letters, which it seems probable that he wrote after his release.

Before his confinement, Paul had expressed the intention of going into Spain, and the testimony of the Roman Clement favours the belief that he fulfilled this intention. But during his confinement at Rome he had altered his views, and was determined, by reasons which we have already noticed, to visit once more the scene of his early labours in Lesser Asia. The Second Epistle to Timothy contains hints of his returning by his usual route through Achaia. But it would be possible that after his release he travelled first into Spain; that he there exerted himself in the establishment of Christian churches, and then revisited the former sphere of his ministry; that he was on his return to the West, in order to close there his apostolic commission, but before he could reach his destination was detained and executed at Rome. However, the want of any memorial of his labours in Spain, the want of any record of an ecclesia apostolica, does not favour the supposition that Paul spent any length of time in that country; and hence the other explanation, that he first renewed his labours in the East, then betook himself to Spain, and soon after his arrival was beheaded, seems to deserve the preference.

We, therefore, are of opinion that Paul first fulfilled his intention of returning to Lesser Asia. Now the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, by the peculiarities of their mode of expression, and the peculiar references to ecclesiastical relations, connect themselves so closely with the Second Epistle to Timothy, and exhibit so many marks of the later apostolic age (one of which we have already noticed), that it appears reasonable to assign both these epistles to this period.

In the earlier history of the apostle, we can find no point of time in which he could have written such a letter to Timothy at Ephesus, in reference to the concerns of that church, as his first epistle; for this epistle presupposes a church already for

1

1 The genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy being presupposed, the view I have here taken of the relations and circumstances under which it was written, appears to be the only tenable one. But I confess that I am not convinced of the genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy, with the same certainty as of the Pauline origin of all the other Pauline Epistles, and of the two other Pastoral Letters, and the

some time in existence, which in many respects required a new organization of church relations, the displacing several of the leading officers of the church, and the appointment of others. The new class of false teachers who had sprung up in Lesser Asia during Paul's imprisonment, had acquired great influence in the Ephesian church. As Paul (according to an interpretation not absolutely necessary of his farewell address at Miletus) had anticipated, several overseers of the churches had allowed themselves to be seduced by the spirit of false doctrine. The false teachers to whom we refer bore the same marks which we find in those who appeared in the church at Colossæ during Paul's confinement. They belonged to the class of Judaizers, who maintained the perpetual obligation of Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. What is said in this epistle of the false teachers excites no suspicion in my mind; and I can find nowhere the allusions to the later gnostic doctrines, which Bauer would find in this as well as in the Pastoral Letters. The germ of such Judaizing gnosticism, or of a Judaizing theosophic ascetic tendency, as it shows itself in the two Epistles to Timothy, I would presuppose a priori to be existing at this time, since the appearances of the second century point back to such a tendency gradually evolving itself out of Judaism. In this respect, the absence of the marks of a later date in the controversial part of this epistle, is to me a proof of its high antiquity. To the declaration of Hegesippus, in Eusebius, iii. 32, that the falsifications of doctrine first began after the death of the apostle, or rather then ventured to make their public appearance, I can attach no such weight as historical evidence, as to cast a doubt on these undeniable facts. As there is an unhistorical tendency produced by a dogmatic bias, which transposes the originators of all heresies to the apostolic age, and makes the apostles to be the first impugners of them; so also there is a more unhistorical tendency, and equally proceeding from a dogmatic bias (as is the case with all the depositions of Hegesippus), which would maintain that, up to a certain date, the church was wholly pure, and that all heresies broke out first after the decease of the apostles. A common but one-sided truth lies at the bottom of both opinions. I can find nothing surprising in the fact, that, in the two Epistles to Timothy, such an aspect of the present as an omen and germ of what would be developed in the future, is to be seen. The attentive observer, capable of deeper insight, must here behold the future in the present. But I cannot deny that, when I come from reading other Pauline epistles, and especially the two other Pastoral Letters, to this epistle, I feel myself struck by the impression of something not Pauline. More particularly, the mode of transition appears to me not in the Pauline style,-as in ii. 7; iii. 1; iii. 15; v. 17, 18; and the relation of this epistle to the two other Pastoral Letters is also suspicious. I can indeed find reasons for allaying these doubts, but none which, taken all together, can satisfy the unprejudiced lover of truth.

the Mosaic law.1 But they distinguished themselves from the common Judaizers by a theosophic ascetic tendency. They taught abstinence from certain kinds of food, and prescribed celibacy as essential to Christian perfection. But they united with this practical tendency a theoretical peculiarity. They prided themselves on possessing a higher γνώσις (the φιλοσοφία of the Epistle to the Colossians), and by this they were seduced from the simplicity of the faith. They taught legendary tales respecting the origin and propagation of spirits, like the false teachers at Colossæ. They brought forward subjects which gave rise to subtle disputations, instead of leading men to accept in faith the divine means of their salvation; 1 Tim. i. 4. The conflict with this false Gnosis now springing up, must have occupied the churches in these parts. As the prophets in the assemblies of believers frequently warned them of the dangers which from the signs of the times they perceived were threatening the church; so these warning voices spoke also of the conflict that awaited the church with this hostile tendency, which in following ages was one of the severest which the simple gospel had to encounter. These are the express warnings of the Divine Spirit by the inspired addresses in the churches, to which Paul appeals. To this 1 As appears from the Pauline antithesis, 1 Tim. i. 9.

