responding diversities of condition and environment. Changes which have been observed and recorded within historic times show that the differences alluded to may be the result of slowly accumulated divergences from one and the same original and ancestral type. The difficulty in the case, moreover, is greatly relieved when we remember (1) that the period during which these divergences have arisen is by no means limited to six thousand years (see note on the antiquity of the race, pages 224–226); and (2) that, since species in general exhibit their greatest power of divergence into varieties immediately after their first introduction, all the varieties of the human species may have presented themselves in man's earliest history.

Instances of physiological change as the result of new conditions: The Irish driven by the English two centuries ago from Armagh and the south of Down, have become prognathous like the Australians. The inhabitants of New England have descended from the English, yet they have already a physical type of their own. The Indians of North America, or at least certain tribes of them, have permanently altered the shape of the skull by bandaging the head in infancy. The Sikhs of India, since the establishment of Bába Nának's religion (1500 A. D.) and their consequent advance in civilization, have changed to a longer head and more regular features, so that they are now distinguished greatly from their neighbors, the Afghans, Tibetans, Hindus. The Ostiak savages have become the Magyar nobility of Hungary. The Turks in Europe are, in cranial shape, greatly in advance of the Turks in Asia from whom they descended. The Jews are confessedly of one ancestry; yet we have among them the light-haired Jews of Poland, the dark Jews of Spain, and the Ethiopian Jews of the Nile Valley. The Portuguese who settled in the East Indies in the 16th century are now as dark in complexion as the Hindus themselves. Africans become lighter in complexion as they go up from the alluvial river-banks to higher land, or from the coast; and on the contrary the coast tribes which drive out the negroes of the interior and take their territory end by becoming negroes themselves. See, for many of the above facts, Burgess, Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 195-202.

The law of originally greater plasticity, mentioned in the text, was first hinted by Hall, the paleontologist of New York. It is accepted and defined by Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 360—“A new law is coming into view: that species when first introduced have an innate power of expansion, which enables them rapidly to extend themselves to the limit of their geographical range, and also to reach the limit of their divergence into races. This limit once reached, these races run on in parallel lines until they one by one run out and disappear. According to this law the most aberrant races of men might be developed in a few centuries, after which divergence would cease, and the several lines of variation would remain permanent, at least so long as the conditions under which they originated remained." See the similar view of Von Baer in Schmid, Theories of Darwin, 55, note. Joseph Cook: Variability is a lessening quantity; the tendency to change is greatest at the first, but, like the rate of motion of a stone thrown upward, it lessens every moment after. Ruskin, Seven Lamps, 125"The life of a nation is usually, like the flow of a lava-stream, first bright and fierce, then languid and covered, at last advancing only by the tumbling over and over of its frozen blocks." Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 54-"The further back we go into antiquity, the more closely does the Egyptian type approach the European." Rawlinson says that negroes are not represented in the Egyptian monuments before 1500 B. C. The influence of climate is very great, especially in the savage state.

68

In May, 1891, there died in San Francisco the son of an interpreter at the Merchants' Exchange. He was 21 years of age. Three years before his death his clear skin was his chief claim to manly beauty. He was attacked by "Addison's disease," a gradual darkening of the color of the surface of the body. At the time of his death his skin was as dark as that of a full-blooded negro. His name was George L. Sturtevant. Ratzel, History of Mankind, 1:9, 10-As there is only one species of man, the reunion into one real whole of the parts which have diverged after the fashion of sports" is said to be "the unconscious ultimate aim of all the movements" which have taken place since man began his wanderings. "With Humboldt we can only hold fast to the external unity of the race." See Sir Wm. Hunter, The Indian Empire, 223, 410; Encyc. Britannica, 12:808; 20:110; Zückler, Urgeschichte, 109-132, and in Jahrbuch für deutsche

Theologie, 8: 51-71; Prichard, Researches, 5: 547-552, and Nat. Hist. of Man, 2 : 644–656 : Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, 96-108; Smith, Unity of Human Races, 255-23; Morris, Conflict of Science and Religion, 325-385; Rawlinson, in Journ. Christ. Philosophy, April, 1883: 359.

III. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE.

I. The Dichotomous Theory.

Man has a two-fold nature, - on the one hand material, on the other hand immaterial. He consists of body, and of spirit, or soul. That there are two, and only two, elements in man's being, is a fact to which consciousness testifies. This testimony is confirmed by Scripture, in which the prevailing representation of man's constitution is that of dichotomy.

