صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

Or λόγος. The difference, also, between νους and πνέυμα is evinced by those passages where both terms are conjoined, as avaveowodal τω πνεύματι * του νοός (Εph. iv, 23), and from the celebrated passage, Rom. vii, 23–25. For there we find vóuos Toù voós, the law of the mind, and vópos év jéheoi, that is, capkós, opposed to each other; always, also, are aveŪua and oápš found in antithesis, and never is νόμος της καρδίας Or ψυχής said. For the καρδία 18 controlled by one or the other of those laws. On account of this in Rom. viii, 2 Tveūpa is placed where before voūs was read, and law of the riveõua is opposed to the law of auaptía, sin. For the TTVEVua èv voĉ voệt, cogitates in the mind, just as sin renders itself efficacious εν τη σαρκί, in the flesh. When νοείν and συνιέναι are conjoined they are by no means mere synonyms; the former is referred to the πνεύμα, the latter to the ψυχή.

Súveous, sagacity, discernment, with its cognates ovviéval, ovveTós, is not only distinguished from voūs and voɛīv, (Mark viii, 17) but is everywhere expressly referred to the kapdía. (Matt. xiii, 13, 14, 15; Mark ix, 52; Acts xxviii, 27, kapdía aoúvetos. Rom.

της καρδίας, or εσκοτισμενοι τη καρδία. The passage is to be so understood that dúvola may be taken for Slavolais; then the sense of the words is this: the Gentiles live in the vanity of their minds, by which their thoughts (gedanken) are darkened. The words diávola, dlahoycouòs, and their synonyms above quoted, taken by themselves, denote actions of the volls; but whenever the voûç is excited by the καρδία they are attributed to the καδία. .

ο Πνέυμα του νοός cannot well be said, nor νους του πνεύματος, since always the νους is of the πνεύμα alone. We find once in the New Testament νούς της σαρκός, (Colossians ii, 18;) but this mode of expression is a oxymoron, indicating an unnatural condition of mind, in which the highest faculties serve the concupiscence; the νούς 18 rendered σαρκικός and το φως το εν σοί σκότος εστί. Μatt. vi, 23.

† Once, indeed, voeiv kapdía occurs. John xii, 40. But these words are cited from Isaiah vi, 9, 10, where the Septuagint reads ovviéval kapdía, (==},) and where the same passage is elsewhere quoted in the New Testament, Matt. xiii, 15; Mark iv, 12; Luke viii, 10; Acts xxviii, 26, 27, ovviéval is always used. I am therefore inclined to believe that John xii, 14 needs emendation. ... I would give additional caution that no one should be stumbled by 1 Cor. xiv, where ψάλλειν, λαλείν πνεύματι and νοι·, to sing, to speak with the spirit and the understanding, as it were opposed to each other as being contraries. It is plain' from 1 Cor. xiv, 9, that év hveŪuatl haleiv signifies the samo as èv yavoon haheiv, to speak with a tongue; that is, pépeoval, that is, to be borne along by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the manner of the ancient prophets, (2 Peter i, 21,) rather than ayeoval, to be dragged hy the force of a possessing spirit. (Rom. viii, 11, 14; Gal. V, 18.) On the other hand vot haheiv, same as moonteúeLv, to prophesy, that is, to discourse concerning divine things, under influence of the Divine Spirit, but not without individual consciousness.

1, 21. Wherefore συνεσίς and συνετός by themselves pertain to things inferior and terrestrial, and are held as little worth in divine things : την συνεσίν των συνετών αθετησω. 1 Cor. 1, 19. For the most part ovvetog is used of those who seem to act prudently or sagaciously. (Matt. xi, 25; Luke x, 21.) The man also who obeys the laws of the vows and arveŪua by degrees receives OÚVEOIV TTVEVPatiñv, a spiritual understanding, sagacity, or discernment, and so the word is to be understood when it refers to heavenly things. Eph. iï, 4; 2 Tim. ii, 7.

The sacred writers attribute to the aveõua and yuxí, not only the power of understanding and perceiving, but free will, which, being exempt from bonds, gradually enlarges to the true freedom, which is able to choose and to accomplish the right and excellent. The will of the Tveõua is called opevés ;* the choice of the quxr) is attributed to the kapdia, which two volitional tendencies we commonly term desire and appetite.

øpéveç occurs once only in the New Testament, 1 Cor. xiv, 20, from which passage the true meaning of the word is not very clear. In Rom. vii, 28, and viïi, 6, we find in antithesis the combinations φρόνημα σαρκος and πνεύματος, just as we have already found the combination of νους σαρκός. Then φρόνησις, (Εph. i, 8; Luke i, 17,) opóviuos, (Matt. vii, 24; x, 16; xxiv, 55; xxv, 2,) are almost always used for a laudable prudence of the aveŪua. EVVETÒS, we have already seen, is not so used; ppoveuws (Luke xvi, 8) has about the same signification as vovvexūs. (Mark xii, 34.) From this signification of the word opoveiv, to be minded, (Philippians ïi, 5) we can best understand the difference between Tafelvós and ταπεινόφρων, φιλών and φιλόφρων, and other similar words. He is called Taneivos, humble, who is so simply; mateivappwv, humble-minded, who is humble by conscious purpose. According to this division of the faculties we may easily understand that copia is in the φρών, that γνώσις is in the νούς, and πίστις is in the καρδια.