4

2 Among the cwμatikǹ yvμvaoia, 1 Tim. iv. 8, must without doubt be included a devotion that consisted in outward gestures, abstinencies, and ceremonies, the opposite of which is true piety, evo éßela, having its seat in the disposition.

3 The genealogical investigations common among the Jews, by which they sought to trace their descent from persons of note in former times up to the Patriarchs, cannot certainly be intended in 1 Tim. j. 4, for inquiries of this sort could never be introduced among Gentiles, nor could their minds be so much occupied with them, that an attention to them should be set down among the marks of character. Nor can we suppose a reference to inquiries respecting the genealogy of Jesus; what has just been said would in part apply to this supposition, and in this case Paul would have marked his meaning more precisely, and according to his usual antithetical style, contrasted the Χριστὸς κατὰ πνεῦμα with the Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα. On the contrary, it will be quite suitable to apply it to the γενεαλογίας τῶν ἀγγέλων, similar to the later gnostic pneumatologies; on the supposition, indeed, that he wrote of them as already well known to Timothy. Any other person who had forged this epistle, partly for the purpose of employing the authority of Paul against the rising gnosis, would have more exactly marked the object of controversy.

1 Tim. iv. 1. A similar expression respecting prophetic intimations occurs in Acts xx. 23.

peculiar state of the church several of the instructions are applicable, which Paul gives in this epistle, relative to the appointment of their overseers.1

Paul, therefore, executed his intention of going into Lesser Asia, and found such disturbances in the churches there, arising from the influence of the unevangelical tendency we have noticed, that he held it to be absolutely necessary to remain longer in those parts. He left Ephesus for reasons unknown to us, to visit the churches of Macedonia, but soon returned thither, and in the meanwhile left Timothy behind for the special purpose of counterworking these false teachers, which he considered an object of the first importance; to this he added a subordinate concern, the new organization of the church at Ephesus, and perhaps also the superintendence of some others in the neighbourhood, which had since been formed. 2

If we regard the geographical position of the places, it agrees very well with Paul's residence in Lesser Asia, and his travelling thence to Macedonia, that at this time he visited the Island of Crete, and there left behind his disciple Titus, to whom he addressed an epistle. It is indeed easy to ima

1 From the difference in circumstances would arise the difference of manner in which he expresses himself here and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians respecting a single life. When he wrote to the Corinthians, he opposed those who objected to a single life from the common Jewish standing-point; here he speaks against those who went so far in depreciating marriage as to condemn it altogether as unchristian. In opposition to these persons, who led females to forget altogether the proper destiny of their sex, and to thrust themselves forward as public teachers, Paul says, 1 Tim. ii. 15, that the woman would always be saved in family life (the dià is to be understood in the sense of-by means of, in-as it is often used by Paul), if she lead a holy life in faith and love. 2 That Paul does not mention in this epistle his deliverance from confinement at Rome, proves nothing against this statement, for a number of events had intervened to occupy his mind, especially when he wrote this epistle. It is indeed surprising that he should charge Timothy to "let no man despise his youth," since Timothy could be no longer a youth. But we must recollect how indefinitely such terms are often used, and that Paul, when he wrote this, might have special reasons for such an injunction; among the leaders of the unevangelical party, there might be persons whose great age had secured for them deference and respect. The passages in Titus ii. 15, and also 2 Tim. ii. 22, (which in that connexion has nothing strange,) present no fit parallel; and if. in the First Epistle to Timothy, traces can be found of an imitation of the two others, these words may be reckoned among the number.

gine, that, as Paul had often sojourned for a longer time in those parts, he had already founded several churches in Crete. But besides that, for reasons before mentioned, we are led to fix the date of this epistle nearer that of the two Pastoral Letters, it is also striking that, while Luke in the Acts reports so fully and circumstantially the occurrences of the apostle's last voyage to Rome, and mentions his stay at Crete, he says not a word (contrary to his usual practice in such cases) of the friendly reception given to him by the Christians there, or even of his meeting with them at all. Hence we may

conclude that no Christian churches yet existed in the island, though that transient visit would naturally give rise to the intention of planting the gospel there; which he probably fulfilled soon after he was set at liberty, when he came into those parts. As in the last period before his journey to Jerusalem we do not find Titus in his company, and on the other hand we find, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that he was with the apostle, this agrees very well with the supposition that Paul after his release once more met with him in Lesser Asia, and again took him as his associate in preaching the gospel.

After Paul had laid the foundation of the Christian church in Crete, he left Titus behind to complete the organization of the churches, to confirm the new converts in purity of doctrine, and to counterwork the influence of the false teachers. If we compare the marks of the false teachers in the two other Pastoral Epistles with those in the Epistle to Titus, we shall find a similarity. But if these do not induce us to admit(as we are not authorized to suppose the same appearances of the religious spirit in Crete and in Ephesus)-so neither shall we be led by what can be inferred simply from the epistle itself, to imagine any other object of Paul's opposition and warning than the common Judaizing tendency, and an unspiritual pharisaic study of the Old Testament, disputatious, cleaving to the letter and losing itself in useless hair-splittings and rabbinical fables.' Paul required of Titus to turn the

1 As to the genealogies in Titus iii. 9, if we compare this passage with the endless genealogies in 1 Tim. i. 4, we shall be led to understand a reference to a theosophic element, an emanation doctrine; but this expression in the Epistle to Titus, without anything more definite, and simply in its own connexion, favours no such supposition; but we