THE DOCTRIN .

E OF MAN 21
7 N . Berdyaev, T116 Russia" Revol.Ui011 (1932), 68.
8 R. Niebuhr, T116 Nalu'Ye Mid DestiJJy of MaJJ (1941), 6.
9 J. L. Stocks, Time, Cause aJJd Eu'Yflity (1938), 5-6.
10 See A. E. Taylor, Aristotle, 42.
n T1t6 Stoic Philosaphy, 32, 34.
u N . cS- D . of MaJJ, 8.
13 T116 Stoic Philosaphy, 53, 51.
14 A. N. Whitehead, Scienu cS- t116 Mod6'YJJ Wo-,ld (1938), 19.
15 J. Macmurray, T116 Boundaries of Scimu (1939), 236.
16 Time, Cause aM Eternity, 34.
1' Ibid., 34.
18 H . Cunynghame, ShO'Yt Talks 011 Philosaplty (1932), 184.
19 C. E . M. Joad, Guide to Mod6'YJJ Tltought (1942), 53, 59.
20 Ibid., 182.
21 T116 Boundaries of Scienu, 204.
22 T116 N . cS- D. of Man, 36, 44.
23 E. Barker, TM CitizeJJ's Choice (1937), 15.
24 Quoted by R. Osborn, F'Yeud aM Ma'Yx (1937), 242.
25 See T116 Russian Revoi.Ui011, 81-82.
26 Scienu cS- t116 Mode'Y" Wo-,ld, 100.
27 N. cS- D. of Man, 35, 35, 38.
28 Time, Cause and Eumity, 86, 90.
29 T116 Boundaries of Scienu, 183.
30 J. Baillie, Ou., KJJowletlge of God (1939), 40-42.
31 N. cS- D. of Man, 151-3.
32 Ou'Y Knowledge of God, 16.
33 Ibid., 258.

The Doctrine of Man.

Bv THE REv. J. RussELL HoWDEN, B.D.

T HERE are two principal aivisions in all Christian teaching and

preaching. One is the doctrine of God, and the other is the
doctrine of man. It
is this latter which we are to consider in
the present paper.
Our teaching about man will necessarily include the consic:leration
of man's origin, and our ideas as to the nature of man will naturally
be coloured by our ideas about this. There are two principal
views on this. One is the doctrine of Evolution and the other the
doctrine of Creation.
Creation implies the direct act of God, and, therefore, is essentially
miraculous.
Evolution, in the common use of the word, pre-supposes the activity
of nothing more than natural causation. Of course, even in saying
this one has to beware of an ambiguity into which it is so easy to slip.
And the ambiguity is this, that until we are quite clear as to what we
include within the sphere of the natural, it is confusing to begin to
talk about the supernatural. However, leaving this on one side, it
is generally thought that the idea of evolution precludes any direct
Divine activity. Indeed, in its extremist fonn the doctrine is usually
so expressed as to eliminate the idea of God altogether.
On the other hand, it is to be remembered that a good many
Christians believe in some fonn of evolution as a method of the Divine
 THE CHURCHMAN
working. A notable instance of this is found in Dr. J. Y. Simpson,
in such a book as The Spiritual Interpretation of Nature.
We may agree, therefore, that evolution is in itself a term of doubtful
meaning. The real crux of the question is whether God is recognised
at all. In other words, the two main accounts of man's origin may
be summed up as theistic or atheistic. .
The latter class of theories supposes that originally man was only
a somewhat improved ape, and it was thought that a highly-trained
chimpanzee might be nearly as intelligent as the lowest races of man-
kind, such as the pygmy of Central Africa or the native of Australia.
Such theorisers further hold that there are indications which have
been discovered of intermediate forms between man and some sub-
human creature, simian or otherwise in its general characteristics.
As to the relationship between the highest form of ape and the
lowest form of man, it is most misleading to talk as though an intelligent
ape had anything approaching the intelligence of even the lowest
races of mankind. It is possible to teach apes, like other animals,
to do certain tricks, and their tricks are made the more impressive
by the general anthropoid appearance of the performers. But between
even the cleverest and most highly trained animals and the lowest form
of human being there is an obvious and great gulf fixed. Dr. Rendle
Short, in a recent booklet The Christian and the Scientific Outlook,
says :-" You must not judge of human intelligence by degenerate
specimens in middle life who have never had a fair chance. The only
way of judging human intelligence is by what can be done with the
well-trained child." Professor Short points out that an Australian
aborigine became a noted mathematician, and others have been
selected to play cricket against an English Test Team.
