iv. Uki.athin" to I'llli.d. — Such in brief outline is the theological import of the Epistle. We have Ivoideil preliminary discitssion of the qncsticms belonging to the head of Introduction, becan.se we did not wish to give any countenance to the idea tliat a right understanding of tlie Epistle depends on the previous settlement of doubtful questions respecting its author, its first readers, its dale, itj* theoli>gical alfinilies, etc. We do not believe any- thing of the kind. It has been said, cf;., that no one can understand the Epistle who does not regard it a.s the writing of one belonging to the .s'r/omZ of PliHo and thoroughly conversant with his phil- osophy. We are inclined to think, on the contrary, that to be too sure of this, and to lay great .stress on the supposed fact, is the direct way to nns- miderstaiuling. It is possible to understanil the
main drift of the Epistle while remaining in sas- peuLe as to the connexion with Fhilo. It is best to commence the study of the work tolerably umommitted on the point. It is ijuite projier, as we go along, to keep our eyes open to all traces of afiinity with I'hilo, so that on arriving at the end of the book we may have, not only a distinct idea of its theological drift, but also a more or less probable o])inion on the subordinate (juestion as to the connexion of its author with the Alexandrine school of religious philosophy. But that question, however interesting, is not vital.
That there are affinities of thought and style is not to be ciueslioned, and, indeed, has already been indicated in a pa.ssing way. The author's mode of conceiving heaven as the place of realities and the earth as tlie place of shadows is an in- stance in point. That peculiarity is a fact patent to any attentive reader altogether apart from the question to what source it is to be traced. W'a might notice it though we had never heard of Plato or Philo. The only effect of the hypothesis that the writer was a disciple of the Jewish phi- losopher is somewhat to sharpen our attention and lead us to attach more importance to it than we otherwise would, iierhajis more than it deserves. But there need be no jealousy as to having iiur attention directed to phenomena of this kind. Xo question of religious importance is involved, and the nutltiplication of instances of affinity in word and thought between Ilehrcirs and the writings of I'hilo .serves the purpose, at least, of increasing our acquaintance with the literary characteristics of our Epistle..
Among the verbal affinities with Philo the following may be specltled. Philo, lilie our author, uses the jtrophftn for" llie OT. •.\Trau7off^a anil xapaKT^p tlntl a place in his vocabulary, dufitaT^ptor is used by hini (not in LXX i for the altar of incense. Amonu the functions he uscrihos to the Lo^'os is that of cutter (TOMtusK even as our author describes the word of Ood as more cutting; (ToixMTffio^) than any two-edtred sword. The unusual woiils Tpa\T)A(t,'u» (4") and ^erpcoTTafltw (.V) both occur in Phllo. Less retiiiiri^able is the coincident use by the two writers ot the epitlii'ts Tt^virtj^ and ii^Mtovpyof in reference to God (11'"). Aiuont: tile thought atlinities m.iy be reckoned the distinction between Ta litatvofxtviL (ll*)=PIilIo's 6 opaTot Koapioi, the visible world, and the non-visible things (fiij e#e ^baceOMceue, I l*l=Pliiio's KoiTfioi voTjTO';, the world of ideas ; tlie conception of heaven as tlie country or home (TraTpi«, 11") of the soul; the applieation to Christ of attributes ascribed in Philo to the Logos, such as TrpwiroToieo? (K') answering to irpeajSu .-epo? nios or irpiuTOyoeo? in Pliilo; deostli't. apxitpfiJv- To these instances thoroughgoing advocates of dependence on Philo would add the whole Met- chizedelc excursus, but without good reason. \t this jioint our author drew his ins[>iration, not from Philo, but from the lleb. (irophet who wrote the lluth Psalm. Philo does not guoto or refer to the tevi about .Mclehi/edek in that psalm, and there is nothing in all his writings to show that he followed the psalmist, or set the example to 4iiir author, in ascribing to tlio priest of Salem an ideal significance. Itleek states, with strict truth, tliat in Pldlo the significance of Melchizedek is always treated in an incidental manner.* As to the attribute of ciil- ting. ascribed to tile word of tlod in llehr^iCM, and to the Logos in I'liilo, the resomblanee is in wonl rather than in tlioui:ht. Our author is not ttilnking of the personal Logos In the passage in question, and the finiction he ascribes to the Wonl is rtJiU-al, exercised in the spirit of man. whereas the function Plillo had In view was that of dividing the material of which the world is made into genera and species. On the whole. If. as Is not lEnlirobable. the writer was more or less fantiliar with the Ideas and phiiosoptiic laleet to wtileli the .\ Icvandrlan school of •lewlsh philosophy gave wide currency In the first christian century, there is no evidence in his work of abject discipieslilp, but at most of a very five Independent use of wonls atid ideas hailing from that in'iartor, just so far as they would serve liis purpose.
V. Kki.ATIKN' to St. PaI'L.— A sitnilar relation ot iiideiienilence towards the .l/<o.s7/.' I'fiiil must be claimed for the Epistle. That the aposlle was i\ot the iiulhor of it is now .so generally admitted that it is hardly worth while di.scu.ssing the qiie.s- tiofi. The iliversity in the use of important theo- logical terms such as ayidfu afid irfirnt, the broad contnist in style, the marked imlividualily of the