Dichotomous, from díxa, in two,' and réμvw, ‘to cut,' = composed of two parts. Man is as conscious that his immaterial part is a unity, as that his body is a unity. He knows two, and only two, parts of his being-body and soul. So man is the true Janus (Martensen), Mr. Facing-both-ways (Bunyan ). That the Scriptures favor dichotomy will appear by considering:

(a) The record of man's creation (Gen. 2:7), in which, as a result of the inbreathing of the divine Spirit, the body becomes possessed and vitalized by a single principle-the living soul.

Gen. 2: 7-"And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"- here it is not said that man was first a living soul, and that then God breathed into him a spirit; but that God inbreathed spirit, and man became a living soulGod's life took possession of clay, and as a result, man had a soul. Cf. Job 27:3-"For my life is yet whole in me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils"; 32: 8-"there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding"; 33:4-"The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth me life."

(b) Passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished, both from the divine Spirit from whom it proceeded, and from the body which it inhabits.

Num. 16:22" God, the God of the spirits of all flesh; Zech. 12:1-"Jehovah, who man within him"; 1 Cor. 2:11-"the sp rit of the man which is in him

formeth the spirit of

the Spirit of God"; Heb. 12: 9-"the Father of spirits." The passages just mentioned distinguish the spirit of man from the Spirit of God. The following distinguish the soul, or spirit, of man from the body which it inhabits: Gen. 35: 18-"it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died ) ''; 1 K. 17: 21 — "0 Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again"; Eccl. 12: 7-"the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it"; James 2. 26-"the body apart from the spirit is dead." The first class of passages refutes pantheism; the second refutes materialism.

(c) The interchangeable use of the terms 'soul' and 'spirit.'

Gen. 41:8-"his spirit was troubled"; cf. Ps. 42: 6— "my soul is cast down within me." John 12: 27--"Now is my soul troubled"; cf. 13: 21 -"he was troubled in the spirit." Mat. 20:28" to give his life (vxv) a ransom for many"; cf. 27: 50—"yielded up his spirit (veuμa)." Heb. 12: 23-"spirits of just men made perfect"; cf. R3v. 6:9-"I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God." In these passages "spirit" and "soul" seem to be used interchangeably.

(d) The mention of body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting the whole man.

Mat. 10:28-"able to destroy both soul and body in hell"; 1 Cor. 5:3-"absent in body but present in spirit"; 3 John 2-" "I pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." These texts imply that body and soul (or spirit) together constitute the whole man.

For advocacy of the dichotomous theory, see Goodwin, in Journ. Society Bib. Exegesis, 1881: 73-86; Godet, Bib. Studies of the O. T., 32; Oehler, Theology of the O. T., 1:219; Hahn, Bib. Theol. N. T., 399 87.; Schmid, Bib. Theology N. T., 503; Weiss, Bib. Theology N. T., 214; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 112, 113; Hofmann, Schrift

beweis, 1:294-298; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 1:549; 3:249; Harless, Com. on Eph., 4:23, and Christian Ethics, 22; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1: 164-168; Hodge, in Princeton Review, 1865: 116, and Systematic Theol., 2: 47-51; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:261–263; Wm. H. Hodge, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Apl. 1897.

2. The Trichotomous Theory.

Side by side with this common representation of human nature as consisting of two parts, are found passages which at first sight appear to favor trichotomy. It must be acknowledged that νεvua (spirit) and yvxý (soul), although often used interchangeably, and always designating the same indivisible substance, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms.

In this more accurate use, vxʼn denotes man's immaterial part in its inferior powers and activities;- -as vxý, man is a conscious individual, and, in common with the brute creation, has an animal life, together with appetite, imagination, memory, understanding. IIvevua, on the other hand, denotes man's immaterial part in its higher capacities and faculties; as πνεύμα, man is a being related to God, and possessing powers of reason, conscience, and free will, which difference him from the brute creation and constitute him responsible and immortal.

In the following texts, spirit and soul are distinguished from each other: 1 Thess, 5: 23— "And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"; Heb. 4: 12-"For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." Compare 1 Cor. 2: 14-"Now the natural [ Gr. 'psychical'] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God"; 15: 44-"It is sown a natural [ Gr. ‘psychical'] body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural [ Gr. 'psychical'] body, there is also a spiritual body"; Eph. 4: 23-"that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind "; Jude 19-"sensual [ Gr. 'psychical' ], having not the Spirit."

