225 
is preserved, and not to those by-meanings which every student knows 
must necessarily exist in all languages. (Cheers.) 
Rev. E. White. — Though a stranger, perhaps I may be permitted to 
occupy your attention for a few minutes. I came here to-night expecting to 
get my mind settled on this subject. I have read statements in English as well 
as in German, on both sides of the question, and, generally speaking, I have 
been a humble disciple of Heard and De Retsch, agreeing that the body, 
soul, and spirit are the common properties of humanity. But I have begun 
to feel great and growing difficulties which lead me to question that opinion, 
those difficulties arising from the consideration of certain scriptural passages 
which have not been so thoroughly criticised to-night as I had hoped they 
would have been. That important passage in our Lord’s discourse with 
Nicodemus, where He says : “ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and 
that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,” is a remarkably strong expression, 
the words to yeyswrjfxevov being used in both cases. Well, I put that against 
the passage in J ude : — “ They are sensual, not having spirit ” (tt vtvixa without 
the article). From these passages, it would appear that the spiritual man is 
generically different from the ip v X lK °£> or animal man. Then St. Peter, in 
his first epistle, speaks of “ being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of 
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” When 
we have this absolute distinction made in genus between the two, I confess 
that I am brought to a halt. 
Rev. 0. A. Row. — So far as my own observation of the New Testament 
goes, I will venture to give an opinion of the criticisms contained in this 
paper. First of all, I believe that ^vxn is unquestionably used for 
the lower parts of man’s nature— there can be no doubt about that — 
but it is also sometimes used in relation to the higher parts of his 
nature. In addition to this, there is the term Trvtvfxa, which is in- 
variably used to denote the higher, and not the lower, parts of his 
nature. This is the distinction between the two ; but the usage of the New 
Testament is simply popular. No one who has read it in Greek can think 
that there is a scientific usage of words. Then, so far as the tripartite 
division of man’s- nature is concerned, I take it for granted that the 
sacred writers, whenever they speak of that nature, have used the popular 
terms which were common at the time in which they wrote. And it 
was essentially necessary that they should do so, because, had they not, they 
must have made definitions, just as philosophical writers are in the habit 
of doing. Look at philosophical literature. If a writer uses a philo- 
sophical term relating to the mind, he always defines it, as is the case 
in the writings of Aristotle. For an example among modern writers, 
we have Coleridge. He has used the terms “understanding” and 
“ reason” in a particular sense ; and when doing so, he always accompanies 
those terms with definitions. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible to use 
current language in a strictly scientific sense, unless the writers doing so 
accompany their terms with definitions of some sort. I cordially agree with 
a great portion of Mr. Graham’s paper, and have been particularly satis- 
