167 
it affords, what the various clumsy periphrases do not, a con- 
venient adjective. This may be so, but truth must not be 
sacrificed for the sake of convenience. Taking the New Testa- 
ment as a text-book in regard to the science of Pneumatology 
and Psychology, I find that Spirit, the immortal part, whether 
as referring to God, to man, or to demons, is there Pneuma, 
never Psyche. Discourse, therefore, on man's spiritual part, 
strictly speaking, should be called Pneumatology. 
2. Delitzsch supposes the soul to be the outward expression 
of spirit : the view is Platonic, but not Biblical, and it is to 
this confusion of thought that we owe the confusion of terms 
in common use. But Holy Scripture distinguishes between 
spirit, and soul, and body, and I venture to think it has a 
consistency and philosophical accuracy in its use of terms that 
we fail to meet with elsewhere. 
3. The Old Testament stands, however, upon a different foot- 
ing to the New. It was composed by men unknown to each 
other, and living at different and widely separated periods of 
the Church's history. They were in a sense compelled to use 
the language of their times. And, moreover, we find in their 
writings an obvious adaptation of language to the wants of the 
age in which they lived. I will here give an illustration of 
this from the different names applied to God. In the Pen- 
tateuch, in Joshua and Judges, we never meet with the title 
“ the Lord of Hosts," but in the books of Samuel, Chronicles, 
and throughout the rest of the books of the Old Testament, it 
occurs frequently. Here we find in the introduction of a new 
title the adaptation of Church teaching to the wants of the 
age. When the “ hosts of heaven" came to be worshipped, 
the Church of that age rebuked the idolatry by connecting 
God's name with that which was worshipped. And were it 
not that I should be digressing, I might here point out that 
those who assume that the title Jehovah belongs to the times 
of Samuel, and that therefore the Pentateuch which contains 
that title is not older than the times of Samuel, would do well 
to set themselves to work and explain how, upon their own 
principles of criticism, it comes to pass that the book of Samuel 
contains the name u Lord of Hosts " not less than seven times, 
while the Pentateuch, which has been fathered upon his times, 
is wholly silent as to the existence of such a title. But I pro- 
ceed. . This adaptation of terminology in the Old Testament, 
of which I am speaking, bends itself in another direction. 
Natural religion was anterior to that which is revealed, and it 
is of wider extension ; it belongs to the world, while revelation 
is peculiar to the Church. But just as the Church came in 
contact with what remained that was good of the world's 
