα, (body) For πνεῦμα they oftener use vouc, (for the two words, as we shall see, are cognate;) not unfrequently also λoyos. The sacred writings oftener use the word vous; nor, save once, does the word λóyos occur as applied to the faculty of the human mind, (on which topic something fuller hereafter,) and this word they obtain from the philosophers. In the fourth century, when Apollinaris had propounded his opinion concerning the relation between the human and divine nature of the Saviour, (which teaches that the humanity of the Lord was destitute of the Logos, (ἀνθρωπότητα τοῦ κυρίου λόγῳ caruisse,) the doctors of the Church receded by degrees from this doctrine, and Gennadius (De Dogm. Eccl., c. 15,) propounds it as the common doctrine of the whole Church, that the immaterial nature of man was a unit; by which words it was his intention to impugn the trichotomy of the ancients, which they at that time so misconstrued as to imagine that those ancients taught that man possessed two souls! From that time this ancient partition ceased to be held; at any rate, it was not recognized as existing in the books of the New Testament. The terms πνεῦμα, ψυχή, νοῦς, and καρδία, were entirely confounded. In our times, at length, there are found those who respect the opinion of antiquity in the interpretation of the sacred books.

It will doubtless appear probable to the reader, from the general prevalence of the idea of this trichotomy among the writers of antiquity, that some traces of it would be found in the sacred books; nevertheless, the common mode of expression of the sacred writers on this subject has escaped the generality of learned men. Of this fact the following appears to us the cause: Interpreters in reading have too anxiously regarded single words, and those alone; in which mode of interpretation the words seem nearly interchangeable. It will however appear far otherwise if, looking beyond single words, you also accurately scrutinize their connection, and especially take into consideration the individuals to whom this or that is ascribed; for they use far different modes of expression when a matter refers to Paul, or to the other apostles, and especially to Jesus Christ himself, than when the words relate to the readers or hearers. It is necessary, therefore, that we should more closely

• Apollinaris distinguished between σαρξ and ψυχή ζωτικη and ψυχή νοητίκη.

investigate the usus loquendi of the sacred writers, that we may know whether any difference exists between πνεῦμα and ψυχή, so far as they pertain to the faculties of human nature.

1. That the sacred writers made a distinction between these words appears by those passages in which the words occur in conjunction; passages which, unless you would impute the most futile tautologies to the sacred writers, demonstrate that they design some difference between them. I omit the passages, Hebrews iv, 12, 1 Thessalonians v, 23, which set forth a trichotomy in express terms; besides also Philippians i, 27: Ye stand fast in one spirit, πνεйμa, with one mind, yuxý, striving for the faith of the Gospel; and Luke i, 47, to which we may suitably subjoin Exodus xxxv, 21, in which the words 3, 77, occur conjoined in the same meaning. Finally 1 Corinthians xv., 44: It is sown σwμa vxikóv, a soul-body; it is raised a σώμα πνευματικόν, spirit-body.

2. Then very often there is used in the sacred books a dualism, such as we often use in common life, and indeed a dualism of a twofold character. Σῶμα and ψυχή, Σαρξ and πνευμα, are put in contrast with each other; one is never used for the other, but they are accurately distinguished.* For a@ua, body, and yvxý, soul, are used where the discourse is concerning man so far as he lives and grows; the visible part of man as an organism is conjoined with the invisible which controls it, (Matt. vi, 25; x., 28; Luke xii, 22, 23.)† Flesh, Záps, and spirit, πvɛõμɑ, are used in regard to man so far forth as he thinks and acts, is controlled by desires or controls them; these therefore alone are used always in ethical precepts, (Matt. xxvi, 41; Mark xiv, 38, John iii, 6; Rom. ii, 29; vii, 6; vii, 5; vi, 9; 1 Cor. v, 5; 2 Cor. iii, 6; iv, 4; vii, 1; Gal. iii, 3; iv, 29; v, 17; vi, 8; Phil. iii, 3; Col. ii, 5.) The cause and origin of this difference between each dualism can scarce be explained otherwise than from that trichotomy which is embraced in the twofold

Some places are found (Rom. viii, 10; 13; 1 Cor. v, 3,; vi, 16; 17, 20; vi, 34; Eph. iv, 4,) which connect oμa, body, and яvɛvμɑ, spirit, according to common usage; but only in appearance do they recede from the received rule; for in these passages πνεῦμα is tantamount to ψυχή πνευματικη οι πνεvμaтíkov, concerning which notion further remarks will be made. Otherwise Σῶμα and πνεῦμα cannot be confined any more than Σάρξ and ψυχή. The passage, James ii, 26, for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works, is rashly drawn to this signification by some. The context shows that spirit here is the halitus oris, the breath of the mouth, the external sign of life. The sense of the words is this: as the body without the vital breath is rightly held to be dead, so the believer without works of charity is to be esteemed dead. [A very dubious interpretation.-Trans.]

†ПIрóσwлоv, presence, and κápdia, heart, are opposed to each other in a similar way: 2 Cor. v, 1, 2; 1 Thess. ii, 17.

dualism; namely, a distinction is made between xý, soul, the inferior life similar to that of animals, and Tvεvua, spirit, the celestial principle by which we are cognate with the Supreme Divinity. But flesh, σápš, and owμa, signify the visible part of man; the former that which is of inferior origin; the latter as an instrument artistically constructed for the use of the soul.

3. Finally, the mode of speaking in reference to Christ, Paul, and other holy men, differs from that used in reference to the humbler disciples. Concerning the former almost always πvεvμa is used; concerning Jesus Christ scarce ever is soul, yvxý, or heart, Kapdía, used; concerning the latter never is spirit, πνεйμɑ, used in the same formulas of expression. So we always find anoσrevážai, αποστενάξαι, to sigh, εμβριμᾶσθαι, to groan, ταράσσεσθαι, to be troubled, επιγι νωσκειν, to perceive, παροξύνεσθαι, to be stirred, πνεύματι (Mark viii, 12; John xi, 33; xii, 21; Mark ii, 8; Acts xvii, 16,) тíðɛvai év πνεúμатι, to propose in spirit, λarpɛúɛív, to serve, σTоixiv, to walk, Syv εv πvεúμat, to live in spirit, (Acts xix, 21; Rom. i, 9; Gal. v, 25; 1 Cor. xvi, 18; 2 Cor. ii, 12; vii, 13; xii, 18; Philem. ν, πνευμα αγαλλιάζει, v, 25, пvēvμa ayahλiaše, (Luke i, 47.) In the same forms of expression also, when the discourse is not about Christ or Paul or other spiritual persons, heart is used. It is written ra ράσσεσθαι εν τῇ καρδίᾳ, to be disturbed in heart; λύπη πεπλήρωται ἡ καρδία, the heart is filled with grief; χαρήσεται ἡ καρδία, heart shall be rejoiced, (John xiv, 1, 27; xvi, 22,) ríoɛvai ev tõ kapdía, (Luke i, 66; ii, 19, 51; xxi, 14,) ɛvppaven ʼn kapdía, (Acts ii, 16,) Εὐοδοῦται ἡ ψυχή, (3 John vii,) διαπρίεσθαι τῇ καρδίᾳ, (Acts vii, 54.)

From these explanations it will be clear that the sacred writers made an important difference between spirit, vεvua, and soul, vx. Spirit signifies the higher power, actuating and controlling in man, so that at the same time his celestial origin is indicated; while soul signifies the inferior force which is actuated, moved, and held under control; for soul is considered as placed intermediate between the terrestrial and celestial powers.* The interior reason

This is specially clear from the celebrated passage, Rom. vii, 22, 23. The apostle writes: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου, warring against the law of my mind, tử vòμự tôv voóç μov, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." In this passage the soul, pvxn, that is, the I, is placed between the law of the νοῦς or πνεῦμα, and the law ἐν τοις μέλεσι, that is the oaps, flesh, and is, moved either by one or the other. Therefore the aveÙμа and yux are never so conjoined that one may seem to belong to the other; never is said or can be said ψυχή τοῦ πνεύματος, nor πνευμα τῆς ψυχῆς οι καρδίας. But we allow such forms as πνεῦμα τὸν νοός, (Eph. iv, 23,) and νοῦς σαρκός, (Col. ii, 18,) concerning which forms more will yet be said.

and influence which actuate the individual man is called the spirit; as the spirit of bondage, of adoption, (Rom. viii, 15,) of fear, and of love; (2 Tim. i, 7; Rom. xv, 30; 1 Cor. iv, 21; Eph. i, 17; Gal. vi, 1.) So far forth as a man is controlled by the precepts of the Divine Spirit, he is called пvēvμatikós, spiritual, 1 Cor. ii, 14, 15; iii, 1; Gal. vi, 1; so far forth as he is not so governed he is called ψυχικός, animal, or σαρκικός, fleshly. Jude 9, (ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα un exovτes,) animal, not having the spirit. In James iii, 15, the terms (ěníуeos, vvxiký, daioviúdns,) earthly, animal, devilish are conjoined. vxn, that which is actuated or moved, is often interchanged with kapdía, in a broader sense; for heart the Scriptures teach to be the seat of the soul.* This is deducible from numerous texts of Scripture, for instance 1 Thessalonians iii, 13; James v, 8; 2 Peter ii, 14. In First Thessalonians the phrase in presence, not in heart, is used for in body, not in soul. This appears from Colossians ii, 5, where the same idea is expressed by the terms flesh and spirit. A double dualism thence recurs between body and soul, flesh and spirit. Hence the formulas of speech to joy, to grieve, to be disturbed, to be rejoiced in heart, (John xiv, 1; xxvii, 16; Acts ii, 26,) are to be interpreted the soul in the heart rejoices, grieves, etc. Nevertheless for the most part a distinction is so made between soul and heart in its broader sense that soul signifies the inferior life of man so far forth as it grows and exists; heart so far as it feels and is actuated or moved by spirit or flesh. For this reason we have the phrases to save the soul, salvation of souls, (James i, 21; v, 20; 1 Peter i, 9; Heb. x, 39;) never is found to save the heart or the spirit. The verbs darkened, made gross, hardened, are predicated of heart, (Rom. i, 21; Acts xxviii, 27; Eph. iv, 18; Mark iii, 5; vi, 52; viii, 17; John xii, 40,) slow, hard in heart, (Luke xxiv, 25; Mark xvi, 14; Heb. iii, 8, 15) never soul is darkened, etc.; nevertheless divxos, two-souled, is used, (James i, 8,) where heart is

In the same way Philo (De Spec. Leg., vol. ii, p. 350, edit. Mangey) says; Λόγῳ μὲν ὡς ἡγεμόνι τὴν ἄκρον ἀπένειμαν οἰκειστατον ἐνδιαίτημα κεφαλήν, ἔνθα καὶ τῶν ἀισθήσεων αἱ του νοῦ καθάπερ βασίλεως δορυφόροι τάξεις παρίδρυνταί· θύμῳ τὰ στέρνα, ἐπιθυμίᾳ δὲ τὸν περὶ τὸν ὄμφαλον καὶ τὸ καλόμεον διάφραγμα χῶρον. To the reason, as the chief, we attribute as the most appropriate residence the head, around which the perceptions stand like ranks of spearmen; to the passions are assigned the breast; to the appetites the region around the navel and diaphragm. Again: (De legg. alleg. i, opp. vol. i, p. 57) rov μèv λoλìkov ovμßéßŋkɛ εἶναι χώριον καὶ ἐνδιατημα κεφαλήν; τοῦ δὲ θυμικόν τὰ στέρνα; τοῦ επιθυμετικόν, τὸ ἶτρον. So also Pythagoras taught τὸ μὲν ζωτικὸν περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, τό δὲ λογι Kòv kaì vоeρоv Teρì tìv kepaλǹv eival. (Plut. Decr, Phys., II, c. 5; Cicero, Tusc. IV. 5.)