\uxń, also, so far as it has volition, desire, appetency, is in the

Pythagoras (if we may credit Diogenes Laertius viii, 20) held that ophy was the highest faculty in rman : την δε ανθρώπου ψυχήν διαιρείσθαι τριχή είς τε νούν και φρενάς και θύμον. Νούν μεν ούν είναι και θύμον και εν τοις άλλοις ζώοις; φρεvàs póvov év ús púaw. This, in a manner, agrees with a familiar use in the New Testament writers, for they use opovnua to mean the intending, the directing the will toward a known aim. But I am scarce able to persuade myself that Pythagoras attributed vous to animals. Stobæus (Eccl. Phys., p. 878) imputes to the Pythagoreans another partition into λογισμόν θύμον και επιθύμιαν; but these seem rather to have been the views of the Platonists, with which he seems to have confounded the Pythagorean doctrine.

New Testament called kapdia in a stricter sense. It is most difficult of all accurately to define what difference exists in the New Testament between Uuxń and Kapdía.* Often, as we have seen above, they are interchanged; kapdía is put for yvxò, since the (physical) heart is held as the seat and, as it were, the receptacle of the soul, just as the head of the intellect; neither, nevertheless, is either word used promiscuously; but yuxń is spoken of in so far as it exists, but kapdía so far as it is excited, or the subject of emotion.

In other passages a difference is broadly made between yuxń and kapdía, as Acts iv. The multitude of believers was one kapdia and yuxń.t And especially these parallel passages :

Μatt. xxii, 37: καρδία, ψυχή, διάνοια.
Mark xii, 30 : καρδία, διάνοια, ίσχυς.
Luke x, 27 : καρδία, ψυχή, ίσχυς, διάνοια.
Mark xii, 33: καρδία, σύνεσις, ψυχή, ίσχυς.
Deut. Vi, 5, (Septuagint :) διάνοια, ψυχή, δύναμις.

. . So far as we can see, to kapdia, in these passages, is attributed desire ; so that the series of terms may be rendered (German, begehrkraft,f lebenskraft, denkkraft, willenskraft) affection-power, lifepower, thought-faculty, volition-power. Nevertheless, the usages of the New Testament writers is not everywhere uniform. In Eph. vi, 6, Col. iii, 23, yvxń is found, where the context, according to our rule, requires kapdia, (as Luther also renders it, herz,) which is the word used in Rom. vi, 17, and 1 Tim. i, 15, in a similar round of expression. In Mark ouveolç is to be taken for diávola, that is, for the σύνεσις πνευματική. .

Finally, concerning the notion of owua, body, we subjoin a few remarks. Σώμα, derived from σαός, σοός, σως, is used to designate the body as the instrument of the soul, (owua ópyavikov, as it is

.מְאד נָפֶט לבָב .Heb

Ovuoc was used among the Greek philosophers, as passages already quoted plentifully demonstrate. In the New Testament Súpos (Apocalypse xiv, 10; i, 7 ; xix, 15) always signifies anger, wrath. The words evð oužLoyal, Vúpnous are found (Matt. ix, 4; xii, 25; Heb. iv, 12) pertaining to the Kapdía, a sense familiar to the same word with the philosophers. Here also belongs the word quod vpadóv, (Acts i, 14; iv, 1, 46; iv, 24,) which in Acts iv, 32 is expressed by the phrase το πλήθος ήν ή καρδία και η ψυχή μία.

† 1 Cor. i, 10: 'Ev tý avtū voi kał èv on aúrn yvóun. These words pertain rather to unity in views; the passage Acts iv, 32, to unity in love.

I So Gregory Nyssen, (De Anim. et Resurr. Opp., vol. i, p. 189,) yuxý éOTIV ουσία ζώσα σώματι οργανικά και αισθητική δύναμιν ζωτικών και των αισθητών αντιληπτικήν δί εαυτής ένιόυσα. And Athanasius, (Οpp., vol. 1i, p. 49,) η ψυχή εκ της οικείας ενεργείας έχει την της ψυχής προσηγορίαν. Ψύχειν γάρ το ζωοποιείν λέγεται, διά τούτο έκ τής ζωοποιού ψυχή λέγεται διά το σώμα ζωοποιειν.

