223 
Mr. Graham. — Mr. Heard duly contends for the torpidity of the spirit. 
He does not hold that it perished at the Fall. 
Mr. Hanson. — In different parts of his book Mr. Heard applies the terms 
“ dormant,” “ dead,” and “ unborn,” to the spirit. 
Mr. Graham. — He uses the words “ dormant ” and “dead” in the same 
sense. 
Mr. Hanson. — I have frequently talked the matter over with Mr. Heard, 
and he does relegate the power of discernment to the soul or to the rational 
soul. Here, again, I feel bound to say that it is most unscriptural to speak 
of the animal soul and of the rational soul. It is a distinction of the schools, 
as may be seen by any one who refers to Bishop Ellicott’s discourse. In the 
fourth sermon, in his volume called “The Destiny of the Creature,” the 
bishop gives an historical account of the annihilation, if I may so say, of the 
doctrine of the spirit in the fourth and fifth centuries, on account of the 
doctrine of Apollinarius. There is the fact that the “ rational soul ” was a 
term employed in those days, and especially by Augustine. It was brought 
into the Athanasian Creed in the words “of reasonable soul and human 
flesh subsisting,” on account of the entire banishment of the spirit as a part 
of man. But in this paper of Mr. Graham’s there is some confusion ; because, 
on reading it over carefully this afternoon, and in following Mr. Graham’s 
reading of it to-night, it seemed to me that if his view be correct, we might 
to all intents and purposes just as well have the popular division of soul and 
body only. But I maintain, and, were there time, I think I could prove, that 
there is abundant scriptural testimony to show that in no place have 
the two words translated “ soul ” and “ spirit ” a synonymous meaning. 
I have gone carefully into this subject, examining every passage where the 
words ruach , neshamah, and nephesh occur in the Old Testament, or xf/vxv 
and 7rv£vna occur in the New : and I believe that the Spirit of God has 
carefully preserved the two words as entirely distinct ; and I know of no 
single instance to the contrary, not forgetting the song of the Virgin Mary, 
where, as I believe, the fact that the two words are both used, shows 
that there is a distinctness of meaning between them. It is indeed most 
important in considering the tripartite nature of man, that we should 
preserve the distinctness of the soul equally with the distinctness of the 
body, or of the spirit. There is another point in the paper which I also 
strongly protest against, and that is the phrase “ the essential unity of the 
two.” I do not believe it can properly be said that there is an essential 
unity. Of course it is a very difficult thing to know how to express this, 
because in the same sense that we should assert the essential unity of the 
Deity — of the Three in One — there is essential unity in these two terms ; but 
just as there is a perfect distinctness of person and of office in the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the same manner, if not in the same degree, 
do I see the perfect distinctness of the spirit and soul and body. Also I 
totally dissent from the idea that the soul will not be found in the raised 
man, whether saint or sinner ; because with regard to the persons of whom 
Paul, in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, was alone speaking, you read that 
