290 
applied as pertaining to man. It is quoted by our Lord, and therefore has His 
direct authority. I only contend that the definition of St. Paul meets the 
various facts of nature as they are presented in what we see around us, and 
he says “ The very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your 
whole spirit and soul and body be preserved, 3 ’-his definition of the “ whole ” 
of man being given in these words —<rwpa, -<pv X >}, and -jrvsv^ia. 
Mr. Greaves.— That is perfectly true. 
Sir Tilson Marsh. — Therefore I hold that the Apostle lays it down that 
there is a trinity in our nature as God has planned it, and that this is conse- 
quently opposed to the dual theory of a simple body and soul. 
Kev. Mr. James.— If I may be permitted to bring the meeting back 
to the paper before it, I should be glad to preface what I am about to say by 
a reference to lexicons. I think it is unfair to resort to lexicons for the 
philosophical meanings of words. My idea of lexicons is that they take certain 
words from certain authors and find out the derivative senses in which these 
words are used. The fact is, that one author employs a word in one sense 
and another uses it in another sense, and sometimes you find words con- 
founded one with another, as, for instance, in the case of the words »«»)*« 
and I n the vei T P a P er before us, the author often confouncs 
the mind with the soul ; some writers again use the word “ mind 
for “ instinct,” while others use it as meaning spirit. And as this must, 
therefore, necessarily be the case with lexicons, I do not think we should 
look to them for the real inner basis of the meaning of any particular word. 
This I put forward as a sort of protest against the very common mistake o 
looking at dictionaries for the radical or primary meaning of words, instead 
of expecting thereby simply to ascertain their derivative meaning from 
the way in which they are used. - I now turn to the paper which has been 
read this evening, and I will begin by saying that I quite agree with e 
criticisms made upon it so far as they concern some passages. It has some 
indefinite expressions, more particularly as regards the point that has been 
raised with respect to the mind, the spirit, and the soul. The word mstinc 
does not occur in this paper, so far as I can remember, and I observe the 
author frequently uses the word mind as applied to animals. For instance, 
in one place he says, “ the mind in these lower animals.” Now, here he must 
mean the instinct, or the soul. The soul includes all the instincts both o 
the very hio-hest of the lower creation and of ourselves, and tends to further 
the growth°and perfect development of the animal to which it belongs, but 
it is°distinct from mind. The writer of the paper also, at times proper y, 
uses the word mind when he must mean spirit. I think it a pity that there 
should be such a confusion of terms in a philosophical paper ; especially m 
one so valuable as this is. I think its main object is fully attained, so far as 
I can gather it from reading it cursorily. I do not know the author per- 
sonally, and never heard of the paper before to-day, when I first became 
aware that the subject was to be treated ; but my impression is, that he has 
proved a great point in section 16, for he there distinguishes between spirit,, 
and mind, meaning soul, fvx*> and matter ; and asserts that the spiritual sense 