Then with regard to the supposed missing links, we may venture to
affirm that the missing links required by the theory of evolution do
not, as a matter of fact, occur. Particular instances that have at
different times been set forward as examples have themselves been
sharply criticised by anatomists and biologists upon various grounds.
But as instances of missing links are still sometimes brought forward,
it is well to notice the possibilities of error which may arise in connection
with them.
First, there is a possibility of error in estimating the date of the
geological strata in which the remains are found.
Secondly, there is a possibility of error in referring remains to their
proper origin. The explorer comes upon very scanty remains of a
skeleton, and he has to decide whether these bones belong to a human
being or an animal. The most likely mistake will be in confusion
between simian and human, but other and more unlikely confusions
have occurred. Remains have been discovered in various parts of
the world, particularly in China, California, and the South of France,
and with regard to every example there has been considerable difference
of opinion as to whether the bones belonged to a human being or
to an anthropoid ape.
In the third place it is necessary to enter a caution as to the explana-
tion of finds which may accompany such remains. For instance,
chipped flints are frequently discovered in conjunction with fossil
remains. It is often assumed that these are incontrovertible evidence
 THE DOCTRINE OF MAN
of human or sub-human activity. We need to remember that there
are at least two other ways in which such flints may have received
their peculiar shape-the first, and the most likely, being the action
of natural forces, such as the wearing of water, or the splitting caused
by frost; the second, which is little more than a possibility, would be
through the activities of flint-chipping apes-though this last is
purely a supposition.
The fourth and most serious likelihood of error lies in the recon-
struction of remains, and particularly of skulls. It is obvious that
when a very small portion of a skull has been found it is a matter of
considerable delicacy to determine the radius of the arch of the skull.
In fact, such reconstructions have been contested from time to time
by anatomists themselves. When these reconstructions have been
essayed, and when highly imaginative drawings based upon them
have been published, the plain man will do well to ask two questions :
First, how much exactly of the skeleton has actually been found.
Secondly, how far were the bones, especially those of the skull, broken
or otherwise when found. These are simply commonsense precautions
which the ordinary reasonable man will do well to observe if he wishes
to arrive at the truth. It has been popular for some illustrated papers
on both sides of the Atlantic to put forth from time to time highly
imaginative pictures of hairy, low-browed creatures which purport
to be missing links. " Evidence for the existence of these creatures
has never been discovered except in the imagination of the artists."
(Dr. Rendle Short).
Dr. Rendle Short sums it up thus. The more recent anthropologists
emphasize not the narrowness but the width of the gap between man
and the apes. " Although they mostly state that man was derived
from a primitive primate, no one seriously suggests now that man
was derived from any of the existing anthropoid apes, or from any
creature at all like them."
The foregoing will suffice for all that there is opportunity to say
now by way of criticism of what I may call the vulgar forms of evolu-
tionary theory.
Leaving this on one side, we may now turn to consider the
Creationist's view of the matter. He bases his ideas upon the Bible.
In Genesis i. 26 we read : " God said, Let us make man in our image
after our likeness." In ii. 7 : " The Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
These two verses assert, on the one hand concerning the physical
nature of man, that he is formed of matter, which he shares with all
other created beings ; and, on the other hand, that he is akin to God
Himself. In Luke iii. 38, Adam is called" the son of God."
The Bible, therefore, clearly sets forth man's nature as being a
duality-physical and spiritual.
More than this, I Thessalonians v. 23 indicates that the non-material
part of man is itself dual, comprising both spirit and soul. Various
meanings have been assigned to the word soul, and it is perhaps
unfortunate that there is no general agreement amongst Bible students
as to the connotation to be assigned to this word: If we confine
ourselves to Scriptural language, we may distinguish three meanings
24 THE CHURCHMAN
of the word : (1) It is used as equivalent to spirit, as in the Magnificat,
where, according to the rules of Hebrew parallelism, it seems to be
implied that spirit and soul are identical. (2) It is used of the emotions,
as in Luke ii. 35. And (3) in the Thessalonian passage already referred
to it appears to be sharply distinguished from spirit.
