naturally to be expected." And it was also to be expected, we would add, that the Jewish Christians who were to be gained over would likewise oppose their claim. "At all events there would be no harm in making the attempt, and why should it be so much wondered at that this attempt succeeded ?" "That which might be of so much service (namely, against the Gnostics, and in favour of the hierarchy) was held really to what it professed to be."

Here we have in brief the account of the origin of these epis tle, and their acknowledgment. Apart from the consideration that we have proved the allusions to heretics of the second century, and to hierarchical aims and interests of this period, to be untenable-even when we view this account from its own premises, enough still remains that is inconceivable.--This point is admirably treated by Baumgarten, pp. 90-103, as also by Bottger, a. a. Q., PP 178-198.

Even against the alleged necessity of having epistles of apostolical authority containing direct arguments against those heretics, Baumgarten has justly urged that the church teachers by no means gave up the already extant epistles of the Apostle Paul, and considered them as useless in contending with those heretics; and secondly, that "the early champions of the church found what the Scripture wanted in means of proof fully compensated by tradition, which indeed they regarded as the real strength of their argument, of which Baumgarten has given satisfactory evidence, p. 93. Still less can we comprehend the manner in which this undertaking was carried out. The aim to combat Gnosticism, chiefly the system of Marcion, with which a conciliatory and Romish-hierarchical aim was at the same time conjoined, is said to have first produced the second Epistle to Timothy. But Baur himself, as already observed, acknowledges that Marcion might have admitted the epistle with the exception of two passages, ii. 8, 18, which contain nothing that may not also be found in the epistles of Paul that are confessedly genuine. There is not a single trace of a hierarchical tendency in the epistle; the passage ii. 2 is the only one having even the appearance of this which Baur can adduce; in so far as it displays a care that extends more widely, and stretches into the future. And what is there in it that marks an Irenæan tendency? Treating throughout of the person of Timothy, addressing to him paternal counsels not to be ashamed of the gospel or of the imprisoned apostle, to hold fast the sound doctrine, and to guard against vain contention, and to fulfil well his calling as an evangelist, and finally inviting him to come and visit the apostle in his imprisonment; it is altogether unintelligible as controversial writing against the Marcionites put into the mouth of the apostle. The only remaining conjecture is, that the pseudo-apostle, in his endeavour to impart colouring and. VOL V.-32

life to the epistle by historical details, quite lost sight of his proper subject; but it is difficult to tell how this criticism is able to discover that the epistle should be what it in reality is not. The comparative failure of the first (this criticism goes on to shew), makes it the less wonderful that a second should apply himself to the same task with the hope of excelling his predecessor. "It would not suit," however, to address the epistle to Timothy a second time; nor could "he represent the apostle who in the former epistle has his martyrdom in near prospect, as writing again during his imprisonment." Thus arose the Epistle to Titus, which, however, for the very same reason as the first Epistle to Timothy, was left without any even apparent points of contact with the life of the apostle. But we have in this no adequate reason why these epistles remained without any such points of connexion. The remainder of the apostle's life offered still scope for them. Why should the writers of these epistles hesitate to connect them with it, and thus to invest them with the appearance of historical truth? Why purposely in their fabrications place themselves in collision with what was then known and believed regarding the life of the apostle, and thus awaken suspicion against themselves?

Be

And the epistles themselves-do they correspond to those tendencies? Dr. Baur himself finds so few direct arguments against, and immediate allusions to, Marcion in the Epistle to Titus, as to lead him to acknowledge, that "Marcion might with as much reason as Tatian have admitted the Epistle to Titus" (p. 139). The alleged conciliatory aim of the epistles is inconsistent, as Böttger also remarks, p. 186, with the fact the writer chiefly indicates Jewish Christians as the originators of the errors which he combats. sides, almost the greatest part of the epistle, the injunctions in chaps. ii. and iii. embracing all the members belonging to the fellowship of the church must, from the point of view which this criticism takes up, be unintelligible. The same is the case with respect to the first Epistle to Timothy. Here too "there is a very comprehensive injunction, embracing as far as possible all the relations of life," which deviates from the object assigned to the epistle by this criticism. It would moreover be still matter of surprise, even although all the alleged references to Marcion were conceded, that this polemical aim finds in so few passages any more definite expression; and that even these few passages fail to touch precisely the chief point of difference between the system of Marcion and the doctrine of the church, and overlook that which is principally kept in view by all the ecclesiastical opponents of Marcion. Compare for example the representation which Baur himself has given (die Christl-Gnosis, p. 313, seq.), of the mode in which the pseudo-Clementines opposed Marcion. (Comp. also Baumgarten, p. 96.) The writer of the

