in the orations of the prophets as in the proverbs and poetry of the people. The prophets and lawgivers were the great formative forces of the nation; the sages and psalmists were excellent representatives of the progress made. They were more than that. Sometimes they expressed life better than the prophets, just as modern poets sometimes describe life, and voice the aspirations and ideals of the soul better than philosophers and statesmen, and they did so because they wrought under no unyielding law or convention, but allowed themselves to be carried away by the emotion of lofty spiritual ideas beyond the level which contemporary life had reached.

The prophets painted the darker side of the nation's life as was inevitable because of their office. Whenever they touched things with a lighter hand, it was either to recall the ancient glories, or sound forth the greater glories yet to be. Of the not uncommon happiness and optimism of contemporary life they said but little. That brighter, sunnier side is however finely brought to light in the leisurely aggregations of the proverbs, in so many of the psalms, and even in such apparently sombre books as Job and Ecclesiastes. These writings, especially the religious songs, tell us much about the sweet, happy, free religious life that prevailed in the midst of very troubled times, and that otherwise would have remained unknown. And this is not without its modern parallel. In the darkest days of medieval Rome most noble hymns and meditations were written, showing that there always was a pure Church, a holy "remnant," and such writings remain with us amongst the noblest literature, the most cherished treasures of the Church's faith. So in Israel there was for many a day, in spite of obstacles and calamities not exceeded in the history of any people, a rich and deep religious spirit amongst others than the prophets and their schools, and many of the psalms are the unanswerable proof of it. In all the Hebrew scriptures there is not another book that has so rich a history as the Psalter, or that is more profitable to the religious student. "No other collection of religious poetry in the world has ever exercised so deep an influence, consoled so many sufferers, given strength for so many conflicts, and given words to the inmost thoughts of so many pious hearts." The prophetic orations are couched in terms of national compass; the prophets lived for

others, and that was, and is still the very heart of religion. On the other hand the psalms, while often national enough in spirit, give utterance in the main to purely subjective feelings, expressive of personal relation to God, of sorrow for personal sins, of joy in the victory over personal temptation, of the hope of eternal life. It is this personal element which gives the psalmists precedence in the Christian heart over the prophets, and makes the Psalter the greatest manual of devotion in the Christian world.

There is another fact of profound interest in the history of religious thought brought home to us in the later psalms. Already it has been shown that in some of them like xciii the Davidic throne is fading out of sight, and the throne of Jehovah is becoming visible instead; but a further change in the spiritual outlook of the people is indicated by these psalms, the change from Mosaism to Judaism. "Mosaism was the calling forth of a nation to bear witness to the Eternal, and necessarily implied a promise of external and manifest strength to the nation thus unified." That promise did not pass on to later Israel. It was buried forever in the national ruin that resulted from the exile. And men began to see more clearly than perhaps Zechariah himself saw the significance of his words; "Not by might nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts." (iv:6). For a time the transition movement was certainly one of contraction, both as to national aspiration and inward point of view, yet was it a preparation also for infinite expansion. Soon after the restoration it must have been quite obvious to observant minds that the days of the old national Israel were numbered. Their condition under the Persian and early Greek supremacy was in many respects not only supportable but prosperous; still were they a subject people. And as they saw, not so long after the return, the Greek colossus rising in the West, and the inevitable Græco-Persian conflict approaching, they could expect for the future no larger liberty or influence than they were already enjoying. In the chances of war and conquest and new masters they could look for no improvement in their condition. In these circumstances the idea of the "remnant" began to settle down in their minds, and soften for them the sharp pain and humiliation it used to bring, and it began to dawn upon them that the "remnant" was to be the seed of a new dispensation. After all,

