to the future which he addressed to the overseers of the church, and enforced by the example of his own labours during three years' residence among them. He foresaw, that false teachers from other parts would insinuate themselves into these churches, and that even among themselves such would arise and gain many adherents. He exhorts them, therefore, to watch that the doctrine of salvation which he had faithfully published to them for so long a period might be preserved in its purity. The false teachers whom he here pointed out were most probably distinct from the class of common Judaizers; for in churches in which the Gentile Christian, that is, the Hellenic element,1 so predominated as in those of Lesser Asia, such persons could not be so dangerous; and particularly when such false teachers were described as proceeding from the bosom of the church itself, it must be presumed that these heretical tendencies must have developed themselves from a mixture with Christianity of the mental elements already existing in the church. Might not Paul's experience during his long stay in Lesser Asia, have given him occasion to feel these anxieties for the future? As immediately after announcing the danger that threatened the church, he reminded them that for three years he had not ceased, day or night, to warn each one among them with tears, we may infer that he had at that time cause thus to address the consciences of their overseers, and to warn them so impressively against the adulteration of Christian truth. We here see the first omens indicated by the apostle of a new conflict which awaited pure Christianity. At the close

2

1 Schneckenburger, p. 136, objects against this remark, that in the Gentile-Christian Galatian churches, Judaizing false teachers could produce the greatest confusion; but the degree of Grecian cultivation in Galatia and at Ephesus makes a difference here.

2 As from what is said in the text it is easily shown, that Paul must have held such a warning of the propagation of new perversions of Christian truth to be called for; so I can find no ground for Bauer's and Schneckenburger's assumption, that something is here attributed to Paul which he could not say from his own standing-point; whether with Bauer, it is assumed that such a prophesying is formed according to the appearances of a later period, or with Schneckenburger, that what was present, what had actually fallen under Paul's own notice, is here transferred to the future. Schneckenburger finds something intentional in Paul's mentioning nothing of the conflicts which he had sustained with the false teachers, the Judaizers; and in speaking only of such conflicts which would follow his departure. But there certainly lies in Paul's

of his address, Paul refers them to the example of disinterested and self-denying love, which he had given them :—he nad required of them neither gold, nor silver, nor raiment, but as they well knew, had provided for his own temporal wants and those of his followers by the labour of his own hands. These words are admirably suited to the close of the address. By reminding the presbyters of the proofs of his disinterested love, and of his zeal which shunned no toil and no privation for the salvation of souls, he gave still greater weight to his exhortations. The 33d verse is closely connected with the 31st, where he reminds them of his labours among them for their souls, and in both verses he holds out his own example for their imitation. He expresses this still more clearly in the words, "I have showed you all things (or in every way), how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak,' and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, ' It is more blessed to give than to receive.' It conveyed the exhortation, that in the discharge of their office they should avoid all appearance of selfishness, that they should rather earn their own livelihood, and give up their claim to what they had a right to expect from the church to which they had consecrated their powers.

He impressed this upon them in the most

words a reference to that which he had already said by way of warning to the presbyters. But he could speak of these adulterations of Christianity as future, since he had detected them in the germ, and their further development was at first checked by the power of his personal influence.

1 Certainly the do@eveîs in Acts xx. 35, are not those who needed help in respect of their bodily wants; in that case, why should not a more definite word be used? Neither does the connexion suit such an interpretation, for Paul does not say that he laboured that he might be able to give to the poor, or that he might support his poor associates; but that the church might not be obliged to contribute neither to them nor to him any thing for their support. And this manifestly in order that every occasion might be taken from the weak, who were not sufficiently established in Christian principles, who would be easily disposed to entertain the suspicion of private advantage. The use of the word aolevns in 2 Cor. xi. 29 also favours this interpretation, and what he assigns in both the Epistles to the Corinthians as the reasons of such conduct. Thus also this exhortation stands in closer connexion with what goes before; for if the presbyters avoided all appearance of selfishness, they would have a firmer hold on the general confidence, and thus, like Paul himself in reference to the Judaizers, could more successfully oppose the false teachers, who endeavoured for their own ends to excite mistrust of the existing teachers and guides of the church.

delicate manner, since he does not use the express form of exhortation, but presents his example for imitation under similar circumstances. Paul indeed declares elsewhere, that the preachers of the gospel, as Christ himself had expressed it, were entitled to receive their maintenance from the churches for whose spiritual welfare they laboured. And it may appear strange that he here departs from this rule, and that he should here prescribe to all the presbyters what elsewhere he has represented as an exception arising out of very peculiar circumstances, and as something suited only to his individual standing-point.' But there is a difference between the circumstances of itinerant missionaries and those of the overseers of churches whose activity at first is not so claimed by their pastoral duties as to prevent their carrying on at the same time their former secular employment; and if they thus laboured with self-sacrificing love without any appearance of selfishness, their authority and influence, which would be required to counteract the false teachers, would be much increased.