There is no difficulty about the first two meainngs to be assigned.
The difficulty is as to what we are to understand when the terms soul
and spirit are thus distinguished. To begin with, it is to be observed
that soul is predicated, not only of man, but of the lower creation also.
Even the swarming marine life of the primaeval sea is spoken of as
having soul (Genesis i. 20). We seem, therefore, forced to the con-
clusion that in this sense the soul is something which man shares with
other creatures. And I would suggest that this something is the
unifying centre of consciousness. Modern surgery has referred the
action of each of the physical senses to its appropriate brain centre,
so that if that centre be injured, the sense apparatus corresponding
to it is rendered useless. The impressions conveyed by the senses,
however, are presented in consciousness as a unity. No physical
centre of the unifying process has been discovered. It appears,
therefore, as if such a centre must be supra-material, however little
we may be able to assign such a meaning to such a term. The non-
material part of man is that which is described as his spirit. I use
the term spirit as equivalent to mind. I do this with some diffidence
because so many people use the term mind as equivalent to soul.
But, personally, I find it difficult to assign any meaning to spirit
which does not include the operation of man's mind. The Greek
word for soul is, of course, psukhe, but the science of mind is termed
psychology. In my view of the matter it would be better if this
could be labelled pneumatology, if such a word might be coined, but,
of course, it is now too late to alter the common nomenclature. Psy.,.
chology teaches us that the mind, or thf spirit, is threefold as to its
functions-thought, feeling, and will. These three functions of the
human spirit correspond to the three ultimate categories of the true,
the beautiful, and the good. It seems, too, that in the Bible itself
we have an endorsement of this common classification of the human
mind. In Luke x. 27 we read : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,
and with all thy mind." Here the heart appears to stand for the
whole spiritual being of man, and is distinguished from the other three
particulars by the use of a different pronoun. If this be correct,
the soul will correspond to the emotions, the strength to the will,
and the mind to the reason.
Such then is the spiritual nature of man in respect of which he is
like God. But the declaration in Genesis i. 26 appears to refer to
the whole man, and not merely to his spiritual nature. It may be
difficult to regard man's physical nature as being in any way like
God, when we remember that God is a Spirit. But the difficulty
seems to disappear when we remember that man's physical nature
was an adequate vehicle for the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ ;
and, further, when we remember that man's material nature is fitted
for eternity. There is a natural (or soulish) body, and there is a
spiritual body. Whatever the unknown conditions of Resurrection
 THE DOCTRINE OF MAN 25
life may be, at least they are something for which man's physical
nature is fitted.
The soul or the spirit then exhibits the three functions of thought,
feeling and will. It is to be observed, however, that though we may
separate these three functions in our own thought, they are not separable
in life. For we know ourselves to be doing any or all of these three
things at the same time. They are simply the ways in which our
self acts. But these are the constituent elements of personality.
They are distinguishable functions, but they are united by being
functions of one and the self-same subject. (Illingworth). This is
what we mean when we speak of the personality of a man. This is
what makes him a person.
But the Bible assures us that man is made in the image of God.
Therefore we may venture to say that God Himself is a Person. Some
people find a difficulty in thinking of God as a Person, because a
person is essentially separated from all other persons, and is accordingly
limited by the existence of other persons. Therefore limitation seems
to be of the essence of personality, and that is unthinkable in the case
of God. Lotze, however, points out : " Among the things which a
personal being recognises as in this opposition to itself are its own
inner states of consciousness and its own thoughts. Therefore the
thought of God's personality does not require us to assume a reality
outside Him and limiting Him, but only the production in Him of a
world of ideas to which He finds Himself in contrast as to His own
states."
Further, Illingworth points out that the development of the doctrine
of God's personality has always proceeded side by side with the
recognition of the personality of man. To know God as a Person
is the very essence of true religion, and, as a matter of fact, it is some-
thing which is peculiar to Christianity. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed
the Father as in essential personal relationship with man, and He also
supremely crowned the individual man with glory and honour which
is given to him by no one else. The fear of the Lord in the Old Testa-
ment corresponds to faith in the New, and they both mean funda-
mentally the recognition of the personality of God. Eternal life
as predicated of a human being is nothing less than this entering into
personal relationship with the Infinite and Eternal God. "This is
life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, Whom Thou hast sent." (John xvii. 3).