epistle, however, it is alleged, unhesitatingly refers to the oppositions of Marcion in chap. vi. 20. But what should have kept him from specially noticing, at least in the form of a prediction, that fundamental error-that the supreme God is not the creator of the world? And what a confused idea does this criticism present to us, of a writer, who, himself entangled with Marcionitic ideas, has recourse to the extreme expedient of writing a pretendedly apostolical epistle, in order to confute Marcion, and then in iii. 16 purposely compounds the μυστήριον εὐσεβείας from a mixture of Gnostic and anti-gnostic ingredients! But, finally, the success of this imposture would also be unaccountable. The epistles are said to have appeared in the second half of the second century; and at a time when the gnuine epistles of the apostle had long been in use in the church, and when there already existed several collections of them. Comp. Thiersch, a. a. Q., p. 323, seq. All at once three epistles come forth with the claim to apostolical authority, the principal aim of which is said to be the refutation of the Gnostics. And these enemies of the church offer no opposition to this claim, although so much importance was wont to be laid by them on agreement with the writings of the canon. In the shortest possible time these epistles receive the universal acknowledgment of the church; since "that which might be put to so good a purpose, was held really to be what it claimed to be." In other words, the bishops, together with their congregations, laid aside all conscientiousness and honesty, qualities for which we are wont honourably to distinguish the church of that age; and as if all acted on a secret understanding, not a doubt is expressed as to the genuineness of these epistles! And could then these epistles be really of so much service? What use could be made of one epistle which Marcion as well as Tatian might have acknowledged; of another, which he might have made his own on the supposition of two passages having been interpolated; and of a third, the polemical allusions in which, as we have already seen, and and shall farther see, might be perfectly understood although there had been no Marcion? And did these epistles, from that time for ward, become the chief weapons against Gnosticism? We have already shewn, that the early champions of the church against this enemy, rather appealed to the universal tradition of the church. They found nothing in these epistles which they could direct against the fundamental error of Marcion which they chiefly combated. Nay, so little did the church know why it was pleased to sanction the forgery of these epistles, and how they were to be of service to it, that one of Marcion's principal antagonists, Tertullian, cannot comprehend for what reason Marcion did not receive these epistles into his canon, as he admitted the Epistle to Philemon, which is likewise addressed to a single individual. Comp. on the moral character of

the church at this period, Thiersch, a. a. Q., p. 323, seq., and espe cially on the question under discussion, the excellent investigation. by Baumgarten, p. 99-103.

After this survey of the present state of the critical question as to the genuineness of these epistles, I think myself at liberty to express the opinion that the solution of this problem offered by the latest criticism is in no way satisfactory, and involves difficulties, compared with which the real difficulties that arise on the supposition of the apostolical origin of these epistles appear to be insignificant. The result thus gained leads us back to the question -how we are to explain the peculiarity of these epistles, supposing them to be authentic? It will be our endeavour in the following section to indicate some points generally, the vindication of which can indeed only be furnished by the exposition of the epistles themselves.

§ 4. ATTEMPT AT THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ON THE SUPPOSITION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLES.

How then are we to explain the problem stated above in § 1 as arising out of the peculiarity of these epistles, viz., their acknowledged difference from the rest of Paul's epistles-on the supposition of their genuineness? We will look chiefly at the heretics noticed in these epistles. Let us inquire then first, what do we specially know concerning these heretics from the Pastoral Epistles; and then, secondly, let us see how the information there given accords with what is otherwise known to us on this subject.

1. With regard then to the first point, viz., the delineation of the heretics, it must be acknowledged that the errors brought before us in the two Epistles to Timothy, as well as in that to Titus, are essentially the same. Meanwhile, ere we enter further on this point, a circumstance must be noticed which the critics have arbitrarily kept out of view. It must be exactly determined (if we would ascertain what is to be learned from these epistles concerning the heretics) what errors are there noticed as already existing, what are indicated as future, and again what they represent as an error that is prevalent, and what, as peculiar to a few. These points may be ascertained with considerable exactness from the epistles themselves. The Epistle to Titus speaks only of an error that had already at that time become prevalent, and was far spread. On the other hand, the first Epistle to Timothy-besides that more prevalent error, in which, as we shall afterwards see, we may recognize one that is closely related to that in the Epistle to Titus-points distinctly to errors that are distinguishable from the more general one. Thus, at

i. 20, Hymenæus and Alexander are named as persons who have made shipwreck of their faith, and gone the length even of blas phemy; but who for this reason had been excommunicated from the church. They are clearly not to be put in the same category with those whom Timothy is enjoined i. 3, seq., to oppose; for these, together with their adherents, are within the pale of the church. Further, the passage, iv. 1, speaks of phenomena that were future, although their beginnings had already shewn themselves. What is there said of doctrines of devils, of forbidding to marry, of abstaining from meats, is therefore not to be at once put down as a characteristic of the more widely prevalent error, which is combated by the apostle as already present. For it would indeed be in the highest degree strange, were the writer to represent those characteristics which distinguished the heretics then existing, such as the fables and genealogies, as belonging to future heretics. The same distinction between the present and the future is also to be found in the second Epistle to Timothy. Reference is there made to that error which was then existing and more widely spread, in the same expressions as in the first Epistle to Timothy and in that to Titus. On the other hand, at ii. 17, seq., in like manner as at 1 Tim. i. 19, 20, single individuals-Hymenæus and Philetus--are again expressly named, as those in whom might be seen what profane and vain babblings would lead to. Of them it is said that they have so far erred from the truth as to maintain that the resurrection is past already. Now, is it not pure caprice, to transfer what is here predicated of some (who were ad-licted certainly to that more general error implied in the rain babblings) as the particular result of their vain, unsanctified talk, to that more widely spread tendency to indulge in empty questions of controversy, and to make this a criterion of the heretics who are combated in the Pastoral Epistles? We have likewise in this epis tle a distinct reference to what is to happen at a future period, iii. 1, sq, with which, however, is connected a reference to the present, iii. 69, 13. But the seducers described in this passage as already present must not, any more than those mentioned at ii. 17, be thrown together into one with all those to whom the foolish talk, fables, genealogies, questions, etc., are elsewhere to be applied. The characteristics of these shew plainly that they form a special class, although in disposition and general character (iii. 8) they may correspond to those elsewhere mentioned. The passage, iv. 3, in like manner points distinctly to the future; however, this passage has, in reference to our present object no further significance, owing to its generality.

these lines of separa

The opposing critics have at once effaced tion that are drawn in the epistles themselves. Whether the epistles speak of what is present or of what is future of errors peculiar to