had three different modes of writing, or, in other words, three different sorts of characters. These were, the epistolographic, or common characters, used in all the common transactions of life; the hieratic, or sacerdotal, employed general outlines of so much learning." merely in the writing of books by the-Spineto's Elements of Hieroglyphics, priesthood; and the hieroglyphics, des- Lect. 10th, pp. 362, 363.

use.

believers in Christian doctrine. Even The apostles therefore followed in the times of the apostles this was felt the plan adopted by our Lord himself. to be the case; hence Paul's writings, In no case does He even assume that though so frequently misunderstood, his hearers are unacquainted with the had reference chiefly to the great con- fact of the existence of a spiritual sense, troversy between Jewish converts and but simply expounds that sense by the Gentile converts, the former insisting assertion, "This is that which was that the law of Moses should be united | written by the prophet." And this with the faith of Christ, and the latter very absence of any dogmatic reference claiming to be free from that law. But as a matter of fact three distinct styles of teaching would be necessary, and three distinct kinds of evidence would be required by these different classes of minds, and it is evident that that which would be most cogent with one class would, in consequence of a different standpoint, be almost useless with another. This, we think, will account for the various modes of reasoning, not only among the Fathers, but also even in the Epistles of the apostles themselves.

to a spiritual sense by our Lord, and subsequently by his apostles, affords a strong presumptive evidence of the character of the Jewish belief with regard to the Old Testament. Certain it is that so far as the New Testament is concerned, no protest against the spiritual method of interpretation is to be found.

And even with regard to the second class-the converts from the Gentile world, or those to whom Christianity was preached, they were as commonly aware that the mythological literation of the past had frequently attached to it something which, if not a spiritual sense, was at least allegorical in its nature,-a fact which would but place the Old Testament on the same ground as their myths, but with the addition of a divine authority, and the apostles and their followers on the same plane as their own philosophers, but with the addition of a divine commission. Accustomed as they must have been to the idea of a twofold signification-to an esoteric and exoteric doctrine-even

The Jews, having the word of the Old Testament among them, and being, therefore, supposed to be acquainted with its contents, and more especially its prophetical contents, as well as the mode of interpretation common among themselves, would at once be prepared to receive the spiritual expositions of the apostles and early teachers. Such teaching would be, to them, no new thing; all that would be new would be the authoritative exposition of certain passages, and their application to their own circumstances, to the doctrines | if ignorant of what such interpretations taught by the apostles, and to the events were, there would still be a groundwork in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. or base for the reception of a spiritual We should expect to find, therefore, as system of exposition both of the law in fact we do, an entire absence of any and the prophets; an affirmative grounddogmatic statement as to the spiritual work, because it would excite none of sense either of history or prophecy. that opposition which would be likely Both parties stood on common ground. to arise if the methods of interpretation So far from regarding proofs thus de- were new, or if it violated the ordinary duced from the Old Testament with habits of thought and investigation. suspicion or distrust, the Jews would With this class, therefore, no apology naturally accept them as being of the for the introduction of a style of spiritual same character they would themselves interpretation would be necessary, and

it need excite no surprise that we find for with the early Christians, and esnone in the apostolic writings.

pecially the converts from Gentilism, the mere statement would assume an entirely different aspect from that which it has assumed in later ages, when it has become a foregone conclusion, from the very fact that it has been superseded

But, further, the grand doctrine which the apostles had to bring before the world was the actual fulfilment of prophecy in the incarnation of our blessed Lord. This was in fact the central point of all their teachings, for upon by Christianity. A glance will show this doctrine Christianity itself was the different ground on which the founded; and all those teachings have church stood in primitive and later a more or less direct bearing upon the ages, and enable us to see that a widely doctrine, or upon those which describe different method of reasoning would be the effects resulting from that divine absolutely indispensable. This method, work. It needs but a slight acquaint- we take it, is to be found in the comance with the Epistles to perceive that mentaries of the Christian Fathers they are for the most part argumenta- rather than in their polemic works. tive treatises rather than expositions, and that as a consequence, an extensive introduction of the spiritual sense of the Word and its teachings, even if the laws thereof were perfectly known, would be out of place; the most simple statements would be the most forcible; while the other or more recondite meanings would as naturally fall into the background-and this without in any way settling the question as to the importance attached by the writers to the one or the other system of interpretation.

Doubtless the Epistles of the Apostles were to some extent answers to questions propounded by the early Christians as to points of doctrine on which they desired some authoritative opinion. Indeed this is generally admitted. But they would thus assume a different character from the ordinary preaching of those early days, which must necessarily have been directed to the elucidation of the question how is the Law to be understood in Christianity, or to the rehearsal of that which the Apostles had heard from our Lord's own lips. They were plainly told that the law was a schoolmaster or type to lead them to Christ; but the principal efforts of those early teachers must have been directed to the method of the "how?"

