291 
is one thing, the mental sense another, and the physical sense a third. I 
conceive that the effect of the paper is to prove, what every one of us 
must go away with a full conviction of,— namely, that any science which calls 
itself a science dealing with, man, — consisting as he does of spirit, and 
soul, and body, — any such science intending to discuss the nature of man scien- 
tifically ought to do so in a spiritual, as well as in a psychical and physical 
sense. I think I may appeal to the conviction of everybody here when I say 
that this is really a self-evident matter. The paper supports this proposition 
very satisfactorily. It also declares, with reference to those who call them- 
selves anthropologists, and who write in propagation of their views, that in 
speaking of what is peculiar to man in relation to mind, they probably do 
not consider spirit at all, but argue as if all man’s highest intellect, all the 
superior faculties of his mind, grew out of his physical conformation — out 
of the actual construction of his physical frame. Now, this is a point on 
which I think most of us here will agree, namely, that the anthropologists are 
clearly mistaken, for they not only take up this position, but also deny what 
has been so well stated by the gentleman who first addressed us, that the 
spiritual quality of man is an endowment — not a mere development of the 
physical structure, but a positive endowment, a gift from God, and as plainly 
a gift from God as any of the other gifts of his manhood — a spiritual gift. 
The only question in the mind of the speaker who raised the latter point 
appears to have been as to whether this endowment is something which is 
given afresh to every human being, or whether, having once been given to 
our first parents, it is conveyed on to other generations, just as the soul is. 
My own impression is, that it is an endowment once for all given to man as 
an integral part of his distinctive nature, and not as an emanation of his 
structural development ; undoubtedly concerned with all his other consti- 
tuent parts, and interfusing them ; but how ? — This is a mystery, in the same 
way as the living structure of a flower and of everything else is a mystery. 
Mr. Greaves. — It is easy to cast distrust upon lexicographers, because 
they give the meanings deduced from certain authors whom they have 
consulted ; but it is indisputable that our blessed Lord put the ques- 
tion, “ What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his 
own soul ? ” It matters comparatively little whether I deduce a meaning 
from Cicero, Plato, or any other author, if I cannot deduce that which will 
permit of such accurate definition as would be satisfactory and conclusive ; 
but we cannot here arrive at that conclusive accuracy. The word in the pas- 
sage I have quoted is “ faxv ” — “What shall it profit a man if he gain the 
whole world and lose his own ipvxn ? ” Now in the Hebrew the Ruach is 
translated both as the word and the word 7rvev[ia would be defined ; 
and I must say that, having examined the matter rather carefully from the 
Holy Word itself, I cannot think that the definitions which have been given, 
and the distinctions which have been so beautifully and so graphically 
put before us by a previous speaker, will , stand the test of a very close 
examination. 
Rev. C. Graham. — I should like to say a word or two on the theological 
