the context; in the Pastoral Epistles, he is often deserted by the context, as well in respect to the meaning of particular words as to the whole thought, and left to form his opinion from the general usage of the language and the general analogy of the apostle's peculiar sphere of thought; and in like manner in determining the connexion (this applies especially to the first Epistle to Timothy) he is very much left to the resources of his own judgment. How is this dissimilarity to be explained? If we have referred in a general way to the other epistles of Paul in order to make this dissimilarity apparent, we must also, on the other hand, refer to them in our endeavour to account for it. And whilst it cannot be denied that there is a certain similarity between the Pastoral Epistles and the others, it must also be acknowledged how great a difference there is between them. Schleiermacher, with special reference to the first Epistle to Timothy, gives prominence to the objection that it is entirely wanting in specialities, that in it everything wears a general and undefined aspect, and appears unfixed, as if hovering in the air rather than resting on the firm ground of a really existing state of things. But he is not inclined to undertake from a comparison with the rest of Paul's epistles in respect to their style, to prove that this epistle cannot be of a Pauline origin, for, he says this dissimilarity might be of trifling significance, inasmuch as these epistles (the other epistles of Paul) are of so very various a character, that there might easily have been one other differing in a peculiar way from all the rest. Leaving out of view that Schleiermacher would have found it difficult to prove the style of the first epistle to be unpauline, so long as the two others are acknowledged to be Pauline, we accept as perfectly true his remark as to the other epistles of Paul being various in their character, and we unhesitatingly bring it forward in behalf of the three epistles. How different, in spite of the fundamental similarity already alluded to, is the dialectic character of the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, from the oratorical style of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and this again from the Epistle to the Philippians, which approaches nearest to the purely epistolary style, or from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which also has more of the same character. We are then entitled to ask, whether there could not be other epistles still, which might differ again from all the rest in a peculiar way? Still, however, very little is accomplished by this appeal to a mere abstract possibility. Much more will depend on our being able to shew why precisely these epistles differ from the others in this particular manner. Importance has been given to the circumstance, that from all appearances (?) the apostle wrote these epistles with his own hand, instead of dictating them to an amanuensis. (Comp. Rothe, a. a. Q., p. 322.) But the Epistle to the Galatians was also written by the

apostle with his own hand (comp. on vi. 11); and, even although it were shewn that this was the case in regard to these epistles, no definite conclusion could be drawn from the influence of this circumstance, which is different in the case of different individuals. On the other hand, I fully agree with Rothe when he explains the discrepancy in style by the essential difference in the situation of one and the same writer, who at one time sends a didactic writing to an entire church, and at another writes a confidential letter to a disciple and a friend who is of the same mind with himself, and not intended to be publicly read, inasmuch as it rather contains hints than enlarges on any topic. I also agree with him, when he further refers to the difference which the diversity of subject could not fail to produce. Look at the first of these circumstances, and there is nothing surprising in the simplicity of style and laxity of connexion which characterise these epistles. A remark such as that in 1 Tim. v. 23, shews how little the writer was concerned about a skilful plan and an elaborate execution. How strange beside such a remark would the skilful dialectic of the Epistle to the Romans look, or that of the Epistle to the Galatians, or the style of the Epistle to the Ephesians, if the subject might admit of such. But the style of the epistle is to be explained, not merely by its confidential character, as addressed to a pupil between whom and the apostle there existed a most intimate mutual understanding. It is moreover to be taken into consideration, especially in regard to the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, that they are official letters, a point of view in which already Schleiermacher has placed them both, although even in this point of view he refuses to acknowledge the Panline origin of the former. The second Epistle to Timothy, though not an official letter, is still so closely related to those others in its contents (namely its references to the office of Timothy), as well as in its date, as sufficiently to account for such similarity of style as exists. The character of these epistles, as official, must, however, be insisted on chiefly on this account, because if there is any epistle familiar and confidential, it is that to the Philippians, which, although addressed to a church, is essentially indebted, both for its matter and form, to the close personal relation that subsisted between the apostle and the church. There is besides the Epistle to Philemon, which, although not addressed to a church, yet, like that to the Philippians, stands much farther from our epistles than near to the rest. Precisely by this circumstance, I apprehend, is the peculiarity in style to be chiefly accounted for. This may be made plain by examples. Compare what the apostle writes to Titus on the subject of slaves, for the purpose of directing his conduct toward them,. with those passages in Paul's epistles in which the same point is elsewhere handled (comp. on Tit. ii. 9, 10), and it will at once be

perceived what a difference of style is occasioned by the circumstance that the apostle does not here directly speak to the slaves. Essentially the same thing is prescribed in those other passages, but the injunction is there enforced by reasons entering into the relations, and everything is held forth that may stimulate to a faithful performance of duty! Is the apostle to speak to Titus in the same way as to the slaves themselves? Is it not enough that he concisely states to him the points to which he is to refer, leaving to him the enforcement of them and all else connected with them? To this then we are to trace that peculiarity which is characterized as the indefiniteness, the vague generality of the Pastoral Epistles, as compared with the others. Were those commentators right, who suppose that these epistles were only nominally addressed to Timothy and Titus, and were really intended as public writings for the churches, this style might reasonably create surprise, and we might perhaps grant that not much could have been learned from them. But regarding them as official communications, and consequently that to Titus as intended concisely to state to him the points to which his attention is to be directed, we perceive the appropriateness of this style to the object. For almost the whole epistle is written in the manner we have shewn in this particular instance. The requisite qualifications of a presbyter are stated in chap. i. with the same brevity; in this way also is error characterized, not so much in the way of refutation, as of indicating to Titus the points which he is to keep in view. This is self-evident in regard to the remaining portion of this epistle in chaps. ii. and iii. How should the style be dialectical, or oratorical, or even elaborate as in the Epistle to the Philippians or that to Philemon, when all that was aimed at was such a concise statement, the result of which is, that the epistle as a whole, owing to the variety of its contents, has a summary, sententious, asynthetic appearance? The case, however, is different with respect to the much-abused first Epistle to Timothy. This is evident at a glance, in the parts which it has in common with the Epistle to Titus; so chiefly in chap. iii. The apostle treats more fully and with less of summariness the point spoken of in chap. ii.; but here also, in my opinion, the style approaches perceptibly nearer to that of the epistle which, as might be maintained a priori, must bear the greatest resemblance to the Pastoral Epistles whenever the apostle on one point or another enters into particulars, namely, the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in those places where the circumstances of the church are spoken of, as in chap. xi. 14-34, seq., passages which are also related in their special contents. The same applies to chap. v., in so far as this treats somewhat at large of the institution for widows; whereas the style of chaps. iv. and v. again has more of the sententious character. The second Epistle to Timothy is both