Assuming then that man has a spiritual as well as a physical nature,
the further question arises as to how this spiritual nature is to be
regarded. Three main views may be distinguished.
(1) Transmigration. This irrvolves the idea that every human birth
means the cutting off, so to speak, of a certain amount of spiritua~
existence from the great reservoir of it which is supposed to be supra-
mundane. Wordsworth, in his familiar Ode to Immortality, sets forth
this view. But we must not allow the beauty of the poet's language
to obscure the difficulties which underlie the idea.
(2) Then there is the view known as Conditional Immortality.
There are various aspects of this theory. Some hold that the soul
or spirit is created, to be destroyed by physical death. In connection
with this it is commonly held that immortality is to be regained at the
 26 THE CHURCHMAN
Resurrection. Other people regard the soul as unconscious between
death and resurrection. From the point of view of Bible doctrine,
one special difficulty which meets this view is that it is necessary to
suppose, in the case of the wicked, that they are first destroyed by
physical death, then they are re-created for judgment, and thereafter
destroyed a second time. This view, therefore, seems to raise more
difficulties than it solves.
(3) There is the view which I may perhaps venture to call the ordinary
Christian idea. That is, that each separate person is a separate
creation from birth, or, better, from the moment of conception. This
separate creation carries with it the gift of immortality.
It should be carefully borne in mind that man is always presented
in the Bible as consisting essentially of two natures, spiritual and
physical, and that neither is complete without the other. There are
beings, whether angels or demons, who are merely spirit. There are
. also animals, which ·have body and soul but apparently no spirit.
But man is a denizen of two worlds, and his final complete state is
not a mere ghostly immortality, but the resurrection union of spirit
and body. The body is as really a part of man's personality as
the spirit. Philosophy, particularly heathen philosophy, is apt to
look upon the body as a mere vesture, or, still worse, a prison house,
and to regard salvation to consist essentially in getting rid of it.
Professor Orr wrote : " The soul was made and meant to inhabit
the body, and was never intended to subsist apart from it. Hence
death . . . is not something natural to man, but can only be regarded
as something violent, unnatural, the rupture or separation of parts
of man's being which were never meant to be disjoined. The soul,
in virtue of its spiritual personal nature, survives the body, but in
separation from the body itself, as for example the doctrine of Sheol
shows. exists in a mutilated, imperfect condition."
Modem psychology increasingly lays stress upon the close relation-
ship between soul and body-in the theory of psycho-physical paral-
lelism. And the Bible doctrine of man harmonises with this idea,
and gives honour to the body as well as to the spirit of man. " Know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (I Cor. vi.
19).
In accordance with the foregoing, redemption is represented in
the Bible as including body as well as spirit. St. Paul told the Roman
Christians that they were "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of the body." (Romans viii. 23). A redemption which
already has been secured by the death of Christ, and which is to be
fully realised at His Second Advent.
Another feature to be observed with regard to man is the sense of
frustration which attaches to his life. He is out of harmony with
his environment, and in this respect appears to differ from the brute
creation. Luthardt, in his Fundamental Truths, enumerates four sets
of conbadictions which continually beset man. (1) There is the
sense of his helplessness with regard to nature and, at the same time,
the greatness of his power over nature; (2) There is man's insatiable
curiosity concerning his surroundings and the ignorance of which
each new advance in knowledge makes him more aware ; (3) There
is the incessant conflict between desire and disappointment; and (.of.)
 THE DOtTRINE OF MAN 27
most significant of all there is the power of choice and will combined
with frequent and strange weaknesses in carrying out that will. .
The Bible explanation of these anomalies is that man is a fallen
creature. His frustrations and unhappinesses are due to this one
terrible infection of his nature which is sin. The root trouble is
that man is alienated from God. To paraphrase Pascal's words:
Man is made for God, and yet is contrary to God.
Man's sinning has caused his will to be emasculated, so that even
when to some degree he apprehends the good, he nevertheless fails so
often to do it.
Moreover, sin has not only affected man's spirit, but his body also.
In the day that he fell his body became mortal. " Sin entered into
the world, and death by sin." (Romans v. 12). St. Paul doe5 not
say that there was no death in the universe before man's sin. He
does not appear to be concerned there with the universe as a whole.