But the stage into which the church rapidly passed, when she was surrounded by foes both within and without, must have rendered a very different style of teaching and preaching necessary, from that which was prevalent in the first and purer times. And this soon became, in fact, essential to its very existence. This displayed itself in two directions: 1st, in a gradual narrowing down of the doctrines of Christianity within certain limits, and in the effort to define these by symbols or creeds; and, 2d, in the relation which the Word of God occupied on the one hand with reference to the church itself, and on the other with reference to its opponents. This evidently was not the result of real growth in the church, for such growth would have been in the direction of increased instead of diminished spirituality. It clearly sprang from the necessity of meeting false teaching, and of preserving something like uniformity of doctrine in the church; and as the attacks were varied, so would the front of the opposing church be altered to meet the attack. The very importance of the work would necessarily dwarf every other; and, to a great extent, such writings only would be preserved as bore upon the great controversies of the day. But this direction

Mosaic law which was "abolished in Christ." The evil, however, was not, as is generally supposed, the result of the practice of spiritual exposition,-it arose from the want of specific laws by which that interpretation could be governed

of the thought and reasoning of the church was forced upon it in her militant condition. Doctrinal statements must of very necessity be based upon and enforced by literal expressions in the Word. It would have been alike impolitic and foolish to attempt to up-and directed. One interpretation, therehold and defend the creeds by any arguments drawn from the figurative exposition of the Word unless both parties had agreed to some common mode of interpretation, a -a thing which in that state of the church was impossible. For each expositor was left to himself to work out his convictions as best he might, keeing in view as a plan the method adopted by our Lord, and accepted in the canonical epistles.

The increased spread of semi-infidelity in the church led, however, to some other results. The heresies which became prevalent soon changed their character. At first they might have been, to a great extent, merely intellectual in their nature; but this distinctive character ceased, and error rapidly led on to its own legitimate conclusion-evil. Not evil out of, but evil in the church,-practices of the vilest kinds, brought from the idolatries of Gentilism, which were incorporated into a corrupted Christianity, and which were apparently confirmed by some of the teachings of that Christianity. It was made "all things to all men." It is true that the moral law would, by its teachings, have preserved the church from any serious evil,—but in the first place the very method of teaching and expounding the law led the way to the introduction of licentious doctrines,-which were based on a supposed figurative teaching of the law, which obtained all the more force in the church from the universal prevalence of that system of interpretation; and secondly in part from the doctrine then beginning to be taught that the moral law was included in the

fore, was, to the ignorant or licentious, as good as another,—while the debased will would naturally choose that one which was most in harmony with its own predilections. But other conditions arose, and when the more pious of the church revolted at the licentiousness introduced, it was necessary to get rid altogether of the restrictions which might be supposed to be exercised upon some minds by the moral law, and at the same time to counteract all those plain literal expressions of the Word, which taught the necessity of righteousness and truth. And this was speciously done by the Gnostics, who, while recognizing a spiritual sense, reversed the position of the two, and taught that the literal expressions of Scripture were to be expounded by the spiritual, and the simple and plain ones by those which were obscure,—a method of reasoning which would render even an approach to truth in any science impossible. It was like reasoning from the unknown to the known. But it sufficed for the purpose. In the hand of evil men we may readily understand how the Word of God might, by such a system, be made the minister of evil. No wonder that the church found herself compelled, under these fearful circumstances, to once more change her front, and abandon, at least in her polemic life, every trace of belief in a spiritual sense, seeing that the principle had been changed into the most fearful weapon she had ever had to encounter. Not that the existence of a spiritual sense was denied. On the other hand, it was fully admitted. But it was felt that an appeal to its

teachings would at once be fatal to any | account in Genesis is founded on two argument in which it was introduced. principal documents. That of Elohim And as a consequence the church be- is considered as being closely counted gan to feel more and more that it could be built and safely rest upon a literal foundation in the Word,-a position perfectly true in itself,-but which in the then condition of the church, was untenable on any other ground than the abandonment of the spiritual sense. She could exist only by confining all her attention to the letter of the Word, and by teaching that in that letter only Revelation existed in all its purity, and in all its power.-ED.]

XX. THE DOCUMENT THEORY,

AND THE ASSYRIAN TABLETS.

in all its parts, and forming a complete history; while that of Jehovah, is regarded as a supplementary document supplying details where the Elohistic is either abrupt or deficient. Hengstenberg, Ranke, and others, however, consider the book as the work of one hand, and the use of the names as being intentional on his part, and depending upon the view of the subject presented. The former theory, however, appears to be far more generally received, and certainly appears to be based on a greater amount of probability than the latter and especially from the state[When speaking of the early chap- ment made on this subject by Swedenters of Genesis, the author states that borg, who not only points to a previSwedenborg affirms that they are parts ously existing document or documents, of a previous revelation. This state- but specifically states that those parts ment of doctrine was derived from the are portions of the most ancient Word, spiritual world, and it does not appear though we are left in doubt as to what that he was at all acquainted with the was the form in which that Word was results of Biblical criticism, or followed preserved to the time of Moses. This the progress of modern thought in re- view in no way interferes with his stategard to the letter of the Word. Indeed ment that every part of the Word is it is only in comparatively very recent divinely inspired-because in this case times that criticism can be said to have not only the dictation, but the selection held a high position in Biblical studies. also were the work of the Divine Mind. But so long ago as the middle of the last So long as men were satisfied with century a French writer, named Austruc, this chronology of Usher, the chrocalled attention to the fact that on ex-nology of Genesis was a matter of slight amining the two accounts of the crea- importance-because it was easy to aftion in Genesis, he found that in each account a different name is used for the Divine Being one of which parts he styled Jehovistic, and the other Elohistic, from the name used. He also traced the same circumstance as occurring in other parts of the early chapters of Genesis, and came to the conclusion that those chapters were copies of two earlier documents, interwoven together by Moses. The leading features of modern thought upon this subject, may be thus generalized. Stabelin, De Wette, Ewald, and others, consider that the

firm that the chronology of other nations, if inconsistent, was necessarily mythical. But the researches of modern days have made it impossible to accept Usher's statements, and have compelled the learned to admit that the long calendar of names in Gen. iv. and v. must have been names of kingdoms and dynasties, extending over long ranges of time, and not of necessity actually united together. This view has become necessary from the discoveries of recent times, which it is impossible now to ignore. The geo