his grace and revelation. It is not the purpose of God ever to make the heathen nations, as such, the seat of his kingdom. When Malachi prophesies that the worship of God shall be universal, this holds good only of the Jews dispersed throughout the whole world. To the thought of the universality of the kingdom of God, the Jewish religious consciousness accordingly stands in irreconcilable opposition. Absolutely abandoned of God and his Spirit, the nations of the world have fallen into the service of sin, especially that of the flesh. Job was the only righteous man among his contemporaries. Rebekah is called the rose among the thorns. Even the lands of the heathen are declared unclean.

The moral and religious worthlessness of the heathen world produces for God neither temporal nor eternal fruits, and for this reason it has no worth and importance for God and his kingdom. Just as little value has it for the Church of God, which has to fulfill toward it only the duty of self-preservation.

In proof of these statements, Dr. Weber gives various passages from the Jewish writings, in which the heathen are represented as offscourings and corpses, and subject to damnation. Between the Jews and the heathen there is no middle ground upon which they could come in contact with each other. The wisdom of the Greeks, their language, and their philosophy, are without value for Israel. Hillel and Shammai forbade to the Jews the oil of the heathen. Judah Hannasi, however, allowed it. The daughters of the heathen from their birth were regarded as unclean, so that approach to them was forbidden on pain of death. No benevolent acts were to be accepted from the heathen, since these favors are as injurious to Israel as the poison of a serpent.

In view of the nature of heathenism, the questions necessarily arise, Why does God allow it to continue to exist? how is it, as such, to be reconciled with his justice? and whether no advantage will accrue to the heathen world from its continued existence? The first question is dispatched by a glance at the government of the world; the second, by a view of the mediatorship of Israel; the third, by a consideration of each of the things that are to come to Israel from the heathen. A further difficulty is, How can Israel stand under the heathen power? But the people of God remain without any connection with

the world-power; besides this, the relation is transitory, and will be adjusted in the judgment concerning the heathen.

In answer to the question, Why does not God destroy idolatry by destroying the objects worshiped? it is replied, that many things worshiped, as sun, moon, etc., could not be spared; and if God destroyed those which could be spared, the faith of the idolater in the divinity of the remaining objects as being indestructible would be confirmed. The heathen world is represented as being allowed to exist on account of the proselytes who come out of it to Judaism. But as the kingdom of God does not depend for its existence upon the accessions from the heathen, it is in no way the duty of the Church of God to seek the heathen and win them over to it. Shammai rejected the heathen man who wished to learn merely the written law. In receiving proselytes from the heathen, the Jews first instructed them in the commandments and in the doctrine of rewards and punishments, then circumcised and immersed them.

Although single individuals out of the heathen world, by voluntarily uniting themselves to Israel, are saved, yet the nations of the world, as such, have no other future than that of judgment. Here there is no compassion. God judges them strictly. All creatures except Israel are destined for the day of judgment and destruction. They will all be cast into Gehinnom, (gehenna, hell,) where they will suffer eternal damnation, while the apostates of Israel, after some time, through repentance and the merits which they possess, will again come out of Gehenna.

But a more difficult question for Israel is, Why are the people who have taken upon themselves the kingdom of heaven compelled to submit to the yoke of the heathen world-power? The solution of the question lies in this, that even if Israel does submit and perform service for, and pay taxes to, the world-power, so far as he retains his freedom of conscience, and is not compelled to take a part in idolatry, he does not feel himself bound to come into close relationship to the heathen power, nor does he acknowledge the divine right of the heathen magistrates.

VII. THE WRITTEN WORD.

-The Holy The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures arose through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;

accordingly they come from God himself, who speaks in them. Nevertheless, there are different degrees of inspiration in the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as the Torah is the primary, and the other Holy Scriptures are the secondary, revelation of God. As Holy Scriptures the following books were acknowledged: The Torah, (five books of Moses,) Nebiim, (the prophets,) and Kethubim, (the Hagiographa,) as they were united together in one whole by the men of the Great Synagogue.

Divine revelation begins in the patriarchal age, for the patriarchs were prophets and spoke through the Holy Spirit. The endowment of the prophets with the Holy Spirit lasted until Malachi, with whom the period of revelation in the stricter sense of the word closes. From the time of Malachi, if an immediate divine revelation was to be made, the bath kol, a voice of revelation from above, was heard. That the prophets, from Moses to Malachi, spoke through the Holy Spirit, we have in proof not merely general expressions, but single words of Scripture are quoted directly as the words of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Weber gives various passages in proof of the statements. The Torah is called absolutely the Holy Scripture, and the prophets and the Hagiographa are called elements of the Torah. In this way, Sanhedrin, 91, Psalm lxxxiv, 4, is cited as from the Torah. Accordingly, Torah stands for Scripture in general; just as in John x, 34, our Saviour quotes Psa. lxxxii, 6, as "written in your law."

