or λόγος. The difference, also, between νοῦς and πνευμα is evinced by those passages where both terms are conjoined, as avaveovodai τῷ πνεύματι * τοῦ νοός (Eph. iv, 23), and from the celebrated passage, Rom. vii, 23-25. For there we find vóμoç Tov voós, the law of the mind, and νόμος ἐν μέλεσι, that is, σαρκός, opposed to each other; always, also, are пvεõua and σápš found in antithesis, and never is νόμος τῆς καρδίας or ψυχῆς said. For the καρδία is controlled by one or the other of those laws. On account of this in Rom. viii, 2 TVεvμa is placed where before vous was read, and law of the πνεῦμα is opposed to the law of ἁμαρτία, sin. For the πveνμа ev тậ voi voel, cogitates in the mind, just as sin renders itself efficacious ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ, in the flesh. When νοεῖν and συνιέναι are conjoined they are by no means mere synonyms; the former is referred to the πνεῦμα, the latter to the ψυχή.† Lúvɛoiç, sagacity, discernment, with its cognates ovviévai, ovveτός, is not only distinguished from νοῦς and νοεῖν, (Mark viii, 17,) but is everywhere expressly referred to the kapdía. (Matt. xiii, 13, 14, 15; Mark ix, 52; Acts xxviii, 27, κapdía aovveros. Rom. τῆς καρδίας, οἱ ἐσκοτισμενοι τῇ καρδίᾳ. The passage is to be so understood that diúvoia may be taken for diavolais; 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 diávoia, diahoɣioμòs, and their synonyms above quoted, taken by themselves, denote actions of the vous; but whenever the vous is excited by the καρδία they are attributed to the καδία. • Πνέυμα του νοός cannot well be said, nor νοῦς τοῦ πνεύματος, since always the νους is of the πνεῦμα alone. We find once in the New Testament νοῦς της σαρκὸς, (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 νοῦς is rendered σαρκικός and το φῶς τὸ ἐν σοί σκότος ἐστί. Matt. vi, 23. †Once, indeed, voɛiv kapdía occurs. John xii, 40. But these words are cited from Isaiah vi, 9, 10, where the Septuagint reads ovviévai kapdía, (3,) 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, λαλεῖν πνεύματι and voi, 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 έv пvɛõμarı λaλɛīv signifies the same as iv yλúooŋ hahɛīv, to speak with a tongue; that is, pégɛoval, 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 ayɛovai, to be dragged by the force of a possessing spirit. (Rom. viii, 11, 14; Gal. v, 18.) On the other hand voi haλɛiv, same as πроптεvε, to prophesy, that is, to discourse concerning divine things, under influence of the Divine Spirit, but not without individual consciousness. i, 21. Wherefore ovveois and ovverós by themselves pertain to things inferior and terrestrial, and are held as little worth in divine things: την συνεσὶν τῶν συνετῶν αθετησω. 1 Cor. i, 19. For the most part ovveros 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 vouç and vevμa by degrees receives σÚVεGIV TVEVμATIK, a spiritual understanding, sagacity, or discernment, and so the word is to be understood when it refers to heavenly things. Eph. iii, 4; 2 Tim. ii, 7. The sacred writers attribute to the TVεvua and yuxý, 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 vεμa is called opɛvés ;* the choice of the yvyn is attributed to the kapdía, which two volitional tendencies we commonly term desire and appetite. Ppéves occurs once only in the New Testament, 1 Cor. Φρένες xiv, 20, from which passage the true meaning of the word is not very clear. In Rom. vii, 28, and viii, 6, we find in antithesis the combinations φρόνημα σαρκος and πνεύματος, just as we have already found the combination of νους σαρκός. Then φρόνησις, (Eph. i, 8; Luke i, 17,) opóvos, (Matt. vii, 24; x, 16; xxiv, 55; xxv, 2,) are almost always used for a laudable prudence of the vεvμа. EVVETUS, we have already seen, is not so used; opoviμwę (Luke xvi, 8) has about the same signification as vovvex@ç. (Mark xii, 34.) From this signification of the word opovɛív, to be minded, (Philippians ii, 5,) we can best understand the difference between таTɛVÓS and ταπεινόφρων, φιλῶν and φιλόφρων, and other similar words. He is called TаTɛivoç, humble, who is so simply; Taтeivapwv, humble-minded, who is humble by conscious purpose. According to this division of the faculties we may easily understand that copia is in the φρήν, that γνῶσις is in the νοῦς, and πίστις is in the καρδια. Yuxý, also, so far as it has volition, desire, appetency, is in the O Pythagoras (if we may credit Diogenes Laertius viii, 20) held that opźv was the highest faculty in man: τὴν δὲ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴν διαιρεῖσθαι τριχῇ εἰς τε νοῦν καὶ φρενὰς καὶ θύμον. Νοῦν μὲν οὖν εἶναι καὶ θύμον καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζώοις; φρε vàc đè μóvov év áðрúñш. This, in a manner, agrees with a familiar use in the New Testament writers, for they use opóvnua 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 λογισμὸν θύμον καὶ 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 kapdía in a stricter sense. It is most difficult of all accurately to define what difference exists in the New Testament between vx and Kapdía.* Often, as we have seen above, they are interchanged; Kaodía is put for vxn, 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 yvxý 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 yuxý and Kapdía, as Acts iv. The multitude of believers was one κapdía and vx. And especially these parallel passages: Matt. xxii, 37 : καρδία, ψυχή, διάνοια. Mark xii, 30 : καρδία, διανοία, ἴσχυς. Luke x, 27 : καρδία, ψυχή, ἴσχυς, διάνοια. 