For the proper interpretation of these texts, see note on the next page. Among those who cite them as proofs of the trichotomous theory (trichotomous, from 7pixa, in three parts,' and réuvw, to cut,' composed of three parts, i. e., spirit, soul, and body) may be mentioned Olshausen, Opuscula, 134, and Com. on 1 Thess., 5: 23; Beck, Biblische Seelenlehre, 31; Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, 117, 118; Göschel, in Herzog, Realencyclopädie, art.: Seele; also, art. by Auberlen: Geist des Menschen; Cremer, N. T. Lexicon, on πνeûμɑ and Yʊx'; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 384 8q.; Neander, Planting and Training, 394; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 365, 366; Boardman, in Bap. Quarterly, 1: 177, 325, 428; Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 62-114; Ellicott, Destiny of the Creature, 106-125.

The element of truth in trichotomy is simply this, that man has a triplicity of endowment, in virtue of which the single soul has relations to matter, to self, and to God. The trichotomous theory, however, as it is ordinarily defined, endangers the unity and immateriality of our higher nature, by holding that man consists of three substances, or three component parts— body, soul, and spirit—and thet soul and spirit are as distinct from each other as are soul and body.

The advocates of this view differ among themselves as to the nature of the vxý and its relation to the other elements of our being; some (as Delitzsch) holding that the vx is an efflux of the veμa, distinct in substance, but not in essence, even as the divine Word is distinct from God, while yet he is God; others (as Göschel) regarding the ux, not as a distinct substance, but as a resultant of the union of the яveûμa and the oua. Still others (as Cremer) hold the x to be the subject of the personal life whose principle is the veμa. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 103-"God is the Creator ex traduce of the animal and intellectual part of every man.... Not so with the spirit.... It proceeds from God, not by creation, but by emanation."

We regard the trichotomous theory as untenable, not only for the reasons already urged in proof of the dichotomous theory, but from the following additional considerations:

(a) Пvevua, as well as yox, is used of the brute creation.

Eccl. 3:21-"Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth [ marg. 'that goeth'] upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth [ marg. ‘that goeth'] downward to the earth?" Rev. 16: 3-"And the second poured out his bowl into the sea; and it became blood, as of a dead man; and every living soul died, even the things that were in the the fish.

sea

(b) Yuxi is ascribed to Jehovah.

Amos 6: 8-"The Lord Jehovah hath sworn by himself" (lit. 'by his soul,' LXX éautóv); Is. 42: 1-"my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth"; Jer. 9: 9-"Shall I not visit them for these things? saith Jehovah; shall not my soul be avenged?" Heb. 10: 38-"my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him."

(c) The disembodied dead are called yvxaí.

Rev. 6:9- "I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God"; cf. 20:4"souls of them that had been beheaded."

(d) The highest exercises of religion are attributed to the

xý.

Mark 12:30- -"thou shalt love the Lord thy God. ... with all thy soul"; Luke 1: 46- "My soul doth magnify the Lord; Heb. 6: 18, 19" the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul"; James 1: 21 - "the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."

(e) To lose this yx is to lose all.

Mark 8:36, 37-"For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life [ or 'soul,' &vxn]? For what should a man give in exchange for his life [ or 'soul,' &vxn]?"

(f) The passages chiefly relied upon as supporting trichotomy may be better explained upon the view already indicated, that soul and spirit are not two distinct substances or parts, but that they designate the immaterial principle from different points of view.

