foot's 'Comm. on Coloss.'). The first reply to such ll proceeding is simply this-thRt the germs of Gnost.ic evil lay in the religious speculations of the first century, And were derived from OrientKl sources. Moreover, satisfactory external evidence for these pastorRl Epistles, at much earlier date than A.D. 150, is forthcoming. 'l'hcy are proof of the coexistence of the perilous dualism in the first century. The genuineness of the Ignatian letters would establish beyond contradiction the much earlier date of the pastoral Epistles. But further, unmistakable proof is found in the Apocalypse (ii. 24) of the use of Gnostic phraseology by the teachers in 'l'hyatirn. Their kno\vledae of" the depths of Satan," and of other mysteries of evil, is sternly repudiated by the Lord; nnd St. Paul is believed by Godet to have encountered the same hostile spirit in Corinth. When Panl hints that some "in the Spirit" actually dared to "call J esU:s accurs~d," he is in all probability referring to those who separated "the Christ" from Jesus believin" that the former was an emanation from God who came down to earth, and that' the hum;n life of Jesus ~as united to him by the loosest vinculum; that the Christ could neither be incarnate, suffer, nor die, nor be raised again. The existence of such a party, who called themselvas the" Christ" party, who repudiated Jesus Christ, who denied the resurrection of Ci,rist, though they might have allowed the death or resuscitation of Jesus, does much to explain the allusions in the two undoubted Epistles to Corinthians (see 2 Cor. xi. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xii. 3). This hypothesis is confirmed by the statement of Epiphanius that 1 Corinthians was written against the error of Cerinthus. Now, it becomes almost certain, from the statement of Polycarp (recorded by Irenreus, iii. 3. 4), that in the later years of John and Cerinthus, these two men came into contact at Ephesus; consequently, the errors of Cerinthus, who held views akin to the Ophites, may have infected the Church at Connth. Therefore the concur1ing testimony of Paul's Epistles, of the Apocalypse, of Iremeus, and of Epiphanius, shows the existence of the evil towards the end of the first century, even so early as A.D. 56-68. And snch a view aids: the reception of the pastoral Epistles as well as the Corinthian Epistles. But great additional light is thrown upon the subject by the writings of Hippolytus (' Ref. Hrer.,' bk. v.). He described at great length the views of these Ophites or their subordinate sects, and regarded them as the earliest of the Gnostics, and he also reports the uses they made of testimonies from the four Gospels. The q notations made by them from the Fourth Goepel (so far as this question of date is concerned) are of very explicit character. Thus eh. iii. 6; i. 3, i; ii. 1-11; with strong references to eh. vi. 53. Ch. viii. 21; xiii. 33; x. 9; iv. 21; ix. 1, were cited by them. Hippolytus, moreover, gives extracts from the books of the Peratre, in which John's Gospel is frequently quoted. We can- not say positively when the books were written, but we have seen reasons for·believing that there is much in the :New Testament to justify belief that the statements of Hippolytus and Irerncns are correct when they assign to them great antiquity. It is highly probable that they were among the earliest to try and twist to their own purpose the sacred words of the Fourth GospeL 9. Oondusion. Our conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel is quoted by heretics and Christian philosophers, by apostolic Fathers and early apologists,_by pseudo-epigraphic writers and historians, by the harmonist and commentator, in one stream from the close of the first century to the close of the second, wben_we find it classed without any hesitation by lreureus, Athenagoras, and Theophylact as John's Gospel. It is used by the Clementine homilists, the most extreme form of Jewish Christianity; and by Gnostics, who went so far in their antagonism to Judaism as to call themselves by the most opprobrious names in Jewish history. The apologies ancl dialogue of Justin reveal its presence, as the original of a vast amount of independent sreculation. 'l'he c:i.::temal evidence, therefore, is as strong as for that of the synoptists-s fact which Keim admits. It is immeasurably greater than for half of the well-known classical compositions. So far as its existenct' is concerned, t~ere C!!;n ~ no manner of question, nor for its wide diffusion, nor for the general respect m which 1t must have been held. There is not the smallest trace of the friction or excitement which its production ln t.he middle of the second century would have produced. We conclude this part of the subject with the external testimony of its closing verses, which correspond with the narrative preserved in the Muratorian Canon, No manuscripts have Leen found without these venes, and, as they use the present tense. •rim GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. xliii
µa.p-rupiiw, In oontmdistinction with the -ypa,i,a.,, a very atron;fovidence is supplied that they nro tho nppenclix of the Ephesinn prosl,yters before the death of the venerable writer, nffirming their nutlior~hip nod their o.uthenticity. Moreover, as Lnthardt observes, the beuding in nil the manuscripts, Ka.-r~ 'lr.,uvnw, rests upon the tradition that accompanied the document from the first.