In this whole address, as suited the feelings and aim of one who was probably taking a last farewell of his spiritual children, the hortatory element is throughout predominant; if we suppose an apologetic element, which is very doubtful, it is at all events quite subordinate to the former. It is very improbable, that when he spoke of his own disinterestedness, he intended to repel the accusations of his Judaizing adversaries; for though he was obliged to answer such charges in writing to the Corinthians, we are not to infer that a similar exculpation of himself was required in all the churches. With greater reason we may find in what he says of the completeness of his teaching in the doctrines of salvation, a reference to the accusations of his Judaizing opponents, of which we have so often spoken. But even this is very doubtful; for in any case, without an apologetic design, and simply to excite the presbyters to fidelity in holding fast the pure doctrine which they had received, he would of necessity remind them how important he had felt it to keep back nothing from them that was necessary for salvation, and that he was free from blame if, after all, they should be guilty of unfaithfulness.

For which reason Schneckenburger thinks it improbable that Paul Bɔ expressed himself.

Such an address could not but make a deep impression on their hearts, of which we have a simple and striking description in the Acts xx. 37, 38.

When Paul arrived at Cæsarea Stratonis, within two days' journey of Jerusalem, he was warned of fresh dangers that threatened him. The members of the church and his companions united their entreaties that he would be careful of his life, and not proceed any further. But though he was far from the enthusiastic zeal that panted for martyrdom, though he never neglected any methods of Christian prudence, in order to preserve his life for the service of his Lord and of the Church, yet as he himself declared, he counted his life as nothing, if required to sacrifice it in the ministry entrusted to him. However much a heart so tenderly susceptible, so open to all pure human emotions as his, must have been moved by the tears of his friends, who loved him as their spiritual father, yet he suffered not his resolution to be shaken, but resisted all these impressions, in order to follow the call of duty; he left all events to the will of the Lord, in which at last his Christian brethren concurred.

The next day after his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul with his companions visited James the brother of the Lord, at whose house the presbyters of the church were assembled. They listened with great interest to his account of the effects of the gospel among the Gentiles. But James called his attention to the fact, that a great number of Jews who believed on Jesus as the Messiah, and were yet zealous and strict observers of the Mosaic law, were prejudiced against him;' for

1 Dr. Bauer has attempted to show, that the words in Acts xxi. 20, TŴY TETLOTEVKÓтwv, are a gloss, and that the Jews here spoken of are those who had not received the gospel. It appears to him incredible, that the number of Christians among the Jews, who in later times were confined to the small sects of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, could have been so very great. He thinks, that what James said would perfectly apply to Jews who had not yet embraced the gospel, of whose plots it behoved Paul to be careful, and who afterwards actually raised a tumult against him. Origen indeed says, Tom. I. in Joh. § 2, that the number of believing Jews in the whole world would not amount to one hundred and forty-four thousand; but from the times of Origen we cannot draw an inference respecting an earlier period. Since Christianity had for a long time spread so successfully among the Jews, their numbers in the course of twenty years might have increased to several myriads, as Hegesippus likewise testifies in Eusebius ii. 23; and we

those Judaizers, who everywhere sought to injure Paul's ministry, had circulated in Jerusalem the charge against him, that, not content with releasing the believing Gentiles from the observance of the Mosaic law, he had required of the Jews who lived among them not to circumcise their children, and not to observe the law. This charge, so brought forward, was certainly false; for Paul combated the outward observance of Judaism only so far as the justification and sanctification of men were made to depend upon it. It was his

need not confine the expression to Jews resident in Jerusalem, since at the Pentecost many would be brought together from other parts. But many of these believing Jews might not distinguish themselves from others, excepting by the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and hence we may account for many of them relapsing into Judaism, when their own Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. We also find no intimation that James had warned Paul of danger threatening him from this class of Jews; but he only required that he would seek to regain the confidence of these brethren in the faith, who were filled with mistrust and suspicion towards him. The connexion of verse 20, absolutely requires the addition of τῶν πεπιστευκότων, for how could James be supposed to tell Paul a fact he well knew beforehand, that at Jerusalem there were so many myriads of Jews, who were all zealous observers of the law? Bauer in his review of Schneckenburger's work has acknowledged that this alteration of the text formerly proposed by him, is untenable; but attempts to solve the difficulty which he here believes to exist, by another method in connexion with the views held by himself and Schneckenburger respecting the peculiar standing-point and object of the Acts. Historical truth must here make her way through the subjective point of view, into which the author of the Acts forces everything, and assert her right even against his will. wished, forsooth, so to represent matters, as if, by the arrangement agreed upon by the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, the differences between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had been settled, and Paul henceforward had to combat, not with Jewish Christians, but solely with Jews. Yet against his will he was obliged to grant to historical truth, that in the machinations against Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians had the principal share. But as this is opposed to the point of view on which he proceeds everywhere else, the subjective and the objective are so mingled by him, that the Jewish Christians become Jews again, and hence he is led into the error of overrating the numbers of the former. But after what has been said, we cannot accede to the correctness of this too artificial hypothesis. And if the author had once allowed himself to distort history according to his subjective point of view, he would surely have remained faithful to this view, and on this last occasion would have named only Jews as the calumniators of Paul, against whose false accusations he would have to justify himself. He was under no necessity by such inconsistency to testify against himself.

He