the career, or condition of life, which necessitates the writer addressing his readers as fellow-countrymen, the seed of Abraham. This excludes Luke the Greek. Finally, there is required a set of opinions or teaching symbolic and transcendental, and, coupled with this, such a temperament of natural ability and forcefulness as to round out the psychological resemblance.

There is only one man in whom these widely different qualifications are brought together. It is proof of the dif ficulty of fixing upon an anonymous writer, that his name was not suggested until the Reformation, and yet it speaks for the sagacity of Luther that his conjecture of Apollos is borne out so fully by the ancient description. In Acts we read that Apollos was "a Jew, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, who powerfully confuted the Jews, and that publicly" (Acts xviii. 24-28). Now see how this tallies with the main requirements and even the sub-conditions of the case. Apollos, as a Jew of the Dispersion, was not an original apostle, but only one of those "confirmed" in his salvation "by those that heard." Next, living in a second Athens of Hellenistic culture, he would naturally write a purer Greek than a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Moreover, as an eloquent man and one noted in the Corinthian church for his "persuasive words of wisdom," Apollos' writings would possess a more stately and polished style than Paul's Epistles. But general superiority of diction is not so decisive a test as the writer's specific quotations from the Old Testament. Apollos was a Jew, but he used a Greek Bible, the Septuagint being a distinctively Egyptian production. And Apollos meets the conditions of career in all their intricacy. He was a Jew, and could therefore address his hearers as descendants of the fathers. Moreover, he held intercourse with the Twelve, not originally, for when first brought to our notice he "knew only the baptism of John." Yet lat

terly he was confirmed by those that heard-for at Ephesus dwelt St. John, and in Corinth St. Paul. An acquaintance with his readers is more difficult to prove. If the Epistle was an encyclical addressed to "Hebrews" scattered in the Christian Dispersion, Apollos would have known many such communities. He came from Egypt, which had a larger Jewish population than Palestine itself; he held public discussion with Jews in Ephesus; he had a following of Jews-like Aquila and Priscilla-in Corinth. On the other hand, if the Epistle is directed to the Hebrews in Jerusalem, we have only probability that Apollos personally knew his hearers. We know that he went from Alexandria to Ephesus, and from Ephesus to Corinth, and also that he was urged by Paul to "journey diligently" from Crete to Necropolis (Tit. i. 5 and iii. 13). Apollos' travels were extended. It is, therefore, probable that he went to Jerusalem, whether on a devout pilgrimage to the Holy City, or to visit the headquarters of the church.

There remains, as a last and most intricate test of Apollos' candidacy, his psychological resemblance to the author of Hebrews. The little that can be said as to moral identity may be left to the end; the mental identity, as disclosed by internal evidence, needs a more thorough elucidation. As we have seen, the opinions set forth in the book were throughout typical and symbolic. In brief, the priestly arrangements of the past were considered to be obscure reflections of new truths. Now the man most skilled in this kind of interpretation was Philo, who was teaching in Alexandria in Apollos' own lifetime. But for all this congeniality with the Neo-Platonic philosopher in ideal concepts and even single expressions, the writer of our Epistle had a different end and purpose. What is said of Apollos in Ephesus describes this, "He taught carefully the things of Jesus." Thus both the agreements and disagreements of the two Alexandrians will explain two marks

of our Epistle,-its strain of speculative loftiness and its Christocentric aim.

From the doctrinal contents of the Epistle arises another distinction; our author does not entirely depend on Philo, no more does he on Paul. One example will suffice. The Pauline view of the law was realistic,-it was a dead weight which hung about the sinner's neck. The view here set forth was idealistic, the Law was a "shadow of good things to come." In other words, our Epistle was one of decided originality. It had Philonic tendencies, yet it borrowed the Hellenist's figurative method alone. It had Pauline affinities-it taught Christ's humiliation and exaltation— yet it was not an adaptation, but a new presentation. "The main doctrine which runs through the Epistle, the priesthood of Christ, puts Pauline authorship away." We have noted the attitude of authority used toward those whom our writer addresses (xiii. 19, 22). Along with this goes an attitude of mental confidence. In spite of its peculiar and often forced analogies, the doctrinal system of Hebrews is set out with all the assurance of a positive belief. Now Apollos would appear to fulfill this attitude of authority and of mental confidence; he was "fervent in spirit," and he "powerfully confuted the Jews."

We have pretty well exhausted the case for an Alexandrian author of Hebrews. One more point is left. What Apollos accomplished in the propagation of the gospel is the best proof that he had a forcefulness of character such as that manifest in the Epistle. The convert from Alexandria, along with Apostle Peter, became the head of a party in the Corinthian church, and Paul himself acknowledged his share in the work,-"I planted, Apollos watered" (1 Cor. iii. 6). It is needless to sum up the case for Apollos; on every count but one something can be said in his favor. The requisites of style, career, and opinion are all com1 Davidson, Introduction to the New Test.

bined in his personality, and what is to be gathered from the book itself is in close harmony with the description in Acts. But unless this portrayal is considered valid testimony, early external evidence is totally lacking for Apollos as the author of the Epistle. It was not for fourteen centuries that Apollos' name was conjoined with this book, for it was an acute conjecture of Luther that first attributed the Epistle of Alexandrian tone with the learned Alexandrian.

In formulating the final results of our investigations we can do no better than to repeat a former statement: "Either the authorship remains an impenetrable mystery, or it belongs to one whose name was not mentioned in connection with it for many years subsequently." In fine, the answer to the problem of Hebrews may be expressed in terms of that of the problem of Junius; while a general conclusion applying to both these works is this: In view of the difficulty of fixing upon a name when it is not originally given, a book once anonymous is always anonymous.

ARTICLE II.

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT
"NEW THEOLOGY."

BY THE REV. EDWARD HARTLEY DEWART, D.D.

WE hear from time to time references to the "new theology." Certain preachers and authors are spoken of as being in sympathy with modern theological views. There is a good deal of pleading in behalf of keeping up with the results of modern scientific thought, in a way that indicates a desire to make room for some new views which it is implied deserve a favorable reception, though we are generally left in doubt as to what these new ideas really are. It is natural that these things should prompt one to ask: What historic doctrines are assumed to have become effete and obsolete? Is there a new theology? If so, what are its distinguishing characteristics and tendencies? It is somewhat difficult to give definite and satisfactory answers to these questions. It is quite certain that there is no such thing as a new system of doctrines with any claim to supersede the historic teachings of Christianity. None of the great truths of our holy religion have lost their vital interest and adaptation to our human need. Humanity has not outgrown those sacred verities which have inspired the saintly and heroic souls of the ages in their work of faith and labor of love. The Scripture truths concerning God's character, man's condition by nature-his duty and destiny, the divine character and redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the claims of God's revealed will to our acceptance and obedience, are still "the power of God unto salvation" to every one who receives them with a living