side. It is still more difficult to bring any argument bearing on the less mechanical theory of composition favoured by the Tübingen School, in particular by Schwegler and Hilgenfeld. Where objections are urged Schwegler. against particular passages, they could only be met by finding references to these passages; and this we can hardly hope to do in one short epistle. Out of the list of possible coincidences given above, there are two references to passages in the Gospel which are much disputed; but they are of such a character that it is impossible to base any inference on them. One is the exceedingly doubtful reference to the parable of the Ten Virgins; the other is the quotation, “Many are called and few chosen," which might come out of the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt. XXII. 14, a disputed passage), but it has been alleged, as seen above, that the words are derived from Matt. XX. 16, or even from some uncanonical source. There is consequently no light obtainable from this epistle on the question of the integrity of this Gospel'. At the same time I am in candour bound to state that the argument from silence goes some way to show that the Gospel of S. Matthew was not in common use as a recognised authority among those to whom the epistle is addressed. To take one conspicuous instance. In the discussion upon the Sabbath in XV., we find not the most distant allusion to the narratives of Matt. XII., or the emphatic declarations in vv. 8, 12 of that chapter; while at the same time we cannot but feel how apposite and conclusive such a reference would have been, to support the main argu ment. Tischendorf maintains that there are distinct traces Alleged traces of the 1 No argument against it is at all supported however. Cf. Volkmar in his edition of Credner's Geschichte pel, Fourth Gos of the use of the Fourth Gospel; the attempt to establish this from the reference to the Crucifixion which it contains, has been already shown to be futile. The only other alleged coincidence, the mention of the brazen serpent as a type of Christ (XII. 7), seems almost to exclude the possibility of dependence. Keim' admits this, but still considers that there is such a close correspondence between the epistle and the Gospel in "the inmost sphere of thought," that either the latter is a development of the former, or the epistle a scholastic exposition of the Gospel. But if our account of the problem which gave rise to the epistle be correct, we shall have no difficulty in supposing that the connexion is due to the similar pressure of external circumstances, and we need not be forced to adopt the supposition that the epistle is an exposition of the Gospel from the pen of one who did not value it very highly and permitted himself very many divergences from it. and of various Epistles, especially Romans Hilgenfeld, who considers the epistle a development of Paulinism, has given up all the supposed references to the Pauline Epistles, and only regards the use of Gen. XVII. 5 in XIII. as possibly due to the perusal of the Apostle's argument in Rom. IV. 112. But besides this there are several other passages where the sense of verses in the same Epistle is closely followed. They are for the most part cases of a strong similarity in the use of the Old Testament, and considering the immense amount of verbal discussion there must have been at that time, it is not impossible that the two Epistles should be connected by common oral teaching: an additional proof of this is the fact that some of these passages are quoted in more than one inspired Epistle,. 1 Keim, Jesus of Nazara, I. 189. 2 Apostol. Väter, pp. 47, 48. e.g. we may compare XIII. 7 with Romans IV. 3, or Gal. III. 6, or James II. 23. At the same time, as the sentence immediately following coincides with Rom. IV. II, we should incline to refer both to that Epistle rather than to either of the others. Besides, the argument in XIII. 2, 3, about Isaac is found in Romans IX. 10-13, and not in any other epistle. Again, the passage in XIX. 7 may be compared with Romans VIII. 29 and 30, or with I Pet. II. 9. Another passage which might be referred to either and 1 Peter; of these Epistles, is the mention of Christ as a cornerstone, elect and precious, in VI. 2. It is possible to compare it either with Romans IX. 33 or with I Pet. II. 6, 7, 8. In XII., at the end of the discussion of the brazen serpent, there is a doxology closely resembling Romans XI. 36. There is a close agreement with I Cor. III. 8, in IV., in speaking of the judgment; and the idea of a spiritual temple is also common to both these passages as well as to I Peter II. 6, 8. It is to the last of these that I should prefer to refer the quotation. A few other ideas are made prominent here which we also find in the Epistles, e.g. respect of persons is blamed by S. James; but these are the only coincidences which are at all worthy of notice. We can only say that it is but no defiwithin the bounds of possibility that the author had sion can be the Epistle to the Romans and I Peter before him, possibly I Corinthians, and some would say Galatians, but that there is no sufficient reason for alleging that he had any of them at all. The weak point about the argument is, that agreement is generally found in the use of Old Testament passages in an application which must have been of daily occurrence in the Church. Others, which are in regard to the last judgment, might almost be framed out of Matthew XXIV.; and the nite conclu reached. doxology might surely have been of early origin, and adopted by both. The conclusion then to which we are led is a purely negative one; we are not in a position to assert that any Epistle was in the hands of our author. The argument for the use of any of the Epistles is much less convincing than that for the use of S. Matthew's Gospel, even independently of the apparent quotation. Relation of our author to Gnosticism, which was quite undeveloped, There is so much said about yvwois in the epistle, and there are so many allegorical interpretations, that we might expect to find it considerably marked with traces of Gnosticism: but this is not the case, and the mere fact, that our author was so clearly affected by this spirit, while he shows neither affinity with, nor antagonism to, the developed systems, has been already insisted upon as having a bearing on the question as to the date of the epistle. Whether we regard Gnosticism as fundamentally a revolution against the Pauline tendency to exalt faith at the expense of knowledge, or as an attempt to establish a philosophy of religion, or as an effort to escape from the comparative narrowness and positive nature of the Jewish religion by the introduction of Oriental Mysticism-and various forms of Gnosticism were really but different combinations of these elements-we shall find but little trace of any of these in the general tone of the epistle. The author had not advanced so far as the Pauline conception of faith, far less placed himself in antagonism to it. The questions of the origin of evil, or the possibility of the union of the infinite and finite or spiritual and material, do not the air. appear to come before him at all, nor does he seek to rise to any higher life than that of conduct. The man who followed his precepts and walked in the way of light would only be ψυχικός after all, and not πνευμαTIKÓS, according to the distinctions which were drawn by others. Yet he is not altogether unaffected by the atmosphere around him. The germs of Gnosticism were but still in part of the spirit of the age: it was in the air. We can see traces of it in his writings, partly in opposition to external forms, partly in phrases which show that he had imbibed the subtile influence. Yet from what we read we can see that he would have been distinctly opposed to all those elaborate theosophies, which are so alien and unnatural to our way of thinking, but which sprang up most naturally in days that were disturbed by the rival claims of Grecian philosophy, of Oriental religions, of Jewish, and later, of Christian Revelation, among men by whom all of these were, regarded as various opinions to be sifted, and if possible reconciled. His doctrine of the person of our author's Christ, shows that our author did not feel the same difficulties about the relation of spirit and matter as others did and the advantages of yvwois are never put forward as opposed to faith or righteousness. No formed conception of a higher and lower Divinity can be detected, nor of a Demiurgus opposed to the Deity, though there are traces of the feeling in accordance with which the latter conception was framed. For instance, in XVIII. 2 we may trace germs of the idea of a moral duality. How far this might have been the case had he proceeded with his task, and given us the yvos of the present and future, we cannot say; the yvoσis of the present would be a philosophy of redemption-the yvois of the future, an apocalypse. We : position, |