as the more discerning minds began to learn in the experience of repeated and crushing calamity, to be a glorious nation was not the destiny divinely planned for Israel. To some natures this was so overwhelming a disappointment that it made shipwreck of their faith, to some it resulted in a narrow and exclusive fanaticism, but to others it was the incoming of the new life fulfilling the old, and finding through them suitable expression in a profound, deep sense of trust at once social and individual, such as we see in the best of the later psalms. Mosaism as a spiritual force had disappeared and Judaism had come. Kittel closes his History of the Hebrews with the fall of Jerusalem. Thenceforward the history of that people is the history of Judaism. The blossom and fruit of the old and the new together we have in the psalms, the latest phase of Hebrew literature and the essence of the religious lessons of vast national calamity and disappointing restoration. Not an Edenic transformation such as was painted in the visions of the second Isaiah, nor a glorious ecclesiastical Jerusalem such as was dreamed by Ezekiel, nor a triumphant national independence as the more secular, worldly-minded contemporaries of the psalmists must have expected; no such things only a sifted "remnant," a spiritual heir to promises which deepen and expand as they pass on to higher spiritual ground, and which, in spite of seasons of terrible spiritual sterility as the centuries come and go, prepare the world for Jesus Christ. M. MACGILLIVRAY.

IT

PHILO AND THE NEW TESTAMENT.*

T is proposed to enquire how far, if at all, the method of Philo and his ideas can be said to have influenced the New Testament. Both of these questions are surrounded with difficulty. Philo is not a pure philosopher of the type of Plato and Aristotle : he does not attempt to construct a system of thought on the basis of reason, but starts from certain preconceptions, which determine the character of his thought. Nor has he elaborated a philosophical system of his own, after a critical investigation of the doctrines of his predecessors, but has taken from them whatever ideas seemed to fit in with his general conception of things. The result is that he presents us with an eclectic philosophy, which rather contains a number of suggestions that, after much critical labour, might be developed into a system, than what can be called a philosophy. It might, perhaps, be said that Philo, in thus sitting loose to any hard and fast system, is only exhibiting the true philosophical temper, which refuses to admit that any given doctrine sums up the whole body of truth, and that he is to be commended, instead of condemned, for his contempt of system-mongering. The defence seems to me to be based upon a misunderstanding of the true function of philosophy. If we compare the method of Philo with one of the great masters of speculation, we shall see that his eclecticism is a mark, not of strength, but of weakness. Aristotle, for example, everywhere shows an accurate acquaintance with the thought of his predecessors and contemporaries. It is his custom to begin the discussion of any topic by citing the current views in regard to it, and then going on to consider the doctrines of the philosophers. This method he follows under the conviction that no belief has been held by man that does not contain some rational element which has commended it to the minds of those who held it. But Aristotle is also convinced that those views are only partial aspects of a more comprehensive truth; and therefore he makes it his main point to discover what that truth is. This is not the method of *A pamphlet containing Extracts from Philo, may be had from R. UGLOW & Co., Kingston.

Philo. He starts with the assumption that Moses, whom he assumes to have been the author of the Pentateuch, was the possessor of all truth; and, under this preconception, he proceeds to find in the words of Moses whatever truth he seems to have discovered from any source. The result of course is that he is forced to read into scripture a meaning which it does not possess, so that its plain and simple sense is overlaid with the ideas of his own time. Similarly, he reads the Greek philosophers, not with the object of finding out what they really meant, or of discovering the element of truth which they had got hold of, but as witnesses for ideas which belonged to the age in which he lived. Thus, Philo never comes into direct contact with the minds of sacred or profane writers, but approaches them with a priori conceptions of what they ought to have said. Of course this criticism is not meant as a charge against Philo: he was simply following the method of his time, and could do no otherwise; but, in attempting to determine his personal value and influence, we have to bear in mind the character of his mind and the limitation of his age. Especially, in attempting to estimate his influence upon Christian thought, we must have a perfectly clear idea of the fundamental defect of his method. Christian writers of the early centuries borrowed the method of Philo, and even in our own day there are theologians who have not shaken off its influence.

When we come to enquire whether Philo has influenced the writers of the New Testament, a problem of great difficulty immediately presents itself. The influence of one writer upon another cannot be directly inferred from the use of common terms, or a similarity of ideas or expressions. For, two writers may be entirely independent of each other, and may yet express themselves in an almost identical way. There are terms and ideas which belong to the atmosphere of an age; they have come, no one knows whence, and have become the symbols of current ideas. We do not, for example, prove that the writer of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Philo, because both speak of the Joyo as a manifestation of God. We are safe in saying that the term belonged to the age, but not that the one writer borrowed from the other. Fortunately, the question is of less importance than some writers seem to imagine. Suppose it were proved