That man possesses a soul and a body is clearly taught. That is the simplest and most general form in which the teaching appears. That death may be defined as the separation of these; that their localities during death remain distinct; and that in resurrection they are united, these are all general statements, true indeed, but concealing within them a number of minor undetermined problems. With regard to the body, except in the matter of its resurrection, there is not much complication. But on the side of the soul there is such a variety of terminology employed, and such apparently irreconcilable predications are made concerning it, that certain results seem hardly to be expected from any investigation. The first and most prominent fact is that Scripture constantly uses two words for this side of human nature, soul and spirit, which it does not employ indiscriminately by any means. It seems to regard the latter as the primary, the union of which with body gives rise to soul. But whether this soul that so arises be itself something distinct from the spirit which, uniting with the body, gave rise to it, or whether it be not that spirit itself conceived in this state of union and in all the relations incidental to it, so that the naked essence unrelated would be called spirit, and the same essence in vital union with the body would be named soul, is a question to which answers very diverse have been returned. Moreover, as to this spirit itself, its relation to God's nature is very obscurely set forth in Scripture; for it seems sometimes called His. He gives it, and men live; He takes it away, and men die. It returns to God who gave it. He is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16). And sometimes it is called man's. Thus we are at a loss to say whether this spirit which God gives man, and which, coming from God, may be called God's (as the apostle also exhorts us to glorify Him in our bodies, which are God's, Gal. vi. 20), and which, given to man and belonging to him, may be called man's,-be really a permanent part of man at all, or merely God Himself abiding in every creature, sustaining life, and when He withdraws, causing that from

SOUL AND SPIRIT

which He withdraws to fall into death.

419

There are thus two

very obscure sides to the question concerning man's nature: one is the relation of man's spirit to man's soul; and the other is the relation of man's spirit to God's Spirit. Are soul and spirit in man essentially or substantially, or only relationally distinct? Are man's spirit and God's Spirit numerically distinct, or is the same spirit called man's because possessed by man, and God's because given by God? And being given by God, is it man's inalienabile possession, or only a temporary gift? These are questions on which one cannot profess to be able to declare any very definite results. But they deserve consideration, partly because they are of great interest in themselves, and partly on account of their bearing on the larger question of immortality. For this latter strikes its roots very deep down into the Old Testament views of the primary and essential relations of man with God.

With regard to the essential or substantial distinction of soul and spirit in man, there are certain statements in the New Testament, to which we may return here,' as they might seem and have indeed been considered by many, undeniably to establish it. There is the passage in 1 Thess. v. 23: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, to use the words of Ellicott, the prayer "is threefold: first, that they may be sanctified by God, the God of peace; for sanctification is the condition of outward and inward peace, wholly óλoTeeîs in their collective powers and constituents; next, that each constituent may be preserved to our Lord's coming; and, lastly, that each so preserved may be entire and complete in itself, not mutilated or desintegrated by sin; that the body may retain its yet uneffaced image of God, and its unimpaired aptitude to be a living sacrifice to its maker; the appetitive soul its purer hopes and nobler aspirations; the spirit, its ever blessed associate, the Holy and Eternal Spirit of God" (Destiny of the Creature, p. 107). 1 See pp. 184-187.-ED.

This New Testament passage certainly names three constituent elements of human nature, names them all coordinately, and speaks of each as needing sanctification, and capable of preservation. Are we to consider the distinction between soul and spirit as real, or only, so to speak, functional; as a distinction of organs or substances, or only of the different relations or conditions of a single element ?

In Heb. iv. 12, too, there occurs, as we have seen, a similar passage: "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, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." The word of God has four qualities assigned to it: (1) it is living, (ŵv; (2) it is active, évepyýs; (3) sharp; (4) reaching even to the dividing, ¿.e. even as far as to divide, axp μepioμoû, of soul and spirit. The word μepio pós is rather the noun of action, dividing, than the place, division; the words do not mean entering in so deep as to reach the place of division of soul and spirit, the limit of boundary between them, where the two meet, where the line of division runs between them; but entering so deep as to divide the soul and spirit, as to effect a division of them. Yet it is left ambiguous whether the sharp Word of God, which enters so deeply that it divides, effects this division between the soul and spirit, and between the joints and marrow, or within the soul and spirit; that is to say, whether it separates between the two, or cuts asunder each into its parts, lays it open, or, as we should say, dissects both soul and spirit, both joints and marrow.