said to be moved by good as well as evil; that is, the man is divided into a soul fleshly and soul spiritual, yuxη σaρkikην and πνενμаτιкην. By this partition we explain the words of our Lord, He that findeth his life (soul, fleshly or animal) shall lose it, (spiritual,) and he that loseth his life (soul, fleshly or animal) shall find it, (spiritual.) Matt. x, 39; xvi, 2; Mark viii, 35. Christ also says: "I came to give my life (soul, spiritual) a ransom for many." A man never ceases to be yuxý* even if he ceases to be ψυχικός.

Each part of the man, both the soul and the spirit, is active in a different way, according to which it is designated by different terms. Spirit cogitates and understands, and then is called vovç, reason. Soul perceives, and therefore is called σúvɛois, understanding.

Νοῦς, the reason, and its cognate words νοειν, κατανοειν, νουνε xns, in the philosophers are interchanged with λóyos,† the reason, or the word, but is scarcely ever in the New Testament. Sometimes it is interchanged with dtávoía and Evvoìa, 1 Peter i, 13; iv, 1; Matt. xxii, 37; Mark xii, 30, (in which passages it is rendered mind.) But Tívola, (Acts viii, 22,) úπóvoa, (1 Timothy vi, 4,) díaλoyiouós, (Luke iï; 35; xxiv, 38,) signify the same things as Sìavónua, namely, thoughts, ideas, or single actions of the vous

* Origen derives yvyn from yvğıç, a refreshing, because it lives by the divine breath, απο τοῦ ζῆν ἐν πνεύματι. He intimates by this that the soul merges by degrees; vxn katopŮwbčiσa yívetaι vous, the soul rightly regulated becomes spirit. Origen evidently is led into this error by his idealism; for as the body never dissolves into soul, so soul never dissolves into spirit. Each part of man retains its own nature, although gradually illustrated by the Divine splendor.

†The Platonists principally use the word λóyos and λoyɩkóv as we have just above intimated. In the New Testament ò λóyoç, Acts xviii, 14, is so used; more often occurs 2oyɩkóç, (Rom. xii, 1; 1 Pet. ii, 2,) with the same meaning as νοητὸς and ἄλογος, 2 Pet. ii, 12. Jude άλογα ζώα, same as φυσικά, with which is to be compared Jude 19, where the same heretics are called yvxikoí, πvedμa È EXOVτεs. Then there occurs λoyɩμòs, (Rom. ii, 15; 2 Cor. x, 5,) meaning the same as vοημα, that is, single actions of the λόγος or νοῦς, and in composition διαλογισμός διαλογίζεσθαι, συλλογίζεσθαι. In their use of these words we clearly trace the same sense which the Greek philosophers attribute to 2óyos. Everywhere, also, the sacred writers trace things back to their primary source; so that discourse is attributed to the 2óyos, (as we have lately discussed,) and also they distinguish between vous and the interior source of the vous, namely, the лvevμa which Plato had neglected.

Atávota, however, more frequently occurs in the same sense which we have claimed for vous, excepting in Luke i, 51, Eph. ii, 3, where it has the same force as διανόημα. Compare Heb. viii, 10, x, 16, διδοὺσ νόμους εἰς τήν διανοLav, with Rom. vii, 23. Not without difficulty is the passage, Eph. iv, 17, 18, τὰ λοιπὰ ἔθνη περιπατεί εν ματαιότητὶ τοῦ νοός αὐτῶν ἐσκοτισμένοι τῆ διανοίᾳ. Instead of ματαιότης του νοός, one would rather have expected ματαιότης