in form and matter cognate with the first, although in it much less of that generality and vagueness, as it is called, can be shewn. Thus, considered generally, the style of these epistles, so far as it is peculiar, cannot be assailed; it is clearly vindicated by their design and contents. Also that peculiarity of composition specially characterized by De Wette, appears to me accounted for by these general considerations, that, namely, which consists, as De Wette expresses it, in the writer's digressing from what belongs to the subject of the epistle to so-called common-places, and returning from such a digression to an exhortation. How natural, for example, in Tit. ii. 10, that the apostle should merge the special injunctions (which he does not here enforce one by one because he is not addressing the church), in the mention of the fundamental truth on which all Christian morality rests, and should then return to Titus with the exhortation These things speak and exhort, etc. These fundamental truths form, as it were, resting-places on which the heart of the apostle fondly leans, and where it delights to tarry; the exhortation, however, by which they are followed up, addressed to the receiver of the epistle, shews that he never loses sight of the object he has in view in referring to these truths. And how easily explicable that such fundamental truths addressed to Timothy or Titus, are not further opened in an official letter. Comp. Planck, a. a. Q., p. 232.

We have hitherto been looking only at those portions of the Pastoral Epistles in which may be perceived a style different from that of the rest of Paul's epistles. We add, in support of their Pauline origin, that particular portions, and especially those which are kindred in contents to those of other epistles, discover a genuine Pauline style. Take as examples the two doctrinal passages which occur in the Epistle to Titus ii. 11-14 and iii. 2-7. The style of these passages must remind every reader of the apostle, even though in others he may not be able to recognize him. Schleiermacher has already remarked how much the introduction ch. i. 1-3 resembles generally that in the Epistle to the Romans, or the Epistle to the Galatians. In 1 Tim. i. 3, seq., we find a passage, which of all the New Testament writers can be ascribed only to the Apostle Paul; comp. on the passage. We have already spoken of the similarity in style between the second and fifth chapters and certain portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. How close the resemblance between the introduction to 2 Tim. i. 3, seq., and that to the Epistle to the Romans, many have already observed. This circumstance-namely, that these epistles approach in style to the rest of the epistles in those passages in which the contents are of a kindred nature, and differ most from them in those places where their specific contents and aim come most into prominence-is certainly the

most favourable testimony to their genuineness, since it explains the difference of style in a way which leaves the Pauline origin unassailed. If these observations are true, all will then depend on the question, how this peculiar style is managed in these epistles. The strongest testimony has been given by the opposing critics, to the method and clearness of the Epistle to Titus; less is said in favour of the second Epistle to Timothy, in which De Wette finds at least here and there the absence of a good grammatical and logical connexion; and least of all in favour of the first Epistle to Timothy, in which Schleiermacher finds no intelligible connexion at all. De Wette, however, thinks Schleiermacher's assertion exaggerated (p. 119); Baur acknowledges no decided superiority in the other two epistles as compared with this, and admits that this epistle also as a whole, is not wanting in unity and in the development of a definite idea (p. 77). So think the representatives of the most recent criticism, and from these opinions we may infer that, granting a difference of style as arising out of a difference of circumstances, these epistles after all do not appear in so unfavourable a light. Baumgarten is the last who has come forward against Schleiermacher, in the defence of the first Epistle to Timothy, in this point in which it has been assailed, comp. a. a. Q., pp. 205-264, and Planck, a. a. Q., p. 116, seq. We shall give special heed to this point in the exposition.

Schleiermacher has gone still farther in his objections to the first Epistle to Timothy, denying to it in general the character of a didactic epistle (p. 128, seq.) It is no real epistle at all, he contends, but only a writing in this form, forged with considerable awkwardness. The explanations he has given respecting the nature of the didactic epistle, and its possible forms, are most worthy of perusal. But he is justly charged with the inconsistency implied in vindicating the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus, and the second Epistle to Timothy, from this same point of view (pp. 141–152). That the disfavour with which he has treated the first Epistle to Timothy is unjust, and that the epistle, when viewed in the same light as that in which he regards the Epistle to Titus, namely, as an official letter addressed by the apostle to a confidential disciple and fellow-teacher, may be explained just as easily as it has already been shown by Planck, p. 105, seq., and is no longer denied by any critic.

Finally, with respect to the peculiarity in ideas and views belonging to these epistles, which De Wette has also ably set forth, as seen from his point of view, p. 117, we shall omit here what refers only to special passages, and direct our attention to what may be said to be common to these epistles. De Wette brings forward as illustrations of this peculiarity, that the writer employs the term