called by Gregory Nyssen,) and like the parallel Hebrew 99, mbu, it is used for the most part concerning the living body, but sometimes also for the dead. Usually the word for the dead body is atāma. Lápf, flesh, is the material of the body while living; kpeas, meat, when dead. But our present business is not with body as the organ of soul; neither with flesh as its material; but with flesh as an affectional power in the kapdià.* For gáoš is the seat of the επιθυμιαι, (commonly translated lusts,)t and παθημάτα, passions; and on account of this is often put for concupiscence, as in Rom. vii, 18, there dwelleth in me, that is, év Toapkl uov, no good thing ; which in verse 23 is expressed by év tois péheol jov. This passage is important for elucidating the difference which exists between oápš and owua, so far as each term designates the seat and origin of Emlovuíai, lusts or propensities. For oáps, which nearly always is used concerning men liable to sin, signifies, upon the whole, the infirm part of human nature, of terrene origin, the seat of concupiscence, so that it is almost interchangeable with duaptią. The fact, however, is otherwise when the cáoš of Christ is adumbrated, inasmuch as the Son of God shared his own nature with his his own flesh. As owția signifies a complex or system of individual members, so it comprehends, also, the operations, individual and collective, of the oápš and åpaptía. On this account we have the combinations, owua tñs oapkos, body of the flesh, (Col. ii, 11,) and owua Tov Havátov, body of death, Rom. vii, 24, which is the same as tà péan, the members, v. 23. Compare Rom. viii, 11, 13. As being the seat of concupiscence, owua, the body, is called Ovntóv,

91 Cor. vi, 16: “Ο κολλώμενος τη πόρνη έν σώμα εστιν, έσονται γάρ φησίν οι δύο είς σάρκα μίαν. Ο δε κολλώμενος τώ κυριω έν πνεύμα εστι. This passage does not prove the signification of owua and oupę to be the same; oãua and Tveüpa are here simply set in opposition, as in Cor. v, 3, and for this reason we have the phrase εν σώμα. But, in 1 Cor. ix, 27, σώμα seems to be put for σάρξ. The image which the apostle wished to carry out, (of an athlete,) induced the use of owpa instead of σάρξ. .

† For these reasons philosophers, not descending to ultimate causes, call a third part of human nature επιθυμία or επιθυμετικόν, (a fact intelligible from passages already quoted,) putting particular actions or operations for their cause. To concupiscence they allot a certain locality in the human frame. Philo, (De Spec. Legg., vol. ii, p. 350,) encovnía tòv Tepà Tòv õusahov kai kahoúpevov dúopayua xwpověxel And also, (De Leg. Alleg., vol. I, p. 57,) toù επιθυμετικού συμβέβηκε το χώριον είναι το ίτρον. [These passages we shall leave in their garb of “well-sounding Greek.Trans.] In the New Testament there once occurs, Rev. ii, 23, véopoi, reins, as the seat of lusts. So the Hebrew nina in the Old Testament often. Erháyxva, bowels, is always used in a good sense, namely, concerning love, and indeed concerning maternal love. Enháyva, that is, bran?, seems to be derived ab utero.

mortal, Rom. vi, 12, and the yuxń is held bound by the fetters of the sin of the body, and is δούλός έστι του νόμου της αμαρτίας, (Rom. vii, 25.) When this is the case the owua is merely YUXLKÓV. By the power of Christ the soul is emancipated from these bonds, the body itself is rendered avevmatikov, (1 Cor. xv, 44;) and when our body is μετασχηματισθείς, transfigured, even the επιθυμίαι, lusts of our immaterial nature, depart. On this account, in a few passages, the word entlovuíai, used of the avevpatikõl, or spiritual, is used in a good sense. Jesus himself says, Eriovuía Emiðvunoa; literally, with lust have I lusted to eat this passover. Luke xxii, 15. See also Phil. i, 27; 1 Thes. ii, 17, where it is used concerning Paul



The extent and character of the American missionary field have been briefly sketched in two preceding articles in this Review. A glance at the uncultivated wastes as therein presented, containing millions of Indians, millions of men of foreign birth and tongue, millions who speak our own language, and millions more crowding over our borders from the North, and the South, and the East, all dependent upon the American Churches for spiritual instruction and salvation, instrumentally, is surely sufficient to cause us to feel the unequaled importance of our home work. What a home God has bestowed upon us ! From sea to sea, and from the North to the South Pole. Such a home as no other people have had or can have. The Almighty has made but one, and there is not room for another such on the broad bosom of mother earth.

The political and religious importance of our American home is unreckoned. We would not have this considered an empty boast characteristic of national vanity. Older members of the family of nations should not be offended by it. We are now what they were once, a young and vigorous people. They grew to opulence, to influence and greatness, and wielded the destinies of the world. The path of progress is now opened before us, and we must advance in it; we must increase; comparatively they must decrease. As the world's destiny has been in their hands, so it must pass into ours. And as each successive nation has risen higher in moral power and

« السابقةمتابعة »