So far as our question goes, a decision on this point is not important. The passage recognises two things: one called soul, which is not merely the animal life, and another called spirit. These are so substantial and independent, that either they may be separated by a distinction and a line of division drawn between them,--a sharp distinction, it is true, but one which the Word of God, sharper than

MAN'S SPIRIT AND GOD'S SPIRIT

421

any two-edged sword, is qualified to effect,—or each of them may be severally divided and cut open into its own elements. As was said, the view which considers the division not to be made between the two elements, soul and spirit, but within each of them, seems the true one; for one does not divide joints from marrow, but rather divides joints themselves, and goes so deep as to cut open even the marrow. But in any case the question is: Does Scripture, while speaking of two such distinct and even antagonistic things, mean really two things, or only two aspects and relations, two sides of the one individual thing, which, considered in itself, in its nature, is called spirit, and as such is pure and Divine; and considered as related to the flesh, is called soul, and in this relation may be degraded and covered with the sensuous? I suspect there is no passage which can be adduced at all so clear as those two, and to some these have seemed decisive, but to others quite the reverse.

These passages raise only one of the two questions over which obscurity in this matter hangs. The other question, namely, that of the relation of man's spirit and God's Spirit, is raised as soon as we turn to the Old Testament. In the account given of the creation of man (Gen. ii. 7), something is said both about the origin and about the elements of his nature: "God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul." There are three things or stages in the process. First, God formed man of y, dust, the most immaterial of the material elements of earth. If you contrast man's formation with that of the beasts, you find that it is the result of a specific decree on God's part, and of a particular independent act of formation. The earth and waters at the command of God brought forth the other creatures. But man's formation is the issue of deliberation and distinct workmanship on God's part. Second, his body being formed, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,, i.e. the breath which is the origin and font of life, rather than the breath which is the index of

life. This is the point around which the controversy turns. The word breath is not used, I think, there is one disputed passage, of the life-breath of other creatures besides man. The act was real and symbolic. God breathed. What He breathed was ; this became in mann, breath of life. Third, this done to man, man became a living soul, . The difference of construction of these words is to be observed: soul, ', has always an adjective qualifying it,-man is a living soul, the soul lives, is the bearer of life, within it all life's functions go on, and all life's phenomena are realised; and so Paul says: "the first man, Adam, was made a Yuxǹ çŵoa” (1 Cor. xv. 45). The word breath, ', however, or elsewhere spirit, '7, has no adjective to qualify it, but a noun in construction with it. You do not speak of a living spirit, but of a spirit of life,

-one which confers or bestows life, one from which life issues forth; it is the spirit that giveth life, tò tveûμá čoti τὸ ζωοποιοῦν (John vi. 63). The soul lives; but it has not life in itself, the spirit gives it life.

If we recur for a moment to the second step in the process, without discussing the word became, it is evident that although the act was symbolical, and might seem to be limited in meaning to the mere calling into operation. the inspiring and expiring processes of man's respiration, and the putting within him that which is the sign of life, namely, his breath; yet the expression breath of life can hardly mean merely breath, which is the sign of life here. The action is not to be taken as merely symbolical of putting breath in man. For that which God breathed into man could not be mere atmospheric air, and besides there is the same double use of words in Hebrew that appears in all languages, the word for breath and spirit being the same. And further, in point of fact, this here said to be breathed into man is, as breathed, elsewhere said to be the cause of understanding in him: "the breath (or inspiration) of the Almighty giveth understanding," Dran' (Job xxxii. 8). The narrative is simple, and might seem merely to allude to the putting of breath