1 Thess. 5: 23-"may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire" = not a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its chief relations; compare Mark 12: 30— "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength"- where none would think of finding proof of a fourfold division of human nature. On 1 Thess. 5: 23, sce Riggenbach (in Lange's Com.), and Commentary of Prof. W. A. Stevens. Heb. 4: 12-"piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow" = not the dividing of soul from spirit, or of joints from marrow, but rather the piercing of the soul and of the spirit, even to their very joints and marrow; i. e., to the very depths of the spiritual nature. On Heb. 4:12, see Ebrard (in Olshausen's Com.), and Lünemann (in Meyer's Com.); also Tholuck, Com. in loco. Jude 19—"sensual, having not the Spirit" (vxikoí, пveûμa μn éxovτes) — even though #revμa -the human spirit, need not mean that there is no spirit existing, but only that the spirit is torpid and inoperative- as we say of a weak man: he has no mind,' or of an unprincipled man: 'he has no conscience'; so Alford; see Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 202. But veuμa here probably the divine #reuμa, Meyer takes this view, and the Revised Version capitalizes the word "Spirit." See Goodwin, Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881: 85 -"The distinction between ʊx and vεvμa is a functional, and not a substantial, distinction." Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 161, 162-"Soul = spirit organized, inseparably linked with the body; spirit = man's inner being considered as God's gift. Soul man's inner being viewed as his own; spirit = man's inner being viewed as from God. They are not separate elements." See Lightfoot, Essay on St. Paul and Seneca, appended to his Com. on Philippians, on the influence of the ethical language of Stoicism on the N. T. writers. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 39-"The difference between man and his companion creatures on this earth is not that his instinctive life is less than theirs, for in truth it goes far beyond them; but that in him it acts in the presence and under the eye of other powers which transform it, and by giving to it vision as well as light take its blindness away. He is let into his own secrets.

We conclude that the immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, is called yx; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of divine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called veiua. The πvɛμɑ, then, is man's nature looking Godward, and capable of receiving and manifesting the ПIveiμa äytov; the yuxý is man's nature looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The μa is man's higher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such relation; the x is man's higher part, as related to the body, or as capable of such relation. Man's being is therefore not trichotomous but dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers, has unity of substance.

Man's nature is not a three-storied house, but a two-storied house, with windows in the upper story looking in two directions- toward earth and toward heaven. The lower story is the physical part of us- the body. But man's "upper story" has two aspects; there is an outlook toward things below, and a skylight through which to see the stars. "Soul," says Hovey, "is spirit as modified by union with the body." Is man then the same in kind with the brute, but different in degree? No, man is different in kind, though possessed of certain powers which the brute has. The frog is not a magnified sensitive-plant, though his nerves automatically respond to irritation. The animal is different in kind from the vegetable, though he has some of the same powers which the vegetable has. God's powers include man's; but man is not of the same substance with God, nor could man be enlarged or developed into God. So man's powers include those of the brute, but the brute is not of the same substance with man, nor could he be enlarged or developed into man.

Porter, Human Intellect, 39-"The spirit of man, in addition to its higher endowments, may also possess the lower powers which vitalize dead matter into a human body." It does not follow that the soul of the animal or plant is capable of man's higher functions or developments, or that the subjection of man's spirit to body, in the present life, disproves his immortality. Porter continues: "That the soul begins to exist as a vital force, does not require that it should always exist as such a force or in connection with a material body. Should it require another such body, it may have the power to create it for itself, as it has formed the one it first inhabited; or it may have already formed it, and may hold it ready for occupation and use as soon as it sloughs off the one which connects it with the earth.”

Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 547—“Brutes may have organic life and sensitivity, and yet remain submerged in nature. It is not life and sensitivity that lift man above nature, but it is the distinctive characteristic of personality." Parkhurst, The Pattern in the Mount, 17-30, on Prov. 20: 27-"The spirit of man is the lamp of Jehovah" - not necessarily lighted, but capable of being lighted, and intended to be lighted, by the touch of the divine flame. Cf. Mat. 6: 22, 23 — "The lamp of the body.... If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness."

Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaube, 2: 487-"We think of the spirit as soul, only when in the body, so that we cannot speak of an immortality of the soul, in the proper sense, without bodily life." The doctrine of the spiritual body is therefore the complement to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. A. A. Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 221 -"By soul we mean only one thing, i. c., an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies." Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 72- The animal is the foundation of the spiritual; it is what the cellar is to the house; it is the base of supplies." Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 371-378-"Trichotomy is absolutely untenable on grounds of psychological science. Man's reason, or the spirit that is in man, is not to be regarded as a sort of Mansard roof, built on to one building in a block, all the dwellings in which are otherwise substantially alike. . . . On the contrary, in every set of characteristics, from those called lowest to those pronounced highest, the soul of man differences itself from the soul of any species of animals. . . . The highest has also the lowest. All must be assigned to one subject."

...

This view of the soul and spirit as different aspects of the same spiritual principle furnishes a refutation of six important errors: