{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39628/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39628","id":"gutenberg_39628","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39628","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Pastoral Epistles -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n [Transcriber's Note:\n\n This e-text is intended for users whose text readers cannot display\n the Unicode (utf-8) version of the file. Greek words have been\n transliterated and enclosed in equals signs, e.g. =didach\u00ea=.\n\n _Italic words_ in the original have been enclosed in underscores in\n this version.\n\n As the oe ligature cannot be included in this file format, for\n consistency both ae and oe ligatures have been replaced with the\n separate letters throughout.\n\n A few minor typographical errors have been silently corrected. Some\n inconsistent hyphenation has been retained.\n\n The Table of Contents and Index refer to original page numbers.]\n\n\n\n\n THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A.,\n _Editor of \"The Expositor.\"_\n\n THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.\n\n BY THE REV.\n ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.\n\n TORONTO:\n WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEP\u00d4T,\n CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.\n 1888.\n\n\n\n\n THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.\n\n\n BY THE REV.\n ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,\n\n _Master of University College, Durham; formerly\n Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford;\n Author of \"The Church of the Early Fathers,\" and\n Editor of \"The Gospel and Epistles of St. John,\" etc._\n\n TORONTO:\n WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEP\u00d4T,\n CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.\n 1888.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n PAGE\n_INTRODUCTORY._\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 3\n\n\n_1 TIMOTHY._\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF S. PAUL.--HIS LIFE AND\nCHARACTER 19\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM\nOF GNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM 32\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART 42\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A\nPERSECUTOR TO BECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER\nOF THE GOSPEL 52\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\nAN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION 62\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO\nSATAN AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE\nPERSONALITY OF SATAN 72\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND\nTHANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN\nRACE 82\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nBEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.--MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND\nMIND.--WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT 94\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.--VARIOUS CERTAINTIES\nAND PROBABILITIES DISTINGUISHED 104\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES.--ITS MEANING\nAND PRESENT OBLIGATION 118\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS 130\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS 141\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW 151\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE PASTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDAINING AND JUDGING\nPRESBYTERS.--THE WORKS THAT GO BEFORE AND THAT FOLLOW US 164\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE NATURE OF ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE APOSTLE'S ATTITUDE\nTOWARDS IT.--A MODERN PARALLEL 175\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE\nOF GAIN 188\n\n\n_TITUS._\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO TITUS.--HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER 201\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S\nDIRECTIONS FOR APPOINTING ELDERS 212\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND UNCHRISTIAN LITERATURE 224\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHE MEANING AND VALUE OF SOBERMINDEDNESS.--THE USE AND ABUSE\nOF RELIGIOUS EMOTION 237\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE MORAL CONDITION OF SLAVES.--THEIR ADORNMENT OF THE\nDOCTRINE OF GOD 248\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nHOPE AS A MOTIVE POWER.--THE PRESENT HOPES OF CHRISTIANS 259\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY WITH ITS LIMITS.--THE DUTY\nOF COURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS 270\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW\nBIRTH.--THE LAVER OF REGENERATION 282\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE APOSTLE'S\nDIRECTIONS RESPECTING HERETICAL PERSONS 294\n\n\n_2 TIMOTHY._\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nTHE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF\nS. PAUL.--THE NEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS 309\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nTHE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION\nOF ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 319\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nTHE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION\nOF THE FAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH 331\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC\nCONTEST; AS HUSBANDRY 343\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nTHE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE\nINCARNATION.--THE GOSPEL OF S. PAUL 353\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nTHE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT,\nOF A DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE\nPROFANITY WHICH WRAPS UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH 364\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nTHE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND\nJAMBRES ON THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT\nIN EPHESUS 375\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nTHE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A\nLIFELONG CONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED\nWRITINGS 385\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nTHE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT\nFAILURE AND THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT\nTEST OF SINCERITY 397\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nTHE PERSONAL DETAILS A GUARANTEE OF GENUINENESS 406\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nTHE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE\nLORD.--THE MISSION TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE,\nAND THE FINAL HYMN OF PRAISE 418\n\n\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_THE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES._\n\n \"Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus.\"--1 TIM. i; 2 TIM. i. 1.\n\n \"Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ.\"--TITUS i.\n 1.\n\n\nThe first question which confronts us on entering upon the study of the\nPastoral Epistles is that of their authenticity, which of late has been\nconfidently denied. In reading them are we reading the farewell words of\nthe great Apostle to the ministers of Christ? Or are we reading only the\nwell-meant but far less weighty counsels of one who in a later age\nassumed the name and imitated the style of St. Paul? It seems necessary\nto devote the first of these expositions to a discussion of this\nquestion.\n\nThe title \"Pastoral Epistles\" could hardly be improved, but it might\neasily be misunderstood as implying more than is actually the case. It\ncalls attention to what is the most conspicuous, but by no means the\nonly characteristic in these Epistles. Although the words which most\ndirectly signify the pastor's office, such as \"shepherd,\" \"feed,\"\n\"tend,\" and \"flock,\" do not occur in these letters and do occur\nelsewhere in Scripture, yet in no other books in the Bible do we find so\nmany directions respecting the pastoral care of Churches. The title is\nmuch less appropriate to 2 Timothy than to the other two Epistles. All\nthree are both pastoral and personal; but while 1 Timothy and Titus are\nmainly the former, 2 Timothy is mainly the latter. The three taken\ntogether stand between the other Epistles of St. Paul and the one to\nPhilemon. Like the latter, they are personal; like the rest, they treat\nof large questions of Church doctrine, practice, and government, rather\nthan of private and personal matters. Like that to Philemon, they are\naddressed, not to Churches, but to individuals; yet they are written to\nthem, not as private friends, but as delegates, though not mere\ndelegates, of the Apostle, and as officers of the Church. Moreover the\nimportant Church matters of which they treat are regarded, not, as in\nthe other Epistles, from the point of view of the congregation or of the\nChurch at large, but rather from that of the overseer or minister. And,\nas being official rather than private letters, they are evidently\nintended to be read by other persons besides Timothy and Titus.\n\nAmong the Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul none have excited so\nmuch controversy as these, especially as regards their genuineness. But\nthe controversy is entirely a modern one. It is little or no\nexaggeration to say that from the first century to the nineteenth no one\never denied or doubted that they were written by St. Paul. It is true\nthat certain heretics of the second century rejected some or all of\nthem. Marcion, and perhaps Basilides, rejected all three. Tatian, while\nmaintaining the Apostolicity of the Epistle to Titus, repudiated those\nto Timothy. And Origen tells us that some people doubted about 2 Timothy\nbecause it contained the names of Jannes and Jambres, which do not occur\nin the Old Testament. But it is well known that Marcion in framing his\nmutilated and meagre canon of the Scriptures, did not profess to do so\non critical grounds. He rejected everything excepting an expurgated\nedition of St. Luke and certain Epistles of St. Paul,--not because he\ndoubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. They\ndid not fit into his system. And the few others who rejected one or more\nof these Epistles did so in a similar spirit. They did not profess to\nfind that these documents were not properly authenticated, but they were\ndispleased with passages in them. The evidence, therefore, justifies us\nin asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second\ncentury, these three Epistles were, until quite recent times,\nuniversally accepted as written by St. Paul.\n\nThis large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (1) The\nrepudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them.\nThey were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought\nanything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance\nof them as St. Paul's is full and positive, and reaches back to the\nearliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the absence of\nevidence to the contrary. Tertullian[1] wonders what can have induced\nMarcion, while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to\nTimothy and Titus: and of course those who repudiated them would have\npointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical, if such had\nexisted. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these\nEpistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement[2] of Rome (c. A.D. 95),\nIgnatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A.D. 112),\nand Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 180), we have direct evidence of a\nvery convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac\nVersion, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the\nMuratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later\nthan A.D. 170. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that \"Paul\nmentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy,\" and he quotes Titus iii. 10\nwith the introduction \"as Paul also says.\" Eusebius renders it probable\nthat both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from 1 Timothy; and he\nhimself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books\nand not among the disputable writings: _i.e._, he places them with the\nGospels, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and\nnot with James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he\nis preceded by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom quote\nfrequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture,\nsometimes as of \"the Apostle,\" sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the\nSpirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are\naddressed to Timothy or to Titus.\n\nIt would take us too far afield to examine in detail the various\nconsiderations which have induced some eminent critics to set aside this\nstrong array of external evidence and reject one or more of these\nEpistles. They fall in the main under four heads. (1) The difficulty of\nfinding a place for these letters in the life of St. Paul as given us in\nthe Acts and in his own writings. (2) The large amount of peculiar\nphraseology not found in any other Pauline Epistles. (3) The Church\norganization indicated in these letters which is alleged to be of a\nlater date than St. Paul's time. (4) The erroneous doctrines and\npractices attacked, which are also said to be those of a later age. To\nmost of these points we shall have to return on some future occasion:\nbut for the present this much may be asserted with confidence. (1) In\nthe Acts and in the other Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle's life is\nleft incomplete. There is nothing to forbid us from supposing that the\nremaining portion amounted to several years, during which these three\nletters were written. The Second Epistle to Timothy in any case has the\nunique interest of being the last extant utterance of the Apostle St.\nPaul. (2) The phraseology which is peculiar to each of these Epistles is\nnot greater in amount than the phraseology which is peculiar to the\nEpistle to the Galatians, which even Baur admits to be of unquestionable\ngenuineness. The peculiar diction which is common to all three Epistles\nis well accounted for by the peculiarity of the common subject, and by\nthe fact that these letters are separated by several years from even the\nlatest among the other writings of St. Paul.[3] (3, 4) There is good\nreason for believing that during the lifetime of St. Paul the\norganization of the Church corresponded to that which is sketched in\nthese letters, and that errors were already in existence such as these\nletters denounce.\n\nAlthough the controversy is by no means over, two results of it are very\ngenerally accepted as practically certain. (1) The three Epistles must\nstand or fall together. It is impossible to accept two, or one, or any\nportion of one of them, and reject the rest. (2) They stand or fall with\nthe hypothesis of St. Paul's second imprisonment. If the Apostle was\nimprisoned at Rome only once, and was put to death at the end of that\nimprisonment, then these three letters were not written by him.\n\n(1) The Epistles stand or fall together: they are all three genuine, or\nall three spurious. We must either with the scholars of the Early\nChurch, of the Middle Ages, and of the Renaissance, whether Roman or\nProtestant, and with a clear majority of modern critics,[4] accept all\nthree letters; or else with Marcion, Basilides, Eichhorn, Bauer, and\ntheir followers,[5] reject all three. As Credner himself had to\nacknowledge, after having at first advocated the theory, it is\nimpossible to follow Tatian in retaining Titus as apostolic, while\nrepudiating the other two as forgeries. Nor have the two scholars[6] who\noriginated the modern controversy found more than one critic of eminence\nto accept their conclusion that both Titus and 2 Timothy are genuine,\nbut 1 Timothy not. Yet another suggestion is made by Reuss, that 2\nTimothy is unquestionably genuine, while the other two are doubtful. And\nlastly we have Pfleiderer admitting that 2 Timothy contains at least two\nsections which have with good reason been recognized as genuine (i.\n15-18 and iv. 9-21), and Renan asking whether the forger of these three\nEpistles did not possess some authentic letters of St. Paul which he has\nenshrined in his composition.[7]\n\nIt will be seen, therefore, that those who impugn the authenticity of\nthe Pastoral Epistles are by no means agreed among themselves. The\nevidence in some places is so strong, that many of the objectors are\ncompelled to admit that the Epistles are at least in part the work of\nSt. Paul. That is, certain portions, which admit of being severely\ntested, are found to stand the test, and are passed as genuine, in spite\nof surrounding difficulties. The rest, which does not admit of such\ntesting, is repudiated on account of the difficulties. No one can\nreasonably object to the application of whatever tests are available,\nnor to the demand for explanations of difficulties. But we must not\ntreat what cannot be satisfactorily tested as if it had been tested and\nfound wanting; nor must we refuse to take account of the support which\nthose parts which can be thoroughly sifted lend to those for which no\ndecisive criterion can be found. Still less must we proceed on the\nassumption that to reject these Epistles or any portion of them is a\nproceeding which gets rid of difficulties. It is merely an exchange of\none set of difficulties for another. To unbiassed minds it will perhaps\nappear that the difficulties involved in the assumption that the\nPastoral Epistles are wholly or partly a forgery, are not less serious\nthan those which have been urged against the well-established tradition\nof their genuineness. The very strong external evidence in their favour\nhas to be accounted for. It is already full, clear, and decided, as\nsoon as we could at all expect to find it, viz., in Irenaeus, Clement of\nAlexandria, and Tertullian. And it must be noticed that these witnesses\ngive us the traditional beliefs of several chief centres in Christendom.\nIrenaeus speaks with full knowledge of what was accepted in Asia Minor,\nRome, and Gaul; Clement witnesses for Egypt, and Tertullian for North\nAfrica. And although the absence of such support would not have caused\nserious perplexity, their direct evidence is very materially supported\nby passages closely parallel to the words of the Pastoral Epistles found\nin writers still earlier than Irenaeus. Renan admits the relationship\nbetween 2 Timothy and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and suggests that\neach writer has borrowed from a common source. Pfleiderer admits that\nthe Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp \"displays striking points of contact\nwith 2 Timothy.\" Bauer's theory, that all three letters are as late as\nA.D. 150, and are an attack on Marcion, finds little support now. But we\nare still asked to believe that 2 Timothy was forged in the reign of\nTrajan (98-117) and the other two Epistles in the reign of Hadrian\n(117-138). Is it credible that a forgery perpetrated A.D. 120-135 would\nin less than fifty years be accepted in Asia Minor, Rome, Gaul, Egypt,\nand North Africa, as a genuine letter of the Apostle St. Paul? And yet\nthis is what must have happened in the case of 1 Timothy, if the\nhypothesis just stated is correct. Nor is this all, Marcion, as we know,\nrejected all three of the Pastoral Epistles; and Tertullian cannot think\nwhy Marcion should do so. But, when Marcion was framing his canon, about\nthe reign of Hadrian, 2 Timothy according to these dates, would be\nscarcely twenty years old, and 1 Timothy would be brand-new. If this\nhad been so, would Marcion, with his intimate knowledge of St. Paul's\nwritings, have been in ignorance of the fact; and if he had known it,\nwould he have failed to denounce the forgery? Or again, if we assume\nthat he merely treated this group of Epistles with silent contempt,\nwould not his rejection of them, which was well-known, have directed\nattention to them, and caused their recent origin to be quickly\ndiscovered? From all which it is manifest that the theory of forgery by\nno means frees us from grave obstacles.\n\nIt will be observed that the external evidence is large in amount and\noverwhelmingly in favour of the Apostolic authorship. The objections are\nbased on internal evidence. But some of the leading opponents admit that\neven the internal evidence is in favour of certain portions of the\nEpistles. Let us, then, with Renan, Pfleiderer, and others admit that\nparts of 2 Timothy were written by St. Paul; then there is strong\npresumption that the whole letter is by him; for even the suspected\nportions have the external evidence in their favour, together with the\nsupport lent to them by those parts for which the internal evidence is\nalso satisfactory. Add to which the improbability that any one would\nstore up genuine letters of St. Paul for fifty years and then use parts\nof them to give substance to a fabrication. Or let us with Reuss contend\nthat in 2 Timothy \"the whole Epistle is so completely the natural\nexpression of the actual situation of the author, and contains, unsought\nand for the most part in the form of mere allusions, such a mass of\nminute[8] and unessential particulars, that even did the name of the\nwriter not chance to be mentioned at the beginning it would be easy to\ndiscover it.\" Then there is strong presumption that the other two\nletters are genuine also; for they have the external evidence on their\nside, together with the good character reflected upon them by their\nbrother Epistle. This result is of course greatly strengthened, if,\nquite independently of 2 Timothy, the claims of Titus to be Apostolic\nare considered to be adequate. With two of the three letters admitted to\nbe genuine, the case for the remaining letter becomes a strong one. It\nhas the powerful external evidence on its side, backed up by the support\nlent to it by its two more manifestly authentic companions. Thus far,\ntherefore, we may agree with Baur: \"The three Epistles are so much alike\nthat none of them can be separated from the others; and from this\ncircumstance the identity of their authorship may be confidently\ninferred.\"[9] But when he asserts that whichever of this family of\nletters be examined will appear as the betrayer of his brethren, he just\nreverses the truth. Each letter, upon examination, lends support to the\nother two; \"and a threefold cord is not easily broken.\" The strongest\nmember of the family is 2 Timothy: the external evidence in its favour\nis ample, and no Epistle in the New Testament is more characteristic of\nSt. Paul. It would be scarcely less reasonable to dispute 2 Corinthians.\nAnd if 2 Timothy be admitted, there is no tenable ground for excluding\nthe other two.\n\nII. But not only do the three Epistles stand or fall together, they\nstand or fall with the hypothesis of the release and second\nimprisonment of the Apostle. The contention that no place can be found\nfor the Pastoral Epistles in the narrative of the Acts is valid; but it\nis no objection to the authenticity of the Epistles. The conclusion of\nthe Acts implies that the end of St. Paul's life is not reached in the\nnarrative. \"He abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling,\" implies\nthat after that time a change took place. If that change was his death,\nhow unnatural not to mention it! The conclusion is closely parallel to\nthat of St Luke's Gospel; and we might almost as reasonably contend that\n\"they were continually in the temple,\" proves that they were never\n\"clothed with power from on high,\" because they were told to \"tarry in\nthe city\" until they were so clothed, as contend that \"abode two whole\nyears in his own hired dwelling,\" proves that at the end of the two\nyears came the end of St. Paul's life. Let us grant that the conclusion\nof the Acts is unexpectedly abrupt, and that this abruptness constitutes\na difficulty. Then we have our choice of two alternatives. Either the\ntwo years of imprisonment were followed by a period of renewed labour,\nor they were cut short by the Apostle's martyrdom. Is it not more easy\nto believe that the writer did not consider that this new period of\nwork, which would have filled many chapters, fell within the scope of\nhis narrative, than that he omitted so obvious a conclusion as St.\nPaul's death, for which a single verse would have sufficed? But let us\nadmit that to assert that St. Paul was released at the end of two years\nis to maintain a mere hypothesis: yet to assert that he was _not_\nreleased is equally to maintain a mere hypothesis. If we exclude the\nPastoral Epistles, Scripture gives no means of deciding the question,\nand whichever alternative we adopt we are making a conjecture. But\nwhich hypothesis has most evidence on its side? Certainly the hypothesis\nof the release. (1) The Pastoral Epistles, even if not by St. Paul, are\nby some one who believed that the Apostle did a good deal after the\nclose of the Acts. (2) The famous passage in Clement of Rome (_Cor._ v.)\ntells that St. Paul \"won the noble renown which was the reward of his\nfaith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and _having\nreached the furthest bound of the West_ (=to terma t\u00eas dyse\u00f4s=).\" This\nprobably means Spain;[10] and if St. Paul ever went to Spain as he hoped\nto do (Rom. xv. 24, 28), it was after the imprisonment narrated in the\nActs. Clement gives us the tradition in Rome (c. A.D. 95). (3) The\nMuratorian fragment (c. A.D. 170) mentions the \"departure of Paul from\nthe city to Spain.\" (4) Eusebius (_H.E._, II. xxii. 2) says that at the\nend of the two years of imprisonment, according to tradition, the\nApostle went forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and on a second\nvisit to the city ended his career by martyrdom under Nero; and that\nduring this imprisonment he composed the Second Epistle to Timothy. All\nthis does not amount to proof; but it raises the hypothesis of the\nrelease to a high degree of probability. Nothing of this kind can be\nurged in favour of the counter hypothesis. To urge the improbability\nthat the labours of these last few years of St. Paul's life would be\nleft unrecorded is no argument. (1) They are partly recorded in the\nPastoral Epistles. (2) The entire labours of most of the Twelve are left\nunrecorded. Even of St. Paul's life, whole years are left a blank. How\nfragmentary the narrative in the Acts must be is proved by the\nautobiography in 2 Corinthians. That we have very scanty notice of St.\nPaul's doings between the two imprisonments does not render the\nexistence of such an interval at all doubtful.\n\nThe result of this preliminary discussion seems to show that the\nobjections which have been urged against these Epistles are not such as\nto compel us to doubt that in studying them we are studying the last\nwritings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. If any doubts still survive, a\ncloser examination of the details will, it is hoped, tend to remove\nrather than to strengthen them. When we have completed our survey, we\nmay be able to add our testimony to those who through many centuries\nhave found these writings a source of Divine guidance, warning, and\nencouragement, especially in ministerial work. The experience of\ncountless numbers of pastors attests the wisdom of the Church, or in\nother words the good Providence of God, in causing these Epistles to be\nincluded among the sacred Scriptures.\n\n\"It is an established fact,\" as Bernhard Weiss rightly points out\n(_Introduction to the New Testament_, vol. i., p. 410), \"that the\nessential, fundamental features of the Pauline doctrine of salvation are\neven in their specific expression reproduced in our Epistles with a\nclearness such as we do not find in any Pauline disciple, excepting\nperhaps Luke or the Roman Clement.\" Whoever composed them had at his\ncommand, not only St. Paul's forms of doctrine and expression, but large\nfunds of Apostolic zeal and discretion, such as have proved capable of\nwarming the hearts and guiding the judgments of a long line of\nsuccessors. Those who are conscious of these effects upon themselves\nwill probably find it easier to believe that they have derived these\nbenefits from the great Apostle himself, rather than from one who, with\nhowever good intentions, assumed his name and disguised himself in his\nmantle. Henceforward, until we find serious reason for doubt, it will be\nassumed that in these Epistles we have the farewell counsels of none\nother than St Paul.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Adv. Marc._, V. xxi.\n\n[2] _Clem. Rom._ I. ii., xxix., lxi.; Ign. _Magn._ viii., _Pol. passim_;\nPolycarp, iv; Theoph. _Autol._, III., xiv,; Iren., _Haer._, III. iii. 3,\n4; Euseb. _H. E._, III. xxv., 2., xxvi. 4., xxxii. 8.\n\n[3] \"The wealth and mobility of the Pauline intellect ... must not be\nfettered in mode of teaching or expression by a rule taken from a number\nof older epistles arbitrarily selected.\"--BERNHARD WEISS, _Introduction\nto the N. T._, i. p. 410 (Hodder: 1887).\n\n[4] Among them Alford, Baumgarten, Beck, D\u00f6llinger, Fairbairn, Farrar,\nGuericke, Herzog, Hofmann, Huther, K\u00f6lling, Lange, Lightfoot, Neander,\nOosterzee, Otto, Plumptre, Salmon, Schaff, Thiersch, Wace, Wieseler,\nWiesinger, Wordsworth.\n\n[5] Among them Credner, S. Davidson, Ewald, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld,\nHoltzmann, Mangold, Schenkel, and on the whole De Wette.\n\n[6] Schmidt and Schleiermacher followed by Bleek.\n\n[7] Similar admissions, which are quite fatal to the view that the three\nEpistles are not genuine, are made by Hausrath, Immer and Lemme; while\nEwald, Hitzig, Krenkel, and Weisse think that Titus contains authentic\nfragments. See the exposition of 2 Tim. iv. 9-21.\n\n[8] What forger would have thought of the cloak (or book-case) left at\nTroas with Carpus, or would have been careful to speak only of \"the\n_house_ of Onesiphorus,\" and not of himself, in two places?\n\n[9] _Paul, his Life and Works_, Pt. II., ch. viii. Eng. Trans., p. 105.\n\n[10] It cannot possibly mean Rome; least of all in a document written in\nRome. Rome was a centre, not a frontier.\n\n\n\n\n_THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF ST. PAUL. HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER._\n\n \"Timothy, my true child in faith.\"--1 TIM. i. 2.\n\n \"Timothy, my beloved child.\"--2 TIM. i. 2.\n\n\nIn the relation of St. Paul to Timothy we have one of those beautiful\nfriendships between an older and a younger man which are commonly so\nhelpful to both. It is in such cases, rather than where the friends are\nequals in age, that each can be the real complement of the other. Each\nby his abundance can supply the other's want, whereas men of equal age\nwould have common wants and common supplies. In this respect the\nfriendship between St. Paul and Timothy reminds us of that between St.\nPeter and St. John. In each case the friend who took the lead was much\nolder than the other; and (what is less in harmony with ordinary\nexperience) in each case it was the older friend who had the impulse and\nthe enthusiasm, the younger who had the reflectiveness and the reserve.\nThese latter qualities are perhaps less marked in St. Timothy than in\nSt. John, but nevertheless they are there, and they are among the\nleading traits of his character. St. Paul leans on him while he guides\nhim, and relies upon his thoughtfulness and circumspection in cases\nrequiring firmness, delicacy, and tact. Of the affection with which he\nregarded Timothy we have evidence in the whole tone of the two letters\nto him. In the sphere of faith Timothy is his \"_own true_ child\" (not\nmerely adopted, still less supposititious), and his \"beloved child.\" St.\nPaul tells the Corinthians that as the best means of making them\nimitators of himself he has sent unto them \"Timothy, who is my beloved\nand faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my\nways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every Church\" (1\nCor. iv. 17). And a few years later he tells the Philippians that he\nhopes to send Timothy shortly unto them, that he may know how they fare.\nFor he has no one like him, who will have a genuine anxiety about their\nwelfare. The rest care only for their own interests. \"But the proof of\nhim ye know, that, as a child a father, so he slaved with me for the\nGospel\" (ii. 22). Of all whom he ever converted to the faith Timothy\nseems to have been to St. Paul the disciple who was most beloved and\nmost trusted. Following the example of the fourth Evangelist, Timothy\nmight have called himself \"The disciple whom Paul loved.\" He shared his\nspiritual father's outward labours and most intimate thoughts. He was\nwith him when the Apostle could not or would not have the companionship\nof others. He was sent on the most delicate and confidential missions.\nHe had charge of the most important congregations. When the Apostle was\nin his last and almost lonely imprisonment it was Timothy whom he\nsummoned to console him and receive his last injunctions.\n\nThere is another point in which the beloved disciple of the Pastoral\nEpistles resembles the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. We are apt\nto think of both of them as always young. Christian art nearly\ninvariably represents St. John as a man of youthful and almost feminine\nappearance. And, although in Timothy's case, painters and sculptors have\nnot done much to influence our imagination, yet the picture which we\nform for ourselves of him is very similar to that which we commonly\nreceive of St. John. With strange logic this has actually been made an\nargument against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Myth, we are\ntold, has given to this Christian Achilles the attributes of eternal\nyouth. Timothy was a lad of about fifteen when St. Paul converted him at\nLystra, in or near A.D. 45; and he was probably not yet thirty-five when\nSt. Paul wrote the First Epistle to him. Even if he had been much older\nthere would be nothing surprising in the tone of St. Paul's letters to\nhim. It is one of the commonest experiences to find elderly parents\nspeaking of their middle-aged children as if they were still boys and\ngirls. This trait, as being so entirely natural, ought to count as a\ntouch beyond the reach of a forger rather than as a circumstance that\nought to rouse our suspicions, in the letters of \"Paul the aged\"[11] to\na friend who was thirty years younger than himself.\n\nOnce more, the notices of Timothy which have come down to us, like those\nwhich we have respecting the beloved disciple, are very fragmentary; but\nthey form a beautiful and consistent sketch of one whose full portrait\nwe long to possess.\n\nTimothy was a native, possibly of Derbe, but more probably of the\nneighbouring town of Lystra, where he was piously brought up in a\nknowledge of the Jewish Scriptures by his grandmother Lois and his\nmother Eunice. It was probably during St Paul's first visit to Lystra,\non his first missionary journey, that he became the boy's spiritual\nfather, by converting him to the Christian faith. It was at Lystra that\nthe Apostle was stoned by the mob and dragged outside the city as dead:\nand there is no improbability in the suggestion that, when he recovered\nconsciousness and re-entered the town, it was in the home of Timothy\nthat he found shelter. In any case Lystra was to the Apostle a place of\nstrangely mixed associations; the brutality of the pagan multitude side\nby side with the tender friendship of the young Timothy. When St. Paul\non his next missionary journey again visited Lystra he found Timothy\nalready enjoying a good report among the Christians of that place and of\nIconium for his zeal and devotion during the six or seven years which\nhad elapsed since his first visit. Perhaps he had been engaged in\nmissionary work in both places. The voices of the prophets had singled\nhim out as one worthy of bearing office in the Church; and the Apostle,\nstill grieving over the departure of Barnabas with John Mark, recognized\nin him one who with Silas could fill the double vacancy. The conduct of\nthe Apostle of the Gentiles on this occasion has sometimes excited\nsurprise. Previously to the ordination, Paul, the great proclaimer of\nthe abrogation of the Law by the Gospel, circumcised the young\nevangelist. The inconsistency is more apparent than real. It was an\ninstance of his becoming \"all things to all men\" for the salvation of\nsouls, and of his sacrificing his own convictions in matters that were\nnot essential, rather than cause others to offend. Timothy's father had\nbeen a Gentile, and the son, though brought up in his mother's faith,\nhad never been circumcised. To St. Paul circumcision was a worthless\nrite. The question was, whether it was a harmless one. This depended\nupon circumstances. If, as among the Galatians, it caused people to rely\nupon the Law and neglect the Gospel, it was a superstitious obstacle\nwith which no compromise could be made. But if it was a passport whereby\npreachers, who would otherwise be excluded, might gain access to Jewish\ncongregations, then it was not only a harmless but a useful ceremony. In\nthe synagogue Timothy as an uncircumcised Jew would have been an\nintolerable abomination, and would never have obtained a hearing. To\nfree him from this crippling disadvantage, St. Paul subjected him to a\nrite which he himself knew to be obsolete. Then followed the ordination,\nperformed with great solemnity by the laying on of the hands of all the\nelders of the congregation: and the newly ordained Evangelist forthwith\nset out to accompany Paul and Silas in their labours for the Gospel.\nWherever they went they distributed copies of the decrees of the\nApostolic Council at Jerusalem, which declared circumcision to be\nunnecessary for Gentiles. Their true position with regard to\ncircumcision was thus made abundantly evident. For the sake of others\nthey had abstained from availing themselves of the very liberty which\nthey proclaimed.\n\nIn the Troad they met Luke the beloved physician (as indicated by the\nsudden use of the first person plural in the Acts), and took him on with\nthem to Philippi. Here probably, as certainly afterwards at Beroea,\nTimothy was left behind by Paul and Silas to consolidate their work. He\nrejoined the Apostle at Athens, but was thence sent back on a mission to\nThessalonica, and on his return found St. Paul at Corinth. The two\nEpistles written from Corinth to the Thessalonians are in the joint\nnames of Paul and Timothy. At Corinth, as at Lystra, Iconium, and\nPhilippi, Timothy became prominent for his zeal as an evangelist; and\nthen for about five years we lose sight of him. We may think of him as\ngenerally at the side of St. Paul, and as always working with him; but\nof the details of the work we are ignorant. About A.D. 57 he was sent by\nSt. Paul on a delicate mission to Corinth. This was before 1 Corinthians\nwas written; for in that letter St. Paul states that he has sent Timothy\nto Corinth, but writes as if he expected that the letter would reach\nCorinth before him. He charges the Corinthians not to aggravate the\nyoung evangelist's natural timidity, and not to let his youth prejudice\nthem against him. When St. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia later\nin the year, Timothy was again with him, for his name is coupled with\nPaul's: and he is still with him when the Apostle wrote to the Romans\nfrom Corinth, for he joins in sending salutations to the Roman\nChristians. We find him still at St. Paul's side on his way back to\nJerusalem through Philippi, the Troad, Tyre, and Caesarea. And here we\nonce more lose trace of him for some years. We do not know what he was\ndoing during St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Caesarea; but he\njoined him during the first imprisonment at Rome, for the Epistles to\nthe Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon are written in the names\nof Paul and Timothy. From the passage already quoted from Philippians we\nmay conjecture that Timothy went to Philippi and returned again before\nthe Apostle was released. At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews we\nread, \"Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty.\" It is\npossible that the imprisonment to which this notice refers was\ncontemporaneous with the first imprisonment of St. Paul, and that it is\nagain referred to in 1 Timothy (vi. 12) as \"the good confession\" which\nhe \"confessed in the sight of many witnesses.\"\n\nThe few additional facts respecting Timothy are given us in the two\nletters to him. Some time after St. Paul's release the two were together\nin Ephesus; and when the Apostle went on into Macedonia he left his\ncompanion behind him to warn and exhort certain holders of erroneous\ndoctrine to desist from teaching it. There were tears, on the younger\nfriend's side at any rate, to which St. Paul alludes at the opening of\nthe Second Epistle; and they were natural enough. The task imposed upon\nTimothy was no easy one; and after the dangers and sufferings to which\nthe Apostle had been exposed, and which his increasing infirmities\ncontinually augmented, it was only too possible that the friends would\nnever meet again. So far as we know, these gloomy apprehensions may have\nbeen realized. In his first letter, written from Macedonia, St. Paul\nexpresses a hope of returning very soon to Timothy; but, like some other\nhopes expressed in St. Paul's Epistles, it was perhaps never fulfilled.\nThe second letter, written from Rome, contains no allusion to any\nintermediate meeting. In this second letter he twice implores Timothy to\ndo all he can to come to him without delay, for he is left almost alone\nin his imprisonment. But whether Timothy was able to comply with this\nwish we have no means of knowing. We like to think of the beloved\ndisciple as comforting the last hours of his master; but, although the\nconjecture may be a right one, we must remember that it is conjecture\nand no more. With the Second Epistle to him ends all that we really know\nof Timothy. Tradition and ingenious guesswork add a little more which\ncan be neither proved nor disproved. More than two hundred years after\nhis death, Eusebius tells us that he is related to have held the office\nof overseer of the diocese of Ephesus; and five centuries later\nNicephorus tells us, that he was beaten to death by the Ephesian mob for\nprotesting against the licentiousness of their worship of Artemis. It\nhas been conjectured that Timothy may be the \"Angel\" of the Church of\nEphesus, who is partly praised and partly blamed in the Apocalypse, and\nparallels have been drawn between the words of blame in Rev. ii. 4, 5,\nand the uneasiness which seems to underlie one or two passages in the\nSecond Epistle to Timothy. But the resemblances are too slight to be\nrelied upon. All we can say is, that even if the later date be taken for\nthe Apocalypse, Timothy may have been overseer of the Church of Ephesus\nat the time when the book was written.\n\nBut of all the scattered memorials that have come down to us respecting\nthis beautiful friendship between the great Apostle and his chief\ndisciple, the two letters of the older friend to the younger are by far\nthe chief. And there is so much in them that fits with exquisite nicety\ninto the known conditions of the case, that it is hard to imagine how\nany forger of the second century could so have thrown himself into the\nsituation. Where else in that age have we evidence of any such literary\nand historical skill? The tenderness and affection, the anxiety and\nsadness, the tact and discretion, the strength and large-mindedness of\nSt. Paul are all there; and his relation to his younger but much-trusted\ndisciple is quite naturally sustained throughout. Against this it is not\nmuch to urge that there are some forty words and phrases in these\nEpistles which do not occur in the other Epistles of St. Paul. The\nexplanation of that fact is easy. Partly they are words which in his\nother Epistles he had no need to use; partly they are words which the\ncircumstances of these later letters suggested to him, and which those\nof the earlier letters did not. The vocabulary of every man of active\nmind who reads and mixes with other men, especially if he travels much,\nis perpetually changing. He comes across new metaphors, new figures of\nspeech, remembers them, and uses them. The reading of such a work as\nDarwin's _Origin of Species_ gives a man command of a new sphere of\nthought and expression. The conversation of such a man as \"Luke the\nbeloved physician\" would have a similar effect on St. Paul. We shall\nnever know the minds or the circumstances which suggested to him the\nlanguage which has now become our own possession; and it is unreasonable\nto suppose that the process of assimilation came to a dead stop in the\nApostle's mind when he finished the Epistles of the first imprisonment.\nThe result, therefore, of this brief survey of the life of Timothy is to\nconfirm rather than to shake our belief that the letters which are\naddressed to him were really written by his friend St. Paul.\n\nThe friendship between these two men of different gifts and very\ndifferent ages is full of interest. It is difficult to estimate which of\nthe two friends gained most from the affection and devotion of the\nother. No doubt Timothy's debt to St. Paul was immense: and which of us\nwould not think himself amply paid for any amount of service and\nsacrifice, in having the privilege of being the chosen friend of such a\nman as St. Paul? But on the other hand, few men could have supplied the\nApostle's peculiar needs as Timothy did. That intense craving for\nsympathy which breathes so strongly throughout the writings of St. Paul,\nfound its chief human satisfaction in Timothy. To be alone in a crowd\nis a trial to most men; and few men have felt the oppressiveness of it\nmore keenly than St. Paul. To have some one, therefore, who loved and\nreverenced him, who knew his \"ways\" and could impress them on others,\nwho cared for those for whom Paul cared and was ever willing to minister\nto them as his friend's missioner and delegate--all this and much more\nwas inexpressibly comforting to St. Paul. It gave him strength in his\nweaknesses, hope in his many disappointments, and solid help in his\ndaily burden of \"anxiety for all the Churches.\" Specially consoling was\nthe clinging affection of his young friend at those times when the\nApostle was suffering from the coldness and neglect of others. At the\ntime of his first imprisonment the respect or curiosity of the Roman\nChristians had moved many of them to come out thirty miles to meet him\non his journey from Caesarea to Rome; yet as soon as he was safely lodged\nin the house of his gaoler they almost ceased to minister to him. But\nthe faithful disciple seems to have been ever at his side. And when the\nRomans treated Paul with similar indifference during his second\nimprisonment, it was this same disciple that he earnestly besought to\ncome with all speed to comfort him. It was not merely that he loved and\ntrusted Timothy as one upon whose devotion and discretion he could\nalways rely: but Timothy was the one among his many disciples who had\nsacrificed everything for St. Paul and his Master. He had left a loving\nmother and a pleasant home in order to share with the Apostle a task\nwhich involved ceaseless labour, untold anxiety, not a little shame and\nobloquy, and at times even danger to life and limb. When he might have\ncontinued to live on as the favourite of his family, enjoying the\nrespect of the presbyters and prophets of Lycaonia, he chose to wander\nabroad with the man to whom, humanly speaking, he owed his salvation,\n\"in journeyings often,\" in perils of every kind from the powers of\nnature, and from the violence or treachery of man, and in all those\ncountless afflictions and necessities, of which St. Paul gives us such a\ntouching summary in the second letter to the Corinthians. All this St.\nPaul knew, and he knew the value of it to himself and the Church; and\nhence the warm affection with which the Apostle always speaks of him and\nto him.\n\nBut what did not Timothy owe to his friend, his father in the faith, old\nenough to be his father in the flesh? Not merely his conversion and his\nbuilding up in Christian doctrine, though that was much, and the chief\nitem of his debt. But St. Paul had tenderly watched over him among the\ndifficulties to which a person of his temperament would be specially\nexposed. Timothy was young, enthusiastic, sensitive, and at times showed\nsigns of timidity. If his enthusiasm were not met with a generous\nsympathy, there was danger lest the sensitive nature would shrivel up on\ncontact with an unfeeling world, and the enthusiasm driven in upon\nitself would be soured into a resentful cynicism. St. Paul not only\nhimself gave to his young disciple the sympathy that he needed; he\nencouraged others also to do the same. \"Now if Timothy come,\" he writes\nto the Corinthians, \"see that he be with you without fear; for he\nworketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise\nhim.\" He warned these factious and fastidious Greeks against chilling\nthe generous impulses of a youthful evangelist by their sarcastic\ncriticisms. Timothy might be wanting in the brilliant gifts which\nCorinthians adored: in knowledge of the world, in address, in oratory.\nBut he was real. He was working God's work with a single heart and with\ngenuine fervour. It would be a cruel thing to mar that simplicity or\nquench that fervour, and thus turn a genuine enthusiast into a\ncold-blooded man of the world. On their treatment of him might depend\nwhether he raised them to his own zeal for Christ, or they dragged him\ndown to the level of their own paralysing superciliousness.\n\nThe dangers from which St. Paul thus generously endeavoured to shield\nTimothy, are those which beset many an ardent spirit, especially in\nEngland at the present day. Everywhere there is a cynical disbelief in\nhuman nature and a cold contempt for all noble impulses, which throw a\ndamp and chilling atmosphere over society. At school and at the\nuniversity, in family life and in domestic service, young men and young\nwomen are encouraged to believe that there is no such thing as\nunselfishness or holiness, and that enthusiasm is always either silly or\nhypocritical. By sarcastic jests and contemptuous smiles they are taught\nthe fatal lesson of speaking slightingly, and at last of thinking\nslightingly, of their own best feelings. To be dutiful and affectionate\nis supposed to be childish, while reverence and trust are regarded as\nmere ignorance of the world. The mischief is a grave one, for it poisons\nlife at its very springs. Every young man and woman at times has\naspirations which at first are only romantic and sentimental, and as\nsuch are neither right nor wrong. But they are nature's material for\nhigher and better things. They are capable of being developed into a\nzeal for God and for man, such as will ennoble the characters of all who\ncome under its influence. The sentimentalist may become an enthusiast,\nand the enthusiast a hero or a saint. Woe to him who gives to such\nprecious material a wrong turn, and by offering cynicism instead of\nsympathy turns all its freshness sour. The loss does not end with the\nblight of an exuberant and earnest character. There are huge masses of\nevil in the world, which seem to defy the good influences that from time\nto time are brought to bear upon them. Humanly speaking, there seems to\nbe only one hope of overcoming these strongholds of Satan,--and that is\nby the combined efforts of many enthusiasts. \"This is the victory which\novercometh the world, even our faith.\" It will be a grievous prospect\nfor mankind, if faith in God, in ourselves, and in our fellow-men\nbecomes so unfashionable as to be impossible. And this is the faith\nwhich makes enthusiasts. If we have not this faith ourselves, we can at\nleast respect it in others. If we cannot play the part of Timothy, and\ngo forth with glowing hearts to whatever difficult and distasteful work\nmay be placed before us, we can at least avoid chilling and\ndisheartening others; and sometimes at least we may so far follow in the\nfootsteps of St. Paul as to protect from the world's cynicism those who,\nwith hearts more warm perhaps than wise, are labouring manfully to leave\nthe world purer and happier than they found it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[11] \"Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ\" is\nprobably right in Philemon; but even there \"Paul the aged\" would be\ntrue.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM OF\nGNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM._\n\n \"As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into\n Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a\n different doctrine, neither to give heed to fables and endless\n genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a\n dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now\"--_1 Tim._ i. 2,\n 3.\n\n\nThis Epistle falls into two main divisions, of which the first continues\ndown to the 13th verse of chap. iii. It treats of three different\nsubjects: Christian doctrine; Christian worship; and the Christian\nministry. The first of these three subjects is introduced in the words\nof the text, which in the original form an incomplete sentence. The last\nfour words, \"so do I now,\" are not expressed in the Greek. But something\nmust be supplied to complete the sense; and it is more natural to\nunderstand with the Revisers \"So do I now exhort thee,\" than with the A.\nV. \"So do thou tarry at Ephesus.\" But the question is not of great\nmoment and cannot be decided with absolute certainty. It is of more\nimportance to enquire what was the nature of the \"different doctrine\"\nwhich Timothy was to endeavour to counteract. And on this point we are\nnot left in serious doubt. There are various expressions used respecting\nit in these two letters to Timothy which seem to point to two factors\nin the heterodoxy about which St. Paul is anxious. It is clear that the\nerror is Jewish in origin; and it is almost equally clear that it is\nGnostic as well. The evidence of the letter to Titus tends materially to\nconfirm these conclusions.\n\n(1) The heresy is _Jewish_ in character. Its promoters \"desire to be\nteachers of the Law\" (ver. 7). Some of them are \"they of the\ncircumcision\" (Tit. i. 10). It consists in \"Jewish fables\" (Tit. i. 14).\nThe questions which it raises are \"fightings about the Law\" (Tit. iii.\n9).\n\n(2) Its _Gnostic_ character is also indicated. We are told both in the\ntext and in the Epistle to Titus (i. 14; iii. 9) that it deals in\n\"fables and genealogies.\" It is \"empty talking\" (ver. 6), \"disputes of\nwords\" (vi. 4), and \"profane babblings\" (vi. 20). It teaches, an\nunscriptural and unnatural asceticism (iv. 3, 8). It is \"Gnosis falsely\nso called\" (vi. 20).\n\nA heresy containing these two elements, Judaism and Gnosticism, meets us\nboth before and after the period covered by the Pastoral Epistles:\nbefore in the Epistle to the Colossians; afterwards in the Epistles of\nIgnatius. The evidence gathered from these three sources is entirely in\nharmony with what we learn elsewhere--that the earliest forms of\nChristian Gnosticism were Jewish in character. It will be observed that\nthis is indirect confirmation of the genuineness of the Pastoral\nEpistles. The Gnosticism condemned in them is Jewish; and any form of\nGnosticism that was in existence in St. Paul's time would almost\ncertainly be Jewish.[12]\n\nProfessor Godet has pointed out how entirely the relation of Judaism to\nChristianity which is implied in these Epistles, fits in with their\nbeing the last group of Epistles written by St. Paul. At first, Judaism\nwas entirely outside the Church, opposing and blaspheming. Then it\nentered the Church and tried to make the Church Jewish, by foisting the\nMosaic Law upon it. Lastly, it becomes a fantastic heresy inside the\nChurch, and sinks into profane frivolity. \"Pretended revelations are\ngiven as to the names and genealogies of angels; absurd ascetic rules\nare laid down as counsels of perfection, while daring immorality defaces\nthe actual life.\"[13] This is the phase which is confronted in the\nPastoral Epistles: and St. Paul meets it with a simple appeal to faith\nand morality.\n\nIt is quite possible that the \"fables,\" or \"myths,\" and \"genealogies\"\nought to be transferred from the Gnostic to the Jewish side of the\naccount. And thus Chrysostom interprets the passage. \"By fables he does\nnot mean the Law; far from it; but inventions and forgeries, and\ncounterfeit doctrines. For, it seems, the Jews wasted their whole\ndiscourse on these unprofitable points. They numbered up their fathers\nand grandfathers, that they might have the reputation of historical\nknowledge and research.\" The \"fables\" then, may be understood to be\nthose numerous legends which the Jews added to the Old Testament,\nspecimens of which abound in the Talmud. But similar myths abound in\nGnostic systems, and therefore \"fables\" may represent _both_ elements of\nthe heterodox teaching. So also with the \"endless genealogies.\" These\ncannot well refer to the genealogies in Genesis, for they are not\nendless, each of them being arranged in tens. But it is quite possible\nthat Jewish speculations about the genealogies of angels may be meant.\nSuch things, being purely imaginary, would be endless. Or the Gnostic\ndoctrine of emanations, in its earlier and cruder forms, may be\nintended. By genealogies in this sense early thinkers, especially in the\nEast, tried to bridge the chasm between the Infinite and the Finite,\nbetween God and creation. In various systems it is assumed that matter\nis inherently evil. The material universe has been from the beginning\nnot \"very good\" but very bad. How then can it be believed that the\nSupreme Being, infinite in goodness, would create such a thing? This is\nincredible: the world must be the creature of some inferior and perhaps\nevil being. But when this was conceded, the distance between this\ninferior power and the supreme God still remained to be bridged. This,\nit was supposed, might be done by an indefinite number of generations,\neach lower in dignity than the preceding one, until at last a being\ncapable of creating the universe was found. From the Supreme God\nemanated an inferior deity, and from this lower power a third still more\ninferior; and so on, until the Creator of the world was reached. These\nideas are found in the Jewish philosopher Philo; and it is to these that\nSt. Paul probably alludes in the \"endless genealogies which minister\nquestionings rather than a dispensation of God.\" The idea that matter is\nevil dominates the whole philosophy of Philo. He endeavoured to\nreconcile this with the Old Testament, by supposing that matter is\neternal; and that it was out of pre-existing material that God, acting\nthrough His creative powers, made the world which He pronounced to be\n\"very good.\" These powers are sometimes regarded as the angels,\nsometimes as existences scarcely personal. But they have no existence\napart from their source, any more than a ray apart from the sun. They\nare now the instruments of God's Providence, as formerly of His creative\npower.\n\nSt. Paul condemns such speculations on four grounds. (1) They are\n_fables_, myths, mere imaginings of the human intellect in its attempt\nto account for the origin of the world and the origin of evil. (2) They\nare _endless_ and interminable. From the nature of things there is no\nlimit to mere guesswork of this kind. Every new speculator may invent a\nfresh genealogy of emanations in his theory of creation, and may make it\nany length that he pleases. If hypotheses need never be verified,--need\nnot even be _capable_ of verification,--one may go on constructing them\n_ad infinitum_. (3) As a natural consequence of this (=haitines=) they\n_minister questionings_ and nothing better. It is all barren speculation\nand fruitless controversy. Where any one may assert without proof, any\none else may contradict without proof; and nothing comes of this see-saw\nof affirmation and negation. (4) Lastly, these vain imaginings are _a\ndifferent doctrine_. They are not only empty but untrue, and are a\nhindrance to the truth. They occupy the ground which ought to be filled\nwith the _dispensation of God which is in faith_. Human minds are\nlimited in their capacity, and, even if these empty hypotheses were\ninnocent, minds that were filled with them would have little room left\nfor the truth. But they are not innocent: and those who are attracted by\nthem become disaffected towards the truth. It is impossible to love\nboth, for the two are opposed to one another. These fables are\nbaseless; they have no foundation either in revelation or in human life.\nMoreover they are vague, shifting, and incoherent. They ramble on\nwithout end. But the Gospel is based on a Divine Revelation, tested by\nhuman experience. It is an economy, a system, an organic whole, a\ndispensation of means to ends. Its sphere is not unbridled imagination\nor audacious curiosity, but faith.\n\nThe history of the next hundred and fifty years amply justifies the\nanxiety and severity of St. Paul. The germs of Gnostic error, which were\nin the air when Christianity was first preached, fructified with amazing\nrapidity. It would be hard to find a parallel in the history of\nphilosophy to the speed with which Gnostic views spread in and around\nChristendom between A.D. 70 and 220. Eusebius tells us that, as soon as\nthe Apostles and those who had listened \"with their own ears to their\ninspired wisdom had passed away, then the conspiracy of godless error\ntook its rise through the deceit of false teachers, who (now that none\nof the Apostles was any longer left) henceforth endeavoured with brazen\nface to preach their _knowledge falsely so called_ in opposition to the\npreaching of the truth.\"[14] Throughout the Christian world, and\nespecially in intellectual centres such as Ephesus, Alexandria and Rome,\nthere was perhaps not a single educated congregation which did not\ncontain persons who were infected with some form of Gnosticism. Jerome's\nfamous hyperbole respecting Arianism might be transferred to this\nearlier form of error, perhaps the most perilous that the Church has\never known: \"The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself\n_Gnostic_.\"\n\nHowever severely we may condemn these speculations, we cannot but\nsympathize with the perplexities which produced them. The origin of the\nuniverse, and still more the origin of evil, still remain unsolved\nproblems. No one in this life is ever likely to reach a complete\nsolution of either. What is the origin of the material universe? To\nassume that it is not a creature, but that matter is eternal, is to make\ntwo first principles, one spiritual and one material; and this is\nperilously near making two Gods. But the belief that God made the world\nis by no means free from difficulty. What was His motive in making the\nworld? Was His perfection increased by it? Then God was once not fully\nperfect. Was His perfection diminished by the act of creation? Then God\nis now not fully perfect; and how can we suppose that He would\nvoluntarily surrender anything of His absolute perfection? Was God\nneither the better nor the worse for the creation of the universe? Then\nthe original question returns with its full force: What induced Him to\ncreate it? We cannot suppose that creation was an act of caprice. No\ncomplete answer to this enigma is possible for us. One thing we\nknow;--that _God is light_ and that _God is love_. And we may be sure\nthat in exercising His creative power He was manifesting His perfect\nwisdom and His exhaustless affection.\n\nBut will the knowledge that _God is light_ and that _God is love_ help\nus to even a partial solution of that problem which has wrung the souls\nof countless saints and thinkers with anguish--the problem of the origin\nof evil? How could a God who is perfectly wise and perfectly good, make\nit possible for evil to arise, and allow it to continue after it had\narisen? Once more the suggestion that there are two First Principles\npresents itself, but in a more terrible form. Before, it was the thought\nthat there are two co-eternal Existences, God and Matter. Now, it is the\nsuggestion that there are two co-eternal, and perhaps co-equal Powers,\nGood and Evil. This hypothesis, impossible for a Christian and rejected\nby John Stuart Mill,[15] creates more difficulties than it solves. But,\nif this is the wrong answer, what is the right one? Cardinal Newman, in\none of the most striking passages even in his works, has told us how the\nproblem presents itself to him. \"Starting then with the being of God\n(which, as I have said, is as certain to me as the certainty of my own\nexistence, though when I try to put the grounds of that certainty into\nlogical shape, I find difficulty in doing so in mood and figure to my\nsatisfaction), I look out of myself into the world of men, and there I\nsee a sight which fills me with unspeakable distress. The world seems\nsimply to give the lie to that great truth, of which my whole being is\nso full; and the effect upon me is, in consequence, as a matter of\nnecessity, as confusing as if it denied that I am in existence myself.\n_If I looked into a mirror, and did not see my face, I should have the\nsort of feeling which actually comes upon me, when I look into this\nliving busy world and see no reflection of its Creator._ This is, to me,\none of the great difficulties of this absolute primary truth, to which I\nreferred just now. Were it not for this voice, speaking so clearly in my\nconscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist, or a\npolytheist, when I looked into the world. I am speaking for myself only;\nand I am far from denying the real force of the arguments in proof of a\nGod, drawn from the general facts of human society, but these do not\nwarm me or enlighten me; they do not take away the winter of my\ndesolation, or make the buds unfold and the leaves grow within me, and\nmy moral being rejoice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the\nprophet's scroll full of 'lamentations, and mourning, and woe.' ... What\nshall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can\nonly answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of\nmen is in a true sense discarded from His presence. Did I see a boy of\ngood make and mind, with the tokens on him of a refined nature, cast\nupon the world without provision, unable to say whence he came, his\nbirthplace or his family connexions, I should conclude that there was\nsome mystery connected with his history, and that he was one, of whom,\nfrom one cause or other, his parents were ashamed. Thus only should I be\nable to account for the contrast between the promise and condition of\nhis being. And so I argue about the world;--_if_ there be a God, _since_\nthere is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal\ncalamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a\nfact, a fact as true as the fact of its existence; and thus the doctrine\nof what is theologically called original sin becomes to me almost as\ncertain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God.\"[16]\n\nBut this only carries us a short way towards a solution. Why did God\nallow the \"aboriginal calamity\" of sin to be possible? This was the\nGnostic's difficulty, and it is our difficulty still. Can we say more\nthan this by way of an answer? God willed that angels and men should\nhonour Him with a voluntary and not a mechanical service. If they\nobeyed Him, it should be of their own free will, and not of necessity.\nIt should be possible to them to refuse service and obedience. In short,\nGod willed to be reverenced and worshipped, and not merely served and\nobeyed. A machine can render service; and a person under the influence\nof mesmerism may be forced to obey. But do we not all feel that the\nvoluntary service of a conscious and willing agent, who prefers to\nrender rather than to withhold his service, is a nobler thing both for\nhim who gives, and him who receives it? Compulsory labour is apt to turn\nthe servant into a slave and the master into a tyrant. We see,\ntherefore, a reason why the Creator in creating conscious beings made\nthem also moral; made them capable of obeying Him of their own free\nwill, and therefore also capable of disobeying Him. In other words, He\nmade sin, with all its consequences, possible. Then it became merely a\nquestion of historical fact whether any angelic or human being would\never abuse his freedom by choosing to disobey. That \"aboriginal\ncalamity,\" we know, has taken place; and all the moral and physical evil\nwhich now exists in the world, is the natural consequence of it.\n\nThis is, perhaps, the best solution that the human mind is likely to\ndiscover, respecting this primeval and terrible mystery. But it is only\na partial solution; and the knowledge that we have still not attained to\na complete answer to the question which perplexed the early Gnostics,\nought to banish from our minds anything like arrogance or contempt, when\nwe condemn their answer as unchristian and inadequate. \"The end of the\ncharge\" which has been given to us is not the condemnation of others,\nbut \"love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith\nunfeigned.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] F. C. Baur himself contends that the false teachers here condemned\nare \"Judaizing Gnostics, who put forth their figurative interpretation\nof the Law as true knowledge of the Law. Such were the earlier Gnostics,\nsuch as the Ophites and Saturninus\" (_Protestant Commentary_, note on 1\nTim. i. 7).\n\n[13] _Expositor_, July, 1888, p. 42.\n\n[14] _H. E._, VI, xxxii. 8.\n\n[15] _Three Essays on Religion_, pp. 185, 186.\n\n[16] _Apologia pro Vita Sua_ (Longmans, 1864), pp. 376-379.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART._\n\n \"But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully, as\n knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the\n lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and\n profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for\n man-slayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men,\n for men-stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any\n other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel\n of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust\"--1\n Tim. i. 8-11.\n\n\nThe speculations of the Gnostics in their attempts to explain the origin\nof the universe and the origin of evil, were wild and unprofitable\nenough; and in some respects involved a fundamental contradiction of the\nplain statements of Scripture. But it was not so much their metaphysical\nas their moral teaching, which seemed so perilous to St. Paul. Their\n\"endless genealogies\" might have been left to fall with their own dead\nweight, so dull and uninteresting were they. Specimens of them still\nsurvive, in what is known to us of the systems of Basilides and\nValentinus; and which of us, after having laboriously worked through\nthem, ever wished to read them a second time? But it is impossible to\nkeep one's philosophy in one compartment in one's mind, and one's\nreligion and morality quite separate from it in another. However\nunpractical metaphysical speculations may appear, it is beyond question\nthat the views which we hold respecting such things may have momentous\ninfluence upon our life. It was so with the early Gnostics, whom St.\nPaul urges Timothy to keep in check. Their doctrine respecting the\nnature of the material world and its relation to God, led to two\nopposite forms of ethical teaching, each of them radically opposed to\nChristianity.\n\nThis fact fits in very well with the character of the Pastoral Epistles,\nall of which deal with this early form of error. They insist upon\ndiscipline and morality, more than upon doctrine. These last solemn\ncharges of the great Apostle aim rather at making Christian ministers,\nand their congregations, lead pure and holy lives, than at constructing\nany system of theology. Erroneous teaching must be resisted; the plain\ntruths of the Gospel must be upheld; but the main thing is holiness of\nlife. By prayer and thanksgiving, by quiet and grave conduct, by modesty\nand temperance, by self-denial and benevolence, by reverence for the\nsanctity of home life, Christians will furnish the best antidote to the\nintellectual and moral poison which the false teachers are propagating.\n\"The sound doctrine\" has its fruit in a healthy, moral life, as surely\nas the \"different doctrine\" leads to spiritual pride and lawless\nsensuality.\n\nThe belief that Matter and everything material is inherently evil,\ninvolved necessarily a contempt for the human body. This body was a vile\nthing; and it was a dire calamity to the human mind to be joined to such\na mass of evil. From this premise various conclusions, some doctrinal\nand some ethical, were drawn.\n\nOn the doctrinal side it was urged that the resurrection of the body was\nincredible. It was disastrous enough to the soul that it should be\nburdened with a body in this world. That this degrading alliance would\nbe continued in the world to come, was a monstrous belief. Equally\nincredible was the doctrine of the Incarnation. How could the Divine\nWord consent to be united with so evil a thing as a material frame?\nEither the Son of Mary was a mere man, or the body which the Christ\nassumed was not real. It is with these errors that St. John deals, some\ntwelve or fifteen years later, in his Gospel and Epistles.\n\nOn the ethical side the tenet that the human body is utterly evil\nproduced two opposite errors,--asceticism and antinomian sensuality. And\nboth of these are aimed at in these Epistles. If the enlightenment of\nthe soul is everything, and the body is utterly worthless, then this\nvile clog to the movement of the soul must be beaten under and crushed,\nin order that the higher nature may rise to higher things. The body must\nbe denied all indulgence, in order that it may be starved into\nsubmission (iv. 3). On the other hand, if enlightenment is everything\nand the body is worthless, then every kind of experience, no matter how\nshameless, is of value, in order to enlarge knowledge. Nothing that a\nman can do can make his body more vile than it is by nature, and the\nsoul of the enlightened is incapable of pollution. Gold still remains\ngold, however often it is plunged in the mire.\n\nThe words of the three verses taken as a text, look as if St. Paul was\naiming at evil of this kind. These Judaizing Gnostics \"desired to be\nteachers of the Law.\" They wished to enforce the Mosaic Law, or rather\ntheir fantastic interpretations of it, upon Christians. They insisted\nupon its excellence, and would not allow that it has been in many\nrespects superseded. \"We know quite well,\" says the Apostle, \"and\nreadily admit, that the Mosaic Law is an excellent thing; provided that\nthose who undertake to expound it make a legitimate use of it. They must\nremember that, just as law in general is not made for those whose own\ngood principles keep them in the right, so also the restrictions of the\nMosaic Law are not meant for Christians who obey the Divine will in the\nfree spirit of the Gospel.\" Legal restrictions are intended to control\nthose who will not control themselves; in short, for the very men who by\ntheir strange doctrines are endeavouring to curtail the liberties of\nothers. What they preach as \"the Law\" is really a code of their own,\n\"commandments of men who turn away from the truth.... They profess that\nthey know God; but by their works they deny Him, being abominable, and\ndisobedient, and unto every good work reprobate\" (Tit. i. 14, 16). In\nrehearsing the various kinds of sinners for whom law exists, and who are\nto be found (he hints) among these false teachers, he goes roughly\nthrough the Decalogue. The four commandments of the First Table are\nindicated in general and comprehensive terms; the first five\ncommandments of the Second Table are taken one by one, flagrant\nviolators being specified in each case. Thus the stealing of a human\nbeing in order to make him a slave, is mentioned as the most outrageous\nbreach of the eighth commandment. The tenth commandment is not\ndistinctly indicated, possibly because the breaches of it are not so\neasily detected. The overt acts of these men were quite sufficient to\nconvict them of gross immorality, without enquiring as to their secret\nwishes and desires. In a word, the very persons who in their teaching\nwere endeavouring to burden men with the ceremonial ordinances, which\nhad been done away in Christ, were in their own lives violating the\nmoral laws, to which Christ had given a new sanction. They tried to keep\nalive, in new and strange forms, what had been provisional and was now\nobsolete, while they trampled under foot what was eternal and Divine.\n\n\"If there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine.\" In these\nwords St. Paul sums up all the forms of transgression not specified in\nhis catalogue. The sound, healthy teaching of the Gospel is opposed to\nthe morbid and corrupt teaching of the Gnostics, who are sickly in their\nspeculations (vi. 4), and whose word is like an eating sore (2 Tim. ii.\n17). Of course healthy teaching is also _health-giving_, and corrupt\nteaching is _corrupting_; but it is the primary and not the derived\nquality that is stated here. It is the healthiness of the doctrine in\nitself, and its freedom from what is diseased or distorted, that is\ninsisted upon. Its wholesome character is a consequence of this.\n\nThis word \"sound\" or \"healthy\" (=hygiain\u00f4n, hygi\u00eas=), as applied to\ndoctrine,[17] is one of a group of expressions which are peculiar to the\nPastoral Epistles, and which have been condemned as not belonging to St.\nPaul's style of language. He never uses \"healthy\" in his other Epistles;\ntherefore these three Epistles, in which the phrase occurs eight or nine\ntimes, are not by him.\n\nThis kind of argument has been discussed already, in the first of these\nexpositions. It assumes the manifest untruth, that as life goes on men\nmake little or no change in the stock of words and phrases which they\nhabitually use. With regard to this particular phrase, the source of it\nhas been conjectured with a fair amount of probability. It may have come\nfrom \"the beloved physician,\" who, at the time when St. Paul wrote the\nSecond Epistle to Timothy, was the Apostle's sole companion. It is worth\nremarking that the word here used for \"sound\" (with the exception of one\npassage in the Third Epistle of St. John) occurs nowhere in the New\nTestament in the literal sense of being in sound bodily health, except\nin the Gospel of St. Luke. And it occurs nowhere in a figurative sense,\nexcept in the Pastoral Epistles. It is obviously a medical metaphor; a\nmetaphor which any one who had never had anything to do with medicine\nmight easily use, but which is specially likely to be used by a man who\nhad lived much in the society of a physician. Before we call such a\nphrase un-Pauline we must ask: (1) Is there any passage in the earlier\nEpistles of St. Paul where he would certainly have used this word\n\"sound,\" had he been familiar with it? (2) Is there any word in the\nearlier Epistles which would have expressed his meaning here equally\nwell? If either of these questions is answered in the negative, then we\nare going beyond our knowledge in pronouncing the phrase \"sound\ndoctrine\"[18] to be un-Pauline.\n\n\"Contrary to the sound doctrine.\" It sums up in a comprehensive phrase\nthe doctrinal and moral teaching of the Gnostics. What they taught was\nunsound and morbid, and as a consequence poisonous and pestilential.\nWhile professing to accept and expound the Gospel, they really\ndisintegrated it and explained it away. They destroyed the very basis\nof the Gospel message; for they denied the reality of sin. And they\nequally destroyed the contents of the message; for they denied the\nreality of the Incarnation. Nor were they less revolutionary on the\nmoral side than on the doctrinal. The foundations of morality are sapped\nwhen intellectual enlightenment is accounted as the one thing needful,\nwhile conduct is treated as a thing of no value. Principles of morality\nare turned upside down when it is maintained that any act which adds to\none's knowledge is not only allowable, but a duty. It is necessary to\nremember these fatal characteristics of this early form of error, in\norder to appreciate the stern language used by St. Paul and St. John\nrespecting it, as also by St. Jude and the author of the Second Epistle\nof Peter.\n\nSt. John in his Epistles deals mainly with the doctrinal side of the\nheresy,--the denial of the reality of sin and of the reality of the\nIncarnation:[19] although the moral results of doctrinal error are also\nindicated and condemned.[20] In the Apocalypse, as in St. Paul and in\nthe Catholic Epistles, it is mainly the moral side of the false teaching\nthat is denounced, and that in both its opposite phases. The Epistle to\nthe Colossians deals with the _ascetic_ tendencies of early\ngnosticism.[21] The Apocalypse and the Catholic Epistles deal with its\n_licentious_ tendencies.[22] The Pastoral Epistles treat of both\nasceticism and licentiousness, but chiefly of the latter, as is seen\nfrom the passage before us and from the first part of chapter iii. in\nthe Second Epistle. As we might expect, St. Paul uses stronger language\nin the Pastoral Epistles than he does in writing to the Colossians; and\nin St. John and the Catholic Epistles we find stronger language still.\nAntinomian licentiousness is a far worse evil than misguided asceticism,\nand in the interval between St. Paul and the other writers the\nprofligacy of the antinomian Gnostics had increased. St. Paul warns the\nColossians against delusive \"persuasiveness of speech,\" against \"vain\ndeceit,\" \"the rudiments of the world,\" \"the precepts and doctrines of\nmen.\" He cautions Timothy and Titus respecting \"seducing spirits and\ndoctrines of devils,\" \"profane and old wives' fables,\" \"profane\nbabblings\" and teachings that \"will eat as doth a gangrene,\" \"vain\ntalkers and deceivers\" whose \"mind and conscience is deceived,\" and the\nlike. St. John denounces these false teachers as \"liars,\" \"seducers,\"\n\"false prophets,\" \"deceivers,\" and \"antichrists;\" and in Jude and the\nSecond Epistle of Peter we have the profligate lives of these false\nteachers condemned in equally severe terms.\n\nIt should be observed that here again everything falls into its proper\nplace if we assume that the Pastoral Epistles were written some years\nlater than the Epistle to the Colossians and some years earlier than\nthose of St. Jude and St. John. The ascetic tendencies of Gnosticism\ndeveloped first. And though they still continued in teachers like Tatian\nand Marcion, yet from the close of the first century the licentious\nconclusions drawn from the premises that the human body is worthless and\nthat all knowledge is divine, became more and more prevalent; as is seen\nin the teaching of Carpocrates and Epiphanes, and in the monstrous sect\nof the Cainites. It was quite natural, therefore, that St. Paul should\nattack Gnostic asceticism first in writing to the Colossians, and\nafterwards both it and Gnostic licentiousness in writing to Timothy and\nTitus. It was equally natural that his language should grow stronger as\nhe saw the second evil developing, and that those who saw this second\nevil at a more advanced stage should use sterner language still.\n\nThe extravagant theories of the Gnostics to account for the origin of\nthe universe and the origin of evil are gone and are past recall. It\nwould be impossible to induce people to believe them, and only a\ncomparatively small number of students ever even read them. But the\nheresy that knowledge is more important than conduct, that brilliant\nintellectual gifts render a man superior to the moral law, and that much\nof the moral law itself is the tyrannical bondage of an obsolete\ntradition, is as dangerous as ever it was. It is openly preached and\nfrequently acted upon. The great Florentine artist, Benvenuto Cellini,\ntells us in his autobiography that when Pope Paul III. expressed his\nwillingness to forgive him an outrageous murder committed in the streets\nof Rome, one of the gentlemen at the Papal Court ventured to remonstrate\nwith the Pope for condoning so heinous a crime. \"You do not understand\nthe matter as well as I do,\" replied Paul III.: \"I would have you to\nknow that men like Benvenuto, unique in their profession, _are not bound\nby the laws_.\" Cellini is a braggart, and it is possible that in this\nparticular he is romancing. But, even if the story is his invention, he\nmerely attributes to the Pope the sentiments which he cherished himself,\nand upon which (as experience taught him) other people acted. Over and\nover again his murderous violence was overlooked by those in authority,\nbecause they admired and wished to make use of his genius as an artist.\n\"Ability before honesty\" was a common creed in the sixteenth century,\nand it is abundantly prevalent in our own. The most notorious scandals\nin a man's private life are condoned if only he is recognized as having\ntalent. It is the old Gnostic error in a modern and sometimes agnostic\nform. It is becoming daily more clear that the one thing needful for the\nregeneration of society, whether upper, middle, or lower, is the\ncreation of a \"sound\" public opinion. And so long as this is so, God's\nministers and all who have the duty of instructing others will need to\nlay to heart the warnings which St. Paul gives to his followers Timothy\nand Titus.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 8.\n\n[18] The Revisers as a rule render =didaskalia= by \"doctrine,\" as here,\niv. 6, vi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, 7, 10 (but not in iv.\n13, 16, v. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16), while they render =didach\u00ea= by\n\"teaching,\" as 2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 9, and frequently in the Gospels.\nBut =didaskalia=, as being closer to =didaskalos= \"a teacher,\" is\n\"teaching\" rather than \"doctrine,\" and =didach\u00ea= is \"doctrine\" rather\nthan \"teaching.\" See p. 238.\n\n[19] 1 John i. 8-10, ii. 22, 23, iii. 4, 8, iv. 2, 3, 15, v. 1, 5, 16,\n17; 2 John 7.\n\n[20] ii. 9, 11, iii. 15, 17.\n\n[21] ii. 16, 21, 23.\n\n[22] Rev. ii. 14, 20-22; 2 Peter ii. 10-22; Jude 8, 10, 13, 16, 18.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A PERSECUTOR TO\nBECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER OF THE GOSPEL._\n\n \"I thank Him that enabled me, even Christ Jesus our Lord, for that\n He counted me faithful, appointing me to His service; though I was\n before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I\n obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; and the\n grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is\n in Christ Jesus.\"--1 TIM. i. 12-14.\n\n\nIn the concluding sentence of the preceding paragraph (vv. 3, 11) the\nApostle points out that what he has been saying respecting the erroneous\nteaching and practice of the heterodox innovators is entirely in harmony\nwith the spirit of the Gospel which had been committed to his trust.[23]\nThis mention of his own high commission to preach \"the Gospel of the\nglory of the blessed God\" suggests at once to him some thoughts both of\nthankfulness and humility, to which he now gives expression. His own\nexperience of the Gospel, especially in connexion with his conversion\nfrom being a persecutor to becoming a preacher, offer further points of\ncontrast between Gnosticism and Christianity.\n\nThe false teachers wasted thought and attention upon barren\nspeculations, which, even if they could under any conceivable\ncircumstances be proved true, would have supplied no guidance to mankind\nin regulating conduct. And whenever Gnostic teaching became practical,\nit frittered away morality in servile observances, based on capricious\ninterpretations of the Mosaic Law. Of true morality there was an utter\ndisregard, and frequently an open violation. Of the one thing for which\nthe self-accusing conscience was yearning--the forgiveness of sin--it\nknew nothing, because it had no appreciation of the reality of sin. Sin\nwas only part of the evil which was inherent in the material universe,\nand therefore in the human body. A system which had no place for the\nforgiveness of sin had also no place for the Divine compassion, which it\nis the purpose of the Gospel to reveal. How very real this compassion\nand forgiveness are, and how much human beings stand in need of them,\nSt. Paul testifies from his own experience, the remembrance of which\nmakes him burst out into thanksgiving.\n\nThe Apostle offers thanks to Jesus Christ, the source of all his\nstrength, for having confidence in him as a person worthy of trust. This\nconfidence He proved by \"appointing Paul to His service;\" a confidence\nall the more marvellous and worthy of gratitude because Paul had before\nbeen \"a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious.\" He had been a\nblasphemer, for he had thought that he \"ought to do many things contrary\nto the name of Jesus of Nazareth;\" and he had been a persecutor for he\nhad punished believers \"often-times in all the synagogues,\" and \"strove\nto make them blaspheme.\" That is ever the persecutor's aim;--to make\nthose who differ from him speak evil of what they reverence but he\nabhors; to say they renounce what in their heart of hearts they believe.\nThere is, therefore, thus far an ascending scale in the iniquity which\nthe Apostle confesses. He not only blasphemed the Divine Name himself,\nbut he endeavoured to compel others to do the same. The third word,\nalthough the English Version obscures the fact, continues the ascending\nscale of self-condemnation. \"Injurious\" does scant justice to the force\nof the Greek word used by the Apostle (=hybrist\u00eas=), although it is not\neasy to suggest a better rendering. The word is very common in classical\nauthors, but in the New Testament occurs only here and in Rom. i. 30,\nwhere the A.V. translates it \"despiteful\" and the R.V. \"insolent.\" It is\nfrequent in the Septuagint. It indicates one who takes an insolent and\nwanton delight in violence, one whose pleasure lies in outraging the\nfeelings of others. The most conspicuous instance of it in the New\nTestament, and perhaps anywhere, would be the Roman soldiers mocking and\ntorturing Jesus Christ with the crown of thorns and the royal robe. Of\nsuch conduct St. Paul himself since his conversion had been the victim,\nand he here confesses that before his conversion he had been guilty of\nit himself. In his misguided zeal he had punished innocent people, and\nhe had inflicted punishment, not with pitying reluctance, but with\narrogant delight.\n\nIt is worth pointing out that in this third charge against himself, as\nwell as in the first, St. Paul goes beyond what he states in the similar\npassages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, and Galatians.\nThere he simply draws attention to the fact that he had been a\npersecutor who had made havoc of the Church.[24] He says nothing about\nblaspheming or taking an insolent satisfaction in the pain which he\ninflicted. This has some bearing on the genuineness of this Epistle. (1)\nIt shows that St. Paul was in the habit of alluding to the fact that he\nhad been a persecutor. It was part of his preaching, for it proved that\nhis conversion was directly and immediately God's work. He did not owe\nthe Gospel which he preached to any persuasion on the part of man. It\nis, therefore, quite in harmony with St. Paul's practice to insist on\nhis former misconduct. But it may be urged that a forger might notice\nthis and imitate it. That of course is true. But if these Epistles are a\nforgery, they are certainly not forged with any intention of injuring\nSt. Paul's memory. Is it likely, then, that a forger in imitating the\nself-accusation of the Apostle, would use stronger language than the\nApostle himself uses in those Epistles which are indisputably his? Would\nhe go out of his way to use such strong language as \"blasphemer,\" and\n\"insolent oppressor\"? But, if St. Paul wrote these Epistles, this\nexceptionally strong language is thoroughly natural in a passage in\nwhich the Apostle wishes to place in as strong a light as may be the\ngreatness of the Divine compassion in forgiving sins, as manifested in\nhis own case. He had been foremost as a bitter and arrogant opponent of\nthe Gospel; and yet God had singled him out to be foremost in preaching\nit. Here was a proof that no sinner need despair. What comfort for a\nfallen race could the false teachers offer in comparison with this?\n\nLike St. Peter's sin in denying His Lord, St. Paul's sin in persecuting\nHim was overruled for good. The Divine process of bringing good out of\nevil was strongly exemplified in it. The Gnostic teachers had tried to\nshow how, by a gradual degradation, evil might proceed from the Supreme\nGood. There is nothing Divine in such a process as that. The fall from\ngood to evil is rather a devilish one, as when an angel of light became\nthe evil one and involved mankind in his own fall. Divinity is shown in\nthe converse process of making what is evil work towards what is good.\nUnder Divine guidance St. Paul's self-righteous confidence and arrogant\nintolerance were turned into a blessing to himself and others. The\nrecollection of his sin kept him humble, intensified his gratitude, and\ngave him a strong additional motive to devote himself to the work of\nbringing others to the Master who had been so gracious to himself. St.\nChrysostom in commenting on this passage in his Homilies on the Pastoral\nEpistles points out how it illustrates St. Paul's humility, a virtue\nwhich is more often praised than practised. \"This quality was so\ncultivated by the blessed Paul, that he is ever looking out for\ninducements to be humble. They who are conscious to themselves of great\nmerits must struggle much with themselves if they would be humble. And\nhe too was one likely to be under violent temptations, his own good\nconscience swelling him up like a gathering tumour.... Being filled,\ntherefore, with high thoughts, and having used magnificent expressions,\nhe at once depresses himself, and engages others also to do the like.\nHaving said, then, that _the Gospel was committed to his trust_, lest\nthis should seem to be said with pride, he checks himself at once,\nadding by way of correction, _I thank Him that enabled me, Christ Jesus\nour Lord, for that He counted me_ _faithful, appointing me to His\nservice_. Thus everywhere, we see, he conceals his own merit and\nascribes everything to God, yet so far only as not to take away free\nwill.\"\n\nThese concluding words are an important qualification. The Apostle\nconstantly insists on his conversion as the result of a special\nrevelation of Jesus Christ to himself, in other words a miracle: he\nnowhere hints that his conversion in itself was miraculous. No\npsychological miracle was wrought, forcing him to accept Christ against\nhis will. God converts no one by magic. It is a free and reasonable\nservice that he asks for from beings whom He has created free and\nreasonable. Men were made moral beings, and He who made them such does\nnot treat them as machines. In his defence at Caesarea St. Paul tells\nHerod Agrippa that he \"was not _disobedient_ to the heavenly vision.\" He\nmight have been. He might, like Judas, have resisted all the miraculous\npower displayed before him and have continued to persecute Christ. If he\nhad no choice whatever in the matter, it was an abuse of language to\naffirm that he \"was not disobedient.\" And in that case we should need\nsome other metaphor than \"kicking against the goads.\" It is impossible\nto kick against the goads if one has no control over one's own limbs.\nThe limbs and the strength to use them were God's gifts, without which\nhe could have done nothing. But with these gifts it was open to him\neither to obey the Divine commands or \"even to fight against God\"--a\nsenseless and wicked thing, no doubt, but still possible. In this\npassage the Divine and the human sides are plainly indicated. On the one\nhand, Christ enabled him and showed confidence in him: on the other,\nPaul accepted the service and was faithful. He might have refused the\nservice; or, having accepted it, he might have shown himself unfaithful\nto his trust.\n\n\"Howbeit, I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.\"\nThese words are sometimes misunderstood. They are not intended as an\nexcuse, any more than St. John's designation of himself as \"the disciple\nwhom Jesus loved\" are intended as a boast. St. John had been the\nrecipient of very exceptional favours. Along with only St. Peter and St.\nJames he had been present at the raising of Jairus's daughter, at the\nTransfiguration, and at the Agony in the Gethsemane. From even these\nchosen three he had been singled out to be told who was the traitor; to\nhave the lifelong charge of providing for the Mother of the Lord; to be\nthe first to recognize the risen Lord at the sea of Tiberias.[25] What\nwas the explanation of all these honours? The recipient of them had only\none to give. He had no merits, no claim to anything of the kind; but\nJesus loved him.\n\nSo also with St. Paul. There were multitudes of Jews who, like himself,\nhad had, as he tells the Romans, \"a zeal for God, but not according to\nknowledge.\"[26] There were many who, like himself, had opposed the truth\nand persecuted the Christ. Why did any of them obtain mercy? Why did he\nreceive such marked favour and honour? Not because of any merit on their\npart or his: but because they had sinned ignorantly (_i.e._, without\nknowing the enormity of their sin), and because \"the grace of the Lord\nabounded exceedingly.\" The Apostle is not endeavouring to extenuate his\nown culpability, but to justify and magnify the Divine compassion. Of\nthe whole Jewish nation it was true that \"they knew not what they did\"\nin crucifying Jesus of Nazareth; but it was true in very various\ndegrees. \"Even of the rulers many believed on Him; but because of the\nPharisees they did not confess, lest they should be put out of the\nsynagogue: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.\"\nIt was because St. Paul did not in this way sin against light that he\nfound mercy, not merely in being forgiven the sin of persecuting Christ,\nbut in being enabled to accept and be faithful in the service of Him\nwhom he had persecuted.\n\nTwo of the changes made by the Revisers in this passage seem to call for\nnotice: they both occur in the same phrase and have a similar tendency.\nInstead of \"_putting_ me into the _ministry_\" the R.V. gives us\n\"_appointing_ me to His _service_.\" A similar change has been made in\n_v._ 7 of the next chapter, where \"I was _appointed_ a preacher\" takes\nthe place of \"I am ordained a preacher,\" and in John xv. 16 where \"I\nchose you and _appointed_ you\" has been substituted for \"I have chosen\nyou and _ordained_ you.\"[27] In these alterations the Revisers are only\nfollowing the example set by the A.V. itself in other passages. In 2\nTim. i. 11, as in Luke x. 1, and 1 Thess. v. 9, both versions have\n\"appointed.\" The alterations are manifest improvements. In the passage\nbefore us it is possible that the Greek has the special signification of\n\"putting me into the ministry,\" but it is by no means certain, and\nperhaps not even probable, that it does so. Therefore the more\ncomprehensive and general translation, \"appointing me to His service,\"\nis to be preferred. The wider rendering includes and covers the other;\nand this is a further advantage. To translate the Greek words used in\nthese passages (=tithenai, poiein, k.t.l.=) by such a very definite word\nas \"ordain\" leads the reader to suppose these texts refer to the\necclesiastical act of ordination; of which there is no evidence. The\nidea conveyed by the Greek in this passage, as in John xv. 16, is that\nof placing a man at a particular post, and would be as applicable to\ncivil as to ministerial duties. We are not, therefore, justified in\ntranslating it by a phrase which has distinct ecclesiastical\nassociations.\n\nThe question is not one of mere linguistic accuracy. There are larger\nissues involved than those of correct translation from Greek to English.\nIf we adopt the wider rendering, then it is evident that the blessing\nfor which St. Paul expresses heartfelt gratitude, and which he cites as\nevidence of Divine compassion and forgiveness, is not the call to be an\nApostle, in which none of us can share, nor _exclusively_ the call to be\na minister of the Gospel, in which only a limited number of us can\nshare; but also the being appointed to any service in Christ's kingdom,\nwhich is an honour to which all Christians are called. Every earnest\nChristian knows from personal experience this evidence of the Divine\ncharacter of the Gospel. It is full of compassion for those who have\nsinned; not because, like the Gnostic teachers, it glosses over the\nmalignity and culpability of sin, but because, unlike Gnosticism, it\nrecognizes the preciousness of each human soul, and the difficulties\nwhich beset it. Every Christian knows that he has inherited an evil\nnature:--so far he and the Gnostic are agreed. But he also knows that to\nthe sin which he has inherited he has added sin for which he is\npersonally responsible, and which his conscience does not excuse as if\nit were something which is a misfortune and not a fault. Yet he is not\nleft without remedy under the burden of these self-accusations. He knows\nthat, if he seeks for it, he can find forgiveness, and forgiveness of a\nsingularly generous kind. He is not only forgiven, but restored to\nfavour and treated with respect. He is at once placed in a position of\ntrust. In spite of the past, it is assumed that he will be a faithful\nservant, and he is allowed to minister to his Master and his Master's\nfollowers. To him also \"the grace of our Lord\" has \"abounded exceedingly\nwith faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.\" The generous compassion\nshown to St. Paul is not unique or exceptional; it is typical. And it is\na type, not to the few, but to many; not to clergy only, but to all.\n\"For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ\nshow forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of _them which should\nhereafter believe on Him_ unto eternal life.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] It is worth while pointing out that the peculiar construction =ho\nepisteuth\u00ean eg\u00f4= occurs in the New Testament, only in the Pastoral\nEpistles and in other Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of which is now\nscarcely disputed--1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii.\n7.\n\n[24] 1 Cor. xv. 8, 10; Gal. i. 13, 23; Phil. iii. 6; comp. Acts xxii. 4,\n5, 19.\n\n[25] St. John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7.\n\n[26] Rom. x. 2.\n\n[27] Comp. Acts xxii. 14 and 2 Cor. viii. 19; also Mark iii. 14 and Acts\nxiv. 23. See on Tit. i. 5-7.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_THE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN\nEXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION._\n\n \"This charge I commit unto thee, my own child Timothy, according to\n the prophecies which went before on thee, that by them thou mayest\n war the good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which\n some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of\n whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that\n they might be taught not to blaspheme.\"--1 TIM. i. 18-20.\n\n\nIn this section St. Paul returns from the subject of the false teachers\nagainst whom Timothy has to contend (vv. 3-11), and the contrast to\ntheir teaching exhibited by the Gospel in the Apostle's own case (vv.\n12-17), to the main purpose of the letter, viz., the instructions to be\ngiven to Timothy for the due performance of his difficult duties as\noverseer of the Church of Ephesus. The section contains two subjects of\nspecial interest, each of which requires consideration;--the prophecies\nrespecting Timothy and the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander.\n\n1. \"This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, _according to the\nprophecies which went before on thee_.\" As the margin of the R.V. points\nout, this last phrase might also be read \"according to the prophecies\nwhich _led the way to thee_,\" for the Greek may mean either. The\nquestion is, whether St. Paul is referring to certain prophecies which\n\"led the way to\" Timothy, _i.e._, which designated him as specially\nsuited for the ministry, and led to his ordination by St. Paul and the\npresbyters; or whether he is referring to certain prophecies which were\nuttered _over_ Timothy (=epi se=) either at the time of his conversion\nor of his admission to the ministry. Both the A.V. and the R.V. give the\npreference to the latter rendering, which (without excluding such a\nview) does not commit us to the opinion that St. Paul was in any sense\nled to Timothy by these prophecies, a thought which is not clearly\nintimated in the original. All that we are certain of is, that long\nbefore the writing of this letter prophecies of which Timothy was the\nobject were uttered over him, and that they were of such a nature as to\nbe an incentive and support to him in his ministry.\n\nBut if we look on to the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter in this\nEpistle and to the sixth of the first chapter in the Second, we shall\nnot have much doubt when these prophecies were uttered. There we read,\n\"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee _by\nprophecy_, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery!\" and \"For\nwhich cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God,\nwhich is in thee through the laying on of my hands.\" Must we not believe\nthat these two passages and the passage before us all refer to the same\noccasion--the same crisis in Timothy's life? In all three of them St.\nPaul appeals to the spiritual gift that was bestowed upon his disciple\n\"_by means of_ prophecy\" and \"_by means of_ the laying on of hands.\" The\nsame preposition and case (=dia= with the genitive) is used in each\ncase. Clearly, then, we are to understand that the prophesying and the\nlaying on of hands accompanied one another. Here only the prophesying is\nmentioned. In chapter iv. the prophesying, accompanied by the imposition\nof the presbyters' hands, is the means by which the grace is conferred.\nIn the Second Epistle only the laying on of the Apostle's hands is\nmentioned, and it is spoken of as the means by which the grace is\nconferred. Therefore, although the present passage by itself leaves the\nquestion open, yet when we take the other two into consideration along\nwith it, we may safely neglect the possibility of prophecies which _led\nthe way_ to the ordination of Timothy, and understand the Apostle as\nreferring to those sacred utterances which were a marked element in his\ndisciple's ordination and formed a prelude and earnest of his ministry.\nThese sacred utterances indicated a Divine commission and Divine\napprobation publicly expressed respecting the choice of Timothy for this\nspecial work. They were also a means of grace; for by means of them a\nspiritual blessing was bestowed upon the young minister. In alluding to\nthem here, therefore, St. Paul reminds him _Who_ it was by whom he was\nreally chosen and ordained. It is as if he said, \"We laid our hands upon\nyou; but it was no ordinary election made by human votes. It was God who\nelected you; God who gave you your commission, and with it the power to\nfulfil it. Beware, therefore, of disgracing His appointment and of\nneglecting or abusing His gift.\"[28]\n\nThe voice of prophecy, therefore, either pointed out Timothy as a chosen\nvessel for the ministry, or publicly ratified the choice which had\nalready been made by St. Paul and others. But by whom was this voice of\nprophecy uttered? By a special order of prophets? Or by St. Paul and the\npresbyters specially inspired to act as such? The answer to this\nquestion involves some consideration of the office, or rather\n_function_, of a prophet, especially in the New Testament.\n\nThe word \"prophet\" is frequently understood in far too limited a sense.\nIt is commonly restricted to the one function of predicting the future.\nBut, if we may venture to coin words in order to bring out points of\ndifferences, there are three main ideas involved in the title \"prophet.\"\n(1) A _for_-teller; one who speaks _for_ or instead of another,\nespecially one who speaks _for_ or in the name of God; a Divine\nmessenger, ambassador, interpreter, or _spokesman_. (2) A\n_forth_-teller; one who has a special message to deliver _forth_ to the\nworld; a proclaimer, harbinger, or herald. (3) A _fore_-teller; one who\ntells _beforehand_ what is coming; a predicter of future events. To be\nthe bearer or interpreter of a Divine message is the fundamental\nconception of the prophet in classical Greek; and to a large extent this\nconception prevails in both the Old and the New Testament. To be in\nimmediate intercourse with Jehovah, and to be His spokesman to Israel,\nwas what the Hebrews understood by the gift of prophecy. It was by no\nmeans necessary that the Divine communication which the prophet had to\nmake known to the people should relate to the future. It might be a\ndenunciation of past sins, or an exhortation respecting present conduct,\nquite as naturally as a prediction of what was coming. And in the Acts\nand Pauline Epistles the idea of a prophet remains much the same. He is\none to whom has been granted special insight into God's counsels, and\nwho communicates these mysteries to others. Both in the Jewish and\nprimitive Christian dispensations, the prophets are the means of\ncommunication between God and His Church. Eight persons are mentioned by\nname in the Acts of the Apostles as exercising this gift of prophecy:\nAgabus, Barnabas, Symeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the\nfoster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, Judas, Silas, and St. Paul\nhimself. On certain occasions the Divine communication made to them by\nthe Spirit included a knowledge of the future; as when Agabus foretold\nthe great famine (xi. 28) and the imprisonment of St. Paul (xxi. 11),\nand when St. Paul told that the Holy Spirit testified to him in every\ncity, that bonds and afflictions awaited him at Jerusalem (xx. 23). But\nthis is the exception rather than the rule. It is in their character of\nprophets that Judas and Silas exhort and confirm the brethren. And, what\nis of special interest in reference to the prophecies uttered over\nTimothy, we find a group of prophets having special influence in the\nselection and ordination of Apostolic evangelists. \"And as they\nministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me\nBarnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when\nthey had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them\naway\" (xiii. 2, 3).\n\nWe see, therefore, that these New Testament prophets were not a\nregularly constituted order, like apostles, with whom they are joined\nboth in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 28) and in that to\nthe Ephesians (iv. 11). Yet they have this in common with apostles, that\nthe work of both lies rather in founding Churches than in governing\nthem. They have to convert and edify rather than to rule. They might or\nmight not be apostles or presbyters as well as prophets; but as\nprophets they were men or women (such as the daughters of Philip) on\nwhom a special gift of the Holy Spirit had been conferred: and this gift\nenabled them to understand and expound Divine mysteries with inspired\nauthority, and at times also to foretell the future.\n\nSo long as we bear these characteristics in mind, it matters little how\nwe answer the question as to who it was that uttered the prophecies over\nTimothy at the time of his ordination. It may have been St. Paul and the\npresbyters who laid their hands upon him, and who on this occasion at\nany rate were endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Or it may have been\nthat besides the presbyters there were prophets also present, who, at\nthis solemn ceremony, exercised their gift of inspiration. The former\nseems more probable. It is clear from chap. iv. 14, that prophecy and\nimposition of hands were two concomitant acts by means of which\nspiritual grace was bestowed upon Timothy; and it is more reasonable to\nsuppose that these two instrumental acts were performed by the same\ngroup of persons, than that one group prophesied, while another laid\ntheir hands on the young minister's head.\n\nThis gift of prophecy, St. Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv.), was\none specially to be desired; and evidently it was by no means a rare one\nin the primitive Church. As we might expect, it was most frequently\nexercised in the public services of the congregation. \"When ye come\ntogether, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation,\nhath a tongue, hath an interpretation.... Let the prophets speak by two\nor three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to\nanother sitting by, let the first keep silence. For _ye all can prophesy\none by one_, that all may learn and all may be comforted; and the\nspirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.\" The chief object\nof the gift, therefore, was instruction and consolation, for the\nconversion of unbelievers (24, 25), and for the building up of the\nfaithful.\n\nBut we shall probably be right in making a distinction between the\nprophesying which frequently took place in the first Christian\ncongregations, and those special interventions of the Holy Spirit of\nwhich we read occasionally. In these latter cases it is not so much\nspiritual instruction in an inspired form that is communicated, as a\nrevelation of God's will with regard to some particular course of\naction. Such was the case when Paul and Silas were \"forbidden of the\nHoly Ghost to speak the word in Asia,\" and when \"they assayed to go into\nBithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not:\" or when on his\nvoyage to Rome Paul was assured that he would stand before Caesar, and\nthat God had given him the lives of all those who sailed with him.[29]\n\nSome have supposed that the Revelation of St. John was intended to mark\nthe close of New Testament prophecy and to protect the Church against\nunwarrantable attempts at prophecy until the return of Christ to judge\nthe world. This view would be more probable if the later date for the\nApocalypse could be established. But if, as is far more probable, the\nRevelation was written c. A.D. 68, it is hardly likely that St. John,\nduring the lifetime of Apostles, would think of taking any such decisive\nstep. In his First Epistle, written probably fifteen or twenty years\nafter the Revelation, he gives a test for distinguishing true from\nfalse prophets (iv. 1-4); and this he would not have done, if he had\nbelieved that all true prophecy had ceased.\n\nIn the newly discovered \"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles\" we find\nprophets among the ministers of the Church, just as in the Epistles to\nthe Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians. The date of this\ninteresting treatise has yet to be ascertained; but it seems to belong\nto the period between the Epistles of St. Paul and those of Ignatius. We\nmay safely place it between the writings of St. Paul and those of Justin\nMartyr. In the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xii. 28) we have\n\"First apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then\" those who\nhad special gifts, such as healing or speaking with tongues. In Ephes.\niv. 11 we are told that Christ \"gave some to be apostles; and some\nevangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.\" The Epistle to the\nPhilippians is addressed \"to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at\nPhilippi, with the bishops and deacons,\" where the plural shows that\n\"bishop\" cannot be used in the later diocesan sense; otherwise there\nwould be only one bishop at Philippi. Prophets, therefore, in St. Paul's\ntime are a common and important branch of the ministry. They rank next\nto apostles, and a single congregation may possess several of them. In\nIgnatius and later writers the ministers who are so conspicuous in the\nActs and in St. Paul's Epistles disappear, and their place is taken by\nother ministers whose offices, at any rate in their later forms, are\nscarcely found in the New Testament at all. These are the bishops,\npresbyters, and deacons; to whom were soon added a number of subordinate\nofficials, such as readers, exorcists, and the like. The ministry, as we\nfind it in the \"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,\" is in a state of\ntransition from the Apostolic to the latter stage. As in the time of\nSt. Paul we have both itinerant and local ministers; the itinerant\nministers being chiefly apostles and prophets, whose functions do not\nseem to be marked off from one another very distinctly; and the local\nministry consisting of two orders only, bishops and deacons, as in the\naddress to the Church of Philippi. When we reach the Epistles of\nIgnatius and other documents of a date later than A.D. 110, we lose\ndistinct traces of these itinerant apostles and prophets. The title\n\"Apostle\" is becoming confined to St. Paul and the Twelve, and the title\nof \"Prophet\" to the Old Testament prophets.\n\nThe gradual cessation or discredit of the function of the Christian\nprophet is thoroughly intelligible. Possibly the spiritual gift which\nrendered it possible was withdrawn from the Church. In any case the\nextravagances of enthusiasts who deluded themselves into the belief that\nthey possessed the gift, or of impostors who deliberately assumed it,\nwould bring the office into suspicion and disrepute. Such things were\npossible even in Apostolic times, for both St. Paul and St. John give\ncautions about it, and directions for dealing with the abuse and the\nfalse assumption of prophecy. In the next century the eccentric\ndelusions of Montanus and his followers, and their vehement attempts to\nforce their supposed revelations upon the whole Church, completed the\ndiscredit of all profession to prophetical power. This discredit has\nbeen intensified from time to time whenever such professions have been\nrenewed; as, for example, by the extravagances of the Zwickau Prophets\nor Abecedarians in Luther's time, or of the Irvingites in our own day.\nSince the death of St. John and the close of the Canon, Christians have\nsought for illumination in the written word of Scripture rather than in\nthe utterances of prophets. It is there that each one of us may find\n\"the prophecies that went before on\" us, exhorting us and enabling us to\n\"war the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience.\" There will\nalways be those who crave for something more definite and personal; who\nlong for, and perhaps create for themselves and believe in, some living\nauthority to whom they can perpetually appeal. Scripture seems to them\nunsatisfying, and they erect for themselves an infallible pope, or a\nspiritual director, whose word is to be to them as the inspired\nutterances of a prophet. But we have to fall back on our own consciences\nat last: and whether we take Scripture or some other authority as our\ninfallible guide, the responsibility of the choice still rests with\nourselves. If a man will not hear Christ and His Apostles, neither will\nhe be persuaded though a prophet was granted to him. If we believe not\ntheir writings, how shall we believe his words?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[28] Chrysostom _in loco. Hom._ v. _sub init._\n\n[29] Acts xvi. 6, 7, xxvii. 24; comp. xviii. 9, xx. 23, xxi. 4, 11,\nxxii. 17-21.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO SATAN AN\nEXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN._\n\n \"Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from\n them made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I\n delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to\n blaspheme.\"--1 TIM. i. 19, 20.\n\n\nIn the preceding discourse one of the special _charismata_ which\ndistinguish the Church of the Apostolic age was considered,--the gift of\nprophecy. It seems to have been an exceptional boon to enable the first\nChristians to perform very exceptional work. On the present occasion we\nhave to consider a very different subject--the heavy penalty inflicted\non two grievous offenders. This again would seem to be something\nexceptional. And the special gift and the special punishment have this\nmuch in common, that both of them were extraordinary means for promoting\nand preserving the holiness of the Church. The one existed for the\nedification, the other for the purification, of the members of the\nChristian community.\n\nThe necessity of strict discipline both for the individual and for the\ncommunity had been declared by Christ from the outset. The eye that\ncaused offence was to be plucked out, the hand and the foot that caused\noffence were to be cut off, and the hardened offender who refused to\nlisten to the solemn remonstrances of the congregation was to be treated\nas a heathen and an outcast. The experience of the primitive Church had\nproved the wisdom of this. The fall of Judas had shown that the\nApostolic band itself was not secure from evil of the very worst kind.\nThe parent Church of Jerusalem was no sooner founded than a dark stain\nwas brought upon it by the conduct of two of its members. In the very\nfirst glow of its youthful enthusiasm Ananias and Sapphira conspired\ntogether to pervert the general unselfishness to their own selfish end,\nby attempting to gain the credit for equal generosity with the rest,\nwhile keeping back something for themselves. The Church of Corinth was\nscarcely five years old, and the Apostle had been absent from it only\nabout three years, when he learnt that in this Christian community, the\nfirstfruits of the heathen world, a sin which even the heathen regarded\nas a monstrous pollution had been committed, and that the congregation\nwere glorying in it. Christians were boasting that the incestuous union\nof a man with his father's wife during his father's lifetime was a\nsplendid illustration of Christian liberty. No stronger proof of the\ndangers of lax discipline could have been given. In the verses before us\nwe have instances of similar peril on the doctrinal side. And in the\ninsolent opposition which Diotrephes offered to St. John we have an\nillustration of the dangers of insubordination. If the Christian Church\nwas to be saved from speedy collapse, strict discipline in morals, in\ndoctrine, and in government, was plainly necessary.\n\nThe punishment of the incestuous person at Corinth should be placed\nside by side with the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as recorded\nhere. The two cases mutually explain one another. In each of them there\noccurs the remarkable formula of _delivering_ or _handing over to\nSatan_. The meaning of it is not indisputable, and in the main two views\nare held respecting it. Some interpret it as being merely a synonym for\nexcommunication. Others maintain that it indicates a much more\nexceptional penalty, which might or might not accompany excommunication.\n\n1. On the one hand it is argued that the expression \"deliver unto Satan\"\nis a very intelligible periphrasis for \"excommunicate.\" Excommunication\ninvolved \"exclusion from all Christian fellowship, and consequently\nbanishment to the society of those among whom Satan dwelt, and from\nwhich the offender had publicly severed himself.\"[30] It is admitted\nthat \"handing over to Satan\" is strong language to use in order to\nexpress ejection from the congregation and exclusion from all acts of\nworship, but it is thought that the acuteness of the crisis makes the\nstrength of language intelligible.\n\n2. But the strength of language needs no apology, if the \"delivering\nunto Satan\" means something extraordinary, over and above\nexcommunication. This, therefore, is an advantage which the second mode\nof interpreting the expression has at the outset. Excommunication was a\npunishment which the congregation itself could inflict; but this handing\nover to Satan was an Apostolic act, to accomplish which the community\nwithout the Apostle had no power. It was a supernatural infliction of\nbodily infirmity, or disease, or death, as a penalty for grievous sin.\nWe know this in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira and of Elymas. The\nincestuous person at Corinth is probably another instance: for \"the\ndestruction of the flesh\" seems to mean some painful malady inflicted on\nthat part of his nature which had been the instrument of his fall, in\norder that by its chastisement the higher part of his nature might be\nsaved. And, if this be correct, then we seem to be justified in assuming\nthe same respecting Hymenaeus and Alexander. For although nothing is said\nin their case respecting \"the destruction of the flesh,\" yet the\nexpression \"that they may be _taught_ not to blaspheme,\" implies\nsomething of a similar kind. The word for \"taught\" =paideuth\u00f4si= implies\ndiscipline and chastisement, sometimes in Classical Greek, frequently in\nthe New Testament, a meaning which the word \"teach\" also not\nunfrequently has in English (Judges viii. 16). In illustration of this\nit is sufficient to point to the passage in Heb. xii., in which the\nwriter insists that \"whom the Lord loveth He _chasteneth_.\" Throughout\nthe section this very word (=paideuein=) and its cognate (=paideia=) are\nused.[31] It is, therefore, scarcely doubtful that St. Paul delivered\nHymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, in order that Satan might have power to\nafflict their bodies (just as he was allowed power over the body of\nJob), with a view to their spiritual amelioration. This personal\nsuffering, following close upon their sin and declared by the Apostle to\nbe a punishment for it, would teach them to abandon it. St. Paul\nhimself, as he has just told us, had been a blasphemer and by a\nsupernatural visitation had been converted: why should not these two\nfollow in both respects in his steps? Satan's willingness to co-operate\nin such measures need not surprise us. He is always ready to inflict\nsuffering; and the fact that suffering sometimes draws the sufferer away\nfrom him and nearer to God, does not deter him from inflicting it. He\nknows well that suffering not unfrequently has the very opposite effect.\nIt hardens and exasperates some men, while it humbles and purifies\nothers. It makes one man say \"I abhor myself, and repent in dust and\nashes.\" It makes another will to \"renounce God and die.\" Satan hoped in\nJob's case to be able to provoke him to \"renounce God to His face.\" In\nthe case of these two blasphemers he would hope to induce them to\nblaspheme all the more.\n\nWe may pass by the question, \"In what way did Hymenaeus and Alexander\nblaspheme?\" We can only conjecture that it was by publicly opposing some\narticle of the Christian faith. But conjectures without evidence are not\nvery profitable. If we were certain that the Hymenaeus here mentioned\nwith Alexander is identical with the one who is condemned with Philetus\nin 2 Tim. ii. 18 for virtually denying the resurrection, we should have\nsome evidence. But this identification, although probable, is not\ncertain. Still less certain is the identification of the Alexander\ncondemned here with \"Alexander the coppersmith,\" who in 2 Tim. iv. 14 is\nsaid to have done the Apostle much evil. But none of these questions is\nof great moment. What is of importance to notice is the Apostolic\nsentence upon the two blasphemers. And in it we have to notice four\npoints. (1) It is almost certainly not identical with excommunication by\nthe congregation, although it very probably was accompanied by this\nother penalty. (2) It is of a very extraordinary character, being a\nhanding over into the power of the evil one. (3) Its object is the\nreformation of the offenders, while at the same time (4) it serves as a\nwarning to others, lest they by similar offences should suffer so awful\na punishment. To all alike it brought home the serious nature of such\nsins. Even at the cost of cutting off the right hand, or plucking out\nthe right eye, the Christian community must be kept pure in doctrine as\nin life.\n\nThese two passages,--the one before us, and the one respecting the case\nof incest at Corinth,--are conclusive as to St. Paul's teaching\nrespecting the existence and personality of the devil. They are\nsupported and illustrated by a number of other passages in his writings;\nas when he tells the Thessalonians that \"Satan hindered\" his work, or\nwarns the Corinthians that \"even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel\nof light,\" and tells them that his own sore trouble in the flesh was,\nlike Job's, \"a messenger of Satan to buffet\" him. Not less clear is the\nteaching of St. Peter and St. John in Epistles which, with those of St.\nPaul to the Corinthians, are among the best authenticated works in\nancient literature. \"Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walketh\nabout, seeking whom he may devour,\" says the one: \"He that doeth sin is\nof the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning,\" says the other.\nAnd, if we need higher authority, there is the declaration of Christ to\nthe malignant and unbelieving Jews. \"Ye are of your father the devil,\nand the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer\nfrom the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no\ntruth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is\na liar, and the father thereof.\"[32] With regard to this last passage,\nthose who deny the personal existence of Satan must maintain either (1)\nthat the Evangelist here attributes to Christ words which He never used;\nor (2) that Christ was willing to make use of a monstrous superstition\nin order to denounce his opponents with emphasis; or (3) that He Himself\nerroneously believed in the existence of a being who was a mere figment\nof an unenlightened imagination: in other words, that \"the Son of God\nwas manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil,\" when all\nthe while there was no devil and no works of his to be destroyed.\n\nThe first of these views cuts at the root of all trust in the Gospels as\nhistorical documents. Words which imply that Satan is a person are\nattributed to Christ by the Synoptists no less than by St. John; and if\nthe Evangelists are not to be believed in their report of Christ's\nsayings on this topic, what security have we that they are to be\nbelieved as to their reports of the rest of His teaching; or indeed as\nto anything which they narrate? Again, how are we to account for the\nvery strong statements made by the Apostles themselves respecting the\nevil one, if they had never heard anything of the kind from Christ.\n\nThe second view has been adopted by Schleiermacher, who thinks that\nChrist accommodated His teaching to the ideas then prevalent among the\nJews respecting Satan without sharing them Himself. He knew that Satan\nwas a mere personification of the moral evil which every man finds in\nhis own nature and in that of his fellow-men: but the Jews believed in\nthe personality of this evil principle, and He acquiesced in the\nbelief, not as being true, but as offering no fundamental opposition to\nHis teaching. But is this consistent with the truthfulness of Christ? If\na personal devil is an empty superstition, He went out of his way to\nconfirm men in their belief in it. Why teach that the enemy who sowed\nthe tares is the devil? Why interpret the birds that snatch away the\nfreshly sown seed as Satan? It would have been so easy in each case to\nhave spoken of impersonal temptations. Again, what motive can Christ\nhave had for telling His _Apostles_ (not the ignorant and superstitious\nmultitude), that He Himself had endured the repeated solicitations of a\npersonal tempter, who had conversed and argued with Him?\n\nThose who, like Strauss and Renan, believe Jesus of Nazareth to have\nbeen a mere man, would naturally adopt the third view. In believing in\nthe personality of Satan Jesus merely shared the superstitions of His\nage. To all those who wish to discuss with him whether we are still\nChristians, Strauss declares that \"the belief in a devil is one of the\nmost hideous sides of the ancient Christian faith,\" and that \"the extent\nto which this dangerous delusion still controls men's ideas or has been\nbanished from them is the very thing to regard as a measure of culture.\"\nBut at the same time he admits that \"to remove so fundamental a stone is\ndangerous for the whole edifice of the Christian faith. It was the young\nGoethe who remarked against Bahrdt that if ever an idea was biblical,\nthis one [of the existence of a personal Satan] was such.\"[33] And\nelsewhere Strauss declares that the conception of the Messiah and His\nkingdom without the antithesis of an infernal kingdom with a personal\nchief is as impossible as that of North pole without a South pole.[34]\n\nTo refuse to believe in an evil power external to ourselves is to\nbelieve that human nature itself is diabolical. Whence come the devilish\nthoughts that vex us even at the most sacred and solemn moments? If they\ndo not come from the evil one and his myrmidons, they come from\nourselves:--they are our own offspring. Such a belief might well drive\nus to despair. So far from being a \"hideous\" element in the Christian\nfaith, the belief in a power, \"_not ourselves_, that makes for\"\nwickedness, is a most consoling one. It has been said that, if there\nwere no God, we should have to invent one: and with almost equal truth\nwe might say that, if there were no devil, we should have to invent one.\nWithout a belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to\nconquer their evil passions. Without a belief in a devil good men would\nhave little hope of ever being able to do so.\n\nThe passage before us supplies us with another consoling thought with\nregard to this terrible adversary, who is always invisibly plotting\nagainst us. It is often _for our own good_ that God allows him to have\nan advantage over us. He is permitted to inflict loss upon us through\nour persons and our property, as in the case of Job, and the woman whom\nhe bowed down for eighteen years, in order to chasten us and teach us\nthat \"we have not here an abiding city.\" And he is permitted even to\nlead us into sin, in order to save us from spiritual pride, and to\nconvince us that apart from Christ and in our own strength we can do\nnothing. These are not Satan's motives, but they are God's motives in\nallowing him to be \"the ruler of this world,\" and to have much power\nover human affairs. Satan inflicts suffering from love of inflicting it,\nand leads into sin from love of sin: but God knows how to bring good out\nof evil by making the evil one frustrate his own wiles. The devil\nmalignantly afflicts souls that come within his power; but the\naffliction leads to those souls being \"saved in the day of the Lord.\" It\nhad that blessed effect in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth.\nWhether the same is true of Hymenaeus and Alexander, there is nothing in\nScripture to tell us. It is for us to take care that in our case the\nchastisements which inevitably follow upon sin do not drive us further\nand further into it, but teach us to sin no more.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[30] Dr. David Brown in Schaff's _Popular Commentary_, iii., p. 180.\n\n[31] Heb. xii. 5, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25;\nLuke xxiii. 16, 22: Soph., _Ajax_ 595; Xen., _Mem._ I. iii. 5.\n\n[32] 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8;\nJohn viii. 44.\n\n[33] Strauss, _Der alte und der neue Glaube_, p. 22.\n\n[34] Herzog und Plitt, XV. p. 361.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP; INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND\nTHANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN RACE._\n\n \"I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers,\n intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all\n that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life\n in all godliness and gravity\"--1 TIM. ii. 1.\n\n\nThe first chapter of the Epistle is more or less introductory. It\nrepeats what St. Paul had already said to his beloved disciple by word\nof mouth, on the subject of Christian doctrine, and the necessity of\nkeeping it pure. It makes a digression respecting the Apostle's own\nconversion. It reminds Timothy of the hopeful prophecies uttered over\nhim at his ordination; and it points out the terrible consequences of\ndriving conscience from the helm and placing oneself in antagonism to\nthe Almighty. In this second chapter St Paul goes on to mention in order\nthe subjects which led to the writing of the letter; and the very first\nexhortation which he has to give is that respecting Christian worship\nand the duty of intercessory prayer and thanksgiving.\n\nThere are two things very worthy of remark in the treatment of the\nsubject of worship in the Pastoral Epistles. First, these letters bring\nbefore us a more developed form of worship than we find indicated in\nthe earlier writings of St. Paul. It is still very primitive, but it has\ngrown. And this is exactly what we ought to expect, especially when we\nremember how rapidly the Christian Church developed its powers during\nthe first century and a half. Secondly, the indications of this more\ndeveloped form of worship occur only in the letters to Timothy, which\ndeal with the condition of things in the Church of Ephesus, a Church\nwhich had already been founded for a considerable time, and was in a\ncomparatively advanced stage of organization. Hence we are not surprised\nto find in these two Epistles fragments of what appear to be primitive\nliturgical forms. In the First Epistle we have two grand doxologies,\nwhich may be the outcome of the Apostle's devotion at the moment, but\nare quite as likely to be quotations of formulas well known to Timothy\n(i. 17; vi. 15, 16). Between these two we have what looks like a portion\nof a hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, suitable for singing antiphonally\n(iii. 16; comp. Pliny, _Epp._ x. 96): and also what may be a baptismal\nexhortation (vi. 12). In the Second Epistle we have traces of another\nliturgical formula (ii. 11-13).\n\nSt. Paul of course does not mean, as the A.V. might lead us to suppose,\nthat in all Christian worship intercession ought to come first; still\nless that intercession is the first duty of a Christian. But he does\nplace it first among those subjects about which he has to give\ndirections in this Epistle. He makes sure that it shall not be forgotten\nby himself in writing to his delegate at Ephesus; and he wishes to make\nsure that it shall not be forgotten by Timothy in his ministration. To\noffer prayers and thanksgivings on behalf of all men is a duty of such\nhigh importance that the Apostle places it first among the topics of his\npastoral charge.\n\nWas it a duty which Timothy and the congregation committed to his care\nhad been neglecting, or were in serious danger of neglecting? It may\nwell have been so. In the difficulties of the overseer's own personal\nposition, and in the varied dangers to which his little flock were so\nunceasingly exposed, the claims of others upon their united prayer and\npraise may sometimes have been forgotten. When the Apostle had left\nTimothy to take his place for a time in Ephesus he had hoped to return\nvery soon, and consequently had given him only brief and somewhat hasty\ndirections as to his course of action during his absence. He had been\nprevented from returning; and there was a probability that Timothy would\nhave to be his representative for an indefinite period. Meanwhile the\ndifficulties of Timothy's position had not diminished. Many of his flock\nwere much older men than himself, and some of them had been elders in\nthe Church of Ephesus long before the Apostle's beloved disciple was\nplaced in charge of them. Some of the leaders in the congregation had\nbecome tainted with the Gnostic errors with which the intellectual\natmosphere of Ephesus was charged, and were endeavouring to make\ncompromise and confusion between heathen lawlessness and Christian\nliberty. Besides which, there was the bitter hostility of the Jews, who\nregarded both Paul and Timothy as renegades from the faith of their\nancestors, and who never lost an opportunity of thwarting and reviling\nthem. Above all there was the ever-present danger of heathenism, which\nconfronted the Christians every time they left the shelter of their own\nhouses. In the city which counted it as its chief glory that it was the\n\"Temple-keeper of the great Artemis\" (Acts xix. 35), every street\nthrough which the Christians walked, and every heathen house which they\nentered, was full of pagan abominations; to say nothing of the\nmagnificent temples, beautiful groves, and seductive idolatrous rites,\nwhich were among the main features that attracted such motley crowds to\nEphesus. Amid difficulties and perils such as these, it would not be\nwonderful if Timothy and those committed to his care had been somewhat\noblivious of the fact that \"behind the mountains also there are people;\"\nthat beyond the narrow limits of their contracted horizon there were\ninterests as weighty as their own--Christians who were as dear to God as\nthemselves, whose needs were as great as their own, and to whom the Lord\nhad been equally gracious; and moreover countless hosts of heathen, who\nalso were God's children, needing His help and receiving His blessings;\nfor all of whom, as well as for themselves, the Church in Ephesus was\nbound to offer prayer and thanksgiving.\n\nBut there is no need to assume that Timothy, and those committed to his\ncare, had been specially neglectful of this duty. To keep clearly in\nview our responsibilities towards the whole human race, or even towards\nthe whole Church, is so difficult a thing for all of us, that the\nprominent place which St. Paul gives to the obligation to offer prayers\nand thanksgivings for all men is quite intelligible, without the\nsupposition that the disciple whom he addresses was more in need of such\na charge than other ministers in the Churches under St. Paul's care.\n\nThe Apostle uses three different words for prayer, the second of which\nis a general term and covers all kinds of prayer to God, and the first a\nstill more general term, including petitions addressed to man. Either\nof the first two would embrace the third, which indicates a bold and\nearnest approach to the Almighty to implore some great benefit. None of\nthe three words necessarily means intercession in the sense of prayer\n_on behalf of others_. This idea comes from the context. St. Paul says\nplainly that it is prayers and thanksgivings \"for all men\" that he\ndesires to have made: and in all probability he did not carefully\ndistinguish in his mind the shades of meaning which are proper to the\nthree terms which he uses. Whatever various kinds of supplication there\nmay be which are offered by man at the throne of grace, he urges that\nthe whole human race are to have the benefit of them. Obviously, as\nChrysostom long ago pointed out, we cannot limit the Apostle's \"all men\"\nto all believers. Directly he enters into detail he mentions \"kings and\nall that are in high place;\" and in St. Paul's day not a single king,\nand we may almost say not a single person in high place, was a believer.\nThe scope of a Christian's desires and gratitude, when he appears before\nthe Lord, must have no narrower limit than that which embraces the whole\nhuman race. This important principle, the Apostle charges his\nrepresentative, must be exhibited in the public worship of the Church in\nEphesus.\n\nThe solidarity of the whole body of Christians, however distant from one\nanother in space and time, however different from one another in\nnationality, in discipline, and even in creed, is a magnificent fact, of\nwhich we all of us need from time to time to be reminded, and which,\neven when we are reminded of it, we find it somewhat difficult to grasp.\nMembers of sects that we never heard of, dwelling in remote regions of\nwhich we do not even know the names, are nevertheless united to us by\nthe eternal ties of a common baptism and a common belief in God and in\nJesus Christ. The eastern sectarian in the wilds of Asia, and the\nwestern sectarian in the backwoods of North America, are members of\nChrist and our brethren; and as such have spiritual interests identical\nwith our own, for which it is not only our duty but our advantage to\npray. \"Whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or\none member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it.\" The ties which\nbind Christians to one another are at once so subtle and so real, that\nit is impossible for one Christian to remain unaffected by the progress\nor retrogression of any other. Therefore, not only does the law of\nChristian charity require us to aid all our fellow-Christians by praying\nfor them, but the law of self-interest leads us to do so also; for their\nadvance will assuredly help us forward, and their relapse will assuredly\nkeep us back. All this is plain matter of fact, revealed to us by Christ\nand His apostles, and confirmed by our own experience, so far as our\nfeeble powers of observation are able to supply a test. Nevertheless, it\nis a fact of such enormous proportions (even without taking into account\nour close relationship with those who have passed away from this world),\nthat even with our best efforts we fail to realize it in its immensity.\n\nWhat shall we say, then, about the difficulty of realizing the\nsolidarity of the whole human race? For they also are God's offspring,\nand as such are of one family with ourselves. If it is hard to remember\nthat the welfare of the humblest member of a remote and obscure\ncommunity in Christendom intimately concerns ourselves, how shall we\nkeep in view the fact that we have both interests and obligations in\nreference to the wildest and most degraded heathens in the heart of\nAfrica or in the islands of the Pacific? Here is a fact on a far more\nstupendous scale; for in the population of the globe, those who are not\neven in name Christians, outnumber us by at least three to one. And yet\nlet us never forget that our interest in these countless multitudes,\nwhom we have never seen and never shall see in this life, is not a mere\ngraceful sentiment or empty flourish of rhetoric, but a sober and solid\nfact. The hackneyed phrase, \"a man and a brother,\" represents a vital\ntruth. Every human being is one of our brethren, and, whether we like\nthe responsibility or not, we are still our \"brother's keeper.\" In our\nkeeping, to a very real extent, lie the supreme issues of his spiritual\nlife, and we have to look to it that we discharge our trust faithfully.\nWe read with horror, and it may be with compassion, of the monstrous\noutrages committed by savage chiefs upon their subjects, their wives, or\ntheir enemies. We forget that the guilt of these things may lie partly\nat our door, because we have not done our part in helping forward\ncivilizing influences which would have prevented such horrors, above all\nbecause we have not prayed as we ought for those who commit them. There\nare few of us who have not some opportunities of giving assistance in\nvarious ways to missionary enterprise and humanizing efforts. But all of\nus can at least pray for God's blessing upon such things, and for His\nmercy upon those who are in need of it. Of those who, having nothing\nelse to give, give their struggles after holiness and their prayers for\ntheir fellow-men, the blessed commendation stands written, \"They have\ndone what they could.\"\n\n\"For kings and all that are in high place.\" It is quite a mistake to\nsuppose that \"kings\" here means the Roman Emperors. This has been\nasserted, and from this misinterpretation has been deduced the\nerroneous conclusion that the letter must have been written at a time\nwhen it was customary for the Emperor to associate another prince with\nhim in the empire, with a view to securing the succession. As Hadrian\nwas the first to do this, and that near to the close of his reign, this\nletter (it is urged) cannot be earlier than A.D. 138. But this\ninterpretation is impossible, for \"kings\" in the Greek has no article.\nHad the writer meant the two reigning Emperors, whether Hadrian and\nAntoninus, or M. Aurelius and Verus, he would inevitably have written\n\"for _the_ kings and for all in high place.\" The expression \"for kings,\"\nobviously means \"for monarchs of all descriptions,\" including the Roman\nEmperor, but including many other potentates also. Such persons, as\nhaving the heaviest responsibilities and the greatest power of doing\ngood and evil, have an especial claim upon the prayers of Christians. It\ngives us a striking illustration of the transforming powers of\nChristianity when we think of St. Paul giving urgent directions that\namong the persons to be remembered first in the intercessions of the\nChurch are Nero and the men whom he put \"in high place,\" such as Otho\nand Vitellius, who afterwards became Emperor: and this, too, after\nNero's peculiarly cruel and wanton persecution of the Christians A.D.\n64. How firmly this beautiful practice became established among\nChristians, is shown from their writings in the second and third\ncenturies. Tertullian, who lived through the reigns of such monsters as\nCommodus and Elagabalus, who remembered the persecution under M.\nAurelius, and witnessed that under Septimius Severus, can nevertheless\nwrite thus of the Emperor of Rome: \"A Christian is the enemy of no one,\nleast of all of the Emperor, whom he knows to have been appointed by\nhis God, and whom he therefore of necessity loves, and reverences, and\nhonours, and desires his well-being, with that of the whole Roman\nEmpire, so long as the world shall stand; for it shall last as long. To\nthe Emperor, therefore, we render such homage as is lawful for us and\ngood for him, as the human being who comes next to God, and is what he\nis by God's decree, and to God alone is inferior.... And so we sacrifice\nalso for the well-being of the Emperor; but to our God and his; but in\nthe way that God has ordained, with a prayer that is pure. For God, the\nCreator of the universe, has no need of odours or of blood.\"[35] In\nanother passage Tertullian anticipates the objection that Christians\npray for the Emperor, in order to curry favour with the Roman government\nand thus escape persecution. He says that the heathen have only to look\ninto the Scriptures, which to Christians are the voice of God, and see\nthat to pray for their enemies and to pray for those in authority is a\nfundamental rule with Christians. And he quotes the passage before\nus.[36] But he appears to misunderstand the concluding words of the\nApostle's injunction,--\"that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in\nall godliness and gravity.\" Tertullian understands this as a reason for\npraying for kings and rulers; because they are the preservers of the\npublic peace, and any disturbance in the empire will necessarily affect\nthe Christians as well as other subjects,--which is giving a rather\nnarrow and selfish motive for this great duty. \"That we may lead a\ntranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity,\" is the object and\nconsequence, not of our praying for kings and rulers in particular, but\nof our offering prayers and thanksgivings _on behalf of all men_.\n\nWhen this most pressing obligation is duly discharged, then, and only\nthen, can we hope with tranquil consciences to be able to live Christian\nlives in retirement from the rivalries and jealousies and squabbles of\nthe world. Only in the attitude of mind which makes us pray and give\nthanks for our fellow-men is the tranquillity of a godly life possible.\nThe enemies of Christian peace and quietness are anxiety and strife. Are\nwe anxious about the well-being of those near and dear to us, or of\nthose whose interests are bound up with our own? Let us pray for them.\nHave we grave misgivings respecting the course which events are taking\nin Church, or in State, or in any of the smaller societies to which we\nbelong? Let us offer supplications and intercessions on behalf of all\nconcerned in them. Prayer offered in faith to the throne of grace will\ncalm our anxiety, because it will assure us that all is in God's hand,\nand that in His own good time He will bring good out of the evil. Are we\nat strife with our neighbours, and is this a constant source of\ndisturbance? Let us pray for them. Fervent and frequent prayers for\nthose who are hostile to us will certainly secure this much,--that we\nourselves become more wary about giving provocation; and this will go a\nlong way towards bringing the attainment of our desire for the entire\ncessation of the strife. Is there any one to whom we have taken a strong\naversion, whose very presence is a trial to us, whose every gesture and\nevery tone irritates us, and the sight of whose handwriting makes us\nshiver, because of its disturbing associations? Let us pray for him.\nSooner or later dislike must give way to prayer. It is impossible to go\non taking a real interest in the welfare of another, and at the same\ntime to go on detesting him. And if our prayers for his welfare are\ngenuine, a real interest in it there must be. Is there any one of whom\nwe are jealous? Of whose popularity, so dangerous to our own, we are\nenvious? Whose success--quite undeserved success, as it seems to\nus--disgusts and frightens us? Whose mishaps and failures, nay even\nwhose faults and misdeeds, give us pleasure and satisfaction? Let us\nthank God for the favour which He bestows upon this man. Let us praise\nour heavenly Father for having in His wisdom and His justice given to\nanother of His children what He denies to us; and let us pray Him to\nkeep this other from abusing His gifts.\n\nYes, let us never forget that not only prayers but _thanksgivings_ are\nto be offered _for all men_. He who is so good to the whole Church, of\nwhich we are members, and to the great human family to which we belong,\ncertainly has claim upon the gratitude of every human being, and\nespecially of every Christian. His bounty is not given by measure or by\nmerit. He maketh His sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and\nsendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust: and shall we pick and\nchoose as to what we will thank Him for, and what not? The sister who\nloves her erring or her half-witted brother is grateful to her father\nfor the care which he bestows upon his graceless and his useless son.\nAnd shall we not give thanks to our heavenly Father for the benefits\nwhich He bestows on the countless multitudes whose interests are so\nclosely interwoven with our own? Benefits bestowed upon any human being\nare an answer to our prayers, and as such we are bound to give thanks\nfor them. How much more grateful shall we be, when we are able to look\non them as benefits bestowed upon those whom we love!\n\nThis is the cause of so much of our failure in prayer. We do not couple\nour prayers with thanksgiving; or at any rate our thanksgivings are far\nless hearty than our prayers. We give thanks for benefits received by\nourselves: we forget to give thanks \"for all men.\" Above all, we forget\nthat the truest gratitude is shown, not in words or feelings, but in\nconduct. We should send good deeds after good words to heaven. Not that\nour ingratitude provokes God to withhold His gifts; but that it does\nrender us less capable of receiving them. For the sake of others no less\nthan for ourselves let us remember the Apostle's charge that\n\"thanksgivings be made for all men.\" We cannot give plenty and\nprosperity to the nations of the earth. We cannot bestow on them peace\nand tranquillity. We cannot bring them out of darkness to God's glorious\nlight. We cannot raise them from impurity to holiness. We can only do a\nlittle, a very little, towards these great ends. But one thing we can\ndo. We can at least thank Him who has already bestowed some, and is\npreparing to bestow others, of these blessings. We can praise Him for\nthe end towards which He will have all things work.--\"He willeth that\n_all_ men should be saved\" (ver. 4), \"that God may be all in all.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] _Ad Scapulam_, ii.\n\n[36] _Apol._, xxxi.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND MIND:\nWOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT._\n\n \"I desire, therefore, that the men pray in every place, lifting up\n holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner, that women\n adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and\n sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly\n raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through\n good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But\n I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but\n to be in quietness.\"--1 TIM. ii. 8-12.\n\n\nIn the preceding verses of this chapter, St. Paul has been insisting on\nthe duty of unselfishness in our devotions. Our prayers and\nthanksgivings are not to be bounded in their scope by our own personal\ninterests, but are to include the whole human race; and for this obvious\nand sufficient reason,--that in using such devotions we know that our\ndesires are in harmony with the mind of God, \"who willeth that _all_ men\nshould be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.\" Having thus\nlaid down the principles which are to guide Christian congregations in\nthe _subject-matter_ of their prayers and thanksgivings, he passes on\nnow to give some directions respecting the _behaviour_ of men and women,\nwhen they meet together for common worship of the one God and the one\nMediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.\n\nThere is no reasonable doubt (although the point has been disputed) that\nSt. Paul is here speaking of public worship in the congregation; the\nwhole context implies it. Some of the directions would be scarcely\nintelligible, if we were to suppose that the Apostle is thinking of\nprivate devotions, or even of family prayer in Christian households. And\nwe are not to suppose that he is indirectly finding fault with other\nforms of worship, Jewish or heathen. He is merely laying down certain\nprinciples which are to guide Christians, whether at Ephesus or\nelsewhere, in the conduct of public service. Thus there is no special\nemphasis on \"in every place,\" as if the meaning were, \"Our ways are not\nlike those of the Jews; for they were not allowed to sacrifice and\nperform their services anywhere, but assembling from all parts of the\nworld were bound to perform all their worship in the temple. For as\nChrist commanded us to pray for _all_ men, because He died for all men,\nso it is good to pray _everywhere_.\"[37] Such an antithesis between\nJewish and Christian worship, even if it were true, would not be in\nplace here. Every place is a place of private prayer to both Jew and\nChristian alike: but not every place is a place of public prayer to the\nChristian any more than to the Jew.[38] Moreover, the Greek shows\nplainly that the emphasis is not on \"in every place,\" but on \"pray.\"\nWherever there may be a customary \"house of prayer,\" whether in Ephesus\nor anywhere else, the Apostle desires that prayers should be offered\npublicly by the men in the congregation. After \"pray,\" the emphasis\nfalls on \"the men,\" public prayer is to be made, and it is to be\nconducted by the men and not by the women in the congregation.\n\nIt is evident from this passage, as from 1 Cor. xiv., that in this\nprimitive Christian worship great freedom was allowed. There is no\nBishop, President, or Elder, to whom the right of leading the service or\nuttering the prayers and thanksgivings is reserved. This duty and\nprivilege is shared by all the males alike. In the recently discovered\n_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ nothing is said as to who is to offer\nthe prayers, of which certain forms are given. It is merely stated that\nin addition to these forms _extempore_ prayer may be offered by \"the\nprophets.\" And Justin Martyr mentions that a similar privilege was\nallowed to \"the president\" of the congregation according to his\nability.[39] Thus we seem to trace a gradual increase of strictness, a\ndevelopment of ecclesiastical order, very natural under the\ncircumstances. First, all the men in the congregation are allowed to\nconduct public worship, as here and in 1 Corinthians. Then, the right of\nadding to the prescribed forms is restricted to the prophets, as in the\n_Didache_. Next, this right is reserved to the presiding minister, as in\nJustin Martyr. And lastly, free prayer is abolished altogether. We need\nnot assume that precisely this development took place in all the\nChurches; but that something analogous took place in nearly all. Nor\nneed we assume that the development was simultaneous: while one Church\nwas at one stage of the process, another was more advanced, and a third\nless so. Again, we may conjecture that forms of prayer gradually\nincreased in number, and in extent, and in stringency. But in the\ndirections here given to Timothy we are at the beginning of the\ndevelopment.\n\n\"Lifting up holy hands.\" Here again we need not suspect any polemical\npurpose. St. Paul is not insinuating that, when Gnostics or heathen lift\nup their hands in prayer, their hands are not holy. Just as every\nChristian is ideally a saint, so every hand that is lifted up in prayer\nis holy. In thus stating the ideal, the Apostle inculcates the\nrealization of it. There is a monstrous incongruity in one who comes\nred-handed from the commission of a sin, lifting up the very members\nwhich witness against him, in order to implore a blessing from the God\nwhom he has outraged. The same idea is expressed in more general terms\nby St. Peter: \"Like as He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves\nalso holy in all manner of living; because it is written, ye shall be\nholy; for I am holy\" (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). In a passage more closely\nparallel to this, Clement of Rome says, \"Let us therefore approach Him\nin holiness of soul, _lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him_,\nwith love towards our gentle and compassionate Father who made us an\nelect portion unto Himself\" (_Cor._ xxix). And Tertullian urges that \"a\ndefiled spirit cannot be recognized by the Holy Spirit\" (_De Orat._,\nxiii). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of this attitude of\nlifting up the hands during prayer. But to this day it is common in the\nEast. Solomon at the dedication of the temple \"stood before the altar of\nthe Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and _spread\nforth his hands toward heaven_\" (1 Kings viii. 22); and the Psalmist\nrepeatedly speaks of \"lifting up the hands\" in worship (xxviii. 2;\nlxiii. 4; cxxxiv. 2). Clement of Alexandria seems to have regarded it as\nthe ideal attitude in prayer, as symbolizing the desire of the body to\nabstract itself from the earth, following the eagerness of the spirit in\nyearning for heavenly things.[40] Tertullian, on the other hand,\nsuggests that the arms are spread out in prayer in memory of the\ncrucifixion, and directs that they should be extended, but only slightly\nraised, an attitude which is more in harmony with a humble spirit: and\nin another place he says that the Christian by his very posture in\nprayer is ready for every infliction. He asserts that the Jews in his\nday did _not_ raise the hands in prayer, and characteristically gives as\na reason that they were stained with the blood of the Prophets and of\nChrist. With evident reference to this passage, he says that Christian\nhands must be lifted up pure from falsehood, murder, and all other sins\nof which the hands can be the instruments.[41] Ancient Christian\nmonuments of the earliest age frequently represent the faithful as\nstanding with raised hands to pray. Eusebius tells us that Constantine\nhad himself represented in this attitude on his coins, \"looking upwards,\nstretching up toward God, like one praying.\"[42] Of course this does not\nmean that kneeling was unusual or irregular; there is plenty of evidence\nto the contrary. But the attitude here commended by St. Paul was very\nancient when he wrote, and has continued in some parts of the world ever\nsince. Like so many other things in natural religion and in Judaism, it\nreceived a new and intensified meaning when it was adopted among the\nusages of the Christian Church.\n\n\"Without wrath and disputing:\" that is, in the spirit of Christian peace\nand trust. Ill-will and misgiving respecting one another are\nincompatible with united prayer to our common Father. The atmosphere of\ncontroversy is not congenial to devotion. Christ Himself has told us to\nbe reconciled to our brother before presuming to offer our gift on the\naltar. In a similar spirit St. Paul directs that those who are to\nconduct public service in the sanctuary must do so without angry\nfeelings or mutual distrust. In the Pastoral Epistles warnings against\nquarrelsome conduct are frequent; and the experience of every one of us\ntells us how necessary they are. The bishop is charged to be \"no\nbrawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious.\" The deacons must not\nbe \"double-tongued.\" Women must not be \"slanderers.\" Young widows have\nto be on their guard against being \"tattlers and busybodies.\" Timothy is\ncharged to \"follow after ... love, patience, meekness,\" and is reminded\nthat \"the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt\nto teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose\nthemselves.\" Titus again is told that a bishop must be \"not self-willed,\nnot soon angry,\" \"no brawler, no striker,\" that the aged women must not\nbe \"slanderers,\" that all men are to be put in mind \"to speak evil of no\nman, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward\nall men.\"[43] There is no need to assume that that age, or that those\nChurches, had any special need of warnings of this kind. All ages and\nall Churches need them. To keep one's tongue and one's temper in due\norder is to all of us one of the most constant and necessary duties of\nthe Christian life; and the neglect cannot fail to be disastrous to the\nreality and efficacy of our devotions. Those who have ill-will and\nstrife in their hearts cannot unite to much purpose in common\nthanksgiving and prayer.\n\nAnd just as the men have to take care that their attitude of body and\nmind is such as befits the dignity of public worship, in like manner the\nwomen also have to take care that their presence in the congregation\ndoes not appear incongruous. They must come in seemly attire and with\nseemly behaviour. Everything which might divert attention from the\nservice to themselves must be avoided. Modesty and simplicity must at\nall times be the characteristics of a Christian woman's dress and\nbearing; but at no time is this more necessary than in the public\nservices of the Church. Excessive adornment, out of place at all times,\nis grievously offensive there. It gives a flat contradiction to the\nprofession of humility which is involved in taking part in common\nworship, and to that natural sobriety which is a woman's fairest\nornament and best protection. Both reverence and self-reverence are\ninjured by it. Moreover, it may easily be a cause of offence to others,\nby provoking jealousy or admiration of the creature, where all ought to\nbe absorbed in the worship of the Creator.\n\nHere again St. Paul is putting his finger upon dangers and evils which\nare not peculiar to any age or any Church. He had spoken of the same\nthing years before, to the women of Corinth, and St. Peter utters\nsimilar warnings to Christian women throughout all time.[44] Clement of\nAlexandria abounds in protests against the extravagance in dress so\ncommon in his own day. In one place he says; \"Apelles the painter seeing\none of his pupils painting a figure thickly with gold colour to\nrepresent Helen, said to him; 'My lad, you were unable to paint her\nbeautiful, and so you have made her rich.' Such Helens are the ladies of\nthe present day; not really beautiful, but richly got up. To these the\nSpirit prophesies by Zephaniah: And their gold shall not be able to\ndeliver them in the day of the Lord's anger.\"[45] Tertullian is not less\nemphatic. He says that most Christian women dress like heathen, as if\nmodesty required nothing more than stopping short of actual impurity.\n\"What is the use,\" he asks, \"of showing a decent and Christian\nsimplicity in your face, while you load the rest of your body with the\ndangling absurdities of pomps and vanities?\"[46] Chrysostom also, in\ncommenting on this very passage, asks the congregation at Antioch: \"And\nwhat then is _modest apparel_? Such as covers them completely and\ndecently, and not with superfluous ornaments; for the one is decent and\nthe other is not. What? Do you approach God to pray with broidered hair\nand ornaments of gold? Are you come to a ball? to a marriage-feast? to a\ncarnival? There such costly things might have been seasonable: here not\none of them is wanted. You are come to pray, to ask pardon for your\nsins, to plead for your offences, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to\nrender Him propitious to you. Away with such hypocrisy! God is not\nmocked. This is the attire of actors and dancers, who live upon the\nstage. Nothing of this kind becomes a modest woman, who should be\nadorned with shamefastness and sobriety.... And if St. Paul\" (he\ncontinues) \"would remove those things which are merely the marks of\nwealth, as gold, pearls, and costly array; how much more those things\nwhich imply studied adornment, as painting, colouring the eyes, a\nmincing walk, an affected voice, a languishing look? For he glances at\nall these things in speaking of modest apparel and shamefastness.\"\n\nBut there is no need to go to Corinth in the first century, or\nAlexandria and Carthage in the second and third, or Antioch in the\nfourth, in order to show that the Apostle was giving no unnecessary\nwarning in admonishing Timothy respecting the dress and behaviour of\nChristian women, especially in the public services of the congregation.\nIn our own age and our own Church we can find abundant illustration.\nMight not any preacher in any fashionable congregation echo with a good\ndeal of point the questions of Chrysostom? \"Have you come to dance or a\nlev\u00e9e? Have you mistaken this building for a theatre?\" And what would be\nthe language of a Chrysostom or a Paul if he were to enter a theatre\nnowadays and see the attire, I will not say of the actresses, but of the\naudience? There are some rough epithets, not often heard in polite\nsociety, which express in plain language the condition of those women\nwho by their manner of life and conversation have forfeited their\ncharacters. Preachers in earlier ages were accustomed to speak very\nplainly about such things: and what the Apostle and Chrysostom have\nwritten in their epistles and homilies does not leave us in much doubt\nas to what would have been their manner of speaking of them.\n\nBut what is urged here is sufficient. \"You are Christian women,\" says\nSt. Paul, \"and the profession which you have adopted is reverence\ntowards God (=theosebeian=). This profession you have made known to the\nworld. It is necessary, therefore, that those externals of which the\nworld takes cognisance should not give the lie to your profession. And\nhow is unseemly attire, paraded at the very time of public worship,\ncompatible with the reverence which you have professed? Reverence God by\nreverencing yourselves; by guarding with jealous care the dignity of\nthose bodies with which He has endowed you. Reverence God by coming\nbefore Him clothed both in body and soul in fitting attire. Let your\nbodies be freed from meretricious decoration. Let your souls be adorned\nwith abundance of good works.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[37] So Chrysostom _in loco_: but this is an exaggeration respecting\nJewish limitations.\n\n[38] See Clement of Rome, _Cor._ xli.\n\n[39] _Didache_, x. 7; Just. Mart., _Apol._, 1. lxvii. Justin probably\nuses the term \"president\" =ho proest\u00f4s= in order to be intelligible to\nheathen readers.\n\n[40] _Strom._, VII. vii.\n\n[41] _De Orat._, xiii., xiv., xvii.; _Apol._ xxx.; Comp. _Adv. Jud._, x.\n\n[42] _Vit. Const._, IV. xv. 1.\n\n[43] 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8, 11; v. 13; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Tit. i. 7; ii.\n3; iii. 2.\n\n[44] 1 Cor. xi. 2-16; 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.\n\n[45] _Paed._, II. xiii.\n\n[46] _De Cult Fem._, II. i. ix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES\nDISTINGUISHED._\n\n \"If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.\n The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one\n wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to\n teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover\n of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in\n subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule\n his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?) not a\n novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the\n devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are\n without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.\n Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given\n to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the\n faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then\n let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless.\"--1 TIM. iii. 1-10.\n\n\nThis passage is one of the most important in the New Testament\nrespecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does\nnot stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is\nagain touched upon in the Epistle to Titus (i. 5-9), and the\nqualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the\ntwo, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in\nthe passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the\nPastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to\narrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive\nChristian ministry; a question which at the present time is being\ninvestigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and\nsubstantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word\nwill have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which\nconsiderable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable:\nand those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who\nare most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the\nsubject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of\nfact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what\nis not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to\ncertainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant\ncertainty, is not a trustworthy guide.\n\nIt would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon\nall the points which have been raised in connexion with this problem;\nbut some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important\nfeatures of the question are pointed out and classified under the two\nheads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific\nenquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a\nuseful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of\ncertainties. When the group of certainties has been properly\ninvestigated, and when the various items have been placed in their\nproper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only\nconstituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items\nfrom the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of\nwhat is certain.\n\nAt the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is\nmeant, in a question of this kind, by _certainty_. There are no limits\nto scepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly\nshown. It is possible to question one's own existence, and still more\npossible to question the irresistible evidence of one's senses or the\nirresistible conclusions of one's reason. _A fortiori_ it is possible to\nthrow doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the\nassassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the\nAEneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not\ncertain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an\nexperiment in chemistry or physics. But a sceptical criticism of this\nkind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of\ncertainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the\nnature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to\ntreat evidence as adequate, which they would be willing to recognize as\nsuch in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain\namount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind\nmakes a thing \"practically certain:\" _i.e._, with this amount of\nevidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the\nthing was true.\n\nIn the question before us there are four or five things which may with\ngreat reason be treated as practically certain.\n\n1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian\nministry, _has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians_. For\nus the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As\nstudents of Church History we are bound to investigate the _origines_ of\nthe ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history:\nbut our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the\nresult of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution\nconsisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged\nfrom the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages,\nand which has existed down to the present day in all the three great\nbranches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no\nway affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church\nduring the century which separates the writings of St. John from the\nwritings of his disciple's disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule episcopal,\ncollegiate, or presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the episcopal\nform of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the\nenormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least\nseventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to\nbe serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of\nthe various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no\npractical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which\nis already ample. To prove that the episcopal form of government was\nfounded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical\nimportance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century\nhad closed, the practical question, _if there ever was one_, had settled\nitself. God's providence ordained that the universal form of Church\ngovernment should be the episcopal form and should continue to be such;\nand for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which\nit became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of\nApostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established\nindependently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its\naccumulated authority.\n\n2. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this\nquestion, is, that _for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the\nage of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything\nlike proof_. The evidence has received important additions during the\npresent century, and still more important additions are by no means\nimpossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the\nevidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large\nas compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in\nitself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty.\nSecondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as\nyet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date\nof a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but\nthis is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really\nserious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to\nthe date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of\ninformation; _e.g._, the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, the Epistles\nof Ignatius, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ and the _Clementines_. Here also\nour position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of\nthese documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about\nprecise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that\nwith regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing\nthat can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval\nwhich separates the last quarter of the first century from the last\nquarter of the second.\n\nThis feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful\nmetaphor that the history of the Church just at this period \"passes\nthrough a tunnel\" or \"runs underground.\" We are in the light of day\nduring most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again\nin the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant\nwritings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But\nduring the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but\nin a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an\noccasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about\nwhich the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not\nlikely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next\ncertainties in the periods which precede and follow it.\n\n3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the\nChurch had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not\ndischarged by ordinary Christians; in other words _a distinction was\nmade from the first between clergy and laity_. Of this fact the Pastoral\nEpistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up\nand down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to\nthe last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly\nthe earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St.\nPaul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians \"to know them that\n_labour among you_, and _are over you in the Lord_, and _admonish_ you;\nand to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake\" (v.\n12, 13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to\nbe exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which\nevery one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.\nJohn, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest,\nof the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about\nDiotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but\necclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence\nin the Church in which Diotrephes \"loved to have the pre-eminence\" (9,\n10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the\nHebrews: \"Obey them that _have the rule over you_ and submit to them:\nfor they watch in behalf of your _souls_, as they that shall give\naccount\" (xiii. 17). And directly we go outside the New Testament and\nlook at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,\ncommonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same\ndistinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which\nalmost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read\nthat the Apostles, \"preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed\ntheir firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be\nbishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in\nno new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and\ndeacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a\ncertain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their\ndeacons in faith\"--the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the\nLXX. of Isa. lx. 17. And a little further on Clement writes: \"Our\nApostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife\nover the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having\nreceived complete fore-knowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons,\nand afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall\nasleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those\ntherefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of\nrepute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered\nunblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and\nwith all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with\nall--these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their\nministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those\nwho have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.\nBlessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their\ndeparture was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one\nshould remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have\ndisplaced certain persons, though they were living honourably, from the\nministration which they had kept blamelessly\" (xlii., xliv.).\n\nThree things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what\nhas been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction\nmade between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary\narrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person\nwho has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or\nbishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to\nTitus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious\noffence, to depose him is no light sin.\n\nNone of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tell\nus very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as\ndistinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these\nfunctions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that\nthey concerned men's souls rather than their bodies, and that they were\nconnected with religious service (=leitourgia=). But the one thing which\nis quite clear is this,--that the Church had, and was always intended to\nhave, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they\nministered and over which they ruled.\n\n4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of\nthe Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last\nquarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly\nestablished, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this.\nWe find a _regularly organized clergy_, not only distinctly marked off\nfrom the laity, but distinctly _marked off among themselves by well\ndefined gradations of rank_. And, secondly, we find that _each local\nChurch is constitutionally governed by one chief officer_, whose powers\nare large and seldom resisted, and _who universally receives the title\nof bishop_. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of\nany belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local\nChurches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and\nit is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the\nlatter part of the second century--say A.D. 180 to 200--were fully\npersuaded that the episcopal form of government had prevailed in the\ndifferent Churches from the Apostles' time to their own. Just as in the\ncase of the Gospels, Irenaeus and his contemporaries not only do not know\nof either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but\ncannot conceive of there ever being either more or less than these four:\nso in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy\nas everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any\nprevious time any other form of government prevailed. And although\nIrenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops\nunder the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at\nthat time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess\nepiscopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the\nmartyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy\nin the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; and he\nheld the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202.\nFrom Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we\nlearn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in\nnot a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the\nnames of their predecessors are given up to the times of the Apostles.\nThus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is\nconnected with \"the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul\": and, in\nthe case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been\nappointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or\nmay not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus\nand Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the\nuniversal form of Church government, but was also believed to have\nprevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.[47]\n\n5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the\nChurches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty\nfrom the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and\nthat of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn,\nand Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the\nEpistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot\nas yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred\nin the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be\nlater than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not\nconclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their\ntestimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long\nbefore A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government\nthroughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks\nof \"the bishops that are settled _in the farthest parts of the earth_\n(=kata ta perata horisthentes=)\" they prove that, according to his\nbelief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere (_Ephes._ iii.).\nThis evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all\nsound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius\nwere evidently not written in order to magnify the episcopal office, or\nto preach up the episcopal system. The writer's main object is to\ndeprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion\nthe best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop.\nThus, the magnifying of the episcopal office comes about incidentally;\nbecause Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in\neach Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will\nbe a security against all schismatical tendencies.\n\nThese four or five points being regarded as established to an extent\nwhich may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other\npoints about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of\na probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that\nwe have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the\ndistinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the\nfirst century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise\nfunctions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With\nregard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a\nconsiderable amount of probability.\n\n1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy\nand stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles\n(who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists.\nAmong the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons,\nas here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) as well as in the\n_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, presbyter or elder being sometimes\nused as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant\nand a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians (xii. 28), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11), and\nperhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.\nJohn. In the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ it is clearly marked.\n\n2. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did,\nand those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title\nof prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who\npossessed this gift: and the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ shows a\ngreat respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when\nthese supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of\nextinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet.\nSome fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some\ndishonest persons pretended to be prophets, when they were not such. The\noffice appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he\nalways means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably\na forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as\na whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of\nprophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (vi.).\n\n3. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or\nrepresentatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be\ndischarged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and\ntheir successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or\nrecommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons (Acts vi.\n4-6), they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of\nlaying on of hands was always performed by those who were already\nministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was\nstill open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is\ngood reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was\nfrom the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting\nprophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating\nit.\n\nBut, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to\na close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord's Day or holy seasons, for\nall days are the Lord's, and all seasons are holy; there are no places\nespecially dedicated to God's worship, for the whole universe is His\ntemple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers,\nfor all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it\nexists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places\nholy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all\nChristians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that\nnone are such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose\nwill may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church\nthroughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to\nanticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the\nconditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous\nconfusion.\n\nIn conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They\ncome with special force from one who does not himself belong to an\nEpiscopalian Church.\n\n\"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view\nof what the Church is must be affected and moulded. We shall either\naccept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ\nrules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has\nattached a blessing, _the fulness of which we have no right to look for\nexcept through the channels He has ordained_ (and it ought to be\nneedless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest\nsatisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of\nindividual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with\nordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to\nwhich no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of\na Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly\nprinciple ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men.\nConceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot\nfail to affect in the most vital manner the Church's life and relation\nto those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary\nresult of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed\nand still living priesthood among men.\"[48]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[47] See an admirable article on the Christian ministry by Dr. Salmon in\nthe _Expositor_ for July, 1887; also the present writer's _Church of the\nEarly Fathers_, pp. 58 ff.; 92 ff.; 2nd ed. Longmans, 1887.\n\n[48] Professor W. Milligan, D.D., on \"The Idea of the Priesthood,\" in\nthe _Expositor_ for July, 1888, p. 7.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT\nOBLIGATION._\n\n \"The husband of one wife.\"--1 TIM. iii. 2.\n\n\nThe Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked\nfor in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be \"husband\nof one wife.\" The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never\ncease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase\nis capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly\ncontended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of\nprobability is so largely in favour of one of the meanings, that the\nremainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for\nbeing supported in competition with it.\n\nThree passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered\ntogether, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the\npassage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 about deacons,\nand (3) another in Tit. i. 6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul\nafterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages\nwe have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as\na necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in\na deacon, that he should be a \"man of one woman\" or \"husband of one\nwife\" (=mias gynaikos an\u00ear=). In the fourth passage (1 Tim. v. 9) he\ngives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the\nroll of church widows, that she must be a \"woman of one man\" or \"wife of\none husband\" (=henos andros gyn\u00ea=). This fourth passage is of much\nimportance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the\nother three passages.\n\nThere are four main interpretations of the expression in question.\n\n1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind,--that the\nperson to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not\nmore; that he must not be a _polygamist_. According to this\ninterpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean,\nthat a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to\nbaptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be\nadmitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks\nsimple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that\npolygamy in St. Paul's day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr,\nin the _Dialogue with Trypho_, says to the Jews, \"It is better for you\nto follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this\nday allow you each to have four and five wives\" (\u00a7 134). But polygamy in\nthe Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law,\nwhich did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time,\nand treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and\nvoid, but infamous. Where it was practised it must have been practised\nsecretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus,\nnot a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith.\nPolygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had\nnot yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in\nwhich the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become\nChristians, amounts to something like proof that such cases were\nextremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should\nthink it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted\npolygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is\nno likelihood that any one of them knew of a single instance of a\npolygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this\ninterpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected.\n\nBut these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence\nof the converse phrase, \"wife of one husband.\" If men with more than one\nwife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women\nwith more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the\nEmpire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as\nmonstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case\nin his mind, when he mentioned the qualification \"wife of one husband.\"\nMoreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this\n\"wife of one husband\" must be a person who at the time had _no_ husband.\nThe phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her\nhusband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression,\n\"husband of one wife,\" cannot have any reference to polygamy.\n\n2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in\nboth cases is not polygamy, but _divorce_. Divorce, as we know from\nabundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans\nin the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked\nthe special condemnation of Christ: and one of the many influences which\nChristianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for\ndivorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce\nfor very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women\nsometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either\nhusband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances\nare on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as\nCicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and\noften enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St.\nPaul's day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had\nbeen divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing\nimprobable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such\npersons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to\nlegislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they\nmust not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation\nof this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy\ncapital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more\ninfluential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from\nprecisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians,\nofficials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of\nthe phrases \"husband of one wife\" and \"wife of one husband\" cannot be\ncondemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount\nof probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation\n(which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.\n\n3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases\nare a vague way of indicating _misconduct of any kind in reference to\nmarriage_. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the\nChristian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the\nChurch of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins\nof this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is\nnot afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have\nseen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth\nchapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other\nexamples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate\npersons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he\nwould have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under\ndiscussion.\n\n4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant\none, that these passages all refer to _second marriage after the first\nmarriage has been dissolved by death_. A widower who has married a\nsecond wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has\nmarried a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church\nwidows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with\nthe context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is\nconfirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy\nby the early Church.\n\n(_a_) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons\nwho had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second\nmarriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so\nfar a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a\nserious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any\nbut its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be\nhampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen\ncertainly felt a special respect for the _univira_, the woman who did\nnot enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing\nthat second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of\nmen, _e.g._, in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may\nsafely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had\nabstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those\nwho had not abstained.\n\n(_b_) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage\nbefore us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression,\n\"husband of one wife,\" is \"without reproach\"; in the Epistle to Titus it\nis \"blameless.\" In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be\nnothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could\nafterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent\nwith his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and\n_therefore_ he must not have been twice married.\n\n(_c_) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His\nstatements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that\nthere is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and\nwhat is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle\nstrongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all (1 Cor. vii. 28, 36;\n1 Tim. iv. 3). For _those who are equal to it_, whether single or\nwidowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more\nblessed condition (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 32, 34, 40; 1 Tim. v. 7). But so\nfew persons are equal to this, that it is prudent for those who desire\nto marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so (1\nCor. vii. 2, 9, 39; 1 Tim. v. 14). These being his convictions, is it\nnot reasonable to suppose, that in selecting ministers for the Church he\nwould look for them in the class which had given proof of moral strength\nby remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time. In an age of\nsuch boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and\na person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have\nhis moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and\nsemi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over\npassions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which\nthe infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning\nto advantage.\n\nAnd here we may note St. Paul's wisdom in giving no preference to those\nwho had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he\ndone so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who\ndisparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which\nabounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious,\nthat, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet\nhe assumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the\nrule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of\ngiving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a\ncelibate deacon.[49]\n\n5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly\nconfirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first\nfew centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely\ninfluenced by St. Paul's language, and therefore being a guide as to\nwhat his words were then supposed to mean.\n\nHermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later\nFathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement\nof second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to\nfall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel\nconstitution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage\n\"respectable adultery,\" and to say that one who thus severs himself from\nhis dead wife is an \"adulterer in disguise.\" Respecting the clergy,\nOrigen says plainly, \"Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon,\nnor a widow, can be twice married.\" The canons of councils are not less\nplain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the\nlaity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the\nclergy. The synods of Ancyra (_Can._ 19), of Neocaesarea (_Can._ 3 and\n7), and of Laodicea (_Can._ 1) subjected lay persons who married more\nthan once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different\nChurches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The\nCouncil of Nicaea, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members\nof the Puritan sect of _Cathari_ are not to be received into the Church\nunless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have\nmarried a second time (Can. 8). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (vi. 17)\nand the so-called _Apostolic Canons_ (17) absolutely forbid the\npromotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or\ndeacon; and the _Apostolic Constitutions_ forbid the marriage of one who\nis already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but\nif he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of\ncourse, if his wife dies, he is not to marry again. Even singers,\nreaders, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been\nadmitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to\nmarry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a\nsecond time.\n\nAll these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the\nearly Church understood St. Paul's language: viz., that one who had\nexhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted\nto the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was\nalready in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from\nthis they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage\ncontract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop,\npresbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but\nordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but\nthe higher orders of clergy might not become married.\n\nA little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from\nSt. Paul's rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would\nhave sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have\nshown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be\nordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if\nthey find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind _after_\ntheir ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are\nunequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly\nlays down, decides the case: \"If they have not continency, let them\nmarry: for it is better to marry than to burn.\" And if this holds good\nof clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as\nstrongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination.\nThose Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to\nmarry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly\nclaim to have the Apostle on their side.\n\nBut there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which\ndisregard the Apostle's directions, in admitting those who have been\nmore than once married to the diaconate, and even to the episcopate.\nWhat defence is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount\nto lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St.\nPaul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is\nquite possible that his directions are given \"by reason of the present\ndistress.\" We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which\nhas far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the\neating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which\nmost of the Apostles were present, forbad the eating of these things. It\nalso forbad the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led\nthe way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the\nwhole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of\nthese cases is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were\nlikely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood,\nit was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to\nthink lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating\nwhat had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to\nforbid it. When these dangers ceased the reason for the enactment\nceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle\napplies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married.\nNowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because\nhe has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be\nto lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is\ngreat; and this loss would be without compensation.\n\nAnd we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostle's rule\nabout digamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist\ntreatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their\nbishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the\nPastoral Epistles were read;[50] and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on\nCallistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice\nand thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we\nknow that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who\nhad married twice _as Christians_, and those who had concluded the\nsecond marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from\nordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage\ntook place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be\nconsidered as having been married only once.[51] This freedom in\ninterpreting the Apostle's rule not unnaturally led to its being, in\nsome branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, \"Do not ordain\na man who has married more than once.\" If you may say, \"This man, who\nhas married more than once, shall be _accounted_ as having married only\nonce;\" you may equally well say \"The Apostle's rule was a temporary one,\nand we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to\nparticular circumstances.\" We may feel confidence that in such a matter\nit was not St. Paul's wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of\ntheir liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[49] As the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (vol. i. p. 324) has\ngiven its sanction to the view that \"St. Paul _required_ the\npresbyter-bishop to have had the experience of marriage and with at\nleast a preference for those who had brought up children (1 Tim. iii. 2,\n4), and extended the requirement even to the deacons of the Church (1\nTim. iii. 11, 12),\" it seems to be worth while to repeat the declaration\nof Ellicott and Huther, that \"the strange opinion of Bretschneider, that\n=mias= is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant that a bishop\nshould be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is\naccorded to it by Winer, _Grammar of New Testament_, III. 18 (Eng. Tr.,\np. 146).\" Would any Englishman ever say \"a bishop must have one wife,\"\nwhen his meaning was \"a bishop must have a wife\"?\n\n[50] _De Monog._, xii.\n\n[51] See D\u00f6llinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_ (pp. 129-147 Eng.\nTrans.) for a full discussion of the question.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS._\n\n \"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;\n but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave\n themselves in the house of God, which is the Church of the living\n God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy\n great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the\n flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the\n nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory\"--1 TIM.\n iii. 14-16.\n\n\nSt. Paul here makes a pause in the Epistle. He has brought to a close\nsome of the principal directions which he has to give respecting the\npreservation of pure doctrine, the conduct of public worship, and the\nqualifications for the ministry: and before proceeding to other topics\nhe halts in order to insist upon the importance of these things, by\npointing out what is really involved in them. Their importance is one\nmain reason for his writing at all. Although he hopes to be with Timothy\nagain even sooner than might be expected, he nevertheless will not allow\nmatters of this gravity to wait for his return to Ephesus. For, after\nall, this hope may be frustrated, and it may be a long time before the\ntwo friends meet again face to face. The way in which Christians ought\nto behave themselves in the house of God is not a matter which can wait\nindefinitely, seeing that this house of God is no lifeless shrine of a\nlifeless image, which knows nothing and cares nothing about what goes on\nin its temple; but a congregation of immortal souls and of bodies that\nare temples of the living God, Who will destroy him who destroys His\ntemple (1 Cor. iii. 17). God's house must have regulations to preserve\nit from unseeming disorder. The congregation which belongs to the living\nGod must have a constitution to preserve it from faction and anarchy.\nAll the more so, seeing that to it has been assigned a post of great\nresponsibility. Truth in itself is self-evident and self-sustained: it\nneeds no external support or foundation. But truth as it is manifested\nto the world needs the best support and the firmest basis that can be\nfound for it. And it is the duty and privilege of the Church to supply\nthese. God's household is not only a community which in a solemn and\nspecial way belongs to the living God: it is also the \"pillar and ground\nof the truth.\" These considerations show how vital is the question, In\nwhat way ought one to behave oneself in this community?[52]\n\nFor the truth, to the support and establishment of which every Christian\nby his behaviour in the Church is bound to contribute, is indisputably\nsomething great and profound. By the admission of all, the mystery of\nthe Christian faith is a deep and weighty one; and the responsibility of\nhelping or hindering its establishment is proportionately deep and\nweighty. Other things may be matter of dispute, but this not. \"Without\ncontroversy great is the mystery of godliness.\"\n\nWhy does St. Paul speak of the Truth as \"the mystery of godliness\"? In\norder to express both the Divine and the human aspects of the Christian\nfaith. On the Divine side the Gospel is a mystery, a disclosed secret.\nIt is a body of truth originally hidden from man's knowledge, to which\nman by his own unaided reason and abilities would never be able to find\nthe way. In one word it is a revelation: a communication by God to men\nof Truth which they could not have discovered for themselves. \"Mystery\"\nis one of those words which Christianity has borrowed from paganism, but\nhas consecrated to new uses by gloriously transfiguring its meaning. The\nheathen mystery was something always kept hidden from the bulk of\nmankind; a secret to which only a privileged few were admitted. It\nencouraged, in the very centre of religion itself, selfishness and\nexclusiveness. The Christian mystery, on the other hand, is something\nonce hidden, but now made known, not to a select few, but to all. The\nterm, therefore, involves a splendid paradox: it is a secret revealed to\nevery one. In St. Paul's own words to the Romans (xvi. 25), \"the\nrevelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times\neternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets,\naccording to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all\nthe nations.\" He rarely uses the word mystery without combining with it\nsome other word signifying to reveal, manifest, or make known.[53]\n\nBut the Christian faith is not only a mystery but a \"mystery of\ngodliness.\" It not only tells of the bounty of Almighty God in revealing\nHis eternal counsels to man, but it also tells of man's obligations in\nconsequence of being initiated. It is a mystery, not \"of lawlessness\" (2\nThess. ii. 7), but \"of godliness.\" Those who accept it \"profess\ngodliness\"; profess reverence to the God who has made it known to them.\nIt teaches plainly on what principle we are to regulate \"how men ought\nto behave themselves in the household of God.\" The Gospel is a mystery\nof piety, a mystery of reverence and of religious life. Holy itself, and\nproceeding from the Holy One, it bids its recipients be holy, even as He\nis Holy Who gives it.\n\n\"Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of\nangels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received\nup in glory.\"\n\nAfter the text about the three Heavenly Witnesses in the First Epistle\nof St. John, no disputed reading in the New Testament has given rise to\nmore controversy than the passage before us. Let us hope that the day is\nnot far distant when there will be no more disputing about either text.\nThe truth, though still doubted, especially in reference to the passage\nbefore us, is not really doubtful. In both cases the reading of the A.V.\nis indefensible. It is certain that St. John never wrote the words about\nthe \"three that bear witness in heaven\": and it is certain that St. Paul\ndid not write, \"_God_ was manifest in the flesh,\" but \"_Who_ was\nmanifested in the flesh.\" The reading \"_God_ was manifested in the\nflesh\" appears in no Christian writer until late in the fourth century,\nand in no translation of the Scriptures, earlier than the seventh or\neighth century. And it is not found in any of the five great primary\nMSS., except as a correction made by a later scribe, who knew of the\nreading \"God was manifested,\" and either preferred it to the other, or\nat least wished to preserve it as an alternative reading, or as an\ninterpretation. Even so cautious and conservative a commentator as the\nlate Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln declares that \"the preponderance of\ntestimony is overwhelming\" against the reading \"_God_ was manifested in\nthe flesh.\" In an old Greek MS., it would require only two small strokes\nto turn \"Who\" into \"God\"; and this alteration would be a tempting one,\nseeing that the masculine \"Who\" after the neuter \"mystery,\" looks harsh\nand unnatural.[54]\n\nBut here we come upon a highly interesting consideration. The words that\nfollow look like a quotation from some primitive Christian hymn or\nconfession. The rhythmical movement and the parallelism of the six\nbalanced clauses, of which each triplet forms a climax, points to some\nsuch fact as this. It is possible that we have here a fragment of one of\nthe very hymns which, as Pliny the Younger tells the Emperor Trajan, the\nChristians were accustomed to sing antiphonally at daybreak to Christ as\na God.[55] Such a passage as this might well be sung from side to side,\nline by line or triplet by triplet, as choirs still chant the Psalms in\nour churches.\n\n \"Who was manifested in the flesh,\n \"Justified in the spirit,\n \"Seen of angels,\n \"Preached among the nations,\n \"Believed on in the world,\n \"Received up in glory.\"\n\nLet us assume that this very reasonable and attractive conjecture is\ncorrect, and that St. Paul is here quoting from some well-known form of\nwords. Then the \"Who\" with which the quotation begins will refer to\nsomething in the preceding lines which are not quoted. How natural,\nthen, that St. Paul should leave the \"Who\" unchanged, although it does\nnot fit on grammatically to his own sentence. But in any case there is\nno doubt as to the antecedent of the \"Who.\" \"The mystery of godliness\"\nhas for its centre and basis the life of a Divine Person; and the great\ncrisis in the long process by which the mystery was revealed was reached\nwhen this Divine Person \"was manifested in the flesh.\" That in making\nthis statement or quotation the Apostle has in his mind the Gnostics who\n\"teach a different doctrine\" (i. 3), is quite possible, but is by no\nmeans certain. The \"manifestation\" of Christ in the flesh is a favourite\ntopic with him, as with St. John, and is one of the points in which the\ntwo Apostles not only teach the same doctrine, but teach it in the same\nlanguage. The fact that he had used the word \"mystery\" would be quite\nenough to make him speak of \"manifestation,\" even if there had been no\nfalse teachers who denied or explained away the fact of the Incarnation\nof the Divine Son. The two words fit into one another exactly.\n\"Mystery,\" in Christian theology, implies something which once was\nconcealed but has now been made known; \"manifest\" implies making known\nwhat had once been concealed. _An historical appearance of One Who had\npreviously existed, but had been kept from_ _the knowledge of the\nworld_, is what is meant by, \"Who was manifested in the flesh.\"\n\n\"Justified in the spirit.\" Spirit here cannot mean the Holy Spirit, as\nthe A.V. would lead us to suppose. \"In spirit\" in this clause is in\nobvious contrast to \"in flesh\" in the previous clause. And if \"flesh\"\nmeans the material part of Christ's nature, \"spirit\" means the\nimmaterial part of His nature, and the higher portion of it. His flesh\nwas the sphere of His manifestation: His spirit was the sphere of His\njustification. Thus much seems to be clear. But what are we to\nunderstand by His justification? And how did it take place in His\nspirit? These are questions to which a great variety of answers have\nbeen given; and it would be rash to assert of any one of them that it is\nso satisfactory as to be conclusive.\n\nChrist's human nature consisted, as ours does, of three elements, body,\nsoul, and spirit. The body is the flesh spoken of in the first clause.\nThe soul (=psych\u00ea=), as distinct from the spirit (=pneuma=), is the seat\nof the natural affections and desires. It was Christ's soul that was\ntroubled at the thought of impending suffering. \"My soul is exceeding\nsorrowful, even unto death\" (Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34). \"Now is My\nsoul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour\"\n(John xii. 27). The spirit is the seat of the religious emotions: it is\nthe highest, innermost part of man's nature; the sanctuary of the\ntemple. It was in His spirit that Christ was affected when the presence\nof moral evil distressed Him. He was moved with indignation in His\nspirit when He saw the hypocritical Jews mingling their sentimental\nlamentations with the heartfelt lamentations of Martha and Mary at the\ngrave of Lazarus (John xi. 33). It was in His spirit also that He was\ntroubled when, as Judas sat at table with Him and possibly next to\nHim,[56] He said, \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall\nbetray Me\" (John xiii. 21). This spiritual part of His nature, which was\nthe sphere of His most intense suffering, was also the sphere of His\nmost intense joy and satisfaction. As moral evil distressed His spirit,\nso moral innocence delighted it. In a way that none of us can measure,\nJesus Christ knew the joy of a good conscience. The challenge which He\nmade to the Jews, \"Which of you convicteth Me of sin?\" was one which He\ncould make to His own conscience. It had nothing against Him and could\nnever accuse Him. He was _justified_ when it spake, and clear when it\njudged (Rom. iii. 4; Ps. li. 4). Perfect Man though He was, and\nmanifested in weak and suffering flesh, He was nevertheless \"justified\nin the spirit.\"[57]\n\n\"Seen of angels.\" It is impossible to determine the precise occasion to\nwhich this refers. Ever since the Incarnation Christ has been visible to\nthe angels; but something more special than the fact of the Incarnation\nseems to be alluded to here. The wording in the Greek is exactly the\nsame as in \"_He appeared to_ Cephas; then _to_ the twelve; then _He\nappeared to_ above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater\npart remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then _He appeared to_\nJames; then _to_ all the Apostles; last of all, as _to_ one born out of\ndue time, _He appeared to_ me also\" (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Here, therefore,\nwe might translate \"_appeared to_ angels.\" What appearance, or\nappearances, of the incarnate Word to the angelic host can be intended?\n\nThe question cannot be answered with any certainty; but with some\nconfidence we can venture to say what can _not_ be intended. \"Appeared\nto angels\" can scarcely refer to the angelic appearances which are\nrecorded in connexion with the Nativity, Temptation, Agony,\nResurrection, and Ascension of Christ. On those occasions angels\nappeared to Christ and to others, not He to angels. With still greater\nconfidence we may reject the suggestion that \"angels\" here means either\nthe Apostles, as the angels or _messengers_ of Christ, or evil spirits,\nas the angels of Satan. It may be doubted whether anything at all\nparallel to either explanation can be found in Scripture. Moreover,\n\"appeared to evil spirits\" is an interpretation which makes the passage\nmore difficult than it was before. The manifestation of Christ to the\nangelic host either at the Incarnation or at the return to glory is a\nfar more reasonable meaning to assign to the words.\n\nThe first three clauses of this primitive hymn may thus be summed up.\nThe mystery of godliness has been revealed to mankind, and revealed in a\nhistorical Person, Who, while manifested in human flesh, was in His\ninmost spirit declared free from all sin. And this manifestation of a\nperfectly righteous Man was not confined to the human race. The angels\nalso witnessed it and can bear testimony to its reality.\n\nThe remaining triplet is more simple: the meaning of each one of its\nclauses is clear. The same Christ, who was seen of angels, was also\npreached among the nations of the earth and believed on in the world:\nyet He Himself was taken up from the earth and received once more in\nglory. The propagation of the faith in an ascended Christ is here\nplainly and even enthusiastically stated. To all the nations, to the\nwhole world, this glorified Saviour belongs. All this adds emphasis to\nthe question \"how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God\" in\nwhich such truths are taught and upheld.\n\nIt is remarkable how many arrangements of these six clauses are\npossible, all making excellent sense. We may make them into two triplets\nof independent lines: or we may couple the two first lines of each\ntriplet together and then make the third lines correspond to one\nanother. In either case each group begins with earth and ends with\nheaven. Or again, we may make the six lines into three couplets. In the\nfirst couplet flesh and spirit are contrasted and combined; in the\nsecond, angels and men; in the third, earth and heaven.\n\nYes, beyond dispute the mystery of godliness is a great one. The\nrevelation of the Eternal Son, which imposes upon those who accept it a\nholiness of which His sinlessness must be the model, is something awful\nand profound. But He, Who along with every temptation which He allows\n\"makes also the way of escape,\" does not impose a pattern for imitation\nwithout at the same time granting the grace necessary for struggling\ntowards it. To reach it is impossible--at any rate in this life. But the\nconsciousness that we cannot reach perfection is no excuse for aiming at\nimperfection. The sinlessness of Christ is immeasurably beyond us here;\nand it may be that even in eternity the loss caused by our sins in this\nlife will never be entirely cancelled. But to those who have taken up\ntheir cross daily and followed their Master, and who have washed their\nrobes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, will be granted\nhereafter to stand sinless \"before the throne of God and serve Him day\nand night in His temple.\" Having followed Christ on earth, they will\nfollow Him still more in heaven. Having shared His sufferings here, they\nwill share His reward there. They too will be \"seen of angels\" and\n\"received up in glory.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[52] To take the \"pillar and ground of the truth\" as meaning Timothy\nmakes sense, but not nearly such good sense: moreover, it is almost\ncertain that if St. Paul had meant this, he would have expressed himself\ndifferently. There is no intolerable mixture of metaphors in speaking of\nChristians first as a house and then as a pillar, any more than in\nspeaking of any one as both a pillar and a basis. In vi. 9 we have the\ncovetous falling into a _snare_ and hurtful lusts such as _drown_ men.\n\n[53] 1 Cor. ii 1, 7, xv. 51; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, vi. 19; Col. i. 26,\n27, ii. v. 3, comp. Rom. xi. 25, and see Lightfoot on Col. i. 26.\n\n[54] Cf. Col. i. 27, which throws much light on this passage; and also\nCol. ii. 2. In some MSS. and Versions the \"Who\" has been changed into\n\"which,\" in order to make the construction less harsh.\n\n[55] Carmen Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem (Plin., _Ep._ x. 97).\n\n[56] St. John reclined on our Lord's right; Judas seems to have been on\nHis left. He must have been very close to be able to hear without the\nothers hearing.\n\n[57] Cf. the partly parallel passage 1 Pet. iii. 18: \"Put to death in\nthe flesh, but quickened in the spirit.\" But \"flesh\" and \"spirit\" have\nno preposition in the original Greek in 1 Pet. iii. 18: here each has\nthe =en=.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS._\n\n \"Exercise thyself unto godliness: for bodily exercise is profitable\n for a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having\n promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come\"--1\n TIM. iv. 7, 8.\n\n\nIt is almost impossible to decide what St. Paul here means by \"bodily\nexercise.\" Not that either the phrase or the passage in which it occurs\nis either difficult or obscure. But the phrase may mean either of two\nthings, both of which make excellent sense in themselves, and both of\nwhich fit the context.\n\nAt the beginning of this chapter the Apostle warns Timothy against\napostates who shall \"give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of\ndevils ... forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats.\"\nSt. Paul has in his mind those moral teachers who made bodily\nmortifications the road, not to self-discipline, but to self-effacement;\nand who taught that such things were necessary, not because our bodies\nare prone to evil, but because they exist at all. To have a body, they\nheld, was a degradation: and such a possession was a curse, a burden,\nand a shame. Instead of believing, as every Christian must, that a human\nbody is a very sacred thing, to be jealously guarded from all that may\nharm or pollute it, these philosophers held that it was worse than\nworthless, fit for nothing but to be trampled upon and abused. That it\nmay be sanctified here and be glorified hereafter,--that it may be the\ntemple of God's Holy Spirit now and be admitted to share the blessedness\nof Christ's ascended humanity in the world to come,--they could not and\nwould not believe. It must be made to feel its own vileness. It must be\nchecked, and thwarted, and tormented into subjection, until the blessed\ntime should come when death should release the unhappy soul that was\nlinked to it from its loathsome and intolerable companion.\n\nIt cannot, of course, for a moment be supposed that St. Paul would admit\nthat \"bodily exercise\" of this suicidal kind was \"profitable\" even \"for\na little.\" On the contrary, as we have seen already, he condemns the\nwhole system in the very strongest terms. It is a blasphemy against\nGod's goodness and a libel on human nature. But some persons have\nthought that the Apostle may be alluding to practices which, externally\nat any rate, had much resemblance to the practices which he so\nemphatically condemns. He may have in his mind those fasts, and vigils,\nand other forms of bodily mortification, which within prudent limits and\nwhen sanctified by humility and prayer, are a useful, if not a necessary\ndiscipline for most of us. And it has been thought that Timothy himself\nmay have been going to unwise lengths in such ascetic practices: for in\nthis very letter we find his affectionate master charging him, \"Be no\nlonger a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake\nand thine often infirmities.\"\n\nThis then is one possible meaning of the Apostle's words in the passage\nbefore us. Discipline of the body by means of a severe rule of life is\nprofitable for something: but it is not everything. It is not even the\nchief thing, or anything approaching to the chief thing. The chief thing\nis godliness. To the value of bodily exercise of this kind there are\nlimits, and rather narrow limits: it \"is profitable for _a little_.\" To\nthe value of godliness there are no limits: it is \"profitable for _all_\nthings.\" Mortifications of the body may preserve us from sins of the\nflesh: but they are no certain protection even against these. They are\nno protection at all--sometimes they are the very reverse of\nprotection--against sins of self-complacency and spiritual pride.\nAsceticism may exist without godliness; and godliness may exist without\nasceticism. Bodily mortifications may be useful; but they may also be\nharmful to both soul and body. Godliness must always be useful to both;\ncan never be harmful to either.\n\nBut it is quite possible to understand the expression \"bodily exercise,\"\nin the sense in which the phrase is most commonly used in ordinary\nconversation among ourselves. In the text which we are considering it\nmay mean that exercise of the body which we are accustomed to take, some\nof us of necessity, because the work by which we earn our daily bread\ninvolves a great deal of physical exertion; some of us for health's\nsake, because our work involves a great deal of sitting still; some of\nus for pleasure, because bodily exercise of various kinds is delightful\nto us. This interpretation of the Apostle's statement, like the other\ninterpretation, makes good sense of itself and fits the context. And\nwhereas that was in harmony with the opening words of the chapter, this\nfits the immediate context.\n\nSt. Paul has just said \"Exercise thyself unto godliness.\" In using the\nexpression \"Exercise thyself\" (=gymnaze seauton=) he was of course\nborrowing, as he so constantly does borrow, from the language which was\nused respecting gymnastic contests in the public games. The Christian is\nan athlete, who must train himself and exercise himself for a lifelong\ncontest. He has to wrestle and fight with the powers of evil, that he\nmay win a crown of glory that fadeth not away. How natural, then, that\nthe Apostle, having just spoken of spiritual exercise for the attainment\nof godliness, should go on to glance at bodily exercise, in order to\npoint out the superiority of the one over the other. The figurative\nwould easily suggest the literal sense; and it is therefore quite lawful\nto take the words \"bodily exercise\" in their most literal sense. Perhaps\nwe may go further and say, that this is just one of those cases in\nwhich, because the literal meaning makes excellent sense, the literal\nmeaning is to be preferred. Let us then take St. Paul's words quite\nliterally and see what meaning they will yield.\n\n\"Bodily exercise is profitable for a little.\" It is by no means a\nuseless thing. In its proper place it has a real value. Taken in\nmoderation it tends to preserve health and increase strength. It may\nsometimes be the means of gaining for ourselves and for the circle to\nwhich we belong praise and distinction. It makes us more capable of\naiding ourselves and others in times of physical danger. It may even be\nthe means of enabling us to save life. By taking us out of ourselves and\nturning our thoughts into new channels, it is an instrument of mental\nrefreshment, and enables us to return to the main business of our lives\nwith increased intellectual vigour. And beyond all this, if kept within\nbounds, it has a real moral value. It sometimes keeps us out of mischief\nby giving us innocent instead of harmful recreation. And bodily training\nand practice, if loyally carried out, involve moral gains of another\nkind. Dangerous appetites have to be kept in check, personal wishes have\nto be sacrificed, good temper has to be cultivated, if success is to be\nsecured for ourselves or the side to which we belong. All this is\n\"profitable\" in a very real degree. But the limits to all these good\nresults are evident; and they are somewhat narrow. They are confined to\nthis life, and for the most part to the lower side of it; and they are\nby no means certain. Only indirectly does bodily exercise yield help to\nthe intellectual and spiritual parts of our nature; and as regards both\nof them it may easily do more harm than good. Like excessive meat and\ndrink, it may brutalize instead of invigorating. Have we not all of us\nseen men whose extravagant devotion to bodily exercise has extinguished\nalmost all intellectual interests, and apparently all spiritual\ninterests also?\n\nBut there are no such drawbacks to the exercise of godliness. \"Godliness\nis profitable for _all_ things, having promise\" not only \"of the life\nwhich now is, but of that which is to come.\" Its value is not confined\nto the things of this world, although it enriches and glorifies them\nall. And, unlike bodily exercise, its good results are certain. There is\nno possibility of excess. We may be unwise in our pursuit of godliness,\nas in our pursuit of bodily strength and activity; but we cannot have\ntoo much exercise in godliness, as we easily can in athletics. Indeed,\nwe cannot with any safety lay aside the one, as we not only can, but\nmust, frequently lay aside the other. And we need to bear this simple\ntruth in mind. Most of us are willing to admit that godliness is an\nexcellent thing for attaining to a peaceful death; but we show little\nevidence that we are convinced of its being necessary for spending a\nhappy life. We look upon it as a very suitable thing for the weak, the\npoor, the sickly, the sorrowful, and perhaps also for sentimental\npersons who have plenty of leisure time at their disposal. We fail to\nsee that there is much need for it, or indeed much room for it, in the\nlives of busy, capable, energetic, and practical men of the world. In\nother words, we are not at all convinced of the truth of the Apostle's\nwords, that \"Godliness is profitable for _all_ things,\" and we do not\nact as if they had very much interest for us. They express a truth which\nis only too likely to be crowded out of sight and out of mind in this\nbustling age. Let us be as practical as our dispositions lead us and our\nsurroundings require us to be; but let us not forget that godliness is\nreally the most practical of all things. It lays hold on a man's whole\nnature. It purifies his body, it illumines and sanctifies his intellect;\nit braces his will. It penetrates into every department of life, whether\nbusiness or amusement, social intercourse or private meditation. Ask the\nphysicians, ask employers of labour, ask teachers in schools and\nuniversities, ask statesmen and philosophers, what their experience\nteaches them respecting the average merits of the virtuous and the\nvicious. They will tell you that the godly person has the healthiest\nbody, is the most faithful servant, the most painstaking student, the\nbest citizen, the happiest man. A man who is formed, reformed, and\ninformed by religion will do far more effectual work in the world than\nthe same man without religion. He works with less friction, because his\ncare is cast upon his heavenly Father; and with more confidence, because\nhis trust is placed on One much more sure than himself. Moreover, in the\nlong run he is trusted and respected. Even those who not only abjure\nreligion in themselves, but ridicule it in others, cannot get rid of\ntheir own experience. They find that the godly man can be depended upon,\nwhere the merely clever man cannot; and they act in accordance with this\nexperience. Nor does the profitableness of godliness end with the\npossession of blessings so inestimable as these. It holds out rich\npromises respecting future happiness, and it gives an earnest and\nguarantee for it. It gives a man the blessing of a good conscience,\nwhich is one of our chief foretastes of the blessedness which awaits us\nin the world to come.\n\nLet us once for all get rid of the common, but false notion that there\nis anything unpractical, anything weak or unmanly, in the life of\nholiness to which Christ has called us, and of which He has given us an\nexample: and by the lives which we lead let us prove to others that this\nvulgar notion _is_ a false one. Nothing has done more harm to the cause\nof Christianity than the misconceptions which the world has formed as to\nwhat Christianity is and what it involves. And these misconceptions are\nlargely caused by the unworthy lives which professing Christians lead.\nAnd this unworthiness is of two kinds. There is first the utter\nworldliness, and often the downright wickedness, of many who are not\nonly baptized Christians, but who habitually keep up some of the\nexternal marks of an ordinary Christian life, such as going to church,\nhaving family prayers, attending religious meetings, and the like. And\nperhaps the worst form of this is that in which religion is made a\ntrade, and an appearance of godliness is assumed in order to make money\nout of a reputation for sanctity. Secondly, there is the seriously\nmistaken way in which many earnest persons set to work in order to\nattain to true godliness. By their own course of life they lead people\nto suppose that a religious life, the life of an earnest Christian, is a\ndismal thing and an unpractical thing. They wear a depressed and joyless\nlook; they not only abstain from, but leave it to be supposed that they\ncondemn, many things which give zest and brightness to life, and which\nthe Gospel does not condemn. In their eagerness to show their conviction\nas to the transcendent importance of spiritual matters, they exhibit a\ncarelessness and slovenliness in reference to the affairs of this life,\nwhich is exceedingly trying to all those who have to work with them.\nThus they stand forward before the world as conspicuous evidence that\ngodliness is _not_ \"profitable for all things.\" The world is only too\nready to take note of evidence which points to a conclusion so in\nharmony with its own predilections. It is, and has been from the\nbeginning, prejudiced against religion; and its adherents are quick to\nseize upon, and make the most of, anything which appears to justify\nthese prejudices. \"In a world such as this,\" they say, \"so full of care\nand suffering, we cannot afford to part with anything which gives\nbrightness and refreshment to life. A religion which tells us to abjure\nall these things, and live perpetually as if we were at the point of\ndeath or face to face with the Day of Judgment, may be all very well for\nmonks and nuns, but is no religion for the mass of mankind. Moreover,\nthis is a busy age. Most of us have much to do; and, if we are to live\nat all, what we have to do must be done quickly and thoroughly. That\nmeans that we must give our minds to it; and a religion which tells us\nthat we must not give our minds to our business, but to other things\nwhich it says are of far greater importance, is no religion for people\nwho have to make their way in the world and keep themselves and their\nchildren from penury. We flatly refuse to accept a gospel which is so\nmanifestly out of harmony with the conditions of average human life.\"\nThis charge against Christianity is a very old one: we find it taken up\nand answered in some of the earliest defences of the gospel which have\ncome down to us. The unhappy thing is, not that such charges should be\nmade, but that the lives of Christian men and women should prove that\nthere is at least a _prim\u00e2 facie_ case for bringing such accusations.\nThe early Christians had to confront the charge that they were joyless,\nuseless members of society and unpatriotic citizens. They maintained\nthat, on the contrary, they were the happiest and most contented of men,\ndevoted to the well-being of others, and ready to die for their country.\nThey kept aloof from many things in which the heathen indulged, not\nbecause they were pleasures, but because they were sinful. And there\nwere certain services which they could not, without grievous sin, render\nto the State. In all lawful matters no men were more ready than they\nwere to be loyal and law-abiding citizens. In this, as in any other\nmatter of moral conduct, they were quite willing to be compared with\ntheir accusers or any other class of men. On which side were to be found\nthose who were bright and peaceful in their lives, who cherished their\nkindred, who took care of the stranger, who succoured their enemies, who\nshrank not from death?\n\nA practical appeal of this kind is found to be in the long run far more\ntelling than exposition and argument. It may be impossible to get men to\nlisten to, or take interest in, statements as to the principles and\nrequirements of the Christian religion. You may fail to convince them\nthat its precepts and demands are neither superstitious nor\nunreasonable. But you can always show them what a life of godliness\nreally is;--that it is full of joyousness, and that its joys are neither\nfitful nor uncertain; that it is no foe to what is bright and beautiful,\nand is neither morose in itself nor apt to frown at lightheartedness in\nothers; that it does not interfere with the most strenuous attention to\nbusiness and the most capable despatch of it. Men refuse to listen to or\nto be moved by words; but they cannot help noticing and being influenced\nby facts which are all round them in their daily lives. So far as man\ncan judge, the number of vicious, mean, and unworthy lives is far in\nexcess of those which are pure and lofty. Each one of us can do\nsomething towards throwing the balance the other way. We can prove to\nall the world that godliness is not an unreality, and does not make\nthose who strive after it unreal; that it is hostile neither to\njoyousness nor to capable activity; that, on the contrary, it enhances\nthe brightness of all that is really beautiful in life, while it raises\nto a higher power all natural gifts and abilities; that the Apostle was\nsaying no more than the simple truth when he declared that it is\n\"profitable for all things.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_THE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW._\n\n \"Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow hath\n children or grandchildren, let them learn first to shew piety\n towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is\n acceptable in the sight of God.... Let none be enrolled as a widow\n under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well\n reported of for good works\"--1 TIM. v. 3, 4, 9.\n\n\nThe subject of this fifth chapter is \"The Behaviour of the Pastor\ntowards the older and younger men and women in the congregation.\" Some\nhave thought that it forms the main portion of the letter, to which all\nthe rest is more or less introductory or supplementary. But the\nstructure of the letter cannot easily be brought into harmony with this\nview. It seems to be much nearer the truth to say that the\nunpremeditated way in which this subject is introduced, cannot well be\nexplained unless we assume that we are reading a genuine letter, and not\na forged treatise. The connexion of the different subjects touched upon\nis loose and not always very obvious. Points are mentioned in the order\nin which they occur to the writer's mind without careful arrangement.\nAfter the personal exhortations given at the close of Chapter iv., which\nhave a solemnity that might lead one to suppose that the Apostle was\nabout to bring his words to a close, he makes a fresh start and treats\nof an entirely new subject which has occurred to him.\n\nIt is not difficult to guess what has suggested the new subject. The\npersonal exhortations with which the previous section ends contain these\nwords, \"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an ensample to them\nthat believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity.\"\nTimothy is not to allow the fact that he is younger than many of those\nover whom he is set to interfere with the proper discharge of his\nduties. He is to give no one a handle for charging him with want of\ngravity or propriety. Sobriety of conduct is to counterbalance any\napparent lack of experience. But St. Paul remembers that there is\nanother side to that. Although Timothy is to behave in such a way as\nnever to remind his flock of his comparative youthfulness, yet he\nhimself is always to bear in mind that he is still a young man. This is\nspecially to be remembered in dealing with persons of either sex who are\nolder than himself, and in his bearing towards young women. St. Paul\nbegins with the treatment of older men and returns to this point again\nlater on. Between these two passages about men he gives directions for\nTimothy's guidance respecting the women in his flock, and specially\nrespecting widows. This subject occupies more than half the chapter and\nis of very great interest, as being our chief source of information\nrespecting the treatment of widows in the early Church. Commentators are\nby no means unanimous in their interpretation of the details of the\npassage, but it is believed that the explanation which is now offered is\nin harmony with the original Greek, consistent with itself, and not\ncontradicted by anything which is known from other sources.\n\nIt is quite evident that more than one kind of widow is spoken of: and\none of the questions which the passage raises is--How many classes of\nwidows are indicated? We can distinguish four kinds; and it seems\nprobable that the Apostle means to give us four kinds.\n\n1. There is \"the widow indeed (=h\u00ea ont\u00f4s ch\u00eara=).\" Her characteristic is\nthat she is \"desolate,\" _i.e._, quite alone in the world. She has not\nonly lost her husband, but she has neither children nor any other near\nrelation to minister to her necessities. Her hope is set on God, to Whom\nher prayers ascend night and day. She is contrasted with two other\nclasses of widow, both of whom are in worldly position better off than\nshe is, for they are not desolate or destitute; yet one of these is far\nmore miserable than the widow indeed, because the manner of life which\nshe adopts is so unworthy of her.\n\n2. There is the widow who \"hath children or grandchildren.\" Natural\naffection will cause these to take care that their widowed parent does\nnot come to want. If it does not, then they must learn that \"to show\npiety towards their own family and to requite their parents\" is a\nparamount duty, and that the congregation must not be burdened with the\nmaintenance of their mother until they have first done all they can for\nher. To ignore this plain duty is to deny the first principles of\nChristianity, which is the Gospel of love and duty, and to fall below\nthe level of the unbelievers, most of whom recognized the duty of\nproviding for helpless parents. Nothing is said of the character of the\nwidow who has children or grandchildren to support her; but, like the\nwidow indeed, she is contrasted with the third class of widow, and\ntherefore we infer that her character is free from reproach.\n\n3. There is the widow who \"giveth herself to pleasure.\" Instead of\ncontinuing in prayers and supplications night and day, she continues in\nfrivolity and luxury, or worse. Of her, as of the Church of Sardis, it\nmay be said, \"Thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead\"\n(Rev. iii. 1).\n\n4. There is the \"enrolled\" widow; _i.e._, one whose name has been\nentered on the Church rolls as such. She is a \"widow indeed\" and\nsomething more. She is not only a person who needs and deserves the\nsupport of the congregation, but has special rights and duties. She\nholds an office, and has a function to discharge. She is a widow, not\nmerely as having lost her husband, but as having been admitted to the\ncompany of those bereaved women whom the Church has entrusted with a\ndefinite portion of Church work. This being so, something more must be\nlooked to than the mere fact of her being alone in the world. She must\nbe sixty years of age, must have had only one husband, have had\nexperience in the bringing up of children, and be well known as devoted\nto good works. If she has these qualifications, she may be enrolled as a\nChurch widow; but it does not follow that because she has them she will\nbe appointed.\n\nThe work to which these elderly women had to devote themselves was\ntwofold: (1) Prayer, especially intercession for those in trouble; (2)\nWorks of mercy, especially ministering to the sick, guiding younger\nChristian women in lives of holiness, and winning over heathen women to\nthe faith. These facts we learn from the frequent regulations respecting\nwidows during the second, third, and fourth, centuries. It was\napparently during the second century that the order of widows flourished\nmost.\n\nThis primitive order of Church widows must be distinguished from the\nequally primitive order of deaconesses, and from a later order of\nwidows, which grew up side by side with the earlier order, and continued\nlong after the earlier order had ceased to exist. But it would be\ncontrary to all probability, and to all that we know about Church\noffices in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age, to suppose that the\ndistinctions between different orders of women were as marked in the\nearliest periods as they afterwards became, or that they were precisely\nthe same in all branches of the Church.\n\nIt has been sometimes maintained that the Church widow treated of in the\npassage before us is identical with the deaconess. The evidence that the\ntwo orders were distinct is so strong as almost to amount to\ndemonstration.\n\n1. It is quite possible that this very Epistle supplies enough evidence\nto make the identification very improbable. If the \"women\" mentioned in\nthe section about deacons (iii. 11) are deaconesses, then the\nqualifications for this office are quite different from the\nqualifications for that of a widow, and are treated of in quite\ndifferent sections of the letter. But even if deaconesses are not\ntreated of at all in that passage, the limit of age seems quite out of\nplace, if they are identical with the widows.[58] In the case of the\nwidows it was important to enrol for this special Church work none who\nwere likely to wish to marry again. And as their duties consisted in a\nlarge measure in prayer, advanced age was no impediment, but rather the\ncontrary. But the work of the deaconess was for the most part active\nwork, and it would be unreasonable to admit no one to the office until\nthe best part of her working life was quite over.\n\n2. The difference in the work assigned to them points in the same\ndirection. As already stated, the special work of the widow was\nintercessory prayer and ministering to the sick. The special work of the\ndeaconess was guarding the women's door in the churches, seating the\nwomen in the congregation, and attending women at baptisms.[59] Baptism\nbeing usually administered by immersion, and adult baptism being very\nfrequent, there was much need of female attendants.\n\n3. At her appointment the deaconess received the imposition of hands,\nthe widow did not. The form of prayer for the ordination of a deaconess\nis given in the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (viii. 19, 20), and is\nworthy of quotation. \"Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this\nconstitution: O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the\npresence of the presbytery and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shalt\nsay; O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of\nman and of woman; Who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, Deborah,\nAnna, and Huldah; Who didst not disdain that Thy Only begotten Son\nshould be born of a woman; Who also in the tabernacle of the testimony\nand in the temple didst ordain women to be _keepers of Thy holy\ngates_;--look down now also upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained\nto the office of a deaconess. Grant her Thy Holy Spirit and _cleanse her\nfrom all defilement of flesh and spirit_,[60] that she may worthily\ndischarge the work which is committed to her, to Thy glory and the\npraise of Thy Christ, with Whom be glory and adoration to Thee and to\nthe Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.\" Nothing of the kind is found\nfor the appointment of a Church widow.\n\n4. It is quite in harmony with the fact that the deaconesses were\nordained, while the widows were not, that the widows are placed under\nthe deaconesses. \"The widows ought to be grave, obedient to their\nbishops, their presbyters, and their deacons; and besides these to the\ndeaconesses, with piety, reverence, and fear.\"[61]\n\n5. The deaconess might be either an unmarried woman or a widow, and\napparently the former was preferred. \"Let the deaconess be a pure\nvirgin; or at least a widow who has been but once married.\"[62] But,\nalthough such things did occur, Tertullian protests that it is a\nmonstrous irregularity to admit an unmarried woman to the order of\nwidows.[63] Now, if widows and deaconesses were identical, unmarried\n\"widows\" would have been quite common, for unmarried deaconesses were\nquite common. Yet he speaks of the one case of a \"virgin widow\" which\nhad come under his notice as a marvel, and a monstrosity, and a\ncontradiction in terms. It is true that Ignatius in his letter to the\nChurch of Smyrna uses language which has been thought to support the\nidentification: \"I salute the households of my brethren with their\nwives and children, and _the virgins who are called widows_.\"[64] But it\nis incredible that at Smyrna _all_ the Church widows were unmarried; and\nit is equally improbable that Ignatius should send a salutation to the\nunmarried \"widows\" (if such there were), and ignore the rest. His\nlanguage, however, may be quite easily explained without any such\nstrange hypothesis. He may mean \"I salute those who are called widows,\nbut whom one might really regard as virgins.\" And in support of this\ninterpretation Bishop Lightfoot quotes Clement of Alexandria, who says\nthat the continent man, like the continent widow, becomes again a\nvirgin; and Tertullian, who speaks of continent widows as being in God's\nsight maidens (_Deo sunt puellae_), and as for a second time virgins.[65]\nBut, whatever Ignatius may have meant by \"the virgins who are called\nwidows,\" we may safely conclude that neither in his time, any more than\nthat of St. Paul, were the widows identical with the deaconesses.\n\nThe later order of widows, which grew up side by side with the Apostolic\norder, and in the end supplanted, or at any rate survived, the older\norder, came into existence about the third century. It consisted of\npersons who had lost their husbands and made a vow never to marry again.\nFrom the middle of the second century or a little later we find a strong\nfeeling against second marriages springing up, and this feeling was very\npossibly intensified when the Gospel came in contact with the German\ntribes, among whom the feeling already existed independently of\nChristianity. In this new order of widows who had taken the vow of\ncontinence there was no restriction of age, nor was it necessary that\nthey should be persons in need of the alms of the congregation. In the\nApostolic order the fundamental idea seems to have been that destitute\nwidows ought to be supported by the Church, and that in return for this,\nthose of them who were qualified should do some special Church work. In\nthe later order the fundamental idea was that it was a good thing for a\nwidow to remain unmarried, and that a vow to do so would help her to\npersevere.\n\nIn commanding Timothy to \"honour widows that are widows indeed\" the\nApostle states a principle which has had a wide and permanent influence\nnot only on ecclesiastical discipline but upon European legislation.\nSpeaking of the growth of the modern idea of a will, by which a man can\nregulate the descent of his property inside and outside his family, Sir\nHenry Maine remarks, that \"the exercise of the Testamentary power was\nseldom allowed to interfere with the right of the widow to a definite\nshare, and of the children to certain fixed proportions, of the\ndevolving inheritance. The shares of the children, as their amount\nshows, were determined by the authority of Roman law. _The provision for\nthe widow was attributable to the exertions of the Church, which never\nrelaxed its solicitude for the interest of wives surviving their\nhusbands_--winning, perhaps, one of the most arduous of its triumphs\nwhen, after exacting for two or three centuries an express promise from\nthe husband at marriage to endow his wife, it at length succeeded in\nengrafting the principle of Dower on the Customary Law of all Western\nEurope.\"[66] This is one of the numerous instances in which the Gospel,\nby insisting upon the importance of some humane principle, has\ncontributed to the progress and security of the best elements in\ncivilization.\n\nNot only the humanity, but the tact and common sense of the Apostle is\nconspicuous throughout the whole passage, whether we regard the general\ndirections respecting the bearing of the young pastor towards the\ndifferent sections of his flock, old and young, male and female, or the\nspecial rules respecting widows. The sum and substance of it appears to\nbe that the pastor is to have abundance of zeal and to encourage it in\nothers, but he is to take great care that, neither in himself nor in\nthose whom he has to guide, zeal outruns discretion. Well-deserved\nrebukes may do far more harm than good, if they are administered without\nrespect to the position of those who need them. And in all his\nministrations the spiritual overseer must beware of giving a handle to\ndamaging criticism. He must not let his good be evil spoken of. So also\nwith regard to the widows. No hard and fast rule can be safely laid\ndown. Almost everything depends upon circumstances. On the whole, the\ncase of widows is analogous to that of unmarried women. For those who\nhave strength to forego the married state, _in order to devote more time\nand energy to the direct service of God_, it is better to remain\nunmarried, if single, and if widows, not to marry again. But there is no\npeculiar blessedness in the unmarried state, if the motive for avoiding\nmatrimony is a selfish one, _e.g._, to avoid domestic cares and duties\nand have leisure for personal enjoyment. Among younger women the higher\nmotive is less likely to be present, or at any rate to be permanent.\nThey are so likely sooner or later to desire to marry, that it will be\nwisest not to discourage them to do so. On the contrary, let it be\nregarded as the normal thing that a young woman should marry, and that a\nyoung widow should marry again. It is not the best thing for them, but\nit is the safest. Although the highest work for Christ can best be done\nby those who by remaining single have kept their domestic ties at a\nminimum, yet young women are more likely to do useful work in society,\nand are less likely to come to harm, if they marry and have children. Of\nolder women this is not true. Age itself is a considerable guarantee:\nand a woman of sixty, who is willing to give such a pledge, may be\nencouraged to enter upon a life of perpetual widowhood. But there must\nbe other qualifications as well, if she wishes to be enrolled among\nthose, who not only are entitled by their destitute condition to receive\nmaintenance from the Church, but by reason of their fitness are\ncommissioned to undertake Church work. And these qualifications must be\ncarefully investigated. It would be far better to reject some, who might\nafter all have been useful, than to run the risk of admitting any who\nwould exhibit the scandal of having been supported by the Church and\nspecially devoted to Christian works of mercy, and of having after all\nreturned to society as married women with ordinary pleasures and cares.\n\nOne object throughout these directions is the _economy of Christian\nresources_. The Church accepts the duty which it inculcates of\n\"providing for its own.\" But it ought not to be burdened with the\nsupport of any but those who are really destitute. The near relations of\nnecessitous persons must be taught to leave the Church free to relieve\nthose who have no near relations to support them. Secondly, so far as is\npossible, those who are relieved by the alms of the congregation must\nbe encouraged to make some return in undertaking Church work that is\nsuitable to them. St. Paul has no idea of pauperizing people. So long as\nthey can, they must maintain themselves. When they have ceased to be\nable to do this, they must be supported by their children or\ngrandchildren. If they have no one to help them, the Church must\nundertake their support; but both for their sake as well as for the\ninterests of the community, it must, if possible, make the support\ngranted to be a return for work done rather than mere alms. Widowhood\nmust not be made a plea for being maintained in harmful idleness. But\nthe point which the Apostle insists on most emphatically, stating it in\ndifferent ways no less than three times in this short section (vv. 4, 8,\n16) is this,--that widows as a rule ought to be supported by their own\nrelations; only in exceptional cases, where there are no relations who\ncan help, ought the Church to have to undertake this duty. We have here\na warning against the mistake so often made at the present day of\n_freeing people from their responsibilities_ by undertaking for them in\nmistaken charity the duties which they ought to discharge, and are\ncapable of discharging, themselves.\n\nWe may, therefore, sum up the principles laid down thus:--\n\nDiscretion and tact are needed in dealing with the different sections of\nthe congregation, and especially in relieving the widows. Care must be\ntaken not to encourage either a rigour not likely to be maintained, or\nopportunities of idleness certain to lead to mischief. Help is to be\ngenerously afforded to the destitute; but the resources of the Church\nmust be jealously guarded. They must not be wasted on the unworthy, or\non those who have other means of help. And, so far as possible, the\nindependence of those who are relieved must be protected by employing\nthem in the service of the Church.\n\nIn conclusion it may be worth while to point out that this mention of an\norder of widows is no argument against the Pauline authorship of these\nEpistles, as if no such thing existed in his time. In Acts vi. 1 the\nwidows appear as a distinct _body_ in the Church at Jerusalem. In Acts\nix. 39, 41, they appear almost as an _order_ in the Church at Joppa.\nThey \"show the coats and garments which Dorcas made\" in a way which\nseems to imply that it was their business to distribute such things\namong the needy. Even if it means no more than that Dorcas made them for\nthe relief of the widows themselves, still the step from a body of\nwidows set apart for the reception of alms to an order of widows set\napart for the duty of intercessory prayer and ministering to the sick is\nnot a long one, and may easily have been made in St. Paul's lifetime.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[58] The Council in Trullo (A.D. 691), the great authority for\ndiscipline in the Greek Church, fixed the age of forty for admission to\nthe office of a deaconess and sixty for that of a widow.\n\n[59] In the middle recension of the Ignatian Epistles we read \"I salute\nthe keepers of the holy doors, the deaconesses in Christ\" (_Ant._ xii.).\n\"Let the deaconesses stand at the entries of the women\" (_Apost. Const._\nii. 57, 58). \"For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many\nnecessities, and first in the baptism of women,\" etc.--(_Ib._ iii. 15.)\n\n[60] 1 Cor. vii. 1.\n\n[61] _Apost. Const._, iii. 7.\n\n[62] _Apost. Const._, vi. 17.\n\n[63] _De Virg. Vel._, ix.\n\n[64] _Smyrn._ xiii.\n\n[65] _Strom._, vii. 12; _Ad Uxor._, I. iv.; _De Exh. Cast._, 1.\n\n[66] _Ancient Law_, p. 224.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n_THE PASTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDAINING AND JUDGING PRESBYTERS.--THE\nWORKS THAT GO BEFORE AND THAT FOLLOW US._\n\n \"Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men's\n sins: keep thyself pure. Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a\n little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. Some\n men's sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men\n also they follow after. In like manner also there are good works\n that are evident; and such as are otherwise cannot be hid\"--1 TIM.\n v. 22-25.\n\n\nThe section of which these verses form the conclusion, like the\npreceding section about behaviour towards the different classes of\npersons in the congregation, supplies us with evidence that we are\ndealing with a real letter, written to give necessary advice to a real\nperson, and not a theological or controversial treatise, dressed up in\nthe form of a letter, in order to obtain the authority of St. Paul's\nname for its contents. Here, as before, the thoughts follow one another\nin an order which is quite natural, but which has little plan or\narrangement. An earnest and affectionate friend, with certain points in\nhis mind on which he was anxious to say something, might easily treat of\nthem in this informal way just as they occurred to him, one thing\nsuggesting another. But a forger, bent on getting his own views\nrepresented in the document, would not string them together in this\nloosely connected way: he would disclose more arrangement than we can\nfind here. What forger again, would think of inserting that advice\nabout ceasing to be a water-drinker into a most solemn charge respecting\nthe election and ordination of presbyters? And yet how thoroughly\nnatural it is found to be in this very context when considered as coming\nfrom St. Paul to Timothy!\n\nWe shall go seriously astray if we start with the conviction that the\nword \"elder\" has the same meaning throughout this chapter. When in the\nfirst part of it St. Paul says \"Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a\nfather,\" it is quite clear that he is speaking simply of elderly men,\nand not of persons holding the office of an elder: for he goes on at\nonce to speak of the treatment of younger men, and also of older and\nyounger women. But when in the second half of the chapter he says \"Let\nthe elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,\" and\n\"Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two\nor three witnesses,\" it is equally clear that he is speaking of official\npersons, and not merely of persons who are advanced in years. The way in\nwhich the thoughts suggested one another throughout this portion of the\nletter is not difficult to trace. \"Let no man despise thy youth\"\nsuggested advice as to how the young overseer was to behave towards\nyoung and old of both sexes. This led to the treatment of widows, and\nthis again to the manner of appointing official widows. Women holding an\nofficial position suggests the subject of men holding an official\nposition in the Church. If the treatment of the one class needs wisdom\nand circumspection, not less does the treatment of the other. And\ntherefore, with even more solemnity than in the previous section about\nthe widows, the Apostle gives his directions on this important subject\nalso. \"I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the\nelect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing\nnothing by partiality.\" And then he passes on to the words which form\nour text.\n\nIt has been seriously doubted whether the words \"Lay hands hastily on no\nman\" do refer to the ordination of the official elders or presbyters. It\nis urged that the preceding warnings about the treatment of charges made\nagainst presbyters, and of persons who are guilty of habitual sin, point\nto _disciplinary_ functions of some kind rather than to ordination.\nAccordingly some few commentators in modern times have treated the\npassage as referring to _the laying on of hands at the readmission of\npenitents to communion_. But of any such custom in the Apostolic age\nthere is no trace. There is nothing improbable in the hypothesis,\nimposition of hands being a common symbolical act. But it is a mere\nhypothesis unsupported by evidence. Eusebius, in speaking of the\ncontroversy between Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage about the\nre-baptizing of heretics, tells us that the admission of heretics to the\nChurch by imposition of hands with prayer, but without second baptism,\nwas the \"old custom.\" But the admission of heretics is not quite the\nsame as the readmission of penitents: and a custom might be \"old\"\n(=palaion \u00eathos=) in the time of Eusebius, or even of Cyprian, without\nbeing Apostolic or coeval with the Apostles. Therefore this statement of\nEusebius gives little support to the proposed interpretation of the\npassage; and we may confidently prefer the explanation of it which has\nprevailed at any rate since Chrysostom's time, that it refers to\nordination.[67] Of the laying on of hands at the appointment of\nministers we have sufficient evidence in the New Testament, not only in\nthese Epistles (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), but in the Acts (xiii. 3).\nMoreover this explanation fits the context at least as well as the\nsupposed improvement.\n\n1. The Apostle is speaking of the treatment of presbyters, not of the\nwhole congregation. Imposition of hands at the admission of a heretic or\nre-admission of a penitent would apply to any person, and not to\npresbyters in particular. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that\nthe laying on of hands which accompanied ordination is meant.\n\n2. He has just been warning Timothy against prejudice or partiality in\ndealing with the elders. While prejudice might lead him to be hasty in\ncondemning an accused presbyter, before he had satisfied himself that\nthe evidence was adequate, partiality might lead him to be hasty in\nacquitting him. But there is a more serious partiality than this, and it\nis one of the main causes of such scandals as unworthy presbyters. There\nis the partiality which leads to a hasty ordination, before sufficient\ncare has been taken to ensure that the qualifications so carefully laid\ndown in chapter iii. are present in the person selected. Prevention is\nbetter than cure. Proper precautions taken beforehand will reduce the\nrisk of true charges against an elder to a minimum. Here again the\ntraditional explanation fits the context admirably.\n\n\"Neither be partaker of other men's sins.\" It is usual to understand\nthis warning as referring to the responsibility of those who ordain. If,\nthrough haste or carelessness you ordain an unfit person, you must\nshare the guilt of the sins which he afterwards commits as an elder. The\nprinciple is a just one, but it may be doubted whether this is St.\nPaul's meaning. The particular form of negative used seems to be against\nit. He says \"Nor _yet_ (=m\u00eade=) be partaker of other men's sins,\"\nimplying that this is something different from hastiness in ordinary. He\nseems to be returning to the warnings about partiality to elders who are\nliving in sin. The meaning, therefore, is--\"Beware of a haste in\nordaining which may lead to the admission of unworthy men to the\nministry. And if, in spite of all your care, unworthy ministers come\nunder your notice, beware of an indifference or partiality towards them\nwhich will make you a partaker in their sins.\" This interpretation fits\non well to what follows. \"Keep _thyself_ pure\"--with a strong emphasis\non the pronoun. \"Strictness in enquiring into the antecedents of\ncandidates for ordination and in dealing with ministerial depravity will\nhave a very poor effect, unless your own life is free from reproach.\"\nAnd, if we omit the parenthetical advice about taking wine, the thought\nis continued thus: \"As a rule it is not difficult to arrive at a wise\ndecision respecting the fitness of candidates, or the guilt of accused\npresbyters. Men's characters both for evil and good are commonly\nnotorious. The vices of the wicked and the virtues of the good outrun\nany formal judgment about them, and are quite manifest before an enquiry\nis held. No doubt there are exceptions, and then the consequences of\nmen's lives must be looked to before a just opinion can be formed. But,\nsooner or later (and generally sooner rather than later) men, and\nespecially ministers, will be known for what they are.\"\n\nIt remains to ascertain the meaning of the curious parenthesis \"Be no\nlonger a drinker of water,\" and its connexion with the rest of the\npassage.\n\nIt was probably suggested to St. Paul by the preceding words, \"Beware of\nmaking yourself responsible for the sins of others. Keep your own life\nabove suspicion.\" This charge reminds the Apostle that his beloved\ndisciple has been using ill-advised means to do this very thing. Either\nin order to mark his abhorrence of the drunkenness, which was one of the\nmost conspicuous vices of the age, or in order to bring his own body\nmore easily into subjection, Timothy had abandoned the use of wine\naltogether, in spite of his weak health. St. Paul, therefore, with\ncharacteristic affection, takes care that his charge is not\nmisunderstood. In urging his representative to be strictly careful of\nhis own conduct, he does not wish to be understood as encouraging him to\ngive up whatever might be abused or made the basis of a slander, nor yet\nas approving his rigour in giving up the use of wine. On the contrary,\nhe thinks it a mistake; and he takes this opportunity of telling him so,\nwhile it is in his mind. Christ's ministers have important duties to\nperform, and have no right to play tricks with their health. We may here\nrepeat, with renewed confidence, that a touch of this kind would never\nhave occurred to a forger. Hence, in order to account for such natural\ntouches as these, those who maintain that these Epistles are a\nfabrication now resort to the hypothesis that the forger had some\ngenuine letters of St. Paul and worked parts of them into his own\nproductions. It seems to be far more reasonable to believe that St. Paul\nwrote the whole of them. (See above, pp. 8 and 9, and below, pp. 407,\nff.).\n\nLet us return to the statement with which the Apostle closes this\nsection of his letter. \"Some men's sins are evident, going before unto\njudgment; and some men also they follow after. In like manner also there\nare good works that are evident; and such as are otherwise cannot be\nhid.\"\n\nWe have seen already what relation these words have to the context. They\nrefer to the discernment between good and bad candidates for the\nministry, and between good and bad ministers, pointing out that in most\ncases such discernment is not difficult, because men's own conduct acts\nas a herald to their character, proclaiming it to all the world. The\nstatement, though made with special reference to Timothy's\nresponsibilities towards elders and those who wish to become such, is a\ngeneral one, and is equally true of all mankind. Conduct in most cases\nis quite a clear index of character, and there is no need to have a\nformal investigation in order to ascertain whether a man is leading a\nwicked life or not. But the words have a still deeper significance--one\nwhich is quite foreign to the context, and therefore can hardly have\nbeen in St. Paul's mind when he wrote them, but which as being true and\nof importance, ought not to be passed over.\n\nFor a formal investigation into men's conduct before an ecclesiastical\nor other official, let us substitute the judgment-seat of Christ. Let\nthe question be, not the worthiness of certain persons to be admitted to\nsome office, but their worthiness to be admitted to eternal life. The\ngeneral statement made by the Apostle remains as true as ever. There are\nsome men who stand, as before God, so also before the world, as open,\nself-proclaimed sinners. Wherever they go, their sins go before them,\nflagrant, crying, notorious. And when they are summoned hence, their\nsins again precede them, waiting for them as accusers and witnesses\nbefore the Judge. The whole career of an open and deliberate sinner is\nthe procession of a criminal to his doom.[68] His sins go before, and\ntheir consequences follow after, and he moves on in the midst, careless\nof the one and ignorant of the other. He has laughed at his sins and\nchased remorse for them away. He has by turns cherished and driven out\nthe remembrance of them; dwelt on them, when to think of them was a\npleasant repetition of them; stifled the thought of them, when to think\nof them might have brought thoughts of penitence; and has behaved\ntowards them as if he could not only bring them into being without\nguilt, but control them or annihilate them without difficulty. He has\nnot controlled, he has not destroyed, he has not even evaded, one of\nthem. Each of them, when brought into existence, became his master,\ngoing on before him to herald his guiltiness, and saddling him with\nconsequences from which he could not escape. And when he went to his own\nplace, it was his sins that had gone before him and prepared the place\nfor him.\n\n\"And some men also they follow after.\" There are cases in which men's\nsins, though of course not less manifest to the Almighty, are much less\nmanifest to the world, and even to _themselves_, than in the case of\nflagrant, open sinners. The consequences of their sins are less\nconspicuous, less easily disentangled from the mass of unexplained\nmisery of which the world is so full. Cause and effect cannot be put\ntogether with any precision; for sometimes the one, sometimes the\nother, sometimes even both, are out of sight. There is no anticipation\nof the final award to be given at the judgment-seat of Christ. Not until\nthe guilty one is placed before the throne for trial, is it at all known\nwhether the sentence will be unfavourable or not. Even the man himself\nhas lived and died without being at all fully aware what the state of\nthe case is. He has not habitually examined himself, to see whether he\nhas been living in sin or not. He has taken no pains to remember, and\nrepent of, and conquer, those sins of which he has been conscious. The\nconsequences of his sins have seldom come so swiftly as to startle him\nand convince him of their enormity. When they have at last overtaken\nhim, it has been possible to doubt or to forget that it was his sins\nwhich caused them. And consequently he has doubted, and he has\nforgotten. But for all that, \"they follow after.\" They are never eluded,\nnever shaken off. A cause must have its effect; and a sin must have its\npunishment, if not in this world, then certainly in the next. \"Be sure\nyour sin will find you out\"--probably in this life, but at any rate at\nthe day of judgment. As surely as death follows on a pierced heart or on\na severed neck, so surely does punishment follow upon sin.\n\nHow is it that in the material world we never dream that cause and\neffect can be separated, and yet easily believe that in the moral world\nsin may remain for ever unpunished? Our relation to the material\nuniverse has been compared to a game of chess. \"The chess-board is the\nworld, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the\ngame are what we call the laws of nature. The player on the other side\nis hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and\npatient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a\nmistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. To the man who\nplays well, the highest stakes are paid, with that sort of over-flowing\ngenerosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who\nplays ill is checkmated--without haste, but without remorse.\"[69] We\nbelieve this implicitly of the material laws of the universe; that they\ncannot be evaded, cannot be transgressed with impunity, cannot be obeyed\nwithout profit. Moral laws are not one whit less sure. Whether we\nbelieve it or not (and it will but be the worse for us if we refuse to\nbelieve it), sin, both repented and unrepented, must have its penalty.\nWe might as well fling a stone, or shoot a cannon-ball, or send a\nballoon into the air, and say \"You shall not come down again,\" as sin,\nand say \"I shall never suffer for it.\" Repentance does not deprive sin\nof its natural effect. We greatly err in supposing that, if we repent in\ntime, we escape the penalty. To refuse to repent is a second and a worse\nsin, which, added to the first sin, increases the penalty incalculably.\nTo repent is to escape this terrible augmentation of the original\npunishment; but it is no escape from the punishment itself.\n\nBut there is a bright side to this inexorable law. If sin must have its\nown punishment, virtue must have its own reward. The one is as sure as\nthe other; and in the long run the fact of virtue and the reward of\nvirtue will be made clear to all the world, and especially to the\nvirtuous man himself. \"The works that are good are evident; and such as\nare not evident cannot be hid.\" No saint knows his own holiness; and\nmany a humble seeker after holiness does good deeds without knowing how\ngood they are. Still less are all saints known as such to the world, or\nall good deeds recognized as good by those who witness them. But,\nnevertheless, good works as a rule are evident, and, if they are not so,\nthey will become so hereafter. If not in this world, at any rate before\nChrist's judgment-seat, they will be appraised at their true value. It\nis as true of the righteous as of the wicked, that \"their works do\nfollow them.\" And, if there is no more terrible fate than to be\nconfronted at the last day by a multitude of unknown and forgotten sins,\nso there can hardly be any lot more blessed than to be welcomed then by\na multitude of unknown and forgotten deeds of love and piety. \"Inasmuch\nas ye did it unto one of these My brethren, even these least, ye did it\nunto Me.\" \"Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared\nfor you from the foundation of the world.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[67] Tertullian (_De Bapt._, xviii.) seems to understand St. Paul to be\nspeaking of the imposition of hands after _Baptism_ (Acts viii. 17, xix.\n6), which can hardly be correct.\n\n[68] Manning's _Sermons_, vol. iii., p. 74, Burns, 1847.\n\n[69] Huxley's _Lay Sermons_, Essay I. Macmillan.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n_THE NATURE OF ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE APOSTLE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS IT.--A\nMODERN PARALLEL._\n\n \"Let as many as are bond-servants under the yoke count their own\n masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and the doctrine\n be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them\n not despise them, because they are brethren; but let them serve them\n the rather, because they that partake of the benefit are believing\n and beloved. These things teach and exhort.\"--1 TIM. vi. 1, 2.\n\n\nThere are four passages in which St. Paul deals directly with the\nrelations between slaves and their masters:--in the Epistles to the\nEphesians (vi. 5-9), to the Colossians (iii. 22-iv. 1), to Philemon\n(8-21), and the passage before us. Here he looks at the question from\nthe slave's point of view; in the letter to Philemon from that of the\nmaster: in the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians he\naddresses both. In all four places his attitude towards this monster\nabomination is one and the same; and it is a very remarkable one. He\nnowhere denounces slavery. He does not state that such an intolerable\niniquity as man possessing his fellow-man must be done away as speedily\nas may be. He gives no encouragement to slaves to rebel or to run away.\nHe gives no hint to masters that they ought to let their slaves go free.\nNothing of the kind. He not only accepts slavery as a fact; he seems to\ntreat it as a necessary fact, a fact likely to be as permanent as\nmarriage and parentage, poverty and wealth.\n\nThis attitude becomes all the more marvellous, when we remember, not\nonly what slavery necessarily is wherever it exists, but what slavery\nwas both by custom and by law among the great slave-owners throughout\nthe Roman Empire. Slavery is at all times degrading to both the parties\nin that unnatural relationship, however excellent may be the regulations\nby which it is protected, and however noble may be the characters of\nboth master and slave. It is impossible for one human being to be\nabsolute owner of another's person without both possessor and possessed\nbeing morally the worse for it. Violations of nature's laws are never\nperpetrated with impunity; and when the laws violated are those which\nare concerned, not with unconscious forces and atoms, but with human\nsouls and characters, the penalties of the violation are none the less\nsure or severe. But these evils, which are the inevitable consequences\nof the existence of slavery in any shape whatever, may be increased a\nhundredfold, if the slavery exists under no regulations, or under bad\nregulations, or again where both master and slave are, to start with,\nbase and brutalized in character. And all this was the case in the early\ndays of the Roman Empire. Slavery was to a great extent under no check\nat all, and the laws which did exist for regulating the relationship\nbetween owner and slave were for the most part of a character to\nintensify the evil; while the conditions under which both master and\nslave were educated were such as to render each of them ready to\nincrease the moral degradation of the other. We are accustomed to regard\nwith well-merited abhorrence and abomination the horrors of modern\nslavery as practised until recently in America, and as still practised\nin Egypt, Persia, Turkey, and Arabia. But it may be doubted whether all\nthe horrors of modern slavery are to be compared with the horrors of the\nslavery of ancient Rome.\n\nFrom a _political_ point of view it may be admitted that the institution\nof slavery has in past ages played a useful part in the history of\nmankind. It has mitigated the cruelties of barbaric warfare. It was more\nmerciful to enslave a prisoner than to sacrifice him to the gods, or to\ntorture him to death, or to eat him. And the enslaved prisoner and the\nwarrior who had captured him, at once became mutually useful to one\nanother. The warrior protected his slave from attack, and the slave by\nhis labour left the warrior free to protect him. Thus each did something\nfor the benefit of the other and of the society in which they lived.\n\nBut when we look at the institution from a _moral_ point of view, it is\ndifficult to avoid the conclusion that its effects have been wholly\nevil. (1) It has been fatal to one of the most wholesome of human\nbeliefs, _the belief in the dignity of labour_. Labour was irksome, and\ntherefore assigned to the slave, and consequently came to be regarded as\ndegrading. Thus the freeman lost the ennobling discipline of toil; and\nto the slave toil was not ennobling, because every one treated it as a\ndegradation. (2) It has been disastrous to the personal character of the\nmaster. The possession of absolute power is always dangerous to our\nnature. Greek writers are never tired of insisting upon this in\nconnexion with the rule of despots over citizens. Strangely enough they\ndid not see that the principle remained the same whether the autocrat\nwas ruler of a state or of a household. In either case he almost\ninevitably became a tyrant, incapable of self-control, and the constant\nvictim of flattery. And in some ways the domestic tyrant was the worse\nof the two. There was no public opinion to keep him in check, and his\ntyranny could exercise itself in every detail of daily life. (3) It has\nbeen disastrous to the personal character of the slave. Accustomed to be\nlooked upon as an inferior and scarcely human being, always at the beck\nand call of another, and that for the most menial services, the slave\nlost all self-respect. His natural weapon was deceit; and his chief, if\nnot his only pleasure, was the gratification of his lowest appetites.\nThe household slave not unfrequently divided his time between pandering\nto his master's passions and gratifying his own. (4) It has been ruinous\nto family life. If it did not trouble the relation between husband and\nwife, it poisoned the atmosphere in which they lived and in which their\nchildren were reared. The younger generation inevitably suffered. Even\nif they did not learn cruelty from their parents, and deceit and\nsensuality from the slaves, they lost delicacy of feeling by seeing\nhuman beings treated like brute beasts, and by being constantly in the\nsociety of those whom they were taught to despise. Even Plato, in\nrecommending that slaves should be treated justly and with a view to\ntheir moral improvement, says that they must always be punished for\ntheir faults, and not reproved like freemen, which only makes them\nconceited; and one should use no language to them but that of\ncommand.[70]\n\nThese evils, which are inherent in the very nature of slavery, were\nintensified a hundredfold by Roman legislation, and by the condition of\nRoman society in the first century of the Christian era. Slavery, which\nbegan by being a mitigation of the barbarities of warfare, ended in\nbecoming an augmentation of them. Although a single campaign would\nsometimes bring in many thousands of captives who were sold into\nslavery, yet war did not procure slaves fast enough for the demand, and\nwas supplemented by systematic manhunts. It has been estimated that in\nthe Roman world of St. Paul's day the proportion of slaves to freemen\nwas in the ratio of two, or even three, to one. It was the immense\nnumber of the slaves which led to some of the cruel customs and laws\nrespecting them. In the country they often worked, and sometimes slept,\nin chains. Even in Rome under Augustus the house-porter was sometimes\nchained. And by a decree of the Senate, if the master was murdered by a\nslave, all the slaves of the household were put to death. The four\nhundred slaves of Pedanius Secundus were executed under this enactment\nin A.D. 61, in which year St. Paul was probably in Rome. Public protest\nwas made; but the Senate decided that the law must take its course. The\nrabble of slaves could only be kept in check by fear. Again, if the\nmaster was accused of a crime, he could surrender his slaves to be\ntortured in order to prove his innocence.[71]\n\nBut it would be a vile task to rehearse all the horrors and abominations\nto which the cruelty and lust of wealthy Roman men and women subjected\ntheir slaves. The bloody sports of the gladiatorial shows and the\nindecent products of the Roman stage were partly the effect and partly\nthe cause of the frightful character of Roman slavery. The gladiators\nand the actors were slaves especially trained for these debasing\nexhibitions; and Roman nobles and Roman ladies, brutalized and polluted\nby witnessing them, went home to give vent among the slaves of their own\nhouseholds to the passions which the circus and the theatre had roused.\n\nAnd this was the system which St. Paul left unattacked and undenounced.\nHe never in so many words expresses any authoritative condemnation or\npersonal abhorrence of it. This is all the more remarkable when we\nremember St. Paul's enthusiastic and sympathetic temperament; and the\nfact is one more proof of the Divine inspiration of Scripture. That\nslavery, as he saw it, must often have excited the most intense\nindignation and distress in his heart we cannot doubt; and yet he was\nguided not to give his sanction to remedies which would certainly have\nbeen violent and possibly ineffectual. To have preached that the\nChristian master must let his slaves go free, would have been to preach\nthat slaves had a right to freedom; and the slave would understand that\nto mean that, if freedom was not granted, he might take this right of\nhis by force. Of all wars, a servile war is perhaps the most frightful;\nand we may be thankful that none of those who first preached the Gospel,\ngave their sanction to any such movement. The sudden abolition of\nslavery in the first century would have meant the shipwreck of society.\nNeither master nor slave was fit for any such change. A long course of\neducation was needed before so radical a reform could be successfully\naccomplished. It has been pointed out as one of the chief marks of the\nDivine character of the Gospel, that it never appeals to the spirit of\npolitical revolution. It does not denounce abuses; but it insists upon\nprinciples which will necessarily lead to their abolition.\n\nThis was precisely what St. Paul did in dealing with the gigantic cancer\nwhich was draining the forces, economical, political, and moral, of\nRoman society. He did not tell the slave that he was oppressed and\noutraged. He did not tell the master that to buy and sell human beings\nwas a violation of the rights of man. But he inspired both of them with\nsentiments which rendered the permanence of the unrighteous relation\nbetween them impossible. To many a Roman it would have seemed nothing\nless than robbery and revolution to tell him \"You have no right to own\nthese persons; you must free your slaves.\" St. Paul, without attacking\nthe rights of property or existing laws and customs, spoke a far higher\nword, and one which sooner or later must carry the freedom with it, when\nhe said, \"You must _love_ your slaves.\" All the moral abominations which\nhad clustered round slavery,--idleness, deceit, cruelty, and lust,--he\ndenounced unsparingly; but for their own sake, not because of their\nconnexion with this iniquitous institution. The social arrangements,\nwhich allowed and encouraged slavery, he did not denounce. He left it to\nthe principles which he preached gradually to reform them. Slavery\ncannot continue when the brotherhood of all mankind, and the equality of\nall men in Christ, have been realized. And long before slavery is\nabolished, it is made more humane, wherever Christian principles are\nbrought to bear upon it. Even before Christianity in the person of\nConstantine ascended the imperial throne, it had influenced public\nopinion in the right direction. Seneca and Plutarch are much more humane\nin their views of slavery than earlier writers are; and under the\nAntonines the power of life and death over slaves was transferred from\ntheir masters to the magistrates. Constantine went much further, and\nJustinian further still, in ameliorating the condition of slaves and\nencouraging emancipation. Thus slowly, but surely, this monstrous evil\nis being eradicated from society; and it is one of the many beauties of\nthe Gospel in comparison with Islam, that whereas Mahometanism has\nconsecrated slavery and given it a permanent religious sanction,\nChristianity has steadfastly abolished it. It is among the chief glories\nof the present century that it has seen the abolition of slavery in the\nBritish empire, the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, and the\nemancipation of the negroes in the United States. And we may safely\nassert that these tardy removals of a great social evil would never have\nbeen accomplished but for the principles which St. Paul preached, at the\nvery time that he was allowing Christian masters to retain their slaves,\nand bidding Christian slaves to honour and obey their heathen masters.\n\nThe Apostle's injunctions to slaves who have Christian masters is worthy\nof special attention: it indicates one of the evils which would\ncertainly have become serious, had the Apostles set to work to preach\nemancipation. The slaves being in almost all cases quite unfitted for a\nlife of freedom, wholesale emancipation would have flooded society with\ncrowds of persons quite unable to make a decent use of their newly\nacquired liberty. The sudden change in their condition would have been\ntoo great for their self-control. Indeed we gather from what St. Paul\nsays here, that the acceptance of the principles of Christianity in some\ncases threw them off their balance. He charges Christian slaves who have\nChristian masters _not to despise_ _them_. Evidently this was a\ntemptation which he foresaw, even if it was not a fault which he had\nsometimes observed. To be told that he and his master were brethren, and\nto find that _his master accepted this view of their relationship_, was\nmore than the poor slave in some instances could bear. He had been\neducated to believe that he was an inferior order of being, having\nscarcely anything in common, excepting a human form and passions, with\nhis master. And, whether he accepted this belief or not, he had found\nhimself systematically treated as if it were indisputable. When,\ntherefore, he was assured, as one of the first principles of his new\nfaith, that he was not only human, like his master, but in God's family\nwas his master's equal and brother; above all, when he had a Christian\nmaster who not only shared this new faith, but acted upon it and treated\nhim as a brother, then his head was in danger of being turned. The\nrebound from grovelling fear to terms of equality and affection was too\nmuch for him; and the old attitude of cringing terror was exchanged not\nfor respectful loyalty, but for contempt. He began to despise the master\nwho had ceased to make himself terrible. All this shows how dangerous\nsudden changes of social relationships are; and how warily we need to go\nto work in order to bring about a reform of those which most plainly\nneed readjustment; and it adds greatly to our admiration of the wisdom\nof the Apostle and our gratitude to Him Who inspired him with such\nwisdom, to see that in dealing with this difficult problem he does not\nallow his sympathies to outrun his judgment, and does not attempt to\ncure a long-standing evil, which had entwined its roots round the very\nfoundations of society, by any rapid or violent process. All men are by\nnatural right free. Granted. All men are by creation children of God,\nand by redemption brethren in Christ. Granted. But it is worse than\nuseless to give freedom suddenly to those who from their birth have been\ndeprived of it, and do not yet know what use to make of it; and to give\nthe position of children and brethren all at once to outcasts who cannot\nunderstand what such privileges mean.\n\nSt. Paul tells the slave that freedom is a thing to be desired; but\nstill more that it is a thing to be deserved. \"While you are still under\nthe yoke prove yourselves worthy of it and capable of bearing it. In\nbecoming Christians you have become Christ's freeman. Show that you can\nenjoy that liberty without abusing it. If it leads you to treat a\nheathen master with disdain, because he has it not, then you give him an\nopportunity of blaspheming God and your holy religion; for he can say,\n'What a vile creed this must be, which makes servants haughty and\ndisrespectful!' If it leads you to treat a Christian master with\ncontemptuous familiarity, because he recognizes you as a brother whom he\nmust love, then you are turning upside down the obligation which a\ncommon faith imposes on you. That he is a fellow-Christian is a reason\nwhy you should treat him with more reverence, not less.\" This is ever\nthe burden of his exhortation to slaves. He bids Timothy to insist upon\nit. He tells Titus to do the same (ii. 9, 10). Slaves were in special\ndanger of misunderstanding what the liberty of the Gospel meant. It is\nnot for a moment to be supposed that it cancels any existing obligations\nof a slave to his master. No hint is to be given them that they have a\nright to demand emancipation, or would be justified in running away. Let\nthem learn to behave as the Lord's freeman. Let their masters learn to\nbehave as the Lord's bond-servants. When these principles have worked\nthemselves out, slavery will have ceased to be.\n\nThat day has not yet come, but the progress already made, especially\nduring the present century, leads us to hope that it may be near. But\nthe extinction of slavery will not deprive St. Paul's treatment of it of\nits practical interest and value. His inspired wisdom in dealing with\nthis problem ought to be our guide in dealing with the scarcely less\nmomentous problems which confront us at the present day. We have social\ndifficulties to deal with, whose magnitude and character make them not\nunlike that of slavery in the first ages of Christianity. There are the\nrelations between capital and labour, the prodigious inequalities in the\ndistribution of wealth, the degradation which is involved in the\ncrowding of population in the great centres of industry. In attempting\nto remedy such things, let us, while we catch enthusiasm from St. Paul's\nsympathetic zeal, not forget his patience and discretion. Monstrous\nevils are not, like giants in the old romances, to be slain at a blow.\nThey are deeply rooted; and if we attempt to tear them up, we may pull\nup the foundations of society along with them. We must be content to\nwork slowly and without violence. We have no right to preach revolution\nand plunder to those who are suffering from undeserved poverty, any more\nthan St. Paul had to preach revolt to the slaves. Drastic remedies of\nthat kind will cause much enmity, and perhaps bloodshed, in the carrying\nout, and will work no permanent cure in the end. It is incredible that\nthe well-being of mankind can be promoted by stirring up ill-will and\nhatred between a suffering class and those who seem to have it in their\npower to relieve them. Charity, we know, never faileth; but neither\nScripture nor experience has taught us that violence is a sure road to\nsuccess. We need more faith in the principles of Christianity and in\ntheir power to promote happiness as well as godliness. What is required,\nis not a sudden redistribution of wealth, or laws to prevent its\naccumulation, but a proper appreciation of its value. Rich and poor\nalike have yet to learn what is really worth having in this world. It is\nnot wealth, but happiness. And happiness is to be found neither in\ngaining, nor in possessing, nor in spending money, but in being useful.\nTo serve others, to spend and be spent for them,--that is the ideal to\nplace before mankind; and just in proportion as it is reached, will the\nfrightful inequalities between class and class, and between man and man,\ncease to be. It is a lesson that takes much teaching and much learning.\nMeanwhile it seems a terrible thing to leave whole generations suffering\nfrom destitution, just as it was a terrible thing to leave whole\ngenerations groaning in slavery. But a general manumission would not\nhave helped matters then; and a general distribution to the indigent\nwould not help matters now. The remedy adopted then was a slow one, but\nit has been efficacious. The master was not told to emancipate his\nslave, and the slave was not told to run away from his master; but each\nwas charged to behave to the other, the master in commanding and the\nslave in obeying, as Christian to Christian in the sight of God. Let us\nnot doubt that the same remedy now, if faithfully applied, will be not\nless effectual. Do not tell the rich man that he must share his wealth\nwith those who have nothing. Do not tell the poor man that he has a\nright to a share, and may seize it, if it is not given. But by precept\nand example show to both alike that the one thing worth living for is to\npromote the well-being of others. And let the experience of the past\nconvince us that any remedy which involves a violent reconstruction of\nsociety is sure to be dangerous and may easily prove futile.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[70] _Laws_, 777 D.\n\n[71] Tacitus, _Ann._ xiv. 42-45; iii. 14; comp. ii. 30 and iii. 67.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n_THE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS, AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE OF\nGAIN._\n\n \"Wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth,\n supposing that godliness is a way of gain. But godliness with\n contentment is great gain: for we brought nothing into the world,\n for neither can we carry anything out....\n\n \"Charge them that are rich in this present world, that they be not\n high minded, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches,\n but on God, Who gives us richly all things to enjoy; that they do\n good, that they be rich in good works, that they be ready to\n distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for\n themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may\n lay hold on the life which is life indeed.\"--1 TIM. vi. 5-7, 17-19.\n\n\nIt is evident that the subject of avarice is much in the Apostle's mind\nduring the writing of the last portion of this Epistle. He comes upon it\nhere in connexion with the teachers of false doctrine, and speaks\nstrongly on the subject. Then he writes what appears to be a solemn\nconclusion to the letter (vv. 11-16). And then, as if he was oppressed\nby the danger of large possessions as promoting an avaricious spirit, he\ncharges Timothy to warn the wealthy against the folly and wickedness of\nselfish hoarding. He, as it were, re-opens his letter in order to add\nthis charge, and then writes a second conclusion. He cannot feel happy\nuntil he has driven home this lesson about the right way of making gain,\nand the right way of laying up treasure. It is such a common heresy, and\nsuch a fatal one, to believe that gold is wealth, and that wealth is\nthe chief good.\n\n\"Wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth.\" That is\nhow St. Paul describes the \"dissidence of dissent,\" as it was known to\nhim by grievous experience. There were men who had once been in\npossession of a sound mind, whereby to recognize and grasp the truth;\nand they had grasped the truth, and for a time retained it. But they had\n\"given heed to seducing spirits,\" and had allowed themselves to be\nrobbed of both these treasures,--not only the truth, but the mental\npower of appreciating the truth. And what had they in the place of what\nthey had lost? Incessant contentions among themselves. Having lost the\ntruth, they had no longer any centre of agreement. Error is manifold and\nits paths are labyrinthine. When two minds desert the truth, there is no\nreason why they should remain in harmony any more; and each has a right\nto believe that his own substitute for the truth is the only one worth\nconsidering. As proof that their soundness of mind is gone, and that\nthey are far away from the truth, St. Paul states the fact that they\n\"suppose that godliness is a way of gain.\"\n\nIt is well known that the scholars whose labours during the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries produced at last the Authorized Version, were\nnot masters of the force of the Greek article. Its uses had not yet been\nanalysed in the thorough way in which they have been analysed in the\npresent century. Perhaps the text before us is the most remarkable among\nthe numerous errors which are the result of this imperfect knowledge. It\nseems so strange that those who perpetrated it were not puzzled by their\nown mistake, and that their perplexity did not put them right. What kind\nof people could they have been who \"supposed that gain was godliness\"?\nDid such an idea ever before enter into the head of any person? And if\nit did, could he have retained it? People have devoted their whole souls\nto gain, and have worshipped it as if it were Divine. But no man ever\nyet believed, or acted as if he believed, that gain was godliness. To\nmake money-getting a substitute for religion, in allowing it to become\nthe one absorbing occupation of mind and body, is one thing: to believe\nit to be religion is quite another.\n\nBut what St. Paul says of the opinions of these perverted men is exactly\nthe converse of this: not that they supposed \"gain to be godliness,\" but\nthat they supposed \"godliness to be a means of gain.\" They considered\ngodliness, or rather the \"form of godliness\" which was all that they\nreally possessed, to be a profitable investment. Christianity to them\nwas a \"profession\" in the mercantile sense, and a profession that paid:\nand they embarked upon it, just as they would upon any other speculation\nwhich offered equally good hopes of being remunerative.\n\nThe Apostle takes up this perverted and mean view of religion, and shows\nthat in a higher sense it is perfectly true. Just as Caiaphas, while\nmeaning to express a base and cold-blooded policy of expediency, had\ngiven utterance to a profound truth about Christ, so these false\nteachers had got hold of principles which could be formulated so as to\nexpress a profound truth about Christ's religion. There is a very real\nsense in which godliness (genuine godliness and not the mere externals\nof it) is even in this world a fruitful source of gain. Honesty, so long\nas it be not practised merely as a policy, is the best policy.\n\"Righteousness exalteth a nation\": it invariably pays in the long run.\nAnd so \"Godliness with contentment is great gain.\" They _suppose_ that\ngodliness is a good investment:--in quite a different sense from that\nwhich they have in their minds, it really _is_ so. And the reason of\nthis is manifest.\n\nIt has already been shown that \"godliness is profitable for all things.\"\nIt makes a man a better master, a better servant, a better citizen, and\nboth in mind and body a healthier and therefore a stronger man. Above\nall it makes him a happier man; for it gives him that which is the\nfoundation of all happiness in this life, and the foretaste of happiness\nin the world to come,--a good conscience. A possession of such value as\nthis cannot be otherwise than great gain: especially if it be united, as\nit probably will be united, with _contentment_. It is in the nature of\nthe godly man to be content with what God has given him. But godliness\nand contentment are not identical; and therefore, in order to make his\nmeaning quite clear, the Apostle says not merely \"godliness,\" but\n\"godliness with contentment.\" Either of these qualities far exceeds in\nvalue the profitable investment which the false teachers saw in the\nprofession of godliness. They found that it _paid_; that it had a\ntendency to advance their worldly interests. But after all even mere\nworldly wealth does not consist in the abundance of the things which a\nman possesses. That man is well off, who has as much as he wants; and\nthat man is rich, who has more than he wants. Wealth cannot be measured\nby any absolute standard. We cannot name an income to rise above which\nis riches, and to fall below which is poverty. Nor is it enough to take\ninto account the unavoidable calls which are made upon the man's purse,\nin order to know whether he is well off or not: we must also know\nsomething of his _desires_. When all legitimate claims have been\ndischarged, is he satisfied with what remains for his own use? Is he\n_contented_? If he is, then he is indeed well-to-do. If he is not, then\nthe chief element of wealth is still lacking to him.\n\nThe Apostle goes on to enforce the truth of the statement that even in\nthis world godliness with contentment is a most valuable possession, far\nsuperior to a large income; and to urge that, even from the point of\nview of earthly prosperity and happiness, those people make a fatal\nmistake who devote themselves to the accumulation of wealth, without\nplacing any check upon their growing and tormenting desires, and without\nknowing how to make a good use of the wealth which they are\naccumulating. With a view to enforce all this he repeats two well-known\nand indisputable propositions: \"We brought nothing into the world\" and\n\"We can carry nothing out.\" As to the words which connect these two\npropositions in the original Greek, there seems to be some primitive\nerror which we cannot now correct with any certainty. We are not sure\nwhether one proposition is given as a reason for accepting the other,\nand, if so, which is premise and which is conclusion. But this is of no\nmoment. Each statement singly has been abundantly proved by the\nexperience of mankind, and no one would be likely to dispute either. One\nof the earliest books in human literature has them as its opening moral.\n\"Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return\nthither,\" are Job's words in the day of his utter ruin; and they have\nbeen assented to by millions of hearts ever since.\n\n\"We brought nothing into the world.\" What right then have we to be\ndiscontented with what has since been given to us? \"We can take nothing\nout.\" What folly, therefore, to spend all our time in amassing wealth,\nwhich at the time of our departure we shall be obliged to leave behind\nus! _There_ is the case against avarice in a nutshell. Never contented.\nNever knowing what it is to rest and be thankful. Always nervously\nanxious about the preservation of what has been gained, and laboriously\ntoiling in order to augment it. What a contrast to the godly man, who\nhas found true independence in a trustful dependence upon the God Whom\nhe serves! Godliness with contentment is indeed great gain.\n\nThere is perhaps no more striking example of the incorrigible perversity\nof human nature than the fact that, in spite of all experience to the\ncontrary, generation after generation continues to look upon mere wealth\nas the thing best worth striving after. Century after century we find\nmen telling us, often with much emphasis and bitterness, that great\npossessions are an imposture, that they promise happiness and never give\nit. And yet those very men continue to devote their whole energies to\nthe retention and increase of their possessions: or, if they do not,\nthey hardly ever succeed in convincing others that happiness is not to\nbe found in such things. If they could succeed, there would be far more\ncontented, and therefore far more happy people in the world than can be\nfound at present. It is chiefly the desire for greater temporal\nadvantages than we have at present that makes us discontented. We should\nbe a long way on the road to contentment, if we could thoroughly\nconvince ourselves that what are commonly called temporal\nadvantages--such as large possessions, rank, power, honours, and the\nlike--are on the whole _not_ advantages; that they more often detract\nfrom this world's joys than augment them, while they are always a\nserious danger, and sometimes a grievous impediment, in reference to the\njoys of the world to come.\n\nWhat man of wealth and position does not feel day by day the worries and\nanxieties and obligations, which his riches and rank impose upon him.\nDoes he not often wish that he could retire to some cottage and there\nlive quietly on a few hundreds a year, and sometimes even seriously\nthink of doing it? But at other times he fancies that his unrest and\ndisquiet is owing to his not having enough. If he could only have some\nthousands a year added to his present income, then he would cease to be\nanxious about the future; he could afford to lose some and still have\nsufficient. If he could only attain to a higher position in society,\nthen he would feel secure from detraction or serious downfall; he would\nbe able to treat with unconcerned neglect the criticisms which are now\nsuch a source of annoyance to him. And in most cases this latter view\nprevails. What determines his conduct is not the well-grounded suspicion\nthat he already has more than is good for him; that it is his abundance\nwhich is destroying his peace of mind; but the baseless conviction that\nan increase of the gifts of this world will win for him the happiness\nthat he has failed to secure. The experience of the past rarely destroys\nthis fallacy. He knows that his enjoyment of life has not increased with\nhis fortune. Perhaps he can see clearly that he was a happier man when\nhe possessed much less. But, nevertheless, he still cherishes the belief\nthat with a few things more he would be contented, and for those few\nthings more he continues to slave. There is no man in this world that\nhas not found out over and over again that success, even the most\ncomplete success, in the attainment of any worldly desire, however\ninnocent or laudable, does not bring the permanent satisfaction which\nwas anticipated. Sooner or later the feeling of satiety, and therefore\nof disappointment, must set in. And of all the countless thousands who\nhave had this experience, how few there are that have been able to draw\nthe right conclusion, and to act upon it!\n\nAnd when we take into account the difficulties and dangers which a large\nincrease in the things of this world places in the way of our advance\ntowards moral and spiritual perfection, we have a still stronger case\nagainst the fallacy that increase of wealth brings an increase in\nwell-being. The care of the things which we possess takes up thought and\ntime, which could be far more happily employed on nobler objects; and it\nleads us gradually into the practical conviction that these nobler\nobjects, which have so continually to be neglected in order to make room\nfor other cares, are really of less importance. It is impossible to go\non ignoring the claims which intellectual and spiritual exercises have\nupon our attention without becoming less alive to those claims. We\nbecome, not contented, but self-sufficient in the worst sense. We\nacquiesce in the low and narrow aims which a devotion to worldly\nadvancement has imposed upon us. We habitually act as if there were no\nother life but this one; and consequently we cease to take much interest\nin the other life beyond the grave; while even as regards the things of\nthis world our interests become confined to those objects which can\ngratify our absorbing desire for financial prosperity.\n\nNor does the mischief done to our best moral and spiritual interests\nend here; especially if we are what the world calls successful. The man\nwho steadily devotes himself to the advancement of his worldly position,\nand who succeeds in a very marked way in raising himself, is likely to\nacquire in the process a kind of brutal self-confidence, very\ndetrimental to his character. He started with nothing, and he now has a\nfortune. He was once a shop-boy, and he is now a country gentleman. And\nhe has done it all by his own shrewdness, energy, and perseverance. The\nresult is that he makes no account of Providence, and very little of the\nfar greater merits of less conspicuously successful men. A contempt for\nmen and things that would have given him a higher view of this life, and\nsome idea of a better life, is the penalty which he pays for his\ndisastrous prosperity.\n\nBut his case is one of the most hopeless, whose desire for worldly\nadvantages has settled down into a mere love of money. The worldly man,\nwhose leading ambition is to rise to a more prominent place in society,\nto outshine his neighbours in the appointments of his house and in the\nsplendour of his entertainments, to be of importance on all public\noccasions, and the like, is morally in a far less desperate condition\nthan the miser. There is no vice more deadening to every noble and\ntender feeling than avarice. It is capable of extinguishing all mercy,\nall pity, all natural affection. It can make the claims of the suffering\nand sorrowful, even when they are combined with those of an old friend,\nor a wife, or a child, fall on deaf ears. It can banish from the heart\nnot only all love, but all shame and self-respect. What does the miser\ncare for the execrations of outraged society, so long as he can keep his\ngold? There is no heartless or mean act, and very often no deed of\nfraud or violence, from which he will shrink in order to augment or\npreserve his hoards. Assuredly the Apostle is right when he calls the\nlove of money a \"root of all kinds of evil.\" There is no iniquity to\nwhich it does not form one of the nearest roads. Every criminal who\nwants an accomplice can have the avaricious man as his helper, if he\nonly bids high enough.\n\nAnd note that, unlike almost every other vice, it never loses its hold:\nits deadly grip is never for an instant relaxed. The selfish man can at\na crisis become self-sacrificing, at any rate for a time. The sensualist\nhas his moments when his nobler nature gets the better of his passions,\nand he spares those whom he thought to make his victims. The drunkard\ncan sometimes be lured by affection or innocent enjoyments to forego the\ngratification of his craving. And there are times when even pride, that\nwatchful and subtle foe, sleeps at its post and suffers humble thoughts\nto enter. But the demon avarice never slumbers, and is never off its\nguard. When it has once taken full possession of a man's heart, neither\nlove, nor pity, nor shame, can ever surprise it into an act of\ngenerosity. We all of us have our impulses; and, however little we may\nact upon them, we are conscious that some of our impulses are generous.\nSome of the worst of us could lay claim to as much as that. But the\nmiser's nature is poisoned at its very source. Even his impulses are\ntainted. Sights and sounds which make other hardened sinners at least\nwish to help, if only to relieve their own distress at such pitiful\nthings, make him instinctively tighten his purse-strings. Gold is his\ngod; and there is no god who exacts from his worshippers such undivided\nand unceasing devotion. Family, friends, country, comfort, health, and\nhonour must all be sacrificed at its shrine. Certainly the lust for\ngold is one of those \"foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in\ndestruction and perdition.\"\n\nIn wealthy Ephesus, with its abundant commerce, the desire to be rich\nwas a common passion; and St. Paul feared--perhaps he knew--that in the\nChurch in Ephesus the mischief was present and increasing. Hence this\nearnest reiteration of strong warnings against it. Hence the reopening\nof the letter in order to tell Timothy to charge the rich not to be\nself-confident and arrogant, not to trust in the wealth which may fail\nthem, but in the God Who cannot do so; and to remind them that the only\nway to make riches secure is to give them to God and to His work. The\nwealthy heathen in Ephesus were accustomed to deposit their treasures\nwith \"the great goddess Diana,\" whose temple was both a sanctuary and a\nbank. Let Christian merchants deposit theirs with God by being \"rich in\ngood works;\" so that, when He called them to Himself, they might receive\ntheir own with usury, and \"lay hold on the life which is life indeed.\"\n\n\n\n\n_THE EPISTLE TO TITUS._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n_THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.--HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER._\n\n \"Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ ... to\n Titus, my true child after a common faith: Grace and peace from God\n the Father, and Christ Jesus our Saviour\"--TITUS i. 1, 4.\n\n\nThe title \"Pastoral Epistle\" is as appropriate to the Epistle to Titus\nas to the First Epistle to Timothy. Although there is a good deal in the\nletter that is personal rather than pastoral, yet the pastoral element\nis the main one. The bulk of the letter is taken up with questions of\nChurch doctrine and government, the treatment of the faithful members of\nthe congregation and of the unruly and erring. The letter is addressed\nto Titus, not as a private individual, but as the delegate of the\nApostle holding office in Crete. Hence, as in the First Epistle to\nTimothy, St. Paul styles himself an Apostle: and the official character\nof this letter is still further marked by the long and solemn\nsuperscription. It is evidently intended to be read by other persons\nbesides the minister to whom it is addressed.\n\nThe question of the authenticity of the Epistle to Titus, has already\nbeen in a great measure discussed in the first of these expositions. It\nwas pointed out there that the external evidence for the genuineness in\nall three cases is very strong, beginning almost certainly with Clement\nof Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, becoming clear and certain in Irenaeus,\nand being abundant in Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Of the very\nfew people who rejected them, Tatian seems to have been almost alone in\nmaking a distinction between them. He accepted the Epistle to Titus,\nwhile rejecting the two to Timothy. We may rejoice that Tatian, Marcion,\nand others raised the question. It cannot be said that the Churches\naccepted this Epistle without consideration. Those who possessed\nevidence now no longer extant were convinced, in spite of the objections\nurged, that in this letter and its two companions we have genuine\nwritings of St. Paul.\n\nWith regard to modern objections, it may be freely admitted that there\nis no room in St. Paul's life, as given in the Acts, for the journey to\nCrete, and the winter at Nicopolis required by the Epistle to Titus. But\nthere is plenty of room for both of these _outside_ the Acts, viz.,\nbetween the first and second imprisonment of the Apostle. And, as we\nhave already seen good reason for believing in the case of 1 Timothy,\nthe condition of the Church indicated in this letter is such as was\nalready in existence in St. Paul's time; and the language used in\ntreating of it resembles that of the Apostle in a way which helps us to\nbelieve that we are reading his own words and not those of a skilful\nimitator. For this imitator must have been a strange person; very\nskilful in some things, very eccentric in others. Why does he give St.\nPaul and Titus a work in Crete of which there is no mention in the Acts?\nWhy does he make the Apostle ask Titus to meet him in Nicopolis, a place\nnever named in connexion with St. Paul? Why bracket a well-known person,\nlike Apollos, with an utterly unknown person, such as Zenas? It is not\neasy to believe in this imitator.\n\nYet another point of resemblance should be noted. Here, as in 1 Timothy,\nthere is no careful arrangement of the material. The subjects are not\nput together in a studied order, as in a treatise with a distinct\ntheological or controversial purpose. They follow one another in a\nnatural manner, just as they occur to the writer. Persons with their\nhearts and heads full of things which they wish to say to a friend, do\nnot sit down with an analysis before them to secure an orderly\narrangement of what they wish to write. They start with one of the main\ntopics, and then the treatment of this suggests something else: and they\nare not distressed if they repeat themselves, or if they have to return\nto a subject which has been touched upon before and then dropped. This\nis just the kind of writing which meets us once more in the letter to\nTitus. It is thoroughly natural. It is not easy to believe that a forger\nin the second century could have thrown himself with such simplicity\ninto the attitude which the letter pre-supposes.\n\nIt is not possible to determine whether this letter was written before\nor after the First to Timothy. But it was certainly written before the\nSecond to Timothy. Therefore, while one has no sufficient reason for\ntaking it before the one, one has excellent reason for taking it before\nthe other. The precise year and the precise place in which it was\nwritten, we must be content to leave unsettled. It may be doubted\nwhether either the one or the other would throw much light on the\ncontents of the letter. These are determined by what the Apostle\nremembers and expects concerning affairs in Crete, and not by his own\nsurroundings. It is the official position of Titus in Crete which is\nchiefly before his mind.\n\nTitus, as we learn from the opening words of the letter, was, like\nTimothy, converted to Christianity by St. Paul. The Apostle calls him\n\"his true child after a common faith.\" As regards his antecedents he was\na marked contrast to Timothy. Whereas Timothy had been brought up as a\nJew under the care of his Jewish mother Eunice, and had been circumcised\nby St. Paul's desire, Titus was wholly a Gentile, and \"was not compelled\nto be circumcised,\" as St. Paul states in the passage in which he tells\nthe Galatians (ii. 1--3) that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the\noccasion when he and Barnabas went thither seventeen years after St.\nPaul's conversion. Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem on that\noccasion to protect Gentile converts from the Judaizers, who wanted to\nmake all such converts submit to circumcision. Titus and others went\nwith them as representatives of the Gentile converts, and in their\npersons a formal protest was made against this imposition. It is quite\npossible that Titus was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Galatians;\nand if so this mention of him becomes all the more natural. We may fancy\nthe Apostle saying to Titus, as he wrote the letter, \"I shall remind\nthem of your case, which is very much to the point.\" Whether Titus was\npersonally known to the Galatian Church is not certain; but he is spoken\nof as one of whom they have at any rate heard.\n\nTitus was almost certainly one of those who carried the First Epistle to\nthe Corinthian Church, _i.e._, the first of the two that have come down\nto us; and St. Paul awaited his report of the reception which the letter\nhad met with at Corinth with the utmost anxiety. And he was quite\ncertainly one of those who were entrusted with the Second Epistle to the\nCorinthians. St. Paul wrote the first letter at Ephesus about Easter,\nprobably in the year 57. He left Ephesus about Pentecost, and went to\nTroas, where he hoped to meet Titus with news from Corinth. After\nwaiting in vain he went on to Macedonia in grievous anxiety; and there\nTitus met him. He at once began the second letter, which apparently was\nwritten piece-meal during the journey; and when it was completed he sent\nTitus back to Corinth with it.\n\nThat Titus should twice have been sent as the messenger and\nrepresentative of St. Paul to a Church in which difficulties of the\ngravest kind had arisen, gives us a clear indication of the Apostle's\nestimate of his character. He must have been a person of firmness,\ndiscretion, and tact. There was the monstrous case of incest, the\ndisputes between the rival factions, contentions in public worship and\neven at the Eucharist, litigation before the heathen, and wild ideas\nabout the resurrection, not to mention other matters which were\ndifficult enough, although of a less burning character. And in all these\nquestions it was the vain, fitful, vivacious, and sensitive Corinthians\nwho had to be managed and induced to take the Apostle's words (which\nsometimes were very sharp and severe) patiently. Nor was this all.\nBesides the difficulties in the Church of Corinth there was the\ncollection for the poor Christians in Judaea, about which St. Paul was\ndeeply interested, and which had not been progressing in Corinth as he\nwished. St. Paul was doubly anxious that it should be a success; first,\nbecause it proved to the Jewish converts that his interest in them was\nsubstantial, in spite of his opposition to some of their views;\nsecondly, because it served to counteract the tendency to part asunder,\nwhich was manifesting itself between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.\nAnd in carrying out St. Paul's instructions about these matters Titus\nevidently had to suffer a good deal of opposition; and hence the Apostle\nwrites a strong commendation of him, coupling him with himself in his\nmission and zeal. \"Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and\nmy fellow-worker to you-ward.\" \"Thanks be to God, which putteth the same\nearnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For indeed he accepted our\nexhortation; but being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of\nhis own accord.\" With great delicacy the Apostle takes care that, in\nmaking it clear to the Corinthians that Titus has his full authority for\nwhat he does, no slight is cast upon Titus's own zeal and interest in\nthe Corinthians. \"He is my representative; but he comes of his own free\nwill out of love to you. His visit to you is his own doing; but he has\nmy entire sanction. He is neither a mechanical delegate, nor an\nunauthorized volunteer.\"\n\nA curtain falls on the career of this valued help-mate of the great\nApostle, from the time when he carried the second letter to Corinth to\nthe time when the letter to himself was written. The interval was\nprobably some eight or ten years, about which we know only one thing,\nthat during it, and probably in the second half of it, the Apostle and\nTitus had been together in Crete, and Titus had been left behind to\nconsolidate the Church there. The Acts tell us nothing. Probably Titus\nis not mentioned in the book at all. The reading \"Titus Justus\" in\nxviii. 7, is possibly correct, but it is far from certain: and even if\nit were certain, we should still remain in doubt whether Titus and Titus\nJustus are the same person. And the attempts which have been made to\nidentify Titus with other persons in the Acts, such as Silvanus or\nTimothy, are scarcely worth considering. Nor has the conjecture that\nTitus is the author of the Acts (as Krenkel, Jacobsen, and recently\nHooykaas in the _Bible for Young People_ have suggested) very much to\nrecommend it. The hypothesis has two facts to support it: (1) the\nsilence of the Acts respecting Titus, and (2) the fact that the writer\nmust have been a companion of St. Paul. But these two facts are equally\nfavourable to the tradition that St. Luke was the author, a tradition\nfor which the evidence is both very early and very abundant. Why should\nsuch a tradition yield to a mere conjecture?\n\nOne thing, however, we may accept as certain:--that the time when St.\nPaul was being carried a prisoner to Rome in an Alexandrian corn-ship\nwhich touched at Crete, was _not_ the time when the Church in Crete was\nfounded. What opportunity would a prisoner have of doing any such work\nduring so short a stay? Cretans were among those who heard the Apostles\nat Pentecost preaching in their own tongue the wonderful works of God.\nSome of these may have returned home and formed the first beginnings of\na Christian congregation: and among imperfect converts of this kind we\nmight expect to find the errors of which St. Paul treats in this\nEpistle. But we can hardly suppose that there was much of Christian\norganization until St. Paul and Titus came to the island after the\nApostle's first Roman imprisonment. And the necessity of having some one\nwith a calm head and a firm hand on the spot, forced the Apostle to\nleave his companion behind him. The man who had been so successful in\naiding him respecting the difficulties at Corinth was just the man to\nbe entrusted with a somewhat similar but rather more permanent post in\nCrete. The Cretans were less civilized, but in their own way scarcely\nless immoral, than the Corinthians; and in both cases the national\nfailings caused serious trouble in the Church. In both cases\necclesiastical authority has to be firmly upheld against those who\nquestion and oppose it. In both cases social turbulence has to be kept\nin check. In both cases there is a tendency to wild theological and\nphilosophical speculations, and (on the part of some) to a bigoted\nmaintenance of Jewish ordinances and superstitions. Against all these\nTitus will have to contend with decision, and if need be with severity.\n\nThe letter, in which directions are given for the carrying out of all\nthis, is evidence of the great confidence which the Apostle reposed in\nhim. One of those who had worked also in Corinth, is either already with\nhim in Crete, or may soon be expected,--Apollos, and with him Zenas. So\nthat the Corinthian experience is doubly represented. Other helpers are\ncoming, viz., Artemas and Tychicus; and, when they arrive, Titus will be\nfree to rejoin the Apostle, and is to lose no time in doing so at\nNicopolis.\n\nOne commission Titus has in Crete which very naturally was not given to\nhim at Corinth. He is to perfect the organization of the Christian\nChurch in the island by appointing elders in every city. And it is this\ncharge among others which connects this letter so closely with the first\nto Timothy, which very likely was written about the same time.\n\nWhether Titus was set free from his heavy charge in Crete in time to\njoin St. Paul at Nicopolis, we have no means of knowing. At the time\nwhen the second letter to Timothy was written, Titus had gone to\nDalmatia; but we are left in doubt as to whether he had gone thither by\nSt. Paul's desire, or (like Demas in going to Thessalonica) against it.\nNor does it appear whether Titus had gone to Dalmatia from Nicopolis,\nwhich is not far distant, or had followed the Apostle from Nicopolis to\nRome, and thence gone to Illyria. With the journey to Dalmatia our\nknowledge of him ends. Tradition takes him back to Crete as permanent\nbishop; and in the Middle Ages the Cretans seem to have regarded him as\ntheir patron saint.\n\nThe impression left upon our mind by the Acts is that St. Luke knew\nTimothy and did not know Titus: and hence frequently mentions the one\nand says nothing about the other. The impression left upon our mind by\nthe mention of both in Paul's Epistles, and by the letters addressed to\neach, is that Titus, though less tenderly beloved by the Apostle, was\nthe stronger man of the two. St. Paul seems to be less anxious about the\nconduct of Titus and about the way in which others will treat him. The\ndirections as to his personal behaviour are much slighter than in the\ncase of Timothy. He seems to credit him with less sensitiveness and more\ndecision and tact; perhaps also with less liability to be carried away\nby fanatical views and practices than the other.\n\nTitus shares with Timothy the glory of having given up everything in\norder to throw in his lot with St. Paul, and of being one of his most\ntrusted and efficient helpers. What that meant the Epistles of St. Paul\ntell us:--ceaseless toil and anxiety, much shame and reproach, and not a\nlittle peril to life itself. He also shares with Timothy the glory of\nbeing willing, when the cause required such sacrifice, to separate from\nthe master to whom he had surrendered himself, and to work on by\nhimself in isolation and difficulty. The latter was possibly the more\ntrying sacrifice of the two. To give up all his earthly prospects and\nall the sweetness of home life, in order to work for the spread of the\nGospel side by side with St. Paul, was no doubt a sacrifice that must\nhave cost those who made it a great deal. But it had its attractive\nside. Quite independently of the beauty and majesty of the cause itself,\nthere was the delight of being associated with a leader so able, so\nsagacious, so invigorating, and so affectionate as the Apostle who\n\"became all things to all men that he might by all means save some.\"\nHard work became light, and difficulties became smooth, under the\ninspiriting sympathy of such a colleague. But it was quite another thing\nto have given up everything for the sake of such companionship and\nsupport, or at least in the full expectation of enjoying it, and then to\nhave to undergo the hard work and confront the difficulties without it.\nThe new dispensation in this respect repeats the old. Elisha leaves his\nhome and his inheritance to follow Elijah, and then Elijah is taken from\nhim. Timothy and Titus leave their homes and possessions to follow St.\nPaul, and then St. Paul sends them away from him. And to this\narrangement they consented, Timothy (as we know) with tears, Titus (we\nmay be sure) with much regret. And what it cost the loving Apostle thus\nto part with them and to pain them we see from the tone of affectionate\nlonging which pervades these letters.\n\nThe example set by both master and disciples is one which Christians,\nand especially Christian ministers, must from time to time need. Christ\nsent forth both the Twelve and the Seventy \"two and two\"; and what is\ntrue of mankind generally is true also of the ministry--\"It is not good\nfor man to be alone.\" But cases often arise in which not more than one\nman can be spared for each post; and then those who have been all in all\nto one another, in sympathy and counsel and co-operation, have to part.\nAnd it is one of the greatest sacrifices that can be required of them.\nPaul and Timothy and Titus were willing to make this sacrifice; and it\nis one which Christ's servants throughout all ages are called upon at\ntimes to make. Many men are willing to face, especially in a good cause,\nwhat is repulsive to them, if they have the company of others in the\ntrial, especially if they have the presence and support of those whose\npresence is in itself a refreshment, and their support a redoubling of\nstrength. But to enter upon a long and trying task with the full\nexpectation of such advantages, and then to be called upon to surrender\nthem,--this is, indeed, a trial which might well make the weak-hearted\nturn back. But their devotion to their Lord's work, and their confidence\nin His sustaining power, enabled the Apostle and his two chief disciples\nto make the venture; and the marvellous success of the Church in the age\nwhich immediately succeeded them, shows how their sacrifice was blessed.\nAnd we may be sure that even in this world they had their reward.\n\"Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or\nbrethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for\nMy sake, and for the Gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold\nnow in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and\nchildren, and lands, _with persecutions_; and in the world to come\n_eternal life_.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n_THE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S DIRECTIONS FOR\nAPPOINTING ELDERS._\n\n \"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in\n order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every\n city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is blameless, the husband of\n one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot\n or unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as God's\n steward.\"--TITUS i. 5-7.\n\n\nThis passage tells us a great deal about the circumstances which led to\nthe writing of the letter. They have been touched upon in the previous\nchapter, but may be treated more comprehensively here.\n\nIt is quite evident: (1) that the Gospel had been established in Crete\nfor a considerable time when St. Paul wrote this to his delegate, Titus;\n(2) that during the Apostle's stay in the island he had been unable to\ncomplete the work which he had in view with regard to the full\nestablishment of the Church there; and (3) that one of the chief things\nwhich remained undone, and which St. Paul had been compelled to leave to\nTitus to accomplish, was a properly organized ministry. There was a\nlarge and scattered flock; but for the most part it was without\nshepherds.\n\nIt is quite possible that the Gospel of Christ was at least known, if\nnot by any one believed, in Crete before St. Paul visited the islands.\nCretans were among those who heard the miraculous preaching of the\nApostles on the day of Pentecost; and some of these may have returned to\ntheir country, if not converts to Christianity, at any rate full of what\nthey had seen and heard of \"the mighty works of God,\" as shown forth in\nthe words spoken on that day, and in their consequences. Certainly there\nwere many Jews in the island; and these, though often the bitterest\nopponents of the Gospel, were nevertheless the readiest and best\nconverts, when they did not oppose; for they already knew and worshipped\nthe true God, and they were acquainted with the prophecies respecting\nthe Messiah. We may therefore conclude that the way was already prepared\nfor the preaching of Christ, even if He as yet had no worshippers in\nCrete, before St. Paul began to teach there.\n\nThere are three things which tend to show that Christianity had been\nspreading in Crete for at least some years when the Apostle wrote this\nletter to Titus. First, the latter is charged to \"appoint elders _in\nevery city_,\" or \"city by city,\" as we might render the original\nexpression (=kata polin=). This implies that among the multitude of\ncities, for which Crete even in Homer's day had been famous, not a few\nhad a Christian congregation in need of supervision; and it is not\nimprobable that the congregation in some cases was a large one. For the\ninterpretation is certainly an untenable one which forces into the\nApostle's words a restriction which they do not contain, that each city\nis to have just one presbyter and no more. St. Paul tells Titus to take\ncare that no city is left without a presbyter. Each Christian community\nis to have its proper ministry; it is not to be left to its own\nguidance. But how many elders each congregation is to have, is a point\nto be decided by Titus according to the principles laid down for him by\nSt. Paul. For we must not limit the \"as I gave thee charge\" to the mere\nfact of appointing elders. The Apostle had told him, not merely that\nelders must be appointed, but that they must be appointed in a\nparticular way, and according to a prescribed system. The passage,\ntherefore, tells us that there were a good many cities in which there\nwere Christian congregations, and leaves us quite free to believe that\nsome of these congregations were large enough to require several elders\nto minister to them and govern them. Secondly, the kind of person to be\nselected as overseer seems to imply that Christianity has been\nestablished for a considerable time among the Cretans. The \"elder\" or\n\"bishop\" (for in this passage, at any rate, the two names indicate one\nand the same officer) is to be the father of a family, with children who\nare believers and orderly persons.\n\nThe injunction implies that there are cases in which the father is a\ngood Christian, but he has not succeeded in making his children good\nChristians. Either they have not become believers at all; or, although\nnominal Christians, they do not conduct themselves as such. They are\nprofligate, riotous, and disobedient. This implies that the children are\nold enough to think for themselves and reject the Gospel in spite of\ntheir parent's conversion; or that they are old enough to rebel against\nits authority. And one does not use such strong words as \"profligacy\" or\n\"riotous living\" of quite young children. The prodigal son, of whom the\nsame expression is used, was no mere child. Cases of this kind,\ntherefore, in which the father had been converted to Christianity, but\nhad been unable to make the influences of Christianity tell upon his own\nchildren, were common enough to make it worth St. Paul's while to give\ninjunctions about them. And this implies a condition of things in which\nChristianity was no newly planted religion. The injunctions are\nintelligible enough. Such fathers are not to be selected by Titus as\nelders. A man who has so conspicuously failed in bringing his own\nhousehold into harmony with the Gospel, is not the man to be promoted to\nrule the household of the Church. Even if his failure is his misfortune\nrather than his fault, the condition of his own family cannot fail to be\na grave impediment to his usefulness as an overseer of the\ncongregation.[72] Thirdly, there is the fact that heresies already exist\namong the Cretan Christians. Titus, like Timothy, has to contend with\nteaching of a seriously erroneous kind. From this also we infer that the\nfaith has long since been introduced into the island. The misbeliefs of\nthe newly converted would be spoken of in far gentler terms. They are\nerrors of ignorance, which will disappear as fuller instruction in the\ntruth is received. They are not erroneous doctrines held and propagated\nin opposition to the truth. These latter require time for their\ndevelopment. From all these considerations, therefore, we conclude that\nSt. Paul is writing to Titus as his delegate in a country in which the\nGospel is no new thing. We are not to suppose that the Apostle left\nTitus in charge of Christians who had been converted a very short time\nbefore to the faith.\n\nThe incompleteness of the Apostle's own work in the island is spoken of\nin plain terms. Even in Churches in which he was able to remain for two\nor three years, he was obliged to leave very much unfinished; and we\nneed not be surprised that such was the case in Crete, where he can\nhardly have stayed so long. It was this incompleteness in all his work,\na defect quite unavoidable in work of such magnitude, that weighed so\nheavily upon the Apostle's mind. It was \"that which pressed upon him\ndaily,--anxiety for all the Churches.\" There was so much that had never\nbeen done at all; so much that required to be secured and established;\nso much that already needed correction. And while he was attending to\nthe wants of one Church, another not less important, not less dear to\nhim, was equally in need of his help and guidance. And here was the\ncomfort of having such disciples as, Timothy and Titus, who, like true\nfriends, could be indeed a \"second self\" to him. They could be carrying\non his work in places where he himself could not be. And thus there was\nno small consolation for the sorrow of parting from them and the loss of\ntheir helpful presence. They could be still more helpful elsewhere. \"For\nthis cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the\nthings that were wanting.\"\n\nThere were many things that were wanting in Crete; but one of the chief\nthings which pressed upon the Apostle's mind was the lack of a properly\norganized ministry, without which everything must soon fall into\nconfusion and decay. Hence, as soon as he has concluded his salutation,\nthe fulness and solemnity of which is one of the many evidences of the\ngenuineness of the letter, he at once repeats to Titus the charge which\nhe had previously given to him by word of mouth respecting this pressing\nneed. A due supply of elders or overseers is of the first importance\nfor \"setting in order\" those things which at present are in so\nunsatisfactory a state.\n\nThere are several points of interest in connexion with St. Paul's\ndirections to Titus respecting this need and the best way of meeting it.\n\nFirst. It is Titus himself who is to appoint these elders throughout the\ncities in which congregations exist. It is not the congregations that\nare to elect the overseers, subject to the approval of the Apostle's\ndelegate; still less that he is to ordain any one whom they may elect.\nThe full responsibility of each appointment rests with him. Anything\nlike popular election of the ministers is not only not suggested, it is\nby implication entirely excluded. But, secondly, in making each\nappointment Titus is to consider the congregation. He is to look\ncarefully to the reputation which the man of his choice bears among his\nfellow-Christians:--\"if any man is _blameless_ ... having children who\nare not _accused_ of riot.... For the bishop must be _blameless_.\" A man\nin whom the congregation have no confidence, because of the bad repute\nwhich attaches to himself or his family, is not to be appointed. In this\nway the congregation have an indirect veto; for the man to whom they\ncannot give a good character may not be taken to be set over them.\nThirdly, the appointment of Church officers is regarded as imperative:\nit is on no account to be omitted. And it is not merely an arrangement\nthat is as a rule desirable: it is to be universal. Titus is to \"appoint\nelders in every city.\" He is to go through the congregations \"city by\ncity,\" and take care that each has its elder or body of elders.\nFourthly, as the name itself indicates, these elders are to be taken\nfrom the older men among the believers. As a rule they are to be heads\nof families, who have had experience of life in its manifold relations,\nand especially who have had experience of ruling a Christian household.\nThat will be some guarantee for their capacity for ruling a Christian\ncongregation. Lastly, it must be remembered that they are not merely\ndelegates, either of Titus, or of the congregation. The essence of their\nauthority is not that they are the representatives of the body of\nChristian men and women over whom they are placed. It has a far higher\norigin. They are \"God's stewards.\" It is His household that they direct\nand administer, and it is from Him that their powers are derived. They\nare His ministers, solemnly appointed to act in His Name. It is on His\nbehalf that they have to speak, as His agents and ambassadors, labouring\nto advance the interests of His kingdom. They are \"stewards of His\nmysteries,\" bringing out of what is committed to them \"things new and\nold.\" As God's agents they have a work to do among their fellow-men,\nthrough themselves, for Him. As God's ambassadors they have a message to\ndeliver, good tidings to proclaim, ever the same, and yet ever new. As\n\"God's stewards\" they have treasures to guard with reverent care,\ntreasures to augment by diligent cultivation, treasures to distribute\nwith prudent liberality. There is the flock, sorely needing, but it may\nbe not greatly craving, God's spiritual gifts. The longing has to be\nawakened: the longing, when awakened, has to be cherished and directed:\nthe gifts which will satisfy it have to be dispensed. There is a demand;\nand there is a supply; a human demand and a Divine supply. It is the\nbusiness of God's stewards to see that the one meets the other.\n\n\"God's steward\" is the key to all that follows respecting the qualities\nto be looked for in an elder or overseer of the Church: and, as the\norder of the words in the Greek shows, the emphasis is on \"God's\" rather\nthan on \"steward.\" The point accentuated is, not that in the Church as\nin his own home he has a household to administer, but that the household\nto which he has to minister is God's. That being so, he \"as God's\nsteward\" must prove himself worthy of the Commission which he holds:\n\"not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of\nfilthy lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober-minded,\njust, holy, temperate; holding to the faithful word which is according\nto the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound\ndoctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.\"\n\nSuch men, wherever he can find them,--and \"_if_ any man is blameless\" is\nnot meant to hint that among Cretans it may be impossible to find\nsuch,--Titus is to \"_appoint_\" as elders in every city. In the A.V. the\nphrase runs \"_ordain_ elders in every city.\" As we have seen already\n(Chap. V.), there are several passages in which the Revisers have\nchanged \"ordain\" into \"appoint.\" Thus in Mark iii. 14, \"He ordained\ntwelve\" becomes \"He appointed twelve.\" In John xv. 16, \"I have chosen\nyou and ordained you\" becomes, \"I chose you and appointed you.\" In 1\nTim. ii. 7, \"Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle\" becomes\n\"whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle.\" In Heb. v. 1, and\nviii. 3, \"Every high priest is ordained\" becomes \"every high priest is\nappointed.\" In these passages three different Greek words (=poie\u00f4=,\n=tith\u00eami=, =kathist\u00eami=) are used in the original; but not one of them has\nthe special ecclesiastical meaning which we so frequently associate\nwith the word \"ordain\"; not one of them implies, as \"ordain\" in such\ncontext almost of necessity implies, a _rite_ of ordination, a special\nceremonial, such as the laying on of hands. When in English we say, \"He\nordained twelve,\" \"I am ordained an apostle,\" \"Every high priest is\nordained,\" the mind almost inevitably thinks of ordination in the common\nsense of the word; and this is foisting upon the language of the New\nTestament a meaning which the words there used do not rightly bear. They\nall three of them refer to the _appointment_ to the office, and not to\nrite or ceremony by which the person appointed is admitted to the\noffice. The Revisers, therefore, have done wisely in banishing from all\nsuch texts a word which to English readers cannot fail to suggest ideas\nwhich are not contained at all in the original Greek. If we ask in what\nway Titus admitted the men whom he selected to serve as presbyters to\ntheir office, the answer is scarcely a doubtful one. Almost certainly he\nwould admit them, as Timothy himself was admitted, and as he is\ninstructed to admit others, by the laying on of hands. But this is\nneither expressed nor implied in the injunction to \"_appoint_ elders in\nevery city.\" The appointment is one thing, the ordination another; and\neven in cases in which we are sure that the appointment involved\nordination, we are not justified in saying \"ordain\" where the Greek says\n\"appoint.\" The Greek words used in the passages quoted might equally\nwell be used of the appointment of a magistrate or a steward. And as we\nshould avoid speaking of _ordaining_ a magistrate or a steward, we ought\nto avoid using \"ordain\" to translate words which would be thoroughly in\nplace in such a connexion. The Greek words for \"ordain\" and\n\"ordination,\" in the sense of imposition of hands in order to admit to\nan ecclesiastical office (=cheirothetei=, =cheirothesia=), do not occur in\nthe New Testament at all.\n\nIt is worthy of note that there is not a trace here, any more than there\nis in the similar passage in 1 Timothy, of the parallel between the\nthreefold ministry in the Old Testament and a threefold ministry in the\nChristian Church, high-priest, priests, and Levites being compared with\nbishop, presbyters, and deacons. This parallel was a favourite one and\nit was made early. The fact therefore that we do not find it in any of\nthese Epistles, nor even any material out of which it could be\nconstructed, confirms us in the belief that these letters belong to the\nfirst century and not to the second.\n\nIn giving this injunction to Titus, St. Paul assumes that his disciple\nand delegate is as free as he himself is from all feelings of jealousy,\nor envy. \"Art thou jealous for my sake? would God that all the Lord's\npeople were prophets,\" is the spirit in which these instructions are\ngiven, and no doubt were accepted. There is no grasping after power in\nthe great Apostle of the Gentiles; no desire to keep everything in his\nown hands, that he might have the credit of all that was done. So long\nas Christ is rightly preached, so long as the Lord's work is faithfully\ndone, he cares not who wins the glory. He is more than willing that\nTimothy and Titus should share in his work and its reward; and he\nwithout hesitation applies to them to admit others in like manner to\nshare with them in their work and its reward. This generous willingness\nto admit others to co-operate is not always found, especially in men of\nstrong character and great energy and decision. They will admit\nsubordinates as a necessary evil to work out details, because they\ncannot themselves afford time for all these. But they object to anything\nlike colleagues. Whatever of any serious importance is done must be in\ntheir own hands and must be recognized as their work. There is nothing\nof this spirit in St. Paul. He could rejoice when some \"preached Christ\neven of envy and strife,\" \"not sincerely, thinking to raise up\naffliction for him in his bonds.\" He rejoiced, not because of their evil\ntemper, but because that at any rate Christ was preached. How much more,\ntherefore, did he rejoice when Christ was preached \"of good will\" by\ndisciples devoted to himself and his Master. They all had the same end\nin view; not their own glory, but the glory of God.\n\nAnd this is the end which all Christian ministers have to keep in view,\nand which they too often exchange for ends that are far lower, and far\nremoved (it may be) from the cause with which we choose to identify\nthem. And as time goes on, and we look less and less with a single eye\nat the will of God, and have less and less of the single purpose of\nseeking His glory, our aims become narrower and our ends more selfish.\nAt first it is the triumph of a system, then it is the advancement of a\nparty. Then it becomes the propagation of our own views, and the\nextension of our own influence. Until at last we find ourselves working,\nno longer for God's glory, but simply for our own. While professing to\nwork in His Name and for His honour, we have steadily substituted our\nown wills for His.\n\nBut it is only by forgetting ourselves that we find ourselves; only by\nlosing our life that we find it. \"God's steward\" must be ready to sink\nevery personal interest in the interests of the great Employer. He has\nnothing of his own. He deals with his Master's goods, and must deal with\nthem in his Master's way. He who labours in this spirit will one day be\nrewarded by the Divine voice of welcome: \"Well done, good and faithful\nservant: thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will set thee over\nmany things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[72] It is worth while here to repeat the caution that the Apostle's\nlanguage by no means implies that the \"elder\" or \"bishop\" _must_ be a\nmarried man with children. But it implies that he will generally be\nsuch; and in appointing him, the character of his family must be\ncarefully considered.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n_CHRISTIANITY AND UNCHRISTIAN LITERATURE._\n\n \"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always\n liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which\n cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the\n faith.\"--TITUS i. 12, 13.\n\n\nThe hexameter verse which St. Paul here cites from the Cretan poet\nEpimenides is one of three quotations from profane literature which are\nmade by St. Paul. Of the other two, one occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 33, \"Evil\ncommunications corrupt good manners\"; and the other in the Apostle's\nspeech on the Areopagus at Athens, as recorded in the Acts (xvii. 28):\n\"For we are also his offspring.\" They cannot be relied upon as\nsufficient to prove that St. Paul was well read in classical literature,\nany more than the quoting of a hackneyed line from Shakespeare, from\nByron, and from Tennyson, would prove that an English writer was well\nacquainted with English literature. It may have been the case that St.\nPaul knew a great deal of Greek classical literature, but these three\nquotations, from Epimenides, from some Greek tragedian, and from\nCleanthes or Aratus, do not at all prove the point. In all three cases\nthe source of the quotation is not certain. In the one before us the\nApostle no doubt tells us that he is quoting a Cretan \"prophet,\" and\ntherefore quotes the line as coming from Epimenides. But a man may know\nthat \"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears\" is Shakespeare,\nwithout having read a single play. And we are quite uncertain whether\nSt. Paul had even seen the poem of Epimenides on Oracles in which the\nline which he here quotes occurs. The iambic which he quotes in the\nletter to the Corinthians, although originally in some Greek play\n(perhaps of Euripides or Menander), had passed into a proverb, and\nproves even less than the line from Epimenides that St. Paul knew the\nwork in which it occurred. The half-line which is given in his speech at\nAthens, stating the Divine parentage of mankind, may have come from a\nvariety of sources: but it is not improbable that the Apostle had read\nit in the _Phaenomena_ of Aratus, in which it occurs in the form in which\nit is reproduced in the Acts. This astronomical poem was popular in St.\nPaul's day, and he was the more likely to have come across it, as Aratus\nis said to have been a native of Tarsus, or at any rate of Cilicia. But\neven when we have admitted that the Apostle had read the _Phaenomena_ of\nAratus or Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, we have not made much way towards\nproving that he was well read in Greek literature. Indeed the contrary\nhas been argued from the fact that, according to the reading of the best\nauthorities, the iambic line in the Corinthians is quoted in such a way\nas to spoil the scanning; which would seem to show that St. Paul was not\nfamiliar with the iambic metre.[73] If that was the case, he can\nscarcely have read even a single Greek play.\n\nBut the question is not one of great importance, although doubtless of\nsome interest. We do not need this evidence to prove that the Apostle\nwas a person, not only of great energy and ability, but of culture.\nThere are passages in his writings, such as chapters xiii. and xv. in 1\nCorinthians, which are equal for beauty and eloquence to anything in\nliterature. Even among inspired writers few have known better than St.\nPaul how to clothe lofty thoughts in noble language. And of his general\nacquaintance with the moral philosophy of his age, especially of the\nStoic school, which was very influential in the neighbourhood of Tarsus,\nthere can be no doubt. Just as St. John laid the thoughts and language\nof Alexandrian philosophy under contribution, and gave them fuller force\nand meaning to express the dogmatic truths of the Gospel, so St. Paul\nlaid the thoughts and language of Stoicism under contribution, and\ntransfigured them to express the moral teaching of the Gospel. Cleanthes\nor Aratus, from one or both of whom one of the three quotations comes\n(and St. Paul seems to know both sources, for he says \"as _certain_ even\nof your own _poets_ have said\"), were both of them Stoics: and the\nspeech in which the quotation occurs, short as it is in the Acts,\nabounds in parallels to the teaching of St. Paul's Stoic contemporary\nSeneca. If St. Paul tells us that \"the God that made the world and all\nthings therein ... dwelleth not in temples made with hands,\" Seneca\nteaches that \"temples must not be built to God of stones piled on high:\nHe must be consecrated in the heart of man.\" While St. Paul reminds us\nthat God \"is not far from each one of us,\" Seneca says \"God is near\nthee: He is with thee; He is within.\" Again, St. Paul warns his hearers\nthat \"we ought not to think that the God-head is like unto gold, or\nsilver, or stone, graven by art and device of man\"; and Seneca declares\n\"Thou shalt not form Him of silver and gold: a true likeness of God\ncannot be moulded of this material.\"[74]\n\nBut the quotations are of other interest than their bearing upon the\nquestion as to the Greek elements in the education and teaching of St.\nPaul. They have a bearing also on the question of Christian use of\nprofane authors, and on the duty of self-culture in general.\n\nThe leading teachers of the early Church differed widely in their\nestimate of the value of heathen literature, and especially of heathen\nphilosophy. On the whole, with some considerable exceptions, the Greek\nFathers valued it highly, as containing precious elements of truth,\nwhich were partly the result of direct inspiration, partly echoes of the\nOld Testament. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, for the most part\ntreated all pagan teaching with suspicion and contempt. It was in no\nsense useful. It was utterly false, and simply stood in the way of the\ntruth. It was rubbish, which must be swept on one side in order to make\nroom for the Gospel. Tertullian thinks that heathen philosophers are\n\"blockheads when they knock at the doors of truth,\" and that \"they have\ncontributed nothing whatever that a Christian can accept.\" Arnobius and\nLactantius write in a similar strain of contemptuous disapproval.\nTertullian thinks it out of the question that a right-minded Christian\nshould teach in pagan schools. But even he shrinks from telling\nChristian parents that they must allow their children to remain\nuneducated rather than send them to such schools. The policy of\npermitting Christian children to attend heathen schools, while\nforbidding Christian adults from teaching in them, appears singularly\nunreasonable. Every Christian teacher in a school rendered that school\nless objectionable for Christian children. But Tertullian urges that one\nwho teaches pagan literature seems to give his sanction to it: one who\nmerely learns it does nothing of the kind. The young must be educated:\nadults need not become school-masters. One can plead necessity in the\none case; not in the other (_De Idol._, x). But the necessity of sending\na child to a pagan school, because otherwise it could not be properly\neducated, did not settle the question whether it was prudent, or even\nright, for a Christian in afterlife to study pagan literature; and it\nrequired the thought and experience of several centuries to arrive at\nanything like a consensus of opinion and practice on the subject. But\nduring the first four or five centuries the more liberal view, even in\nthe West, on the whole prevailed. From Irenaeus, Tatian, and Hermias,\namong Greek writers, and from various Latin Fathers, disapproving\nopinions proceeded. But the influence of Clement of Alexandria and\nOrigen in the East, and of Augustine and Jerome in the West, was too\nstrong for such opinions. Clement puts it on the broad ground that all\nwisdom is a Divine gift; and maintains that the philosophy of the\nGreeks, limited and particular as it is, contains the rudiments of that\nreally perfect knowledge, which is beyond this world.\" Origen, in\nrebutting the reproach of Celsus, that the Gospel repelled the educated\nand gave a welcome only to the ignorant, quotes the Epistle to Titus,\npointing out that \"Paul, in describing what kind of man the bishop ought\nto be, lays down as a qualification that he must be a teacher, saying\nthat he ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom\nwhich is in him he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and\ndeceivers.\" The Gospel gives a welcome to the learned and unlearned\nalike: to the learned, that they may become teachers; to the unlearned,\nnot because it prefers such, but because it wishes to instruct them. And\nhe points out that in enumerating the gifts of the Spirit St. Paul\nplaces wisdom and knowledge before faith, gifts of healing, and miracles\n(1 Cor. xii. 8-10). But Origen does not point out that St. Paul himself\nmakes use of heathen literature; although immediately before dealing\nwith the accusation of Celsus, that Christians hate culture and promote\nignorance, he quotes from Callimachus half of the saying of Epimenides,\n\"Cretans are alway liars\" (_Con. Cels._, III. xliii). What Origen's own\npractice was we learn from the _Panegyric_ of his enthusiastic pupil,\nGregory Thaumaturgus (xiii.).\n\nWith the exception of atheistic philosophy, which was not worth the\nrisk, Origen encouraged his scholars to study everything; and he gave\nthem a regular course of dialectics, physics, and moral philosophy, as a\npreparation for theology. Augustine, who ascribes his first conversion\nfrom a vicious life to the _Hortensius_ of Cicero (_Conf., III._ iv. I),\nwas not likely to take an extreme line in condemning classical\nliterature, from which he himself frequently quotes. Of Cicero's\n_Hortensius_ he says, \"This book in truth changed my affections, and\nturned my prayers to Thyself, O Lord, and made me have other hopes and\ndesires.\" He quotes, among other classical authors, not only Virgil,\nLivy, Lucan, Sallust, Horace, Pliny and Quintillian, but Terence,\nPersius, and Juvenal, and of the last from those Satires which are\nsometimes omitted by editors on account of their grossness. In his\ntreatise _On Christian Doctrine_ (_II._ xl.), he contends that we must\nnot shrink from making use of all that is good and true in heathen\nwritings and institutions. We must \"spoil the Egyptians.\" The writings\nof his instructor Ambrose show that he also was well acquainted with the\nbest Latin classics. In Jerome we have what may be called an essay on\nthe subject. Ruffinus had suggested to Magnus, a Roman rhetorician, that\nhe should ask Jerome why he filled his writings with so many allusions\nand quotations taken from pagan literature, and Jerome in reply, after\nquoting the opening verses of the Book of Proverbs, refers him to the\nexample of St. Paul in the Epistles to Titus and the Corinthians, and in\nthe speech in the Acts. Then he points to Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, and\nApollinaris: \"read them, and you will find that in comparison with them\nwe have little skill (in quotation).\" Besides these he appeals to the\nexamples, among Greek writers, of Quadratus, Justin Martyr, Dionysius,\nClement of Alexandria, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, etc.; and among Latins,\nTertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Hilary, and Juvencus. And he\npoints out that quotations from profane authors occur in nearly all the\nworks of these writers, and not merely in those which are addressed to\nheathen. But while Jerome defends the study of classical authors as a\nnecessary part of education, he severely condemns those clergy who\namused themselves with such writers as Plautus (of whom he himself had\nbeen very fond), Terence, and Catullus, when they ought to have been\nstudying the Scriptures. Later in life his views appear to have become\nmore rigid; and we find him rejoicing that the works of Plato and\nAristotle are becoming neglected.\n\nIt was the short reign of Julian, commonly called \"the Apostate\" (A.D.\n361-363), which had brought the question very much to the front. His\npolicy and legislation probably influenced Augustine and Jerome in\ntaking a more liberal line in the matter, in spite of Latin dislike of\nGreek philosophy and their own ascetic tendencies. Julian, jealous of\nthe growing influence of Christian teachers, tried to prevent them from\nlecturing on classical authors. From this he hoped to gain two\nadvantages. (1) Secular education would to a large extent be taken out\nof Christian hands. (2) The Christian teachers themselves would become\nless well educated, and less able to contend with heathen\ncontroversialists. He sarcastically pointed out the inconvenience of a\nteacher expounding Homer and denouncing Homer's gods: Christians had\nbetter confine themselves to \"expounding Matthew and Luke in the\nChurches of the Galileans,\" and leave the interpretation of the\nmasterpieces of antiquity to others. And he seems not to have contented\nhimself with cynical advice, but to have passed a law that no Christian\nwas to teach in the public schools. This law was at once cancelled by\nhis successor Valentinian; but it provoked a strong feeling of\nresentment, and stirred up Christians to recognize and hold fast the\nadvantages of a classical education.\n\nBut while the influence of the first three of the four great Latin\nFathers was in favour of a wise use of the products of pagan genius, the\ninfluence of the last of the four was disastrously in the opposite\ndirection.\n\nIn the period between Jerome and Gregory the Great two facts had had a\ncalamitous effect upon the cause of liberal education. (1) The inroads\nof the barbarians almost destroyed the imperial schools in Gaul and\nItaly. (2) The miserable controversies about Origen produced an uneasy\nsuspicion that secular study was prejudical to orthodoxy. It is perhaps\nto this latter influence that we may attribute two ecclesiastical canons\nof unknown date and origin. In the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (I. vi.)\nwe read, \"Abstain from all heathen books. For what hast thou to do with\nsuch foreign discourses, or laws, or false prophets, which subvert the\nfaith of the unstable? For what defect dost thou find in the law of God,\nthat thou shouldest have recourse to those heathenish fables?\" etc.,\netc. Again in a collection of canons, which is sometimes assigned to a\nsynod at Carthage A.D. 398, the 16th canon in the collection runs thus:\n\"A bishop shall read no heathen books, and heretical books only when\nnecessary.\" The Carthaginian synod of 398 is a fiction, and some of the\ncanons in the collection deal with controversies of a much later date:\nbut we need not doubt that all the canons were enacted in some Church or\nother in the course of the first six centuries. The spirit of this one\nis very much in harmony with the known tendencies of the sixth century;\nand we find Gregory the Great (A.D. 544-604) making precisely the same\nregulation. He forbad bishops to study heathen literature, and in one of\nhis letters (_Epp._, ix. 48) he rebukes Desiderius, Bishop of Vienne,\nfor giving his clergy instruction in grammar, which involved the reading\nof the heathen poets. \"The praises of Christ do not admit of being\njoined in the same mouth with the praises of Jupiter; and it is a grave\nand execrable thing for bishops to sing what even for a religious layman\nis unbecoming.\" The story that he purposely burnt the Palatine library\nis not traced earlier than the twelfth century, and is probably untrue;\nbut it indicates the traditional belief respecting his attitude towards\nclassical literature. And it is certainly true that he was twice in\nConstantinople, and on the second occasion remained there three years\n(A.D. 579-582), and yet never learnt Greek. In his time, as we learn\nboth from himself and his contemporary, Gregory of Tours, the belief was\nvery prevalent that the end of the world was at hand; and it was argued\nthat mankind had more serious things to attend to than the study of\npagan literature--or indeed any literature that was not connected with\nthe Scriptures or the Church. Henceforward, in the words of Gregory of\nTours, \"the study of literature perished\": and, although there were some\nbright spots at Jarrow and elsewhere, yet on the whole the chief\nservices which Christianity rendered to classical learning during the\nnext few centuries, were the preservation of classical authors in the\nlibraries of monasteries and the preservation of the classical languages\nin the liturgies of the Church.\n\nThe question will perhaps never cease to be argued, although it is\nhardly probable that so extreme a view as that of Gregory the Great will\never again become prevalent. Let us take a statement of the question\nfrom the utterances of one who will not be suspected of want of capacity\nor of experience in the matter, or of want of sympathy with stern and\nserious views respecting education and life.\n\n\"Some one will say to me perhaps,\" wrote John Henry Newman in 1859, \"our\nyouth shall not be corrupted. We will dispense with all general or\nnational literature whatever, if it be so exceptional; we will have a\nChristian Literature of our own, as pure, as true as the Jewish.\" \"You\ncannot have it.... From the nature of the case, if Literature is to be\nmade a study of human nature, you cannot have a Christian Literature. It\nis a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless Literature of sinful\nman. You may gather together something very great and high, something\nhigher than any literature ever was; and when you have done so, you will\nfind that it is not Literature at all. You will simply have left the\ndelineation of man, as such, and have substituted for it, as far as you\nhave had anything to substitute, that of man, as he is or might be,\nunder certain special advantages. Give up the study of man, as such, if\nso it must be; but say you do so. Do not say you are studying him, his\nhistory, his mind and his heart, when you are studying something else.\nMan is a being of genius, passion, intellect, conscience, power. He\nexercises his great gifts in various ways, in great deeds, in great\nthoughts, in heroic acts, in hateful crimes.... Literature records them\nall to the life....\n\n\"We should be shrinking from a plain duty, did we leave out Literature\nfrom Education. For why do we educate except to prepare for the world?\nWhy do we cultivate the intellect of the many beyond the first elements\nof knowledge, except ... to fit men of the world for the world? We\ncannot possibly keep them from plunging into the world, with all its\nways and principles and maxims, when their time comes; but we can\nprepare them against what is inevitable; and it is not the way to learn\nto swim in troubled waters, never to have gone into them. Proscribe (I\ndo not say particular authors, particular works, particular passages)\nbut Secular Literature as such: cut out from your class books all broad\nmanifestations of the natural man; and those manifestations are waiting,\nfor your pupil's benefit, at the very doors of your lecture room in\nliving and breathing substance. They will meet him there in all the\ncharm of novelty, and all the fascination of genius or of amiableness.\nTo-day a pupil, to-morrow a member of the great world: to-day confined\nto the Lives of the Saints, to-morrow thrown upon Babel;--thrown on\nBabel, without the honest indulgence of wit and humour and imagination\never permitted to him, without any fastidiousness of taste wrought into\nhim, without any rule given him for discriminating 'the precious from\nthe vile,' beauty from sin, the truth from the sophistry of nature, what\nis innocent from what is poison.\"[75]\n\nMany Christians are apt to forget that all truth is of God; and that\nevery one who in an earnest spirit endeavours to ascertain and to teach\nwhat is true in any department of human knowledge, is doing God's work.\nThe Spirit, we are promised by Christ Himself, \"shall lead you _into all\nthe Truth_,\" and \"the Truth shall make you free.\" Our business is to see\nthat nothing claims the name of truth unlawfully. It is not our business\nto prohibit anything that can make good its claim to be accounted true.\n\nThose who enjoy large opportunities of study, and especially those who\nhave the responsibility not only of learning but of teaching, must\nbeware of setting their own narrow limits to the domain of what is\nuseful and true. It has a far wider range than the wants which we feel\nin ourselves or which we can trace in others. Even the whole experience\nof mankind would not suffice to give the measure of it. We dishonour\nrather than reverence the Bible, when we attempt to confine ourselves\nand others to the study of it. Much of its secret and inexhaustible\nstore of treasure will remain undiscovered by us, until our hearts are\nwarmed, our intellects quickened, and our experience enlarged, by the\nmasterpieces of human genius. \"To the pure all things are pure.\" In the\nfirst century, in which the perils of heathenism to Christianity were\ntenfold what they are at present, St. Paul in plain terms told his\nconverts that if they liked to accept the invitations of their heathen\nfriends and acquaintances, they need not scruple to do so (1 Cor. x.\n27); and by his own example, he shows them that they may enjoy and use\nwhat is beautiful and true in heathen literature. Let us beware of\nnarrowing the liberty wisely allowed by him. Each one of us can readily\nfind out what is dangerous for _himself_. There is plenty that is not\ndangerous: let him freely enjoy that. But the limits that are wise for\nourselves are not to bind others. Their liberty is not to be\ncircumscribed by our conscience. \"The earth is the Lord's and the\nfulness thereof.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[73] =chr\u00easta homiliai= instead of =chr\u00easth' homiliai=.\n\n[74] Lightfoot on \"Seneca and St. Paul,\" in _Philippians_, pp. 288, 300.\n\n[75] J. H. Newman, _The Scope and Nature of University Education_, pp.\n336-342. The whole discourse, \"The Church and Liberal Education,\" is an\neloquent and noble vindication of the claims of literature.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n_THE MEANING AND VALUE OF SOBERMINDEDNESS.--THE USE AND ABUSE OF\nRELIGIOUS EMOTION._\n\n \"But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine: that aged\n men be temperate, grave, soberminded, sound in faith, in love, in\n patience, that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanour, not\n slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is\n good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to\n love their children, to be soberminded, chaste, workers at home,\n kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of\n God be not blasphemed: the younger men likewise exhort to be\n soberminded.\"--TITUS ii. 1-6.\n\n\nIn marked contrast to the seducing teachers who are described in the\nconcluding verses of the first chapter, Titus is charged to teach that\nwhich is right. \"But speak _thou_ the things which befit the sound\ndoctrine.\" What _they_ taught was to the last degree unwholesome, full\nof senseless frivolities and baseless distinctions respecting meats and\ndrinks, times and seasons. Such things were fatal alike to sound and\nrobust faith and to all moral earnestness. Belief was frittered away in\na credulous attention to \"Jewish fables,\" and character was depraved by\na weak punctiliousness about fanciful details. As in the Pharisees, whom\nJesus Christ denounced, scrupulosity about trifles led to neglect of\n\"the weightier matters of the law.\" But in these \"vain talkers and\ndeceivers,\" whom Titus had to oppose, the trifles by which they\ndistracted their hearers from matters of the highest importance were not\neven the minor duties enjoined by the Law or the Gospel: they were mere\n\"commandments of men.\" In opposition to calamitous teaching of this\nkind, Titus is to insist upon what is healthy and sound.\n\nAll classes are to be attended to, and the exhortations specially needed\nare to be given to each: to the older men and older women, the younger\nwomen and the younger men, to whom Titus is to show himself an example:\nand finally to slaves, for salvation is offered to all men, and is for\nno privileged class.\n\nIt will be observed that the sound teaching which Titus is charged to\ngive to the different sections of his flock relates almost exclusively\nto _conduct_. There is scarcely a hint in the whole of this chapter that\ncan be supposed to have reference to errors of _doctrine_. In quite a\ngeneral way the old men are to be exhorted to be \"sound in _faith_\" as\nwell as in love and patience: but otherwise all the instruction to be\ngiven to old and young, male and female, bond and free, relates to\nconduct in thought, word, and deed.[76]\n\nNor is there any hint that the \"vain talkers and deceivers\" contradicted\n(otherwise than by an unholy life) the moral precepts which the Apostle\nhere tells his delegate to communicate abundantly to his flock. We are\nnot to suppose that these mischievous teachers taught people that there\nwas no harm in intemperance, or slander, or unchastity, or theft. The\nmischief which they did consisted in their telling people to devote\ntheir attention to things that were morally unprofitable, while no care\nwas taken to secure attention to those things, the observance of which\nwas vital. On the contrary, the emphasis laid upon silly superstitions\nled people to suppose that, when these had been attended to, all duties\nhad been fulfilled; and a careless, godless life was the result. Thus\nwhole households were subverted by men who made religion a trade. This\ndisastrous state of things is to be remedied by pointing out and\ninsisting upon the observances which are of real importance for the\nspiritual life. The fatal lowering of moral tone, which the morbid and\nfanciful teaching of these seducers produced, is to be counteracted by\nthe bracing effects of wholesome moral teaching.\n\nNo one can read through the indications which the Apostle gives of what\nhe means by \"wholesome teaching,\" without perceiving the key-note which\nrings through it all;--_sobriety_ or _sobermindedness_. The aged men are\nto be taught to be \"temperate, grave, _soberminded_.\" The aged women to\nbe \"reverent in demeanour,\" \"that they may _school_ the young women ...\nto be _soberminded_.\" The younger men are to be \"exhorted to be\n_soberminded_.\" And in giving the reason for all this he points out\nGod's purpose in His revelation to mankind; \"to the intent that, denying\nungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live _soberly_.\"\n\nNow, what is the precise meaning of this sobriety or sobermindedness, on\nwhich St. Paul insists so strongly as a duty to be impressed upon men\nand women both old and young?\n\nThe words used in the original Greek (=s\u00f4phr\u00f4n=, =s\u00f4phronizein=,\n=s\u00f4phronein=) signify, according to their derivation,[77] \"of _sound_\nmind,\" \"to make of sound mind,\" and \"to be of sound mind;\" and the\nquality which they indicate is that _mens sana_ or healthiness of mental\nconstitution which shows itself in discreet and prudent conduct, and\nespecially in _self-control_. This latter meaning is specially\npredominant in Attic writers.\n\nThus Plato defines it as \"a kind of order and a controlling of certain\npleasures and desires, as is shown by the saying that a man is 'master\nof himself' ... an expression which seems to mean that in the man's soul\nthere are two elements, a better and a worse, and when the better\ncontrols the worse, then he is said to be master of himself\" (_Rep._,\nIV. p. 431). Similarly, Aristotle tells us that the lowest bodily\npleasures are the sphere in which this virtue of self-control is\nspecially displayed; that is, those bodily pleasures which the other\nanimals share with man, and which are consequently shown to be slavish\nand bestial, viz., the pleasures of touch and taste (_Eth. N._, III. x.\n4, 9; _Rhet._, I. ix. 9). And throughout the best Attic writers the\nvices to which self-control is opposed are those which imply immoderate\nindulgence in sensual pleasures. It is a virtue which has a very\nprominent place in heathen moral philosophy. It is one of the most\nobvious of virtues. It is manifest that in order to be a virtuous man at\nall one must at least have control over one's lowest appetites. And to\na heathen it is one of the most impressive of virtues. All of us have\nexperience of the difficulty of regulating our passions; and to those\nwho know nothing of Christian teaching or of the grace of God the\ndifficulty is increased tenfold. Hence to the savage the ascetic seems\nto be almost superhuman; and even in the cultivated pagan abstinence\nfrom bodily pleasure and steadfast resistance of sensual temptation\nexcite wonder and admiration. The beautiful panegyric of Socrates put\ninto the mouth of Alcibiades in the _Symposium_ of Plato illustrates\nthis feeling: and Euripides styles such virtue as the \"noblest gift of\nthe gods.\"\n\nBut when this virtue becomes illuminated by the Gospel its meaning is\nintensified. The \"sobermindedness\" or \"sobriety\" of the New Testament is\nsomething more than the \"self-control\" or \"temperance\" of Plato and\nAristotle. Its sphere is not confined to the lowest sensual enjoyments.\nSelf-mastery with regard to such things is still included; but other\nthings are included also. It is that power over ourselves which keeps\nunder control, not only bodily impulses, but spiritual impulses also.\nThere is a spiritual frenzy analogous to physical madness, and there are\nspiritual self-indulgences analogous to bodily intemperance. For these\nthings also self-mastery is needed.\n\nSt. Paul in writing to the Corinthians sums up his own life under the\ntwo conditions of being out of his mind and in his right mind. His\nopponents at Corinth, like Festus (Acts xxvi. 24), accused him of being\nmad. He is quite ready to admit that at times he has been in a condition\nwhich, if they like, they may call madness. But that is no affair of\ntheirs. Of his sanity and sobriety at other times there can be no\nquestion; and his conduct during these times of sobriety is of\nimportance to them. \"For whether we went out of our mind\" (=exest\u00eamen=),\n\"it was for God, or are in our right mind\" (=s\u00f4phronoumen=, \"are of\nsober mind,\" R.V.), \"it is for you\" (2 Cor. v. 13). The Apostle \"went\nout of his mind,\" as his enemies chose to say, at his conversion on the\nroad to Damascus, when a special revelation of Jesus Christ was granted\nto him: and to this phase of his existence belonged his visions (Acts\nxvi. 9; xxvii. 23), ecstasies and revelations (2 Cor. xii. 1-7), and his\n\"speaking with tongues\" (1 Cor. xiv. 18). And he was \"in his right mind\"\nin all the great tact, and sagacity, and self-denial, which he exhibited\nfor the well-being of his converts.\n\nIt was absolutely necessary that the latter condition of mind should be\nthe predominant one, and should control the other; that the ecstasy\nshould be exceptional and the sobermindedness habitual, and that the\nsobermindedness should not be turned into self-exaltation by the\nremembrance of the ecstasy. There was so much danger of this evil in St.\nPaul's case, owing to \"the exceeding greatness of the revelations\"\ngranted to him, that the special discipline of the \"stake for the flesh\"\nwas given to him to counteract the temptation; for it was in the flesh,\nthat is the sinful principle of his nature, that the tendency to pride\nhimself on his extraordinary spiritual experiences was found.\n\nSt. Paul's case was, no doubt, highly exceptional; but in degree, rather\nthan in kind. Very many of his converts had similar, although less\nsublime, and perhaps less frequent, experiences. Spiritual gifts of a\nsupernatural kind had been bestowed in great abundance upon many of the\nmembers of the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. xii. 7-10), and were the\noccasion of some of the grievous disorders which were found there,\nbecause they were not always accompanied by sobriety, but were allowed\nto become incitements to licence and spiritual pride. Few things show\nmore plainly the necessity for self-control and sobermindedness, when\nmen are under the influence of strong religious emotion, than the state\nof things existing among the Corinthian converts, as indicated in St.\nPaul's two letters to them. They had been guilty of two errors. First,\nthey had formed an exaggerated estimate of some of the gifts bestowed\nupon them, especially of the mysterious power of speaking with tongues.\nAnd, secondly, they had supposed that persons so highly gifted as\nthemselves were above, not only ordinary precautions, but ordinary\nprinciples. Instead of seeing that such special privileges required them\nto be specially on their guard, they considered that they stood in no\nneed of vigilance, and might safely disregard custom, and common\ndecency, and even principles of morality. Previous to their conversion\nthey had been idolaters, and therefore had had no experience of\nspiritual gifts and manifestations. Consequently, when the experience\ncame, they were thrown off their balance, and knew neither how to\nestimate these gifts, nor how to prevent \"what should have been to their\nwealth, becoming to them an occasion of falling.\"\n\nIt might be thought that the conditions of the Christian life of St.\nPaul and of his converts were too unlike our own to yield any clear\nlesson in this respect. We have not been converted to Christianity from\neither Judaism or paganism; and we have received no special revelations\nor extraordinary spiritual gifts. But this is not so. Our religious\nlife, like theirs, has its two different phases; its times of\nexcitement, and its times of freedom from excitement. We no longer work\nmiracles, or speak with tongues; but we have our exceptional moments of\nimpassioned feelings, and high-strung aspirations, and sublime thoughts;\nand we are just as liable as the Corinthians were to plume ourselves\nupon them, to rest in them, and to think that, because we have them, all\nmust necessarily be well with us. We cannot too often remind ourselves\nthat such things are not religion, and are not even the material out of\nwhich religion is made. They are the scaffolding and appliances, rather\nthan the formed edifice or the unformed stones and timber. They supply\nhelps and motive power. They are intended to carry us over difficulties\nand drudgery; and hence are more common in the earlier stages of a\nChristian's career than in the time of maturity, and at crises when the\ncareer has been interrupted, than when it is progressing with steadfast\nregularity. Conversion to Christianity in the case of a pagan, and the\nrealization of what Christianity really means in the case of a nominal\nChristian, involve pain and depression: and the attempt to turn again\nand repent after grievous sin involves pain and depression. Strong\nreligious emotion helps us to get the better of these, and may, if we\nuse it aright, give us an impetus in the right direction. But, from the\nvery nature of things, it cannot continue, and it is not desirable that\nit should. It will soon run its course, and we shall be left to go on\nour way with our ordinary resources. And our duty then is\ntwofold;--first, not to repine at its withdrawal; \"the Lord gave, and\nthe Lord hath taken away, blessed be the Name of the Lord\": and,\nsecondly, to take care that it does not evaporate in empty\nself-complacency, but is translated into action. Impassioned feeling,\nthat leads on to conduct, strengthens character; impassioned feeling,\nthat ends with itself, weakens it. If religious excitement is not to do\nus more harm than good, by leaving us more insensible to spiritual\ninfluences than we were before, it must be accompanied by the sobriety\nwhich refuses to be exalted by such an experience, and which, in making\nuse of it, controls it. And, moreover, these warm feelings and\nenthusiastic aspirations after what is good must lead on to calm and\nsteadfast performance of what is good. One act of real self-denial, one\ngenuine sacrifice of pleasure to duty, is worth hours of religious\nemotion and thousands of pious thoughts.\n\nBut sobermindedness will not only keep us from being pleased with\nourselves for our impassioned feelings about spiritual things, and help\nus to turn them to good account; it will also preserve us from what is\neven worse than allowing them to pass away without result, viz., talking\nabout them. To feel warmly and to do nothing is to _waste_ motive power:\nit leads to hardening of the heart against good influences in the\nfuture. To feel warmly and talk about it is to _abuse_ motive power: it\nleads to puffing up of the heart in spiritual pride and to blinding the\ninward eye with self-complacency. And this is the fatal mistake which is\nmade by some religious teachers at the present day. Strong feelings are\nexcited in those whom they wish to lead from a life of sin to a life of\nholiness. Sorrow for the past and a desire for better things are\naroused, and the sinner is thrown into a condition of violent distress\nand expectation. And then, instead of being gently led on to work out\nhis salvation in fear and trembling, the penitent is encouraged to seek\nexcitement again and again, and to attempt to produce it in others, by\nconstant rehearsing of his own religious experiences. What should have\nbeen a secret between himself and his Saviour, or at most shared only\nwith some wise adviser, is thrown out publicly to the whole world, to\nthe degradation both of what is told and of the character of him who\ntells it.\n\nThe error of mistaking religious feeling for holiness, and good thoughts\nfor good conduct, is a very common one; and it is confined to neither\nsex, and to no period of life. Men as well as women, and the old as well\nas the young, need to be on their guard against it. And therefore the\nApostle urges Titus to exhort all alike to be soberminded. There are\ntimes when to be agitated about religion, and have warm feelings either\nof sorrow or joy, is natural and right. When one is first roused to\ndesire a life of holiness; when one is conscience-stricken at having\nfallen into some grievous sin; when one is bowed down under the weight\nof some great private or public calamity, or elated by the vivid\nappreciation of some great private or public blessing. At all such\nseasons it is reasonable and proper that we should experience strong\nreligious emotion. Not to do so would be a sign of insensibility and\ndeadness of heart. But do not let us suppose that the presence of such\nfeelings mark us out as specially religious or spiritually gifted\npeople. They do nothing of the kind. They merely prove that we are not\nutterly dead to spiritual influences. Whether we are the better or the\nworse for such feelings, depends upon the use that we make of them. And\ndo not let us expect that these emotions will be permanent, which will\ncertainly not be the case, or that they will frequently return, which\nwill probably not be the case. Above all, let us not be discouraged if\nthey become more and more rare, as time goes on. They _ought_ to become\nmore rare; for they are sure to become less frequent as we advance in\nholiness. In the steady growth and natural development of the spiritual\nlife there is not much need of them or room for them. They have done\ntheir work when they have carried us over the breakers, which troubled\nour early efforts, into the less excited waters of consistent obedience.\nAnd to be able to progress without them is a surer token of God's grace\nthan to have them. To continue steadfast in our obedience, without the\nluxury of warm feelings and impassioned devotion, is more pleasing in\nHis sight than all the intense longings to be freed from sin, and all\nthe passionate supplications for increased holiness that we have ever\nfelt and offered. The test of fellowship with God is not warmth of\ndevotion but holiness of life. \"Hereby know we that we know Him, if we\n_keep His commandments_.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[76] This makes one again inclined to regret that the Revisers here and\nelsewhere have left \"doctrine\" as the translation of =didaskalia=, while\nthey have in most cases substituted \"teaching\" for \"doctrine\" as the\ntranslation of =didach\u00ea=. It would hardly be possible to confine either\nEnglish word to either Greek word as its invariable rendering: but where\nboth English words are admissible, it seems better to keep \"teaching\"\n(which is close to \"teacher\") for =didaskalia= (which is close to\n=didaskalos=) and reserve \"doctrine\" for =didach\u00ea= (see p. 47).\n\n[77] From =s\u00f4s=, \"safe and sound,\" and =phr\u00ean=, \"mind.\" The associations\nof the word are seen in Aristotle's erroneous derivation (_Eth. N._, VI.\nv. 5); =Enthen kai t\u00ean s\u00f4phrosyn\u00ean tout\u00f4 prosagoreuomen t\u00f4 onomati, h\u00f4s\ns\u00f4zousan t\u00ean phron\u00easin=.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n_THE MORAL CONDITION OF SLAVES.--THEIR ADORNMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF\nGOD._\n\n \"Exhort servants to be in subjection to their own masters, and to be\n well-pleasing to them in all things; not gainsaying; not purloining,\n but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of\n God our Saviour in all things.\"--TITUS ii. 9, 10.\n\n\nSomething has already been said in a previous discourse (on 1 Tim. vi.\n1, 2) respecting the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire in the\nfirst age of Christianity. It was not only unchristian but inhuman; and\nit was so widespread that the slaves outnumbered the freemen.\nNevertheless the Apostles and their successors taught neither to the\nslaves that they ought to resist a dominion which was immoral both in\neffect and in origin, nor to the masters that as Christians they were\nbound to set their servants free.[78] Christianity did indeed labour for\nthe abolition of slavery, but by quite other methods. It taught masters\nand slaves alike that all men have a common Divine parentage and a\ncommon Divine redemption, and consequently are equally bound to show\nbrotherly love and equally endowed with spiritual freedom. It showed\nthat the slave and his master are alike children of God, and as such\nfree; and alike servants of Jesus Christ, and as such bondmen,--bondmen\nin that service which is the only true freedom. And thus very slowly,\nbut surely, Christianity disintegrated and dispersed those unwholesome\nconditions and false ideas, which made slavery to be everywhere\npossible, and to seem to most men to be necessary. And wherever these\nconditions and ideas were swept away, slavery gradually died out or was\nformally abolished.[79]\n\nAs the number of slaves in the first century was so enormous, it was\nonly in accordance with human probability that many of the first\nconverts to Christianity belonged to this class; all the more so, as\nChristianity, like most great movements, began with the lower orders and\nthence spread upwards. Among the better class of slaves, that is those\nwho were not so degraded as to be insensible of their own degradation,\nthe Gospel spread freely. It offered them just what they needed, and the\nlack of which had turned their life into one great despair. It gave them\nsomething to hope for and something to live for. Their condition in the\nworld was both socially and morally deplorable. Socially they had no\nrights beyond what their lord chose to allow them. They were ranked with\nthe brutes, and were in a worse condition than any brutes, for they were\ncapable of wrongs and sufferings of which the brutes are incapable or\ninsensible. And St. Chrysostom in commenting on this passage points out\nhow inevitable it was that the moral character of slaves should as a\nrule be bad. They have no motive for trying to be good, and very little\nopportunity of learning what is right. Every one, slaves included,\nadmits that as a race they are passionate, intractable, and indisposed\nto virtue, not because God has made them so, but from bad education and\nthe neglect of their masters. The masters care nothing about their\nslaves' morals, except so far as their vices are likely to interfere\nwith their masters' pleasures or interests. Hence the slaves, having no\none to care for them, naturally sink into an abyss of wickedness. Their\nchief aim is to avoid, not crime, but being found out. For if free men,\nable to select their own society, and with many other advantages of\neducation and home life, find it difficult to avoid the contact and\ncontaminating influence of the vicious, what can one expect from those\nwho have none of these advantages, and have no possibility of escape\nfrom degrading surroundings? They are never taught to respect\nthemselves; they have no experience of persons who do respect\nthemselves; and they never receive any respect from either their\nsuperiors or their fellows. How can virtue or self-respect be learnt in\nsuch a school? \"For all these reasons it is a difficult and surprising\nthing that there should ever be a good slave.\" And yet this is the class\nwhich St. Paul singles out as being able in a peculiar way to \"_adorn_\nthe doctrine of God our Saviour in _all_ things.\"\n\n\"To _adorn_ the doctrine of God.\" How is the doctrine of God to be\nadorned? And how are slaves capable of adorning it?\n\n\"The doctrine of God\" is that which He teaches, which He has revealed\nfor our instruction. It is His revelation of Himself. He is the author\nof it, the giver of it, and the subject of it. He is also its end or\npurpose. It is granted in order that men may know Him, and love Him, and\nbe brought home to Him. All these facts are a guarantee to us of its\nimportance and its security. It comes from One Who is infinitely great\nand infinitely true. And yet it is capable of being adorned by those to\nwhom it is given.\n\nThere is nothing paradoxical in this. It is precisely those things which\nin themselves are good and beautiful that we consider capable of\nadornment and worthy of it. To add ornament to an object that is\nintrinsically vile or hideous, does but augment the existing bad\nqualities by adding to them a glaring incongruity. Baseness, which might\notherwise have escaped notice, becomes conspicuous and grotesque. No\nperson of good taste and good sense would waste and degrade ornament by\nbestowing it upon an unworthy object. The very fact, therefore, that\nadornment is attempted proves that those who make the attempt consider\nthe object to be adorned an object worthy of honour and capable of\nreceiving it. Thus adornment is a form of homage: it is the tribute\nwhich the discerning pay to beauty.\n\nBut adornment has its relations not only to those who bestow, but to\nthose also who receive it. It is a reflexion of the mind of the giver;\nbut it has also an influence on the recipient. And, first, it makes that\nwhich is adorned more conspicuous and better known. A picture in a frame\nis more likely to be looked at than one that is unframed. An ornamented\nbuilding attracts more attention than a plain one. A king in his royal\nrobes is more easily recognized as such than one in ordinary clothing.\nAdornment, therefore, is an advertisement of merit: it makes the adorned\nobject more readily perceived and more widely appreciated. And,\nsecondly, if it is well chosen and well bestowed, it augments the merit\nof that which it adorns. That which was fair before is made still fairer\nby suitable ornament. The beautiful painting is still more beautiful in\na worthy frame. Noble ornament increases the dignity of a noble\nstructure. And a person of royal presence becomes still more regal when\nroyally arrayed. Adornment, therefore, is not only an advertisement of\nbeauty, it is also a real enhancement of it.\n\nAll these particulars hold good with regard to the adornment of the\ndoctrine of God. By trying to adorn it and make it more beautiful and\nmore attractive, we show our respect for it; we pay our tribute of\nhomage and admiration. We show to all the world that we think it\nestimable, and worthy of attention and honour. And by so doing we make\nthe doctrine of God better known: we bring it under the notice of others\nwho might otherwise have overlooked it: we force it upon their\nattention. Thus, without consciously intending to be anything of the\nkind, we become evangelists: we proclaim to those among whom we live\nthat we have received a Gospel that satisfies us. Moreover, the doctrine\nwhich we thus adorn becomes really more beautiful in consequence.\nTeaching which nobody admires, which nobody accepts--teaching which\nteaches nobody, is a poor thing. It may be true, it may have great\ncapabilities; but for the present it is as useless as a book in the\nhands of an illiterate savage, and as valueless as treasures lying at\nthe bottom of the sea. Our acceptance of the doctrine of God, and our\nefforts to adorn it, bring out its inherent life and develop its natural\nvalue, and every additional person who joins us in doing this is an\naugmentation of its powers. It is within our power not only to honour\nand make better known, but also to enhance, the beauty of the doctrine\nof God.\n\nBut slaves,--and such slaves as were found throughout the Roman Empire\nin St. Paul's day,--what have they to do with the adornment of the\ndoctrine of God? Why is this duty of making the Gospel more beautiful\nspecially mentioned in connexion with them? That the aristocracy of the\nEmpire, its magistrates, its senators, its commanders,--supposing that\nany of them could be induced to embrace the faith of Jesus\nChrist,--should be charged to adorn the doctrines which they had\naccepted, would be intelligible. Their acceptance of it would be a\ntribute to its dignity. Their loyalty to it would be a proclamation of\nits merits. Their accession to its ranks would be a real augmentation of\nits powers of attraction. But almost the reverse of all this would seem\nto be the truth in the case of slaves. Their tastes were so low, their\nmoral judgment so debased, that for a religion to have found a welcome\namong slaves would hardly be a recommendation of it to respectable\npeople. And what opportunities had slaves, regarded as they were as the\nvery outcasts of society, of making the Gospel better known or more\nattractive?\n\nSo many a person, and especially many a slave, might have argued in St.\nPaul's hearing; and not altogether without reason and support from\nexperience. The fact that Christianity was a religion acceptable to\nslaves and the associates of slaves was from very early times one of the\nobjections made against it by the heathen, and one of the circumstances\nwhich prejudiced men of culture and refinement against it. It was one of\nthe many bitter reproaches that Celsus brought against Christianity,\nthat it laid itself out to catch slaves, women, and children, in short\nthe immoral, the unintellectual, and the ignorant classes. And we need\nnot suppose that this was merely a spiteful taunt: it represented a\ndeep-seated and not altogether unreasonable prejudice. Seeing how many\nreligions there were at that time which owed much of their success to\nthe fact that they pandered to the vices, while they presumed upon the\nfolly and ignorance of mankind, it was not an unjustifiable presumption\nthat a new faith which won many adherents in the most degraded and\nvicious class of society, was itself a degrading and corrupting\nsuperstition.\n\nYet St. Paul knew what he was about when he urged Titus to commit the\n\"adorning of the doctrine of God\" in a special manner to slaves: and\nexperience has proved the soundness of his judgment. If the mere fact\nthat many slaves accepted the faith could not do a great deal to\nrecommend the power and beauty of the Gospel, the Christian lives, which\nthey thence-forward led, could. It was a strong argument _\u00e0 fortiori_.\nThe worse the unconverted sinner, the more marvellous his thorough\nconversion. There must be something in a religion which out of such\nunpromising material as slaves could make obedient, gentle, honest,\nsober, and chaste men and women. As Chrysostom puts it, when it was seen\nthat Christianity, by giving a settled principle of sufficient power to\ncounterbalance the pleasures of sin, was able to impose a restraint upon\na class so self-willed, and render them singularly well-behaved, then\ntheir masters, however unreasonable they might be, were likely to form a\nhigh opinion of the doctrines which accomplished this. So that it is\nneither by chance, nor without reason, that the Apostle singles out this\nclass of men: since, the more wicked they are, the more admirable is\nthe power of that preaching which reforms them. And St. Chrysostom goes\non to point out that the way in which slaves are to endeavour to adorn\nthe doctrine of God is by cultivating precisely those virtues which\ncontribute most to their masters' comfort and interest,--submissiveness,\ngentleness, meekness, honesty, truthfulness, and a faithful discharge of\nall duties. What a testimony conduct of this kind would be to the power\nand beauty of the Gospel; and a testimony all the more powerful in the\neyes of those masters who became conscious that these despised Christian\nslaves were living better lives than their owners! The passionate man,\nwho found his slave always gentle and submissive; the inhuman and\nferocious man, who found his slave always meek and respectful; the\nfraudulent man of business, who noticed that his slave never pilfered or\ntold lies; the sensualist, who observed that his slave was never\nintemperate and always shocked at immodesty;--all these, even if they\nwere not induced to become converts to the new faith, or even to take\nmuch trouble to understand it, would at least at times feel something of\nrespect, if not of awe and reverence, for a creed which produced such\nresults. Where did their slaves learn these lofty principles? Whence did\nthey derive the power to live up to them?\n\nThe cases in which masters and mistresses were converted through the\nconduct of their own slaves were probably by no means rare. It was by\nthe gradual influence of numerous Christian lives, rather than by\norganized missionary effort, that the Gospel spread during the first\nages of the Church; and nowhere would this gradual influence make itself\nmore strongly and permanently felt than in the family and household.\nSome slaves then, like some domestic servants now, stood in very close\nrelations with their masters and mistresses; and the opportunities of\n\"adorning the doctrine of God\" would in such cases be frequent and\ngreat. Origen implies that it was no uncommon thing for families to be\nconverted through the instrumentality of the slaves (Migne, _Series\nGraeca_, xi. 476, 483). One of the grievous moral defects of that most\nimmoral age was the low view taken of the position of women in society.\nEven married women were treated with but scant respect. And as the\nmarriage-tie was very commonly regarded as an irksome restraint, the\ncondition of most women, even among the free-born, was degraded in the\nextreme. They were scarcely ever looked upon as the social equals and\nthe necessary complement of the other sex; and, when not required to\nminister to the comforts and pleasures of the men, were often left to\nthe society of slaves. Untold evil was the natural result; but, as\nChristianity spread, much good came out of the evil. Christian slaves\nsometimes made use of this state of things to interest their mistresses\nin the teaching of the Gospel; and when the mistress was converted,\nother conversions in the household became much more probable. Another\ngrievous blot on the domestic life of the time was the want of parental\naffection. Fathers had scarcely any sense of responsibility towards\ntheir children, especially as regards their moral training. Their\neducation generally was left almost entirely to slaves, from whom they\nlearnt some accomplishments and many vices. They too often became adepts\nin wickedness before they had ceased to be children. But here again\nthrough the instrumentality of the Gospel good was brought out of this\nevil also. When the slaves, who had the care and the training of the\nchildren, were Christians, the morals of the children were carefully\nguarded; and in many cases the children, when they came to years of\ndiscretion, embraced Christianity.\n\nNor were these the only ways in which the most degraded and despised\nclass in the society of that age were able to \"adorn the doctrine of\nGod.\" Slaves were not only an ornament to the faith by their lives; they\nadorned it also by their deaths. Not a few slaves won the martyr's\ncrown. Those who have read that most precious relic of early Christian\nliterature, the letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the\nChurches of Asia Minor and Phrygia, will not need to be reminded of the\nmartyrdom of the slave Blandina with her mistress in the terrible\npersecution in Gaul under Marcus Aurelius in the year 177. Eusebius has\npreserved the greater portion of the letter at the beginning of the\nfifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. Let all who can do so read it,\nif not in the original Greek, at least in a translation. It is an\nauthentic and priceless account of Christian fortitude.\n\nWhat slaves could do then we all of us can do now. We can prove to all\nfor whom and with whom we work that we really do believe and endeavour\nto live up to the faith that we profess. By the lives we lead we can\nshow to all who know anything of us that we are loyal to Christ. By\navoiding offence in word or in deed, and by welcoming opportunities of\ndoing good to others, we can make His principles better known. And by\ndoing all this brightly and cheerfully, without ostentation or\naffectation or moroseness, we can make His principles attractive. Thus\nwe also can \"adorn the doctrine of God in all things.\"\n\n\"In all things.\" That all-embracing addition to the Apostolic\ninjunction must not be lost sight of. There is no duty so humble, no\noccupation so trifling, that it cannot be made into an opportunity for\nadorning our religion. \"Whether ye eat, or drink, or _whatsoever ye do_,\ndo all to the glory of God\" (1 Cor. x. 31).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[78] The stories told in Bollandus of Roman converts under Trajan and\nDiocletian, who at their baptism manumitted their slaves, are not very\ncredible. Such things, if they happened at all, were very exceptional.\n\n[79] Pagan inscriptions carefully distinguish between freemen and\nslaves; Christian inscriptions seldom or never. There seems to be no\nwell-ascertained instance in the Roman catacombs. _Dict. of Christ\nAnt._, Vol. ii. p. 1904.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n_HOPE AS A MOTIVE POWER.--THE PRESENT HOPES OF CHRISTIANS._\n\n \"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,\n instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly\n lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this\n present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the\n glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave Himself\n for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto\n Himself a people for His own possession, zealous of good works.\n These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no\n man despise thee.\"--TITUS ii. 11-15.\n\n\nThere are not many passages in the Pastoral Epistles which treat so\nplainly as this does of doctrine. As a rule St. Paul assumes that his\ndelegates, Timothy and Titus, are well instructed (as he knew they were)\nin the details of the Christian faith, and he does not stay even to\nremind them of what he had frequently taught to them and to others in\ntheir presence. The purpose of the Epistles is to give practical rather\nthan doctrinal instruction; to teach Timothy and Titus how to shape\ntheir own conduct, and what kind of conduct they are chiefly to insist\nupon in the different classes of Christians committed to their charge.\nHere, however, and in the next chapter, we have marked exceptions to\nthis method. Yet even here the exception is more apparent than real; for\nthe doctrinal statements are introduced, not as truths to be recognized\nand believed (it is taken for granted that they _are_ recognized and\nbelieved), but as the basis of the practical exhortations which have\njust been given. It is because these great truths have been revealed,\nbecause life is so real and so important, and because eternity is so\ncertain, that Titus is to exert all his influence to produce the best\nkind of conduct in his flock, whether men or women, old or young, bond\nor free.\n\nThe passage before us might almost serve as a summary of St. Paul's\nteaching. In it he once more insists upon the inseparable connexion\nbetween creed and character, doctrine and life, and intimates the close\nrelations between the past, the present, and the future, in the\nChristian scheme of salvation. There are certain facts in the past,\nwhich must be believed; and there is a kind of life in the present,\nwhich must be lived; and there are things in store for us in the future,\nwhich must be looked for. Thus the three great virtues of faith,\ncharity, and hope are inculcated. Two Epiphanies or appearances of Jesus\nChrist in this world are stated as the two great limits of the Christian\ndispensation. There is the Epiphany of grace, when the Christ appeared\nin humility, bringing salvation and instruction to all men; and there is\nthe Epiphany of glory, when He will appear again in power, that He may\nclaim as His own possession the people whom He has redeemed. And between\nthese two there is the Christian life with its \"blessed hope,\" the hope\nof the Lord's return in glory to complete the kingdom which His first\nAdvent began.\n\nMost of us make far too little of this \"blessed hope.\" It is of\nincalculable value; first, as a test of our own sincerity and reality;\nand secondly, as a source of strength to carry us over the difficulties\nand disappointments which beset our daily course.\n\nThere is perhaps no more certain test of a Christian's earnestness than\nthe question whether he does, or does not, look forward with hope and\nlonging for Christ's return. Some men have seriously persuaded\nthemselves that there is no such thing either to hope for or to dread.\nOthers prefer not to think about it; they know that doubts have been\nentertained on the subject, and as the topic is not a pleasant one to\nthem, they dismiss it as much as possible from their minds, with the\nwish that the doubts about there being any return of Christ to judgment\nmay be well-founded; for their own lives are such that they have every\nreason to desire that there may be no judgment. Others again, who on the\nwhole are trying to lead Christian lives, nevertheless so far share the\nfeelings of the godless, in that the thought of Christ's return (of the\ncertainty of which they are fully persuaded) inspires them with fear\nrather than with joy. This is especially the case with those who are\nkept in the right way much more by the fear of hell than by the love of\nGod, or even the hope of heaven. They believe and tremble. They believe\nin God's truth and justice much more than in His love and mercy. He is\nto them a Master and Lord to be obeyed and feared, much more than a God\nand Father to be adored and loved. Consequently their work is\nhalf-hearted, and their life servile, as must always be the case with\nthose whose chief motive is fear of punishment. Hence they share the\nterrors of the wicked, while they lose their share of the joys of the\nrighteous. They are too much afraid to find any real pleasure either in\nsin or in good works. To have sinned fills them with terror at the\nthought of inevitable punishment; and to have done what is right fills\nthem with no joy, because they have so little love and so little hope.\n\nThose who find from experience that the thought of Christ's return in\nglory is one on which they seldom dwell, even if it be not positively\nunwelcome, may be sure that there is something defective in their life.\nEither they are conscious of shortcomings which they make little or no\nattempt to correct, the recollection of which becomes intolerable when\nconfronted with the thought of the day of judgment (and this shows that\nthere is a great lack of earnestness in their religious life); or they\nare being content with low motives for avoiding iniquity and striving\nafter righteousness, and thus are losing a real source of strength to\nhelp them in their efforts. No doubt there are persons over whom high\nmotives have little influence, and can have but little influence,\nbecause they are as yet unable to appreciate them. But no one in\nwatching over either his own soul or the souls of others can afford to\nbe content with such a state of things. Childish things must be put\naway, when they cease to be appropriate. As the character develops under\nthe influence of lower motives, higher motives begin at times to make\nthemselves felt; and these must gradually be substituted for the others.\nAnd when they do make themselves felt, high motives are much more\npowerful than low ones; which is a further reason for appealing to them\nrather than to the others. Not only is a man, who is capable of being\nmoved both by the fear of hell and by the love of God, more influenced\nby the love than by the fear; but love has more power over his will than\nfear has over the will of one who cannot be influenced by love.\n\nAll this tends to show how much is lost by those who make no effort to\ncultivate in their minds a feeling of joy at the thought of \"the\nappearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.\" They\nlose a great source of strength by neglecting to cultivate what would be\na powerful motive to help them on the right way. Nor does the loss end\nhere. With it they lose much of the interest which they would otherwise\ntake in all that helps to \"accomplish the number of God's elect and to\nhasten His kingdom.\" Christians pray daily, and perhaps many times\ndaily, \"Thy kingdom come.\" But how few realize what they are praying\nfor! How few really long that their prayer may be speedily granted! How\nfew take a keen and untiring interest in all that promotes the coming of\nthe kingdom! And thus again motive power is lost; for if we had but the\neyes to see, and the heart to appreciate, all that is going on round\nabout us, we should feel that we live, as compared with our forefathers,\nin very encouraging times.\n\nWe are often enough told that Christianity in general, and the Church of\nEngland in particular, is at the present time passing through a great\ncrisis; that this is an age of peculiar dangers and difficulties; that\nwe live in times of unblushing vice and uncompromising scepticism; and\nthat the immensity of our social, commercial, and political corruption\nis only the natural outcome of the immensity of our irreligion and\nunbelief. These things may be true; and there is no earnest Christian\nwho has not at times been perplexed and saddened by them. But, thank\nGod, there are other things which are equally true, and which ought to\nbe equally recognized and remembered. If the present is an age of\npeculiar dangers and boundless irreligion, it is also an age of\npeculiar encouragements and boundless hope.\n\nThere are Christians who love to look back to some period in the history\nof the Church, which they have come to regard as a sort of golden age;\nan age in which communities of saintly men and women were ministered to\nby a still more saintly clergy, and in which the Church went beautifully\non its way, not altogether free from persecutions, which were perhaps\nnecessary for its perfection, but untroubled by doubts, or dissensions,\nor heresies, and unstained by worldliness, apostasy, or sloth. So far as\nthe experience of the present writer has carried him, no such golden age\ncan be found in the actual history of the Church.\n\nIt is not to be found in the New Testament, either before or after\nPentecost.\n\nWe do not find it, where we might have expected to find it, in the\nperiod when Christ was still present in the flesh as the Ruler and\nInstructor of His Church. That period is marked by the ignorance and\nunbelief of the Apostles, by their quarrels, their ambition for the\nfirst places in an earthly kingdom, their intolerant spirit, by the\nflight of all of them in the hour of Christ's danger, by the denials of\nSt. Peter, by the treachery and suicide of Judas. Nor do we find it,\nwhere again we might have expected to find it, in the age immediately\nsucceeding the completion of Christ's work, when the Apostles, newly\nanointed with the Spirit, were still alive to direct and foster the\nChurch which He had founded. That period also is marred by many\ndisfiguring marks. Apostles can still be timeserving, can still quarrel\namong themselves; and they also experience what it is to be forsaken and\nopposed by their own disciples. Their converts, as soon as the Apostle\nwho established them in the faith is withdrawn, and sometimes even\nwhile he is still with them, become guilty of the gravest errors in\nconduct and belief. Witness the monstrous disorders in the Church of\nCorinth, the fickleness of the Galatian converts, the unchristian\nasceticism of the Colossian heretics, the studied immorality of those of\nEphesus. The Church which was presided over by St. Timothy was the\nChurch of Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus, who removed the very\ncorner-stone of the faith by denying the Resurrection; and the Churches\nwhich were presided over by St. John contained the Nicolaitans,\ncondemned as hateful by Jesus Christ, and Diotrephes, who repudiated the\nApostle and excommunicated those who received the Apostle's messengers.\nAnd there is much more of the same sort, as the Pastoral Epistles show\nus, proving that what comes to us at first as a sad surprise is of still\nsadder frequency, and that the Apostolic age had defects and stains at\nat least as serious as those which deface our own.\n\nThe failure to find any golden age in either of these two divisions of\nthe period covered by the New Testament ought to put us on our guard\nagainst expecting to find it in any subsequent period. And it would not\nbe difficult to take each of the epochs in the history of the Church\nwhich have been selected as specially bright and perfect, and show that\nin every case, directly we pass through the hazy glow, which the\nimagination of later writers has thrown around such periods, and get\ndown to solid facts, then, either the brightness and perfection are\nfound to be illusory, or they are counter-balanced by many dark spots\nand disorders. The age of the martyrs is the age of the lapsed; the ages\nof faith are the ages of fraud; and the ages of great success are the\nages of great corruption. In the first centuries increase of numbers\nwas marked by increase of heresies and schisms; in the middle ages,\nincrease of power by increase of pride. A fair comparison of the period\nin which our own lot has been cast with any previous period in the\nhistory of the Church will never lead to any just feeling of\ndiscouragement. Indeed it may reasonably be contended that at no era\nsince Christianity was first founded have its prospects been so bright\nas at the present time.\n\nLet us look at the contest between the Gospel and heathenism,--that\ngreat contest which has been going on since \"the grace of God appeared\nbringing salvation to all men,\" and which is to continue until \"the\nappearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour.\" Was there ever a\ntime when missions were more numerous or better organized, and when\nmissionaries were as a rule better instructed, better equipped, or more\ndevoted? And although it is impossible to form a correct estimate on\nsuch a subject, because some of the most important data are beyond our\nreach, yet it may be doubted whether there ever was a time when missions\nachieved more solid success. The enormous growth of the colonial and\nmissionary episcopate during the last hundred years is at any rate one\ngreat fact which represents and guarantees a great deal. Until 1787\nthere was not a single episcopal see of the Anglican communion in any of\nthe colonies or settlements of the British Empire; still less was there\na single missionary bishop. And now, as the Lambeth Conferences remind\nus, these colonial and missionary bishops are not far short of a\nhundred, and are always increasing.[80]\n\nOr let us look at the relations between the great Churches into which\nChristendom is unhappily divided. Was there ever a period at which there\nwas less bitterness, or more earnest and wide-spread desire for the\nrestoration of unity? And the increased desire for reunion comes hand in\nhand with an increase of the conditions which would render reunion\npossible. Two things are absolutely indispensable for a successful\nattempt in this direction. First, a large measure of culture and\nlearning, especially among the clergy of the divided Churches; and\nsecondly, intelligent religious zeal. Ignorant controversialists cannot\ndistinguish between important and unimportant differences, and thus\naggravate rather than smooth difficulties. And without religious\nearnestness the attempt to heal differences ends in indifferentism. Both\nthese indispensable elements are increasing, at any rate in the Anglican\nand in the Eastern Churches: and thus reunion, which \"must be possible,\nbecause it is a duty,\" is becoming not only a desire but a hope.\n\nLet us look again at our own Church; at its abundant machinery for every\nkind of beneficent object; at the beautiful work which is being done in\na quiet and simple way by numbers of Christian men and women in\nthousands of parishes; at the increase in services, in confirmations, in\ncommunions; at the princely offerings of many of the wealthy laity; at\nthe humble offerings--equally princely in God's sight--of many of the\npoor. Can we point to a time when party feeling (bad as it still is) was\nless rancorous, when parishes were better worked, when the clergy were\nbetter educated or more self-sacrificing, when the people were more\nresponsive to what is being done for them?\n\nThe very possibility of seriously raising such questions as these is in\nitself a reason for taking courage, even if we cannot answer all of them\nin the way that would please us most. There are at any rate good grounds\nfor hoping that much is being done for the advancement of Christ's\ndominion, and that the prayer \"Thy kingdom come\" is being answered day\nby day. If we could but convince ourselves more thoroughly of the truth\nof all this, we should work more hopefully and more earnestly. More\nhopefully, because we should be working with a consciousness of being\nsuccessful and making progress, with a conviction that we are on the\nwinning side. And more earnestly, not merely because hope makes work\nmore earnest and thorough, but also because we should have an increased\nsense of responsibility: we should fear lest through any sloth or\nnegligence on our part such bright prospects should be marred. The\nexpectation of defeat makes some men strive all the more heroically; but\nmost men it paralyses. In our Christian warfare we certainly need hope\nto carry us onward to victory.\n\n\"The appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.\"\nAmong the foolish charges which have been brought against the Revisers\nis that of favouring Arian tendencies by blurring those texts which\nteach the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The present passage would be a\nsufficient answer to such a charge. In the A.V. we have \"the glorious\nappearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ,\" where both\nthe wording and the comma make it clear that \"the great God\" means the\nFather and not our Saviour. The Revisers, by omitting the comma, for\nwhich there is no authority in the original, and by placing the \"our\"\nbefore both substantives, have given their authority to the view that\nSt. Paul means both \"great God\" and \"Saviour\" to apply to Jesus Christ.\nIt is not any Epiphany of the Father which is in his mind, but the\n\"Epiphany of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.\"\n\nThe wording of the Greek is such that absolute certainty is not\nattainable; but the context, the collocation of the words, the use of\nthe word \"Epiphany,\" and the omission of the article before \"Saviour\"\n(=epiphaneian t\u00eas dox\u00eas tou megalou Theou kai s\u00f4t\u00earos h\u00eam\u00f4n I. Ch.=),\nall seem to favour the Revisers' rendering. And, if it be adopted, we\nhave here one of the plainest and most direct statements of the Divinity\nof Christ to be found in Scripture. As such it was employed in the Arian\ncontroversy, although Ambrose seems to have understood the passage as\nreferring to the Father and Christ, and not to Christ alone. The force\nof what follows is enhanced, if the Revisers' rendering, which is the\n_strictly grammatical_ rendering, is maintained. It is as being \"our\ngreat God\" that He gave Himself for us, that He might \"redeem us from\nall iniquity;\" and it was because He was God as well as man, that what\nwas uttered as a bitter taunt was really a glorious truth;--\"He saved\nothers; Himself He _cannot_ save.\" It was morally impossible that the\nDivine Son should turn back from making us \"a people for His own\npossession.\" Let us strengthen ourselves in the hope that our efforts to\nfulfil this gracious purpose are never thrown away.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[80] Including the English and American bishops, invitations to two\nhundred and nine prelates were issued for the Lambeth Conference in\n1888.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n_THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY, WITH ITS LIMITS; THE DUTY OF\nCOURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS._\n\n \"Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to\n be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, to speak evil of no\n man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness\n toward all men. For we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient,\n deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and\n envy, hateful, hating one another\"--TITUS iii. 1-3.\n\n\nSt. Paul, having in the previous chapter sketched the special duties\nwhich Titus is to inculcate upon different classes of Christians,--aged\nmen and aged women, young women, young men, and slaves,--now passes on\nto point out what must be impressed upon all Christians alike,\nespecially as regards their conduct towards those who are in authority\nand who are not Christians.\n\nHere he is on delicate ground. The Cretans are said to have been a\nturbulent race, or rather a group of turbulent races; neither peaceable\namong themselves, nor very patient of foreign dominion: and the Roman\nrule had been established there for less than a century and a half.\nPrevious to their conquest by Metellus in B.C. 67, they had been\naccustomed to democratic forms of government, and therefore would be\nlikely to feel the change to the Roman yoke all the more acutely. As\nour own experiences in a neighbouring island have taught us, people who\nhave been allowed to misgovern themselves, and to fight among\nthemselves, for many generations, do not readily give a welcome to a\npower which deprives them of these liberties, even when it offers in\nexchange for them the solid but prosaic advantages of peace and\nsecurity. Besides this, there was in Crete a strong mixture of Jews,\nwhose rebellious propensities seemed to be unquenchable. Nor was this\nall. Within the Church itself the spirit of anarchy had displayed\nitself: partly because, as in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, the\ncharacteristic faults of the people still continued to show themselves\nafter the acceptance of Christianity; partly because, as everywhere in\nthe Churches of that age, the contests between Jewish and Gentile\nconverts were always producing disorder. This appears in the first\nchapter of our Epistle, in which the Apostle states that \"there are many\nunruly men, ... specially they of the circumcision,\" and in which he\nfinds it necessary to make it a qualification for the office of bishop\nor overseer, that the persons appointed should be such as \"are not\naccused of riot or are unruly.\" Besides which, as we learn from numerous\nsources in the New Testament, there was in various quarters a tendency\nto gross misconceptions respecting Christian liberty. Through Gnostic\nand other antinomian influences there was a disposition in many minds to\ntranslate liberty into license, and to suppose that the Christian was\nabove the distinctions of the moral law, which for him had no meaning.\nLastly, there were probably some earnest Christians, who, without going\nto any of these disastrous extremes, or sympathizing with the factious\nand seditious spirit of their fellow-countrymen, nevertheless had\nserious doubts as to whether Christians were under any obligation to\nobey a pagan magistrate, and perhaps were inclined to believe that it\nwas their duty to disobey him.\n\nFor all these reasons St. Paul must have known that he was charging\nTitus to give instructions, which would be very unwelcome to a large\nnumber of Cretan converts, when he told him to \"put them in mind to be\nin subjection to rulers and authorities, and to be obedient.\" But it was\nthe very fact that the instructions would be unwelcome to many, that\nmade it so necessary that they should be given. Both for the internal\nwell-being of the Church, and for the maintenance of right relations\nwith the State, it was imperative that the principle of obedience to\nauthority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, should be upheld. There must\nbe peace, and there must be liberty: but there could be neither the one\nnor the other without a respect for law and for those who have to\nadminister it.\n\nThe Apostle does not here argue the case. He lays down certain positions\nas indisputable. The loyal Christian must submit himself to those who\nare placed over him; he must render obedience to existing authorities.\nThere is one obvious limit to this which he indicates by a single word\nto be noticed hereafter, but with that one qualification the duty of\nobedience is imperative and absolute. Jew and Gentile Christian alike\nmust obey the laws, not only of the Church, as administered by its\noverseers, but also of the State, as administered by the magistrates,\neven though the State be a heathen power and the magistrate an idolater.\nThe reason why St. Paul does not argue the matter is obvious. He is not\nwriting to those who are likely to dispute or disobey these\ninjunctions, but to one who has to see that they are obeyed. His object\nis not to prove the excellence of the rules which he lays down, but to\nadvise Titus as to what rules are to be most insisted upon. Titus was\nwell aware of the principles upon which these rules were based and of\nthe arguments by which the Apostle was accustomed to defend them. He\ndoes not need information on that point. What the Apostle thinks may be\nnecessary for his guidance is a clear intimation of those practical\nlessons of which the Cretans needed most to be reminded. It was quite\npossible that Titus might have taken the view that the question about\nobedience to existing authorities was a burning one, and that it would\nbe better for the present to say as little about it as possible. To\nobject, therefore, that these directions in the second and third\nchapters of this Epistle are unworthy of St. Paul, and consequently not\nwritten by him, because they contain nothing which might serve as a\nsufficient refutation of the adversaries, is to beat the air without\neffect. They contain nothing calculated to serve as a refutation of the\nadversaries, because the Apostle writes with no intention of refuting\nopponents, but in order to give practical instructions to his delegate.\n\nBut although the Apostle does not here argue the case, we are not left\nin ignorance as to the principles upon which he based the rules here\nlaid down so emphatically. The thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the\nRomans is quite clear on that point. \"There is no power but of God; and\nthe powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the\npower, withstandeth the ordinance of God.\" That is the kernel of the\nwhole matter. The fact that a few rule over the many is not to be\ntraced to a world-wide usurpation of the rights of the simple and the\nweak by the selfishness of the crafty and the strong. That theory may\nexplain the terrorism of a bully, or of a band of brigands, or of a\nsecret society; it is no explanation of the universal relations between\ngovernors and the governed. Nor is it the result of a primeval \"social\ncompact,\" in which the weak voluntarily surrendered some of their rights\nin order to have the advantage of the protection of the strong: that\ntheory is pure fiction, and finds no support either in the facts of\nman's nature, or in the relics of primitive society, or in the records\nof the past. The one explanation which is at once both adequate and\ntrue, is, that all authority is of Divine origin. This was the\ndeclaration of the Forerunner, when his disciples complained to him of\nthe influence which Jesus exercised over those who came in contact with\nHis teaching: \"A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him\nfrom heaven\" (John iii. 27). This was the declaration of the Christ,\nwhen the Roman Procurator pointed out to Him that he had power of life\nand death over Him: \"Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it\nwere given thee from above\" (John xix. 11). The power of the Redeemer\nover the minds of men and the power of a heathen governor over the\nbodies of men have one and the same source,--Almighty God. Christ\ndeclared His innocence and asserted His claims; but He made no protest\nagainst being tried by a pagan official, who represented the power that\nhad deprived the Jewish nation of its liberties, because he also\nrepresented the principle of law and order, and as such was the\nrepresentative of God Himself.\n\nSt Paul, therefore, is doing no more than restating what the Lord had\nalready taught both by word and example. Christians must show submission\nto rulers and constituted authorities, and must yield ready obedience to\nmagistrates, even when they are heathen. As heathen they were no doubt\nrebels against God, however little they might be aware of the fact. But\nas magistrates they were His delegates, however little they were aware\nof the fact. The Christian is aware of both facts; and he must not\nsuppose that the one cancels the other. The magistrate still remains\nGod's delegate, however inconsistent his own life may be with such a\nposition. Therefore it is not only allowable for Christians to obey him;\nthey must make it a matter of conscience to do so: and the history of\nthe Church throughout the eras of persecution shows how greatly such\nteaching was needed. Whatever may have been the case when St. Paul wrote\nthe Epistle to the Romans, we may safely maintain that persecution had\nalready taken place when he wrote these instructions to Titus. Not that\nhe seems to have a persecuting power in his mind, when he enjoins simple\nobedience to existing authority; but he writes with full knowledge of\nthe extreme cases that might occur. A moralist who could insist upon the\nduty of submission to rulers, when a Nero had been on the throne for\ntwelve or fourteen years, was certainly not one who could be ignorant of\nwhat his principles involved. Nor could it be said that the evils of\nNero's insolent despotism were counteracted by the excellence of his\nsubordinates. The infamous Tigellinus was Praetorian Prefect and the\nEmperor's chief adviser. Helius, who acted as governor of Italy during\nthe Emperor's absence in Greece, was in character a second Nero. And\nGessius Florus, one of Pilate's successors as Procurator of Judaea, was\nso shameless in his enormities, that the Jews regretted the departure of\nhis predecessor Albinus, although he also had mercilessly oppressed\nthem. But all these facts, together with many more of the same kind, and\nsome also of an opposite character, were beside the question. Christians\nwere not to concern themselves with discussing whether rulers governed\nwell or ill, or whether their private lives were good or bad. The one\nfact which concerned them was that the rulers were there to administer\nthe law, and as such must be respected and obeyed. The conscience of\nChristians and the experiences of politicians, whether rulers or ruled,\nthroughout all the subsequent ages have ratified the wisdom of St.\nPaul's injunctions; and not only their wisdom but their profound\nmorality. Renan says with truth, but with a great deal less than the\nwhole truth, that \"Paul had too much tact to be a preacher of sedition:\nhe wished that the name of Christian should stand well, and that a\nChristian should be a man of order, on good terms with the police, and\nof good repute in the eyes of the pagans\" (_St. Paul_, p. 477). The\ncriticism which resolves a profound moral principle into a mere question\nof tact is worthy of the critic who makes it. Certainly St. Paul was\nfar-sighted enough to see that frequent collisions between Christians\nand the recognized administrators of the law would be no good thing for\nChristianity: but it was not because he believed obedience to be the\nbest policy that he charged Titus to insist upon it.\n\nIt is of the very essence of a ruler that he is \"not a terror to the\ngood work, but to the evil: ... for he is a minister of God to thee for\ngood, ... an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.\" It is quite\npossible that the law which he administers is unjust, or that he\nadministers it in such a way as to make it work injustice, so that good\ndeeds are punished and evil deeds are rewarded. But nowhere is good\npunished _as_ good, or evil rewarded _as_ evil. When Naboth was\njudicially murdered to gratify Jezebel, it was on the assumption that he\nwas a blasphemer and a rebel; and when Jesus of Nazareth was condemned\nto death by the Sanhedrin and by the Procurator, it was on the\nassumption that he was guilty of similar crimes. So also with all the\nmonstrous and iniquitous laws which have been made against Christianity\nand Christians. The persecuting edict \"cast out their name as _evil_.\"\n\nIt was because men believed, or professed to believe, that Christians\nwere grievous offenders or dangerous citizens, that they brought them\nbefore the magistrates. And the same holds good of the religious\npersecutions of which Christians have been guilty against other\nChristians. Nowhere can we point to a case in which a person has been\ncondemned for having been virtuous, or for having failed to commit a\ncrime. Many have been condemned for what was really meritorious, or for\nrefusing to do what was really wicked; but in all such cases the\nmeritorious conduct and the wicked conduct were held to be of exactly\nthe opposite character by the representatives of the law. Legally\nconstituted authority, therefore, is always by profession, and generally\nin fact also, a terror to the evil and a supporter of the good. It is\ncharged with the all-important duty of upholding right and punishing\nwrong in human conduct, _a duty which it never disowns_. For even when\nthrough blindness or perversity it upholds what is wrong or punishes\nwhat is right, it professes to be doing the opposite. Therefore to rebel\nagainst it is to rebel against the principle of moral government; it is\na revolt against that principle which reflects and represents, and that\nby His ordinance, the moral government of Almighty God.\n\nSt. Paul assumes that rulers aim at what is just and right. The\nChristian is \"to be ready unto every good work\": and, although the words\nare no doubt intended to have a general meaning as well, yet the context\nsuggests that their primary meaning in this place is that Christians are\nalways, not only to be obedient to rulers and magistrates, but to be\nready to support and assist them in any good work: the presumption being\nthat what the authorities direct is good. But, without perhaps having\nthis object in view, the Apostle here indirectly intimates the limits to\na Christian's obedience and support. They are to be given to further\n\"every _good_ work\": they cannot of course be given to further what is\nevil. What then must a Christian do when lawful authority requires him\nto do what he knows to be wrong? Is he to rebel? to stir up a revolt\nagainst those who make this demand? No, he is still \"to be in subjection\nto rulers\": that is, he must disobey and _quietly take the\nconsequences_. He owes it to his conscience to refuse to do what it\ncondemns: but he also owes it to the representative of Divine law and\norder to abstain from shaking its authority. It has the power to give\ncommands and the right to punish disobedience, and he has no right to\nrefuse both obedience and punishment. To disobey and submissively take\nthe consequences of disobedience is his plain duty in so painful a case.\nIn this way, and in this way _only_, will loyalty to conscience and\nloyalty to authority both alike be preserved. In this way, and in this\nway _best_ (as history has again and again shown), is the reformation\nof unjust laws effected. The moral sense of society is far more\nimpressed by the man who disobeys for conscience' sake and unresistingly\ngoes to prison or mounts the scaffold for his disobedience, than by him\nwho violently resists all attempts to punish him and stirs up rebellion\nagainst the authority which he cannot conscientiously obey. Rebellion\nmay succeed in redressing injustice, but at a cost which is likely to be\nmore grievous than the injustice which it redresses. Conscientious\ndisobedience, accompanied by loyal submission to the penalty of\ndisobedience, is sure to succeed in reforming unjust laws, and that\nwithout any cost to counterbalance the good thus gained.\n\nHaving thus trenchantly determined the duty of believers towards rulers\nand magistrates, St. Paul passes on to sketch their proper attitude\ntowards other members of society. And just as in speaking of conduct\ntowards authorities he evidently has in his mind the fact that most\nauthorities are unbelievers, so in speaking of conduct in society he\nevidently is thinking of a state of society in which many of its members\nare unbelievers. What kind of conduct will Titus have to insist upon as\nbefitting a Christian? \"To speak evil of no man, not to be contentious,\nto be gentle, showing all meekness towards all men.\"\n\nIt would be difficult to point to a precept which is more habitually\nviolated by Christians at the present day, and therefore more worthy of\nbeing constantly brought to the front and urged upon their\nconsideration. There are plenty of precepts both of the Old and of the\nNew Testament, which are habitually violated by the godless and\nirreligious, by those who, while bearing the name of Christian, scarcely\nmake even a pretence of endeavouring to live Christian lives. But here\nwe have a group of precepts, which a large number, not only of those\nwho profess to live soberly and righteously, but of those who do indeed\nin other respects live as Christians should, consent to forget or\nignore. \"To speak evil of no man; not to be contentious; to be gentle,\nshowing all meekness towards all men.\" Let us consider calmly what such\nwords as these really mean; and then let us consider what we constantly\nmeet with in the controversial writing, and still more in the\ncontroversial speaking, of the present day. Consider the tone of our\nparty newspapers, and especially of our religious newspapers, on the\nburning questions of the hour and on the men who take a leading part in\nthem. Read what a High Church paper says of a Low Church Bishop, or what\na Low Church paper says of a High Church Bishop, and measure it by the\ninjunction \"to speak evil of no man.\" Or again, read what some of the\norgans of Dissent allow themselves to say respecting the clergy of the\nEstablished Church, or what some Church Defence orators have allowed\nthemselves to say respecting Liberationists, and measure it by the\ninjunctions \"not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness\ntowards all men.\" It is sometimes necessary to speak out and call\nattention to real or suspected evils; although not nearly so frequently\nas we like to think. But it is never necessary to throw mud and deal in\npersonal abuse.\n\nMoreover, it is very unbecoming to do so. It is doubly unbecoming, as\nSt. Paul reminds us. First, such conduct is utterly un-Christian.\nSecondly, it is very much out of place in those who before now have been\nguilty of quite as grave faults as those for which we now abuse others.\nWe are just the persons who ought to remember, because we know from\npersonal experience, how much the grace of God can effect. If we have\nby His mercy been brought out of the sins which we now condemn in other\npeople, what may we not hope for in their case, provided we do not\ndisgust them with virtue by our acrimonious and uncharitable\nfault-finding? Abuse is the wrong weapon to use against unrighteous\nconduct, just as rebellion is the wrong weapon to use against\nunrighteous laws.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n_THE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW BIRTH.--THE\nLAVER OF REGENERATION._\n\n \"But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and His love toward man,\n appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did\n ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the\n washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He\n poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that,\n being justified by His grace, we might be made heirs according to\n the hope of eternal life.\"--TITUS iii. 4-7.\n\n\nFor the second time in this short letter we have one of those statements\nof doctrine which are not common among the practical instructions which\nform the main portion of the Pastoral Epistles. The other doctrinal\nstatement was noticed in a previous discourse on chap. ii. 11-14. It is\nworth while to compare the two. Though similar, they are not identical\nin import, and they are introduced for quite different purposes. In the\nearlier passage, in order to show why different classes of Christians\nshould be taught to exhibit the virtues which specially befit them, the\nApostle states the purpose of Christ's work of redemption, a purpose\nwhich all Christians are bound to help in realizing, stimulated by what\nhas been done for them in the past and by the hope which lies before\nthem in the future. In the passage which we have now to consider, St.\nPaul contrasts with the manifold wickedness of unbelievers the\nundeserved mercies of God towards them, in order to show what gratitude\nthose who have been brought out of their unbelief ought to feel for this\nunearned blessing, a gratitude which they ought to exhibit in gentle\nforbearance and goodwill towards those who are still in the darkness of\nunbelief as well as to others.\n\nThe passage before us forms the main part of the Second Lesson for the\nevening of Christmas Day in both the old and the new lectionaries. Its\nappropriateness in setting forth so explicitly the Divine bounty in the\nwork of regeneration is manifest. But it would have been equally\nappropriate as a lesson for Trinity Sunday, for the part which each\nPerson of the Blessed Trinity takes in the work of regeneration is\nplainly indicated. The passage is in this respect strikingly parallel to\nwhat St. Peter had written in the opening of his Epistle: \"According to\nthe foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit,\nunto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ\" (1 Pet. i.\n2). The goodness and love of God the Father towards mankind is the\nsource of man's redemption. From all eternity He saw man's fall; and\nfrom all eternity He devised the means of man's recovery. He appointed\nHis Son to be our representative; and He accepted Him on our behalf. In\nthis way the Father is \"our Saviour,\" by giving and accepting One Who\ncould save us. The Father \"saved us ... through Jesus Christ our\nSaviour.\" Thus the Father and the Son co-operate to effect man's\nsalvation, and each in a very real and proper sense is called \"our\nSaviour.\" But it is not in man's own power to accept the salvation thus\nwrought for him and offered to him. For power to do this he needs Divine\nassistance; which, however, is abundantly granted to him. By means of\nthe outward laver of baptism the inward regeneration and renewal by the\nSpirit is granted to him through the merits of Christ; and then the work\nof his salvation on the Divine side is complete. Through the infinite\nmercy of the Blessed Trinity, and not through his own merits, the\nbaptized Christian is in a state of salvation, and is become an heir of\neternal life. It remains to be seen whether the Christian, thus richly\nendowed, will continue in this blessed state, and go on, by the daily\nrenewal of the Holy Spirit, from grace to grace; or will through his own\nweakness and wilfulness, fall away. But, so far as God's share in the\ntransaction is concerned, his salvation is secured; so that, as the\nChurch of England affirms in the note added to the service for the\nPublic Baptism of Infants: \"It is certain by God's Word, that children\nwhich are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly\nsaved.\" And the several parts which the Persons of the Blessed Trinity\ntake in the work of salvation are clearly indicated in one of the\nprayers before the baptismal act, as in the present passage by St. Paul.\nPrayer is offered to the \"heavenly Father,\" that He will \"give His Holy\nSpirit to this Infant, that he may be born again, and be made an heir of\neverlasting salvation; through our Lord Jesus Christ.\" Thus, as at the\nbaptism of the Christ, so also at that of every Christian, the presence\nand co-operation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is indicated.\n\nIt is the Apostle's object in this condensed doctrinal statement to\nemphasize the fact that it was \"not by works in righteousness which _we\nourselves_ did,\" but by the work of the Blessed Trinity, that we were\nplaced in a state of salvation. He does not stop to make the\nqualifications, which, however true and necessary, do not alter this\nfact. In the case of adults, who are converted to Christianity,--and it\nis of such that he is thinking,--it is necessary that they should be\nduly prepared for baptism by repentance and faith. And in the case of\nall (whether adults, or infants, who live to become responsible for\ntheir actions), it is necessary that they should appropriate and use the\ngraces bestowed upon them; in other words, that they should grow in\nholiness. All this is true; but it does not affect the position. For\nalthough man's co-operation is indispensable--for God saves no man\nagainst his will--yet without God's assistance man cannot either repent\nor believe before baptism, nor can he continue in holiness after\nbaptism. This passage expressly denies that we effect our own salvation,\nor that God effected it in return for our merits. But it gives no\nencouragement to the belief that we have nothing to do with \"working out\nour own salvation,\" but have merely to sit still and accept what has\nbeen done for us.\n\nThat \"the washing of regeneration,\" or (as the margin of the R.V. more\nexactly has it) \"the _laver_ of regeneration,\"[81] signifies the\nChristian rite of baptism, ought to be regarded as beyond dispute. This\nis certainly one of those cases to which Hooker's famous canon of\ninterpretation most thoroughly applies, that \"where a literal\nconstruction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the\nworst\" (_Eccl. Pol._, v. lix. 2). This Hooker holds to be \"a most\ninfallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture\"; and although some\npersons may think that assertion somewhat too strong, of the soundness\nof the rule no reasonable student of Scripture can doubt. And it is\nworth our while to notice that it is in connexion with this very subject\nof baptismal regeneration that Hooker lays down this rule. He is\nanswering those who perversely interpreted our Lord's words to\nNicodemus, \"Except a man be born of water and the Spirit\" (John iii. 5),\nas meaning no more than \"Except a man be born of the Spirit,\" \"water\"\nbeing (as they imagined) only a metaphor, of which \"the Spirit\" is the\ninterpretation. On which Hooker remarks: \"When the letter of the law\nhath two things plainly and expressly specified, Water, and the Spirit;\nWater as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit as a gift which God\nbestoweth; there is danger in presuming so to interpret it, as if the\nclause which concerneth ourselves were more than needeth. We may by such\nrare expositions attain perhaps in the end to be thought witty, but with\nill advice.\" All which may be fitly applied to the passage before us, in\nwhich it is quite arbitrary and against all probability to contend that\n\"the bath of regeneration\" is a mere metaphor for regeneration without\nany bath, or for the Holy Spirit, or for the unmeasured bounty with\nwhich the Holy Spirit is poured upon the believer.\n\nThis might be tenable, if there had been no such rite as baptism by\nwater enjoined by Christ and practised by the Apostles as the necessary\nand universal method of admission to the Christian Church. In Eph. v. 26\n(the only other passage in the New Testament in which the word for\n\"laver\" or \"bath\" or \"washing\" occurs) the reference to baptism by water\nis indisputable, for the water is expressly mentioned. \"Christ also\nloved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify\nit, having _cleansed it by the washing of water_ with the word.\" And in\nthe passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians which, like the one\nbefore us, contrasts the appalling wickedness of unbelievers with the\nspiritual condition of Christians, the reference to baptism is scarcely\nless clear. \"And such were some of you: but _ye were washed_ (lit. 'ye\nwashed away'[82] your sins), but ye were sanctified, but ye were\njustified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our\nGod\" (1 Cor. vi. 11). In which passage, as here, the three Persons of\nthe Trinity are named in connexion with the baptismal act.\n\nAnd in speaking to the Jews at Jerusalem of his own admission to the\nChurch, St. Paul uses the same forms of the same word as he uses to the\nCorinthians of their admission. The exhortation of Ananias to him, as he\nlay at Damascus, was \"And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and _be\nbaptized_, and _wash away thy sins_\" (=apolousai tas hamartias sou=),\n\"calling on His Name\" (Acts xxii. 16): words which are very parallel to\nthe exhortation of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost: \"Repent ye, and\n_be baptized, every one of you_ in the Name of Jesus Christ _unto the\nremission of your sins_; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy\nGhost\" (Acts ii. 38; comp. Heb. x. 23). In these passages we have a\nsacred rite described in which the human and the Divine elements are\nclearly marked. On man's side there is the washing with water; and on\nGod's side there is the washing away of sin and pouring out of the\nSpirit. The body is purified, the soul is purified, and the soul is\nhallowed. The man is washed, is justified, is sanctified. He is\nregenerated: he is \"a new creature.\" \"The old things,\" his old\nprinciples, motives, and aims, then and there \"passed away\" (aorist\ntense, =par\u00ealthen=): \"behold, they are become new\" (2 Cor. v. 17). Can\nany one, with these passages before him, reasonably doubt, that, when\nthe Apostle speaks of \"the washing of regeneration\" he means the\nChristian rite of baptism, in which, and by means of which, the\nregeneration takes place?\n\nWe are fully justified by his language here in asserting that it is _by\nmeans of_ the baptismal washing that the regeneration takes place; for\nhe asserts that God \"saved us _through_ the washing of regeneration.\"\nThe laver or bath of regeneration is the instrument or means by which\nGod saved us. Such is the natural, and almost the necessary meaning of\nthe Greek construction (=dia= with the genitive). Nor is this an\naudacious erection of a comprehensive and momentous doctrine upon the\nnarrow basis of a single preposition. Even if this passage stood alone,\nit would still be our duty to find a reasonable meaning for the\nApostle's Greek: and it may be seriously doubted whether any more\nreasonable meaning than that which is here put forward can be found. But\nthe passage does not stand alone, as has just been shown. And there are\nnumerous analogies which throw light upon the question, proving to us\nthat there is nothing exceptional in God (Who of course does not need\nany means or instruments) being willing to use them, doubtless because\nit is better for us that He should use them.\n\nIn illustration of the Greek construction we may compare that used by\nSt. Peter of the event which he takes (and the Church of England in her\nbaptismal service has followed him) as a type of Christian baptism.