sometimes by "heart and flesh," which is entirely tantamount. In a few instances the entire man is denominated from the flesh as equivalent to the body, as he is in other instances from the soul. Thus, Gen. 2. 24, "They shall be one flesh," i. e. one person. Eccl. 2. 3, "I sought to give myself (Heb. my flesh) unto wine." The more subtle distinction, familiar in our philosophy, between substances strictly material and immaterial appears not to be expressly recognized in the sacred writings. The passage which comes nearest to it is perhaps Is. 31. 3, "Their horses are flesh and not spirit." That such a distinction is, in the nature of things, well founded, there can be no doubt, though it may be of too subtle a nature for our discrimination, when matter is contemplated in its most tenuous forms.* But we find no evidence that such metaphysical nicety entered into the conceptions of the inspired penmen of the Scriptures.

At the same time we think the remark not superfluous, that in regard to this, as well as many other subjects treated in the sacred volume, a discrimination is to be made between the true-meant and deep-laid sense of the Holy Spirit and the conscious personal sense of the writers in inditing the language employed. Acting as mere amanuenses of the Divine Dictator of the word, nothing is more easily conceivable, than that the meaning which their mind affixed to a multitude of words may have been vastly transcended by the more fundamental import flowing from the depth of the

"We really know not wherein the elements of matter consist; and although we are acquainted with some of its properties, we do not know its essence; neither are we sure that it may not possess properties, or assume forms, with which we are unacquainted, and which are too subtle to be recognized by our senses. Hence we do not consider the question of the materiality of the soul as being very important, because what we call spiritual, may, in fact, be an infinitely fine modification of matter, far too subtle to be apprehended by our present powers." Newnham on Reciprocal Influence of Body and Mind, p. 97.

infinite intelligence, which must of course be regarded as compassing all the absolute verities involved in the nature of the themes. It does not seem to be at all necessary to a sound view of inspiration that the sacred writers should have truly understood all the truth which they were commissioned to indite, or in other words, that their sense of the terms they employed should be deemed the measure of the sense of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, as the absolute truth of the subject matters of the word becomes in time more fully developed by the light of science or the course of providence, we may find that the terms made use of do actually interpret themselves more in accordance with the essential and philosophical verity of things than we can suppose possible of the same words when limited to the narrower sense of the human scribes by whose hands they were penned.— This principle must certainly be admitted in regard to a large portion of the prophetic Scriptures, and we see no reason to question its applicability to the department we are now considering. As the true constitution of man mentally and corporeally becomes more fully unfolded by the progress of physiology and psychology, we cannot doubt that the language of revelation will yield, in great measure, a meaning which, without violence, shall strikingly conform to the actual results of discovery and deduction in this field of inquiry. The justness, however, of this suggestion will probably disclose itself more fully in the process and the close of the philological researches which we have proposed to ourselves, and upon which we enter in a careful investigation of the import of the word soul in its various Scriptural relations.

CHAPTER II.

Import of Original Scriptural Terms for Soul.

$1.

(nephesh), yvyǹ (psuche), Anima, Soul, Life.

THE current rendering of this term in our English version. is soul. But this does not strictly define the word, as soul is very variously used, and the true idea is to be elicited, if at all, from a critical inquest into the genuine purport of its Hebrew original. Lexicography assumes it as a normal derivative from the radical ? náphash, to breathe, to respire, with which coincide the cognates nashaph, náshav, D nâsham, and shâaph, all of them having the import of breathing or blowing, or in some way conveying the idea of air in motion. The word, however, is not found in Kal, or the simplest verbal form, but only in Niphal, or the passive in the sense of taking breath, or being refreshed, especially after fatigue. The word in this form occurs only in the three following instances.

Ex. 23. 12, "That the stranger may be refreshed (E. Gr. ἀναψυξη).”

31. 17, "And on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed (E. Gr. έлavσaro)."

2 Sam. 16. 14, " And the king, and all the people that were

with him, came weary, and refreshed themselves there

(= WE. Gr. ἀνέψυξαν έκει).”

The relation between the words is indeed as obvious as that in English between breathe and breath, yet there is every probability that the verb is a mere denominative formed from the noun E, instead of the reverse of the process being the fact. This is according to a very prevalent

analogy in Hebrew, of which copious examples are given in the Grammars of Gesenius and Ewald. Thus we find "??? to be born a male, from a male; to remove ashes, from ashes; to show oneself uncircumcised, from

foreskin. The noun, therefore, we think, is to be regarded as primitive, unless, as Gesenius suggests, it may be formed by transposition of letters from to breathe, to blow. However this may be, it is not to be questioned that the radical import of the word is breath, as a visible indication of life, in consequence of which the two senses of the word, breath and life, in actual usage, very frequently run into each other, as will be evident from the citations which follow. So far then as soul stands as a correct repre

sentative of it imports in the main the principle of animal life, the vital spirit, as manifested by the breath, but not necessarily including the idea of intellectual faculties, which though occasionally implied in the use of the term in certain connections, is still entirely adventitious to the primitive sense.

The corresponding Greek term ψυχή comes from ψύχω, of which the primary sense is held by lexicographers to be to breathe, to blow, and thence to render cold, to be cool, as an effect of breathing or blowing upon one; and hence by natural transition to refresh. From the primitive sense comes yuz, soul, and from the secondary wrzos, cold. The dominant import of yuz is undoubtedly life as indicated by the act of breathing, which is the principal visible distinction between a living and a dead animal, and this import it evidently has in numerous instances in which it is translated soul, as will be seen from the citations soon to be given. Yet nothing is clearer than that in this sense yuz is broadly distinguished from another Greek term on, which is also rendered by the same English word life, and which is uniformly employed in all such phrases as-" enter into life”— "see life"-" inherit eternal life"-" have eternal life" -"pass from death unto life"-" endure unto everlast

ing life"-"light of life"-" word of life"-" bread of life"-" resurrection of life," &c. In these instances it obviously denotes a higher, more spiritual, more transcendental principle than is indicated by the word yuz, which is more strictly applicable to the principle of vitality as connected with animal organization. In John, 12. 25, we meet with both terms in close connection: "Ile that hateth his life (uz) in this world, shall keep it unto life (So) eternal." It would be entirely contrary to prevailing analogy to have used yuz in both these clauses. Yet there are a few sporadic cases in which occurs in the lowcr sense of mere physical life. Thus, Luke 1. 75, "In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life (Sons)." Luke, 16. 25, "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime (So) receivedst thy good things." Acts, S. 33, "Who shall declare his generation? for his life (Son) is taken from the earth." Acts, 17. 25, "Seeing he giveth to all life (So), and breath, and all things." Rom. 8. 38, "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life (Sam), nor angels, nor principalities, &c., shall be able to separate us from the love of God." Comp. 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 15. 19, this life (o) only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." Heb. 7. 3, "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Sams)." Comp. v. 16. These are all the cases, out of one hundred and thirty-two, in which the word occurs in this sense in the New Testament. In the Septuagint it is never employed as a rendering of, but almost uniformly of life or living. In its true interior sense it conveys the idea of good, enjoyment, happiness, in connection with that of life, and the import of duration is plainly accessory, as it is natural to conceive of that which is living, and as such enjoying, as at the same time enduring, though the ideas are intrinsically separable. Zom, therefore, properly denotes the good of existence as flowing directly from God, and carries us up to a higher conception of life than yuz, which seems to have a more legitimate reference

"If in