He is talking about man, and it is death as affecting man that he has
in mind-the death with the sting in it. And Scripture throughout
quite uncompromisingly connects this with man's disobedience.
The narrative of the Fall is criticised on the ground that the occasion
appears to be too trivial to have carried with it such far-reaching
consequences. But our assumptions as to what is trivial and what is
important may be sadly at fault. The important point to note in
the narrative is that sin entered because man, unfallen man, made
his own choice the law of his life. That is the essence of all sin. " Sin
is lawlessness" (I John iii. 4). It is not, therefore, to be wondered
at that a decision of this nature on man's part should involve very
far-teaching results, and the Bible is emphatic that this is just what
has happened. A little reflection will show us that Adam's trans-
gression is paralleled daily in our own experience apart from the
keeping grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. And remembering the neces-
sary and intimate connection between man's spirit and his body there
is nothing at which to be surprised in the fact that the transgression
had results which affected both parts of man's nature.
But just as man's dual nature has been spoiled by his sin, so that
nature has been redeemed in its entirety by Christ. Our Lord's
death secures the justification of every sinner who will accept " the
gift by grace." (Romans v. 15). The believer has been now justified
by Christ's blood (Romans v. 9). That is to say, he is put back
spiritually into the right relationship with God from which Adam fell
by his transgression, and in which alone man can find his true satis-
faction.
Spiritually this becomes true as soon as ever a man by faith accepts
the reconciliation, as multitudes can testify from their own happy
experience. They know that the cloud between them and God hrur
gone, that they have been brought back again into that right and
happy relationship with Him, and that life henceforth for them is a
new thing.
But they are still face to face with the consequences of sin in the body.
Even if Christ be in them, and they in Christ, their "body is dead
because of sin" (Romans viii. 10). But the redemption which our
Lord secured through His passion and death is something which
includes man's whole nature, body as well as spirit. Man, therefore,
 28 THE CHURCHMAN
is still" waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body~·
(Romaps viii. 23).
This redemption of the body is to be realised at our Lord's Second
Coming. " We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump." (I Corinthians xv. 51-2). What this
change will involve is, of course, something which is entirely outside
our own experience, and about which we know nothing. But it
seems clear that the resurrection body somehow partakes of the
characteristics of the present mortal body. (I Corinthians xv. 42 f).
And this is consistent with the fact that man is declared to have been
made in the image of God. We saw at the outset that this included
the capacity for sharing the resurrection, whatever else it might mean.
The foregoing is an attempt to set forth briefly the Bible teaching
concerning ourselves. It is teaching which is at many points being
sharply criticised to-day, as indeed it has often been. And it is,
. therefore, teaching which is all the more necessary for the Christian
unfalteringly to urge upon the attention of his fellowmen.

The Word and the Wisdom of God.

Bv T. MILLER NEATBY, M.A., M.D., CANTAB., M.A., LoND.

O NLY by the Evangelist John is the title" Word" (in the Greek,
'Logos') applied to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
For Matthew, Christ is "Great David's Greater Son," heir of
his throne and Israel's promised Messiah. For Mark, He is the Divine
Servant. For Luke, He is the Perfect Man. For John, He is the
Word, the Son of God, Himself God blessed for ever.
The abrupt introduction, without preliminary or explanation, of
this title in the first verse of St. John's Gospel shows that the Logos,
a conception hovering uncertainly upon the confines of theology and
of philosophy, was familiar-superficially, at least,-to those for whom
the Apostle was writing. What, then, is the meaning of this title
"The Word," applied by St. John to our Lord?
From a very early date philosophic Greeks had perceived at the
heart of the visible ordered world or ' cosmos ' a rational principle
which they called the' logos' or" reason." They argued, reasonably
enough, that a world that displayed such order revealed also an
ordering intelligence. Many of them-the Stoics, for example-
rejecting, as do the fashionable scientific pantheists of to-day, the
idea of a personal and transcendental intelligence, located the' Logos'
in the ' cosmos ' itself.
Others, more intelligently, regarded the supreme intellectual prin-
ciple-<>r principles, for some of them held that there were several-
as independent of, and above, the material world, and as an emanation
or creation of the Supreme Being.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, born shortly before the Christian
4< era and living his whole life in Alexandria, wrote as a Jew, zealous
indeed for monotheism but deeply attracted by Greek speculative