The canonical authority of certain parts of Holy Scripture was subject to an examination. Doubts at one time were expressed respecting Ezekiel. The Book of Jonah was attacked, but the doubts were refuted. Also the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Esther were attacked. These doubts were collectively refuted, and the canon remained just the same as, according to tradition, it had been fixed by the men of the Great Council.

Peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures:

1. They were called Holy Writings. Of this ample proof is furnished from rabbinical sources.

2. A second characteristic of the Holy Scriptures, the consequence of their divine origin, is, that they are an authoritative rule of action. Copious proofs of this statement are furnished.

3. A third peculiarity, which results from the character of the Holy Scripture as divine, is the infinite fullness of its contents, which, however, is opened only to the one "who knows how to explain it, but is closed to the ignorant."

The Holy Scriptures and the Church.-The Holy Scriptures, on account of their nature, cannot be directly employed for the knowledge and life of the Church, but they need authentic interpretation. Only in this adapted form are their contents binding. On this account they are not sufficient in themselves for a knowledge of salvation for the Church, but require supplement through further instruction.

According to the Jewish theology, the Mishna, the explanatory repetition of the Torah, is not something that was added to the Torah somewhat later, but, from the nature of the Torah, was demanded from the beginning. It was ordained that mothers should lead their children not only to the Scriptures but also to Mishna, which means, either that they themselves should impress upon them the text of the Scripture and Mishna, or take their children to school to learn both.

Every scholar or well-instructed man stands in need, not only of a knowledge of the Scripture, but also, in a certain measure, of the Mishna and Gemara. The Scripture alone is sufficient for nobody.

ART. II.-DOCUMENTARY ORIGIN OF GENESIS.

THE learned commentator Vitringa was the first to remark (in his Sacræ Observationes, Franec., 1683) that "Moses probably collected, digested, adorned, and where defective completed, documents and records [schedae et scrinia] preserved among the patriarchs." Astruc, a French physician, still further suggested (in his Conjectures sur les Mémoires originaux de Moïse, etc., Paris, 1753) that Moses used twelve separate writings, particularly two, distinguishable by the occurrence of the divine names Elohim and Jehovah respectively. Subsequent critics, especially in Germany, caught at the idea, and they have vied with each other in ingeniously distributing the book of Genesis among the supposed two or more original authors

usually styled "the Elohist" and "the Jehovist." Specimens of these may be seen in any of the critical commentaries or introductions; no two of them agree in detail. The conflicting views of Astruc, Eichhorn, Ilgen, De Wette, Von Bohlen, Gramberg, Ewald, Hupfeld, and Knobel, as given by Bleek, ("Introduction to the Old Testament," translated from the German by Venables, London, 1860, vol. i, p. 257 and following,) are well summed up by Bishop William Thomson, ("Aids to Faith," N. Y., reprint, 1864, p. 221 and following,) to which Keil ("Introduction to the Old Testament," translated from the German by Douglass, Edinburgh, 1869, vol. i, p. 80 and following) adds others. Our purpose in this paper is briefly to examine this theory in the light of the facts, and see what degree of probability there is in it.

One evidence of this duplex authorship is thought of late to be found in certain repetitions of the history, particularly the double account of the creation of man, (chap. i, 26-28; ii,) where also the above distinction of the divine names prevails. The latter of those passages, however, is evidently only a statement of the former with ampler details, and in view of the probation following. Another ground of the twofold theory is the variation of style perceptible in the different portions of the book. But this, unless, perhaps, we may except chap. i, is not so marked as to prove a variety of authorship; and if it were, it would show not simply two, but probably several others. Moreover, the sections thus indicated do not usually tally with those denoted by the Jehovistic and the Elohistic usage, and so one argument nearly neutralizes the other. The evidence therefore resolves itself substantially into the use of these two names; and this mark is fortunately so palpable on the surface and recognizable in even a (good) translation, that we shall here confine ourselves to its consideration as determinative of the whole subject.

The following is a fair division of the book of Genesis into sections based upon a clear alternation of these sacred names, and by its means we shall proceed to test the theory of authorship in question:

I. The general Creation.-Elohistic exclusively, (i–ii, 3.)

II. Eden and the Fall.- Jehovah-Elohistic almost exclusively, (ii, 4-iii.)