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, 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, yvxý 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 oúveots is to be taken for diávoia, that is, for the σύνεσις πνευματική. Finally, concerning the notion of owμa, body, we subjoin a few remarks. Σῶμα, derived from σαός, σοός, σῶς, is used to designate the body as the instrument of the soul, (σῶμα ὀργανικόν, as it is *Oúμos was used among the Greek philosophers, as passages already quoted plentifully demonstrate. In the New Testament vúuos (Apocalypse xiv, 10; i, 7; xix, 15) always signifies anger, wrath. The words evvoμetodai, evúμnois are found (Matt. ix, 4; xii, 25; Heb. iv, 12) pertaining to the κapdía, a sense familiar to the same word with the philosophers. Here also belongs the word opovvμadóv, (Acts i, 14; iv, 1, 46; iv, 24,) which in Acts iv, 32 is expressed by the phrase τὸ πλῆθος ἦν ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μία. † 1 Cor. i, 10 : Έν τῷ αὐτῷ νοι καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμη. These words pertain rather to unity in views; the passage Acts iv, 32, to unity in love. So Gregory Nyssen, (De Anim. et Resurr. Opp., vol. i, p. 189,) vxý kotiv οὐσία ζῶσα σώματι ὀργανικῶ καὶ αἰσθητικῷ δύναμιν ζωτικὴν καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν αντιληπτικὴν δι ἑαυτῆς ἐνιδυσα. And Athanasius, (Opp., vol. ii, p. 49,) ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας ἔχει τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς προσηγορίαν. Ψύχειν γὰρ τὸ ζωοποιεῖν λέγεται, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ζωοποιοῦ ψυχὴ λέγεται διὰ τὸ σῶμα ζωοποιειν. called by Gregory Nyssen,) and like the parallel Hebrew . p, 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 птμа. Záρš, flesh, is the material of the body while living; кOƐaç, 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 καρδιὰ * For σάρξ is the seat of the ἐπιθυμίαι, (commonly translated lusts, and παθημάτα, passions; and on account of this is often put for concupiscence, as in Rom. vii, 18, there dwelleth in me, that is, ¿v τŋ σapki μov, no good thing; which in verse 23 is expressed by ev toïç μéàεoi μov. This passage is important for elucidating the difference which exists between σáps and oua, so far as each term designates the seat and origin of επιθυμίαι, lusts or propensities. For σάρξ, 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 άuaprìa. The fact, however, is otherwise when the oáps of Christ is adumbrated, inasmuch as the Son of God shared his own nature with his his own flesh. As owua signifies a complex or system of individual members, so it comprehends, also, the operations, individual and collective, of the oáps and duaoría. On this account we have σάρξ ἁμαρτία. the combinations, owμа тnç oаpkòç, body of the flesh, (Col. ii, 11,) and owμa Tov davárov, body of death, Rom. vii, 24, which is the same as τà μéλŋ, the members, v. 23. Compare Rom. viii, 11, 13. As being the seat of concupiscence, owμa, the body, is called ovητóv, * 1 Cor. vi, 16 : Ὁ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἔν σῶμα ἐστιν, ἔσονται γάρ φησίν οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. Ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ἔν πνεῦμα ἐστι. This passage does not prove the signification of σῶμα and σάρξ to be the same; σῶμα and πνεύμα are here simply set in opposition, as in Cor. v, 3, and for this reason we have the phrase ἐν σῶμα. But, in 1 Cor. ix, 27, σῶμα seems to be put for σάρξ. The image which the apostle wished to carry out, (of an athlete,) induced the use of oμa instead of σάρξ. For these reasons philosophers, not descending to ultimate causes, call a third part of human nature επιθυμία οι 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. 360,) eraSupía đề tài đẹp tòi buộc Aov tài tò καλούμενον διάφραγμα χῶρον ἔχει. And also, (De Leg. Alleg., vol. i, p. 57,) τοῦ δὲ ἐπιθυμετικοῦ συμβέβηκε το χώριον εἶναι τὸ ἴτρον. [These passages we shall leave in their garb of "well-sounding Greek." Trans.] In the New Testament there once occurs, Rev. ii, 23, véopot, reins, as the seat of lusts. So the Hebrew ba in the Old Testament often. Erhúɣxva, bowels, is always used in a good sense, namely, concerning love, and indeed concerning maternal love. Enháyva, that is, , seems to be derived ab utero. mortal, Rom. vi, 12, and the vxn is held bound by the fetters of the sin of the body, and is δοῦλός ἐστι τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας, (Rom. vii, 25.) When this is the case the σῶμα is merely ψυχικόν. By the power of Christ the soul is emancipated from these bonds, the body itself is rendered Tvεvμaтikóv, (1 Cor. xv, 44;) and when our body is μετασχηματισθεῖς, transfigured, even the επιθυμίαι, lusts of our immaterial nature, depart. On this account, in a few passages, the word εivνμíaι, used of the TVεvμatikot, or spiritual, is used in a good sense. Jesus himself says, επιθυμίᾳ επιθύμησα; 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 ART. VIII-MISSIONS IN AMERICA. [THIRD ARTICLE.] 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 |