\n\"When the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the\nark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved\n_through water_: which also after a true likeness doth now save you,\neven baptism.\" St. Peter says that Noah and his family \"were saved _by\nmeans of water_\" (=di' hydatos=), just as St. Paul says that God \"saved\nus _by means of the laver_ of regeneration\" (=dia loutrou\npalingenesias=). In each case the water is the _instrument_ of\nsalvation. And the analogy does not end with the identity of the\ninstrument; that is the mere external resemblance between the flood and\nbaptism. The main part of the likeness lies in this, that in both cases\none of the same instrument both destroys and saves. The Flood destroyed\nthe disobedient by drowning them, and saved Noah and his family by\nfloating them into a new home. Baptism destroys the old corrupt element\nin man's nature by washing it away, and saves the regenerated soul by\nbringing it into a new life. And the other event which from the earliest\ndays has been taken as a figure of baptism is of the same kind. At the\ncrossing of the Red Sea, the water which destroyed the Egyptians saved\nthe Israelites. In all these cases God was not tied to use water, or any\nother instrument. He could have saved Noah and the Israelites, and\ndestroyed the disobedient and the Egyptians, just as He could have\nhealed Naaman and the man born blind, without employing any means\nwhatever. But for our edification He condescends to employ means, such\nas we can perceive and understand.\n\nIn what way is the employment of perceptible means a help to us? In two\nat least. It serves the double purpose of being both a _test_ of faith\nand an _aid_ to faith.\n\n1. The acceptance of Divinely appointed means is necessarily a test of\nfaith. Human intellect is apt to assume that Omnipotence is above using\ninstruments. \"Is it likely,\" we ask, \"that the Almighty would employ\nthese means? Are they not altogether beneath the dignity of the Divine\nNature? Man needs tools and materials: but God needs neither. It is not\ncredible that He has ordained these things as conditions of His own\noperation.\" All which is the old cry of the captain of the host of\nSyria. \"Behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand and\ncall on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place,\nand recover the leper.\" That is, why need he enjoin any instrument at\nall? But if he must, he might have enjoined something more suitable.\n\"Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the\nwaters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean?\" In precisely\nthe same spirit we ask still, \"How can water wash away sin? How can\nbread and wine be Christ's body and blood? How can the laying on of a\nman's hand confer the gift of the Holy Spirit? Do not all such\nassumptions savour of magic rather than of Divine Providence?\" Therefore\nhumbly to accept the means which God has revealed as the appointed\nchannels of His spiritual blessings is a real test of the recipient's\nfaith. He is thus enabled to perceive for himself whether he does\nsincerely believe or not; whether he has the indispensable qualification\nfor receiving the promised blessing.\n\n2. The employment of visible means is a real aid to faith. It is easier\nto believe that an effect will be produced, when one can perceive\nsomething which might contribute to produce the effect. It is easier to\nbelieve when one sees means than when none are visible; and it is still\neasier to believe when the means seem to be appropriate. The man who was\nborn blind would more readily believe that Christ would give him sight,\nwhen he perceived that Christ was using spittle and clay for the\npurpose; for at that time these things were supposed to be good for the\neyes. And what element in nature is more frequently the instrument both\nof life and of death than water? What could more aptly signify\npurification from defilement? What act could more simply express a death\nto sin and a rising again to righteousness than a plunge beneath the\nsurface of the water and a re-issuing from it? As St. Paul says in the\nEpistle to the Romans: \"We were buried therefore with Him through\nbaptism\" (=dia tou baptismatos=) \"into death; that like as Christ was\nraised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might\nwalk in newness of life\" (vi. 4). And again to the Colossians: \"Having\nbeen buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him\nthrough faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead\" (ii.\n12). Faith in the inward gift, promised by God to those who believe and\nare baptized, becomes more easy, when the outward means of conferring\nthe gift, not only are readily perceived, but are recognized as\nsuitable. In this way our faith is aided by God's employment of means.\n\nIs the \"renewing of the Holy Ghost\" the same thing as the \"washing of\nregeneration\"? In this passage the two expressions refer to the same\nfact, but in their respective meanings they are not co-extensive. The\nGreek construction is ambiguous like the English; and we cannot be sure\nwhether St. Paul means that God saved us by means of the washing and by\nmeans of the renewing, or that God saved us by means of a laver, which\nis both a laver of regeneration and a laver of renewal. The latter is\nmore probable: but in either case the reference is to one and the same\nevent in the Christian's life. The laver and the renewing refer to\nbaptism; and the regeneration and the renewing refer to baptism; viz.,\nto the new birth which is then effected. But, nevertheless, the two\nexpressions are not co-extensive in meaning. The laver and the\nregeneration refer to one fact, and to one fact only; a fact which takes\nplace once for all and can never be repeated. A man cannot have the new\nbirth a second time, any more than he can be born a second time: and\nhence no one may be baptized twice. But the renewing of the Holy Spirit\nmay take place daily. It precedes baptism in the case of adults; for it\nis only through a renewal which is the work of the Spirit that they can\nprepare themselves by repentance and faith for baptism. It takes place\nat baptism, as the Apostle clearly indicates here. And it continues\nafter baptism; for it is by repeated quickening of the inward life\nthrough the action of the Spirit that the Christian grows in grace day\nby day. In the case of the adult, who unworthily receives baptism\nwithout repentance and faith, there is no spiritual renewal. Not that\nthe sacred rite remains without effect: but the renewing of the Spirit\nis suspended until the baptized person repents and believes. Meanwhile\nthe mysterious gift bestowed in baptism becomes a curse rather than a\nblessing; or at least a curse as well as a blessing. It may perhaps\nincrease the possibilities of repentance: it certainly intensifies the\nguilt of all his sins. Such a person has thrust himself into a society\nwithout being qualified for membership. He has incurred the\nresponsibilities of membership: if he desires the privileges, he must\nobtain the qualifications.[83]\n\nIt is God's gracious purpose that all should have the privileges in\nfull. In baptism He washed us from our sins, He gave us a new birth, He\npoured out His Holy Spirit upon us richly, through Jesus Christ; \"_in\norder that_, being justified by His grace, we might be made heirs\naccording to hope of eternal life.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[81] =loutron palingenesias=. Comp. Eph. v. 26.\n\n[82] Middle Voice, =apelousasthe=, on which see Professor Evans in the\n_Speaker's Commentary_ iii., p. 282. And it is worth noticing that in\nboth passages the principal verbs are in the tense which in Greek\ncommonly indicates some one particular occasion, \"Ye were washed, were\nsanctified, were justified,\" are all in the aorist. So also here: \"He\nsaved us,\" and \"He poured out upon us\" are both in the aorist. And in\nboth cases the natural reference is to the particular occasion of\nbaptism in which we \"were washed, sanctified, and justified,\" because\nGod \"saved us by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the Holy\nSpirit which He poured out upon us richly.\"\n\n[83] See Waterland, _Regeneration Stated and Explained_: Works, Vol. vi.\npp. 359--362. The whole tract may be commended for clearness and\nmoderation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\n_THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE APOSTLE'S\nDIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE TREATMENT OF HERETICAL PERSONS._\n\n \"A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse;\n knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being\n self-condemned\"--TITUS iii. 10, 11.\n\n\nIt is in connexion with this instruction respecting the treatment of\nheretical persons that we have some of the earliest testimonies to the\ngenuineness of the Epistle to Titus. Thus Irenaeus about A.D. 180 writes:\n\"But as many as _fall away from_\" (=aphistantai=, 1 Tim. iv. 1) \"the\nChurch and give heed to these _old wives' fables_\" (=gra\u00f4desi mythois=, 1\nTim. iv. 7), \"are truly _self-condemned_\" (=autokatakritoi=, Tit. iii.\n1): \"whom Paul charges us _after a first and second admonition to\nrefuse_\" (_Adv. Haer._, I. xvi. 3). It will be observed that in this\npassage Irenaeus makes an obvious allusion to the First Epistle to\nTimothy, and then quotes the very words of our text, attributing them\nexpressly to St. Paul. And about ten or twelve years later, Tertullian,\nafter commenting on St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, \"For there must\nbe also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made\nmanifest among you\" (1 Cor. xi. 19), continues as follows: \"But no more\nabout that, seeing that it is the same Paul who elsewhere also in\nwriting to the Galatians reckons heresies among sins of the flesh (Gal.\nv. 20), and who intimates to Titus that a _man who is heretical must\nafter a first[84] admonition be refused, because he that is such is\nperverted and sinneth as being self-condemned_. But in almost every\nEpistle, when insisting on the duty of avoiding false doctrines, he\ncensures heresies of which the practical results are false doctrines,\ncalled in Greek _heresies_, with reference to the _choice_ which a man\nexercises, whether in instituting or in adopting them. For this reason\nhe says that the heretical person is also self-condemned, because he has\nchosen for himself that in which he is condemned. We, however, may not\nallow ourselves anything after our own will; nor yet choose what any one\nhas introduced of his own will. The Apostles of the Lord are our\nauthorities: and even they did not choose to introduce anything of their\nown will, but faithfully consigned to the nations the instruction which\nthey received from Christ. And so, even if an angel from heaven were to\npreach any other gospel, he would be called accursed by us\" (_De Praes.\nHaer._, vi). In this passage, which contains a valuable comment on the\nmeaning of the word \"heresy,\" it will be noticed that Tertullian not\nonly quotes the text before us as coming from the Epistle to Titus, but,\nlike Irenaeus, his earlier contemporary, says expressly that the words\nare those of St. Paul. Thus, from both sides of the Mediterranean, men\nwho had very large opportunities of knowing what books were accepted as\nApostolic and what not, attribute our Epistle without hesitation to St.\nPaul. And in both cases this is done in treatises directed against\nheretics, who might be expected to reply with very telling effect, if it\ncould be shown that what was quoted against them as the writing of an\nApostle was of quite doubtful origin and authority.\n\nBut the testimony which these passages bear to the authenticity of this\nEpistle is not the main reason for their being quoted here. Their\ninterest for us now consists in the light which they throw upon the\nhistory of the word \"heresy,\" and upon the attitude of the primitive\nChurch towards heretics.\n\n\"Heresy,\" as Tertullian points out, is a word of Greek origin, and the\nidea which lies at the root of it is _choice_.[85] Choosing for oneself\nwhat pleases oneself, independently of other considerations;--that is\nthe fundamental notion on which later meanings of the term are based.\nThus in the Septuagint it is used of a _free-will_ offering, as distinct\nfrom what a man is bound to offer (Lev. xxii. 18; comp. 1 Macc. viii.\n30). Then comes the notion of choice in reference to matters of opinion,\nwithout, however, necessarily implying that the chosen opinion is a bad\none. And in this sense it is used quite as often for the party or school\nof thought which holds the particular opinion as for the body of opinion\nwhich is held. In this sense it is several times used in the Acts of the\nApostles; as \"the _sect_ of the Sadducees\" (v. 17), \"the _sect_ of the\nPharisees\" (xv. 5; xxvi. 5): and in this way Christianity itself was\nspoken of as a \"heresy\" or \"sect\"; that is, a party with chosen opinions\n(xxiv. 5, 14; xxviii. 22). And in profane literature we find Diogenes\nLaertius in the second or third century speaking of ten \"heresies\" or\nschools in moral philosophy (i. 19). But it will be seen from the\npassages in the Acts that the word is already acquiring somewhat of a\nbad meaning; and indeed this was almost inevitable, unless the original\nsignification was entirely abandoned. In all spheres of thought and\naction, and especially in matters of belief, a tendency to choose for\noneself, and to pursue one's own way independently, almost of necessity\nleads to separation from others, to divisions and factions. And factions\nin the Church readily widen into schisms and harden into heresies.\n\nOutside the Acts of the Apostles the word heresy is found in the New\nTestament only in three passages: 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; and 2 Pet.\nii. 1. In the last of these it is used of the erroneous opinions\nthemselves; in the other two the parties who hold them may be indicated.\nBut in all cases the word is used of divisions inside the Church, not of\nseparations from it or of positions antagonistic to it. Thus in 2 Pet.\nii. 1 we have the prophecy that \"there shall be false teachers, who\nshall privily _bring in_ destructive _heresies_, denying even the Master\nthat bought them.\" Here the false teachers are evidently inside the\nChurch, corrupting its members; not outside, inducing its members to\nleave it. For the prophecy continues: \"And many shall follow their\nlascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil\nspoken of.\" They could not cause \"the way of the truth to be evil spoken\nof,\" if they were complete outsiders, professing to have no connexion\nwith it. In Gal. v. 20 \"heresies\" are among \"the works of the flesh\"\nagainst which St. Paul warns his fickle converts, and \"heresies\" are\nthere coupled with \"factions\" and \"divisions.\" In 1 Cor. xi. 19 the\nApostle gives as a reason for believing the report that there are\ndivisions in the Church of Corinth the fact that (man's tendency to\ndiffer being what it is) divisions are inevitable, and have their use,\nfor in this way those which are approved among Christians are made\nmanifest. It is possible in both these passages to understand St. Paul\nas meaning the \"self-chosen views,\" as in the passage in 2 Pet., rather\nthan the schools or parties which have adopted the views. But this is\nnot of much moment. The important thing to notice is, that in all three\ncases the \"heresies\" have caused or are tending to cause splits inside\nthe Church: they do not indicate hostile positions outside it. This use\nof the word is analogous to that in the Acts of the Apostles, where it\nrepresents the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the Christian Church\nitself, as parties or schools inside Judaism, not as revolts against it.\nWe shall be seriously misled, if we allow the later meaning of \"heresy,\"\nwith all its medieval associations, to colour our interpretation of the\nterm as we find it in the New Testament.\n\nAnother important thing to remember in reference to the strong language\nwhich St. Paul and other writers in the New Testament use with regard to\n\"heresies\" and erroneous doctrine, and the still stronger language used\nby early Christian writers in commenting on these texts, is the\ndownright wickedness of a good many of the \"self-chosen views\" which had\nbegun to appear in the Church in the first century, and which became\nrampant during the second. The peril, not only to faith, but to morals,\nwas immense, and it extended to the very foundations of both. When\nChristians were told that there were two Creators, of whom one was good\nand one was evil; that the Incarnation was an impossibility; that man's\nbody was so vile that it was a duty to abuse it; that his spirit was so\npure that it was impossible to defile it; that to acquire knowledge\nthrough crime was estimable, for knowledge was good, and crime was of no\nmoral significance to the enlightened;--then it was necessary to speak\nout, and tell men in plain terms what the persons who were inculcating\nsuch views were really doing, and what strong measures would be\nnecessary, if they persisted in such teaching.\n\nUnless we keep a firm grasp upon these two facts;--(1) the difference\nbetween the meaning of the word \"heresy\" as we find it in the New\nTestament and its usual meaning at the present time; and (2) the\nmonstrous character of some of the views which many persons in the first\ncentury, and many more in the second, claimed to hold as part and parcel\nof the Christian religion;--we shall be liable to go grievously astray\nin drawing conclusions as to our own practice from what is said on the\nsubject in Scripture.\n\n\"Woe unto the world,\" said our blessed Lord, \"because of occasions of\nstumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that\nman through whom the occasion cometh\" (Matt. xviii. 7). Human nature\nbeing what it is, it is morally impossible that no one should ever lead\nanother into sin. But that fact does not destroy the responsibility of\nthe individual who leads his fellows into sin. St. Paul takes up the\nprinciple thus laid down by Christ and applies it in a particular\nsphere. He tells his Corinthian converts that \"there must be heresies\"\namong them, and that they serve the good purpose of sifting the chaff\nfrom the wheat. Wherever the light comes, it provokes opposition; there\nis at once antagonism between light and darkness. This is as true in the\nsphere of faith and morals as in that of the material world. Sooner or\nlater, and generally sooner rather than later, truth and innocence are\nmet and opposed by falsehood and sin; and it is falsehood, wilfully\nmaintained in opposition to revealed and generally held truth, that\nconstitutes the essence of heresy. There are many false opinions outside\nwhat God has revealed to mankind, outside the scope of the Gospel.\nHowever serious these may be, they are not heresies. A man may be\nfatally at fault in matters of belief; but, unless in some sense he\naccepts Christianity as true, he is no heretic. As Tertullian says, \"In\nall cases truth precedes its copy; after the reality the likeness\nfollows\" (_De Praes. Haer._, xxix). That is, heresy, which is the\ncaricature of Christian truth, must be subsequent to it. It is a\ndistortion of the original truth, which some one has arrogantly chosen\nas preferable to that of which it is the distortion. Error which has not\nyet come in contact with revelation, and which has had no opportunity of\neither submitting to it or rebelling against it, is not heretical. The\nheretical spirit is seen in that cold critical temper, that\nself-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects\nopinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles\nwhich are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church. But it\ncannot accept or reject what has never been presented to it; nor, until\nthe Christian faith has to some extent been accepted, can the rejection\nof the remainder of it be accounted heresy. Heresy is \"a disease of\nChristian knowledge.\" The disease may have come from without, or may\nhave developed entirely from within; and in the former case the source\nof the malady may be far older than Christianity itself. But until the\nnoxious elements have entered the Christian organism and claimed a home\nwithin the system, it is a misuse of language to term them heretical.\n\nWe have not exhausted the teaching of the Apostles respecting this\nplague of self-assertion and independent teaching, which even in their\ntime began to afflict the infant Church, when we have considered all the\npassages in which the words \"heresy\" and \"heretical\" occur. There are\nother passages, in which the thing is plainly mentioned, although this\nname for it is not used. It has been said that \"the Apostles, though\nthey claimed disciplinary authority, had evidently no thought of\nclaiming infallibility for any utterances of theirs.\"[86] But they\ncertainly treated opposition to their teaching, or deviations from it,\nas a very serious matter. St. Paul speaks of those who opposed him in\nthe Church of Corinth as \"false apostles, deceitful workers\" and\n\"ministers of Satan\" (2 Cor. xi. 13-15). He speaks of the Galatians as\n\"bewitched\" by those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ, and\npronounces an anathema on those who should \"preach any gospel other than\nthat which he preached\" (Gal. i. 7, 8; iii. 1). Of the same class of\nteachers at Philippi he writes: \"Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil\nworkers, beware of the concision\" (iii. 2). He warns the Colossians\nagainst any one who may \"make spoil of them through his philosophy and\nvain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the\nworld, and not after Christ\" (ii. 8); just as he warned the elders of\nthe Church at Ephesus that after his departure \"grievous wolves would\nenter in among them, not sparing the flock; and that from among\nthemselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the\ndisciples after them\" (Acts xx. 29, 30). And in the Pastoral Epistles we\nhave several utterances of the same kind, including the one before us (1\nTim. i. 3-7, 19, 20; iv. 1-3; vi. 3, 4, 20, 21; Tit. i. 10-16; iii.\n8-11; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18; iii. 8, 13).\n\nNor is St. Paul the only writer in the New Testament who feels bound to\nwrite in this strain. The same kind of language fills no inconsiderable\nportion of the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2 Pet.\nii.; Jude 8-16). More remarkable still, we find even the Apostle of Love\nspeaking in tones not less severe. The Epistles to the Seven Churches of\nAsia abound in such things (Rev. ii.; iii). In his General Epistle he\nasks, \"Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?\nThis is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son\" (1\nJohn ii. 22: comp. ii. 26; iv. 1, 3). In his letter to \"the elect lady\nand her children\" he speaks of the \"many deceivers\" who \"confess not\nthat Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.\" And, in a passage not unlike the\ndirection to Titus which we are now considering, he says: \"If any one\ncometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into\nyour house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting\npartaketh in his evil works.\"\n\nThe impression which these passages produce on our minds is at least\nthis;--that, whether or no the Apostles were conscious of being\nprotected by the Holy Spirit from teaching anything that was\ndoctrinally false, they were at any rate very stern in their\ncondemnation of those Christians who deliberately contravened what an\nApostle had taught. And this sternness is not confined to those who\nresisted the instructions of Apostles in matters of discipline. It is\nquite as clearly manifested against those who contradicted Apostolic\nteaching in matters of faith. The context of the passage before us shows\nthat by \"a man that is heretical\" is meant one who wilfully takes his\nown line and thereby causes divisions in doctrine quite as much as one\nwho does so as regards the order and discipline of the Church.\n\nWhat, then, does St. Paul mean when he directs Titus to \"refuse\" such a\nperson after once or twice admonishing him? Certainly not that he is to\nexcommunicate him; the passage has nothing to do with formal\nexcommunication. It is possible to maintain that the direction here\ngiven may _imply_ excommunication; but it is also possible to maintain\nthat it need not imply anything of the kind; and therefore that such an\ninterpretation substitutes an uncertain inference for what is certainly\nexpressed. The word translated in the R.V. \"refuse,\" and in the A.V.\n\"reject,\" is the same as that which is used in 1 Tim. v. 11 in the text,\n\"Younger widows _refuse_\" (=paraitou=). It means, \"avoid, shun, excuse\nyourself from having anything to do with\" (comp. Heb. xii. 25). It is\nalso used of things as well as of persons, and in much the same sense:\n\"_Refuse_ profane and old wives' fables\" (1 Tim. iv. 7), and \"Foolish\nand ignorant questions _refuse_\" (2 Tim. ii. 23). The meaning, then,\nhere seems to be that, after a few attempts to induce the heretical\nperson to desist from his perverse and self-willed conduct, Titus is to\nwaste no more time on him, because now he knows that his efforts will\nbe useless. At first he did not know this; but after having failed once\nor twice, he will see that it is vain to repeat what produces no effect.\nThe man's self-will is incorrigible; and not only that, but inexcusable;\nfor he stands self-condemned. He deliberately chose what was opposed to\nthe received teaching; and he deliberately persists in it after its\nerroneous character has been pointed out to him. He \"is perverted, and\nsinneth\": that is, he not only has sinned, but goes on sinning: he\ncontinues in his sin, in spite of entreaty, exhortation, and reproof.\n\nIn what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our\nown guidance at the present time? Certain limitations as to their\napplication have been already pointed out. They do not apply to persons\nwho have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves, outside\nthe Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their\nself-chosen views are part and parcel of the Gospel, and who claim to\nhold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church.\nSecondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to\nfirst principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail.\nAnd in determining this second point much caution will be needed;\nespecially when inferences are drawn from a man's teaching. We should be\non our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher\n_virtually_ denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the\npersonality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the\nperson contradicts some of the primary truths of the Gospel, and that he\nclaims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a\nmember of his flock? He is to make one or two efforts to reclaim him,\nand then to have as little to do with him as possible.\n\nIn all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered:--the\nheretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at\nlarge. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will\nbe least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most\nbeneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the\nguiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to\none person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more\nharm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is\nnot only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without\nsuch hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will\nfriendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by\nseverity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led\nastray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing\nharm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for\nhim, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard and\nfast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern\ninstructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the \"elect\nlady,\" let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans\nand sinners.\n\nIn our own day there is danger of mistaking lazy or weak indifferentism\nfor Christian charity. It is a convenient doctrine that the beliefs of\nour fellow-Christians are no concern of ours, even when they try to\npropagate what contradicts the creed. And, while emphasis is laid upon\nthe responsibility of accepting articles of faith, it is assumed that\nthere is little or no responsibility in refusing to accept, or in\nteaching others to refuse also. To plead for tenderness, where severity\nis needed, is not charity, but Laodicean lukewarmness; and mistaken\ntenderness may easily end in making us \"partakers in evil works.\" To be\nsevere, when severity is imperatively called for, is not only charity to\nthe offenders, it \"is also charity towards all men besides. It is\ncharity towards the _ignorant_ as carrying instruction along with it;\ncharity towards the _unwary_, as giving them warning to stand off from\ninfection; charity towards the _confirmed_ Christians, as encouraging\nthem still more, and preserving them from insults; charity towards the\n_whole Church_, as supporting both their unity and purity; charity\ntowards _all mankind_, towards them that are _without_, as it is\nrecommending pure religion to them in the most advantageous light,\nobviating their most plausible calumnies, and giving them less occasion\nto blaspheme.\"[87]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[84] It is worth noting that Tertullian, with several other Latin\nwriters, omits the second admonition: _hominem haereticum post primam\ncorreptionem recusandum_. Similarly Cyprian: _haereticum hominem post\nunam correptionem devita_ (_Test._, III. 78).\n\n[85] =hairesis=, from =hairein=, =haireisthai=, \"to choose\": not from\n_haerere_, \"to stick fast,\" as has been ignorantly asserted.\n\n[86] T. Ll. Davies in a remarkable paper on \"The Higher Life,\" in the\n_Fortnightly Review_, January, 1888.\n\n[87] Waterland, _The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity_ IV.\nii. 2; Works, vol. v. p. 96. Oxford, 1823.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\n_THE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL.--THE\nNEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS._\n\n \"For the which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the\n gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands. For\n God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and\n discipline.\"--2 TIM. i. 6, 7.\n\n\nIn the Second Epistle to Timothy we have the last known words of St.\nPaul. It is his last will and testament; his last instructions to his\nfavourite disciple and through him to the Church. It is written with\nfull consciousness that the end is at hand. His course in this world is\nall but over; and it will be closed by a violent, it may be by a cruel\ndeath. The letter is, therefore, a striking but thoroughly natural\nmixture of gloom and brightness. On the one hand, death throws its dark\nshadow across the page. On the other, there is the joyous thought that\nthe realization of his brightest hopes is close at hand. Death will come\nwith its pain and ignominy, to cut short the Apostle's still unfinished\nwork, to take him away from the Churches which he has founded and which\nstill sorely need his guidance, and from the friends whom he loves, and\nwho still need his counsel and support. But death, while it takes him\naway from much to which he clings and which clings to him, will free\nhim from toil, and anxiety, and neglect, and will take him to be with\nChrist until that day when he shall receive the crown of righteousness\nwhich is laid up for him.\n\nIf the shadow of impending death were the only source of gloom, the\nletter would be far more joyous than it is. It would be far more\ncontinuously a strain of thanksgiving and triumph. But the prospect of\nending his life under the hand of the public executioner is not the\nthought which dominates the more sorrowful portion of the Epistle. There\nis the fact that he is almost alone; not because his friends are\nprevented from coming to him, but because they have forsaken him; some,\nit may be, for pressing work elsewhere; others because the attractions\nof the world were too strong for them; but the majority of them, because\nthey were afraid to stand by him when he was placed at the bar before\nNero. The Apostle is heavy-hearted about this desertion of him, not\nmerely because of the wound which it inflicts on his own affectionate\nspirit, but because of the responsibility which those who are guilty of\nit have thereby incurred. He prays that it \"may not be laid to their\naccount.\"\n\nYet the thought which specially oppresses him is \"anxiety about all the\nChurches\"--and about Timothy himself. Dark days are coming. False\ndoctrine will be openly preached and will not lack hearers; and utterly\nun-Christian conduct and conversation will become grievously prevalent.\nAnd, while the godly are persecuted, evil men will wax worse and worse.\nThis sad state of things has already begun; and the Apostle seems to\nfear that his beloved disciple is not altogether unaffected by it.\nSeparation from St. Paul and the difficulties of his position may have\ntold on his over-sensitive temperament, and have caused him to be\nremiss in his work, through indulgence in futile despondency. The words\nof the text strike the dominant chord of the Epistle and reveal to us\nthe motive that prompts it. The Apostle puts Timothy in remembrance\n\"that he stir up the gift of God which is in him.\" Again and again he\ninsists on this and similar counsels. \"Be not ashamed of the testimony\nof our Lord, nor of me His prisoner; but suffer hardships.\" \"That good\nthing which was committed to thee guard through the Holy Ghost\" (vv. 8,\n13). \"Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.\" \"Give\ndiligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth\nnot to be ashamed\" (ii. 3, 15). \"But abide thou in the things which thou\nhast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned\nthem\" (iii. 14). And then, as the letter draws to a close, he speaks in\nstill more solemn tones of warning: \"I charge thee in the sight of God,\nand of Christ Jesus, Who shall judge the quick and the dead, and by His\nappearing and His kingdom: be instant in season, out of season; reprove,\nrebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.\" \"Be thou sober in\nall things, suffer hardships, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy\nministry\" (iv. 1, 2, 5). Evidently the Apostle is anxious lest even the\nrich gifts with which Timothy is endowed should be allowed to rust\nthrough want of use. Timidity and weakness may prove fatal to him and\nhis work, in spite of the spiritual advantages which he has enjoyed. The\nApostle's anxiety about the future of the Churches is interwoven with\nanxiety about the present and future conduct of his beloved delegate and\nsuccessor.\n\nThe Second Epistle to Timothy is more personal than either of the other\nPastoral Epistles. It is less official in tone and contents, and is\naddressed more directly to the recipient himself, than through him to\nothers. Three main subjects are treated in the letter; and first and\nforemost of these is the conduct of Timothy himself. This subject\noccupies about a third of the Epistle. The next and longest section\ntreats of the present and future prospects of the Church (ii. 14-iv. 5).\nAnd lastly the Apostle speaks of himself.\n\nIt is not difficult to understand how even those who condemn the\nPastoral Epistles as the product of a later writer, feel almost obliged\nto admit that at least some of this touching letter must be genuine.\nWhoever wrote it must have had some genuine letters of St. Paul to use\nas material. It may be doubted whether any of the writings of that age\nwhich have come down to us are more thoroughly characteristic of the\nperson whose name they bear, or are more full of touches which a\nfabricator would never have thought of introducing. The person who\nforged the Second Epistle to Timothy in the name of St. Paul must indeed\nhave been a genius. Nothing that has come down to us of the literature\nof the second century leads us to suppose that any such literary power\nexisted. Whether we regard the writer, or the circumstances in which he\nis placed, or the person to whom he writes, all is thoroughly\ncharacteristic, harmonious, and in keeping. We have St. Paul with his\nexquisite sympathy, sensitiveness, and affection, his intense anxiety,\nhis unflinching courage. We have the solemnity and importunity of one\nwho knows that his days are numbered. And we have the urgency and\ntenderness of one who writes to a friend who has his faults and\nweaknesses, but who is trusted and loved in spite of them.\n\nIn encouraging Timothy to stir up the gift that is in him, and not\nsuffer himself to be ashamed of the ignominy, or afraid of the\nhardships, which the service of Christ entails, the Apostle puts before\nhim five considerations. There are the beautiful traditions of his\nfamily, which are now in his keeping. There is the sublime character of\nthe Gospel which has been entrusted to him. There is the teaching of St.\nPaul himself, who has so often given him a \"pattern of sound words\" and\na pattern of steadfast endurance. There is the example of Onesiphorus\nwith his courageous devotion. And there is the sure hope of \"the\nsalvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.\" Any one of these\nthings might suffice to influence him: Timothy cannot be proof against\nthem all. St. Paul is persuaded that he is preserving the heritage of\nundissembled faith which his mother and his grandmother possessed before\nhim. When he considers the character of the Gospel, of which he has\nbecome a minister, and the gifts of which he has thereby become a\nrecipient, he cannot now become ashamed of bearing testimony for it. And\nhas the teaching of his old master, separation from whom used once to\nmake him weep, lost its hold upon him? Of the other disciples and\nfriends of the master, some have turned away from him, showing coldness\nor dislike instead of sympathy and self-sacrifice; while others, at\ngreat personal inconvenience, and (it may be also) great personal\ndanger, sought him out all the more diligently on account of his\nimprisonment, and ministered to him. Will Timothy take his stand with\nPhygelus and Hermogenes, or with Onesiphorus? And over and above all\nthese considerations, which are connected with this world, there are the\nthoughts of the world to come. This is no mere question of expediency\nand opportuneness, or of personal loyalty and affection to a human\nteacher and friend. There is the whole of eternity at stake. To have\nshared Christ's martyr-death is to share His endless life. To share His\nendurance and service is to share His royalty. But to reject Him, is to\nensure being rejected by Him. Were He to receive faithless followers\namong the faithful, He would be faithless to His promises and to\nHimself.\n\nFor all these reasons, therefore, the Apostle charges his disciple to\n\"stir up the gift of God which is in him through the laying on of the\nApostle's hands.\" And the fact that he uses so much argument and\nentreaty is evidence that he had grave anxiety about Timothy. Timothy's\nnatural sensitiveness and tenderness of heart made him specially liable\nto despondency and timidity, especially when separated from friends and\nconfronted by sturdy opposition.\n\n\"That thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee.\" Literally \"that\nthou kindle up and fan into a flame.\" It does not _necessarily_ imply\nthat there has once been a bright flame, which has been allowed to die\ndown, leaving only smouldering embers. But this is the natural meaning\nof the figure, and is possibly what St. Paul implies here. He does not\nexplain what precise gift of God it is that Timothy is to kindle into a\nwarmer glow; but, as it is one of those which were conferred upon him by\nthe laying on of hands at the time of his ordination, we may reasonably\nsuppose that it is the authority and power to be a minister of Christ.\nIn the First Epistle St. Paul had given Timothy a similar charge (iv.\n14); and by combining that passage with this we learn that both the\nApostle and the elders laid their hands on the young evangelist:\n\"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy,\nwith the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.\"[88] This talent\ncommitted to his charge for use in God's service must not be allowed to\nlie idle; it must be used with vigour, and trust, and courage. The very\ncharacter of the gift bestowed proves that it is to be used, and used\nfreely. \"For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and\nlove and discipline.\" St. Paul includes himself in the statement. He,\nlike his disciple, has received this gift from God, and he knows from\nlong experience what its nature is. It is no \"spirit of fearfulness;\" no\n\"spirit of bondage leading to fear\" (Rom. viii. 15). It was never meant\nto produce in us a slavish fear of God, or a cowardly fear of men. To\nfeel awe and reverence when dealing with God,--to feel responsibility\nwhen dealing with men,--is one thing. To abstain from action for fear of\noffending either, is quite another. It is sometimes possible to avoid\ncriticism by refusing to commit oneself to anything; but such refusal\nmay be a sinful neglect of opportunities: and no error of judgment in\nusing the gifts committed to us can be worse than that of not using them\nat all. Those are not necessarily the most useful servants who make the\nfewest conspicuous mistakes.\n\nThe spirit with which we are endowed is a spirit of _power_, whereas a\nspirit of fearfulness is weak. Faintheartedness cannot be strong. The\nfainthearted mistrust themselves and others; and they discourage\nthemselves and others. They anticipate dangers and difficulties, and\nthereby sometimes create them; and they anticipate failure, and thereby\noften bring it about. It is only by acting, and by acting vigorously and\ncourageously, that we find out the full power of the spirit with which\nwe have been blessed.\n\nAgain, the gift which God has bestowed upon us is a spirit of _love_:\nand more than anything else perfect love casts out the spirit of fear.\nFear is the child of bondage; love is the child of freedom. If we love\nGod, we shall not live in terror of His judgments: and if we love men,\nwe shall not live in terror of their criticisms. Moreover, the spirit of\nlove teaches us the nature of the gift of power. It is not force or\nviolence; not an imposing of our own will on others. It is an\naffectionate striving to win others over to obedience to the will of\nGod. It is the spirit of self-sacrifice; not of self-assertion.\n\nLastly, the spirit with which we are endowed by God is a spirit of\n_discipline_. By discipline that cowardly indolence, which the spirit of\nfearfulness engenders, can be kept down and expelled. If it be asked,\nwhether the discipline be that which Timothy is to enforce in ruling\nothers, or that which he is to practise in schooling himself, we may\nanswer, \"Both.\" The termination of the word which is here used\n(=s\u00f4phronismos=) seems to require the transitive meaning; and slackness\nin correcting others may easily have been one of the ways in which the\ndespondency of Timothy showed itself. On the other hand the whole\ncontext here speaks of Timothy's treatment of himself. To take a more\nlively interest in the conduct of others would be discipline for himself\nand for them also. There may be as much pride as humility in indulging\nthe thought that the lives of other people are so utterly bad, that it\nis quite out of the power of such persons as ourselves to effect a\nreformation. This is a subtle way of shirking responsibility. Strong in\nthe spirit of power, glowing with the spirit of love, we can turn the\nfaults of others, together with all the troubles which may befall us in\nthis life, into instruments of discipline.\n\nThe words of the Apostle, though primarily addressed to ministers, in\nreference to the spiritual gifts bestowed on them at their ordination,\nmust not be confined to them. They apply to the gifts bestowed by God\nupon every Christian, and indeed upon every human being. There is a\nterrible penalty attached to the neglect of the higher faculties,\nwhether intellectual or moral; a penalty which works surely and\nunerringly by a natural law. We all of us have imagination, intellect,\nwill. These wonderful powers must have an object, must have employment.\nIf we do not give them their true object, viz., the glory of God, they\nwill find an object for themselves. Instead of soaring upwards on the\nwings supplied by the glories of creation and the mercies of redemption,\nthey will sink downwards into the mire. They will fasten upon the flesh;\nand in an atmosphere poisoned by debasing associations they will become\ndebased also. Instead of raising the man who possesses them into that\nhigher life, which is a foretaste of heaven, they will hurry him\ndownwards with the accumulated pressure of an undisciplined intellect, a\npolluted imagination, and a lawless will. That which should have been\nfor wealth, becomes an occasion of falling. Angels of light become\nangels of darkness. And powers which ought to be as priests,\nconsecrating the whole of our nature to God, become as demons, shameless\nand ruthless in devoting us to the evil one. Not only every minister of\nChrist, but every thinking man, has need from time to time \"to stir up\nthe gift of God that is in him,\" to kindle it into a flame, and see that\nit is directed to holy ends and exercised in noble service. God's royal\ngifts of intellect and will cannot be flung away, cannot be left unused,\ncannot be extinguished. For good or for evil they are ours; and they are\ndeathless. But, though they cannot be destroyed they can be neglected.\nThey can be buried in the earth, till they breed worms and stink. They\ncan be allowed to run riot, until they become as wild beasts, and turn\nagain and rend us. Or in the spirit of power, or love, and of\ndiscipline, they may be chastened by lofty exercise and sanctified to\nheavenly uses, till they become more and more fit to be the equipment of\none, who is for ever to stand \"before the throne of God, and praise Him\nday and night in His temple.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[88] The assertion that this laying on of hands is a mark of an age\nsubsequent to the Apostles, ignores the plain statements in Acts vi. 6\nxiii. 3; comp. viii. 17; ix. 17; xix. 6; and Heb. vi. 2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n_THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION OF\nONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD._\n\n \"This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me;\n of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. The Lord grant mercy unto the\n house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed\n of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently and\n found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that\n day); and in how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest\n very well.\"--2 TIM. i. 15-18.\n\n\nWe have here one of the arguments which St. Paul makes use of in urging\nhis beloved disciple to stir up the gift of God that is in him through\nthe laying on of hands, and not allow himself to be afraid of the\nignominy and the sufferings, which the service of Jesus Christ involves.\nAfter reminding him of the holy traditions of his family, of the\nglorious character of the Gospel which has been committed to him, and of\nthe character of the Apostle's own teaching, St. Paul now goes on to\npoint out, as a warning, the conduct of those in Asia who had deserted\nhim in his hour of need; and, as an example, in marked contrast to them,\nthe affectionate courage and persistent devotion of Onesiphorus. Timothy\nis not likely to follow those in Asia in their cowardly desertion of the\nApostle. He will surely bestir himself to follow an example, the\ndetails of which are so well known to him and so very much to the point.\nTimothy's special knowledge of both cases, so far as the conduct\nreferred to lay not in Rome but in Asia, is emphatically insisted upon\nby St. Paul. He begins by saying, \"This thou _knowest_, that all that\nare in Asia turned away from me:\" and he concludes with the remark, \"In\nhow many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou _knowest_ very well;\" or,\nas the Greek comparative probably means, \"thou knowest _better_ than I\ndo.\" And it is worth noticing that St. Paul uses a different word for\n\"know\" in the two cases. Of his desertion by those in Asia he uses a\nword of general meaning (=oidas=), which implies knowledge _about_ the\nthings or persons in question, but need not imply more than hearsay\nknowledge of what is notorious. Of the devoted service of Onesiphorus at\nEphesus he uses a word (=gin\u00f4skeis=), which implies _progressive\npersonal experience_. Timothy had of course heard all about the refusal\nof Phygelus and Hermogenes and others to recognize the claim which St.\nPaul had upon their services; what he saw and experienced continually\ngave him intimate acquaintance with the conduct of Onesiphorus in the\nChurch of which Timothy had the chief care.\n\nThere has been a great deal of discussion about the meaning of St.\nPaul's statements respecting these two contrasted cases, Phygelus and\nthose like him on the one side, and Onesiphorus on the other: and with\nregard to both of them a variety of suggestions have been made, which\nare scarcely compatible with the language used, and which do not after\nall make the situation more intelligible. It must be admitted that the\nbrevity of the statements does leave room for a certain amount of\nconjecture; but, nevertheless, they are clear enough to enable us to\nconjecture with a fair amount of certainty.\n\nAnd first with regard to the case of those in Asia. They are in Asia at\nthe time when this letter is being written. It is quite inadmissible to\ntwist this plain language and force it to mean \"those _from_ Asia who\nare now in Rome.\" =Hoi en t\u00ea Asia= cannot be equivalent to =hoi ek t\u00eas\nAsias=. If St. Paul meant the latter, why did he not write it? Secondly,\nit is the proconsular province of Asia that is meant, that is the\nwestern portion of Asia Minor, and not the continent of Asia. Thirdly,\nthe \"turning away\" of these Christians in Asia Minor does not mean their\napostasy from the faith, of which there is no hint either in the word or\nin the context. St. Paul would hardly have spoken of their abandonment\nof Christianity as turning away from _him_. It means that they turned\ntheir faces away from him, and refused to have anything to say to him.\nWhen he sought their sympathy and assistance, they renounced his\nacquaintance, or at any rate refused to admit his claim upon them. It is\nthe very expression used by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount; \"From him\nthat would borrow of thee, _turn not thou away_\" (Matt. v. 42). This was\nexactly what these Asiatic disciples had done: the Apostle had asked\nthem to lend him their help and support; and they had \"turned away from\"\nhim. But what is the meaning of the \"all\"? He says that \"_all_ that are\nin Asia turned away from\" him. Obviously there is some qualification to\nbe understood. He cannot mean that Timothy is well aware that every\nbeliever in Asia Minor had repudiated St. Paul. Some have supposed that\nthe necessary qualification is to be found in what follows; viz., \"of\nwhom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.\" The meaning would then be that the\nwhole of the party to which Phygelus and Hermogenes belong rejected the\nApostle. But the arrangement of the sentence is quite against this\nsupposition; and there is nothing either said or implied about these two\nmen being the leaders or representatives of a party. The expression\nrespecting them is exactly parallel to that in the First Epistle\nrespecting those who \"made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is\nHymenaeus and Alexander\" (i. 19, 20). In each case, out of a class of\npersons who are spoken of in general terms, two are mentioned by name.\nWhat then is the qualification of the \"all,\" which common sense\nrequires? It means simply, \"all whom I asked, all to whom I made an\nappeal for assistance.\"[89] At the time when this letter was written,\nthere were several Christians in Asia Minor,--some of them known to\nTimothy,--to whom St. Paul had applied for help in his imprisonment;\nand, as Timothy was very well aware, they every one of them refused to\ngive it. And this refusal took place in Asia Minor, not in Rome. Some\nhave supposed that, although these unfriendly Christians were in Asia\nwhen St. Paul wrote about them, yet it was in Rome that they \"turned\naway from\" him. They had been in Rome, and instead of remaining there to\ncomfort the prisoner, they had gone away to Asia Minor. On this\nsupposition a difficulty has been raised, and it has been pressed as if\nit told against the genuineness of the Epistle. How, it is asked, could\nTimothy, who was in Ephesus, be supposed to be well aware of what took\nplace in Rome? And to meet this objection it has been conjectured, that\nshortly before this letter was written some one had gone with news from\nRome to Ephesus. But this is to meet an imaginary difficulty with an\nimaginary fact. Let us imagine nothing, and then all runs smoothly.\nEvery one in Asia Minor, to whom application was made on behalf of St.\nPaul, \"turned away from\" him and refused to do what was asked. Of such a\nfact as this the overseer of the Church of Ephesus could not fail to\nhave knowledge; and, distressing as it was, it ought not to make him\nsink down into indolent despondency, but stir him up to redoubled\nexertion. What the precise request was that Phygelus and Hermogenes and\nthe rest had refused, we do not know; but very possibly it was to go to\nRome and exert themselves on the Apostle's behalf. Of the two persons\nnamed nothing further is known. They are mentioned as being known to\nTimothy, and very possibly as being residents in Ephesus.\n\nNow let us turn to the case of Onesiphorus, whose conduct is such a\nmarked contrast to these others. In the most natural way St. Paul first\nof all tells Timothy what he experienced from Onesiphorus in Rome; and\nthen appeals to Timothy's own experience of him in Ephesus. In between\nthese two passages there is a sentence, inserted parenthetically, which\nhas been the subject of a good deal of controversy. \"The Lord grant unto\nhim to find mercy of the Lord in that day.\" On the one side it is argued\nthat the context shows that Onesiphorus is dead, and that therefore we\nhave Scriptural authority for prayers for the dead: on the other that it\nis by no means certain that Onesiphorus was dead at the time when St.\nPaul wrote; and that, even if he was, this parenthesis is more of the\nnature of a pious wish, or expression of hope, than a prayer. It need\nscarcely be said that on the whole the latter is the view taken by\nProtestant commentators, although by no means universally; while the\nformer is the interpretation which finds favour with Roman Catholics.\nScripture elsewhere is almost entirely silent on the subject; and hence\nthis passage is regarded as of special importance. But it ought to be\npossible to approach the discussion of it without heat or prejudice.\n\nCertainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view\nthat Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. There\nis not only the fact that he here speaks of \"the _house_ of Onesiphorus\"\nin connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in\nconnexion with the past: there is also the still more marked fact that\nin the final salutations, while greetings are sent to Prisca and Aquila,\nand from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, yet it is once more \"the\n_house_ of Onesiphorus\" and not Onesiphorus himself who is saluted. This\nlanguage is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus was no longer alive,\nbut had a wife and children who were still living at Ephesus; but it is\nnot easy to explain this reference in two places to the _household_ of\nOnesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the\nindividual and not the household is mentioned. Nor is this twofold\nreference to his family rather than to himself the only fact which\npoints in this direction. There is also the character of the Apostle's\nprayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of\nOnesiphorus' kindness to the day of judgment? Why does he not also pray\nthat he may be requited in this life? that he \"may prosper and be in\nhealth, even as his soul prospereth,\" as St. John prays for Gaius (3\nJohn 2)? This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is\nalready dead. It is much less intelligible if he is still alive. It\nseems, therefore, to be scarcely too much to say that there is no\nserious reason for questioning the now widely accepted view that at the\ntime when St. Paul wrote these words Onesiphorus was among the departed.\n\nWith regard to the second point there seems to be equal absence of\nserious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a\nprayer. It is difficult to find a term which better describes them than\nthe word \"prayer:\" and in discussing them one would have to be specially\ncareful in order to avoid the words \"pray\" and \"prayer\" in connexion\nwith them. It does not much matter what meaning we give to \"the Lord\" in\neach case; whether both refer to Christ, or both to the Father, or one\nto Christ and the other to the Father. In any case we have a prayer that\nthe Judge at the last day will remember those good deeds of Onesiphorus,\nwhich the Apostle has been unable to repay, and will place them to his\naccount. Paul cannot requite them, but he prays that God will do so by\nshowing mercy upon him at the last day.[90]\n\nHaving thus concluded that, according to the more probable and\nreasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by\nthe Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his\nsanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar\nprayers ourselves. But what is a similar prayer? There are many kinds of\nintercessions which may be made on behalf of those who have gone before\nus into the other world: and it does not follow that, because one kind\nof intercession has Scriptural authority, therefore any kind of\nintercession is allowable. This passage may be quoted as reasonable\nevidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our\nduty to pray for him: but it ought not to be quoted as authority for\nsuch prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from\nthe one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of\nintercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this\npassage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead\nare allowable, viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at\nthe day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others during\ntheir life upon earth.\n\nBut is the right, which is also the duty, of praying for the departed\nlimited by the amount of sanction which it is possible to obtain from\nthis solitary passage of Scripture? Assuredly not. Two other authorities\nhave to be consulted,--reason and tradition.\n\nI. This pious practice, so full of comfort to affectionate souls, is\n_reasonable in itself_. Scripture, which is mercifully reticent\nrespecting a subject so liable to provoke unhealthy curiosity and\nexcitement, nevertheless does tell us plainly some facts respecting the\nunseen world. (2) Those whom we call the dead are still alive. God is\nstill the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob: and He is not the God\nof the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 32). Those who believe that\ndeath is annihilation, and that there can be no resurrection, \"do\ngreatly err\" (Mark xii. 27). And (2) the living souls of the departed\nare still conscious: their bodies are asleep in this world, but their\nspirits are awake in the other. For this truth we are not dependent upon\nthe disputable meaning of the parable of Dives and Lazarus; although we\ncan hardly suppose that that parable would ever have been spoken,\nunless the continued consciousness of the dead and their interest in the\nliving were a fact. Christ's parables are never mere fables, in which\nnature is distorted in order to point a moral: His lessons are ever\ndrawn from God's universe as it is. But besides the parable (Luke xvi.\n19-31), there is His declaration that Abraham not only \"exulted\" in\nanticipation of the coming of the Messiah, but \"he saw\" that coming \"and\nwas glad\" thereat (John viii. 56). And there is His promise to the\npenitent thief: \"Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in\nParadise\" (Luke xxiii. 43). Can we believe that this promise, given at\nso awful a moment with such solemn assurance (\"Verily I say unto thee\"),\nwould have been made, if the robber's soul, when in Paradise, would be\nunconscious of Christ's companionship? Could Christ then have \"preached\nunto the spirits in prison\" (1 Pet iii. 19), if the spirits of those who\nhad died in the Flood were deprived of consciousness? And what can be\nthe meaning of \"the souls of them that had been slain for the word of\nGod\" crying \"How long, O Master the holy and true, dost Thou not judge\nand avenge our blood?\" (Rev. vi. 10), if the souls of the slain slumber\nin the unseen world?\n\nIt is not necessary to quote Scripture to prove that the departed are\nnot yet perfect. Their final consummation will not be reached until the\ncoming of Christ at the last great day (Heb. xi. 40).\n\nIf, then, the dead are conscious, and are not yet perfected, they are\ncapable of progress. They may increase in happiness, and possibly in\nholiness. May we not go farther and say, that they _must_ be growing,\n_must_ be progressing towards a better state; for, so far as we have\nexperience, there is no such thing as conscious life in a state of\nstagnation? Conscious life is always either growing or decaying: and\ndecay is incipient death. For conscious creatures, who are incapable of\ndecay and death, growth seems to be a necessary attribute. We conclude,\ntherefore, on grounds partly of Scripture and partly of reason, that the\nfaithful departed are consciously progressing towards a condition of\nhigher perfection.\n\nBut this conclusion must necessarily carry us still farther. These\nconsciously developing souls are God's children and our brethren; they\nare, like ourselves, members of Christ and joint-heirs with us of His\nkingdom; they are inseparably united with us in \"the Communion of\nSaints.\" May we not pray for them to aid them in their progress? And if,\nwith St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus before us, we are convinced that\nwe may pray for them, does it not become our bounden duty to do so? On\nwhat grounds can we accept the obligation of praying for the spiritual\nadvancement of those who are with us in the flesh, and yet refuse to\nhelp by our prayers the spiritual advancement of those who have joined\nthat \"great cloud of witnesses\" in the unseen world, by which we are\nperpetually encompassed (Heb. xii. 1)? The very fact that they witness\nour prayers for them may be to them an increase of strength and joy.\n\nII. _Tradition_ amply confirms us in the belief that this pious practice\nis lawful, and binding upon all who recognize its lawfulness. The\nremarkable narrative in 2 Maccabees xii. shows that this belief in a\nvery extreme form was common among the Jews, and publicly acted upon,\nbefore the coming of Christ. It is highly improbable that prayers for\nthe dead were omitted from the public worship of the synagogue, in\nwhich Jesus Christ so frequently took part. It is quite certain that\nsuch prayers are found in every early Christian liturgy, and to this day\nform part of the liturgies in use throughout the greater portion of\nChristendom. And, although the medieval abuses connected with such\nprayers induced the reformers of our own liturgy almost, if not quite,\nentirely to omit them, yet the Church of England has never set any\nbounds to the liberty of its members in this respect. Each one of us is\nfree in this matter, and therefore has the responsibility of using or\nneglecting what the whole of the primitive Church, and the large\nmajority of Christians throughout all these centuries, have believed to\nbe a means of advancing the peace and glory of Christ's kingdom. About\nthe practice of the primitive Church there can be no question. Doubt has\nbeen thrown upon the liturgies, because it has been said that some\nportions are certainly of much later origin than the rest, and therefore\nthese prayers may be later insertions and corruptions. But that cannot\nbe so; for liturgies do not stand alone. In this matter they have the\nsupport of a chain of Christian writers beginning with Tertullian in the\nsecond century, and also of early inscriptions in the catacombs. About\nthe meagre allusions to the departed in our own liturgy there is more\nroom for doubt: but perhaps the most that can safely be asserted is\nthis;--that here and there sentences have been worded in such a way that\nit is possible for those, who wish to do so, to include the faithful\ndeparted in the prayer as well as the living. Bishop Cosin has given his\nauthority to this interpretation of the prayer that \"we and all Thy\nwhole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of\nHis passion.\" By this, he says, \"is to be understood, as well those\nthat have been here before, and those that shall be hereafter, as those\nthat are now members of it:\" and as one of the revisers his authority is\ngreat. And the prayer in the Burial Service, \"that we, with all those\nthat are departed in the true faith of Thy holy name, may have our\nperfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul,\" is equally\npatient of this meaning, even if it does not fairly demand it. For we do\nnot pray that we may have our consummation and bliss with the departed;\nwhich might imply that they are enjoying these things now, and that we\ndesire to join them; but we pray that we with the departed may have our\nconsummation and bliss; which includes them in the prayer. And the\npetition in the Litany, \"remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the\noffences of our forefathers,\" may, or may not, be a prayer for our\nforefathers, according to the way in which we understand it.\n\nAll this seems to show that neither Scripture nor the English Church\nforbids prayer for the departed; that, on the contrary, both of them\nappear to give a certain amount of sanction to it: and that what they\nallow, reason commends, and tradition recommends most strongly. It is\nfor each one of us to decide for himself whether or no he will take part\nin the charitable work thus placed before him.[91]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[89] See below on \"All forsook me,\" in No. XXXVII, p. 420.\n\n[90] With the double use of Lord here, compare Exod. xxxiv. 9, where\nMoses prays, \"O Lord, let the Lord, I pray Thee, go in the midst of us.\"\nComp. also Gen. xix. 24.\n\n[91] Sec J. M. Neale, _Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement,\nSt. Chrysostom_, etc., 1859, pp. 216-224; C. E. Hammond, _Liturgies\nEastern and Western_, 1878, pp. 45, 75, 113, 156, 183, 217, etc.; E.\nBurbridge, _Liturgies and Offices of the Church_, 1885, pp. 34, 222,\n249; M. Plummer, _Observations on the Book of Common Prayer_, 1847, pp.\n125-127; _Church Quarterly Review_, April 1880, pp. 1-25; H. M. Luckock,\n_After Death_, 1879: also various articles in the _Dict. of Christ.\nAntiquities_, 1875, 1880.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\n_THE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE\nFAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH._\n\n \"Thou therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace that is in\n Christ Jesus. And the things which thou hast heard from me among\n many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be\n able to teach others also\"--2 TIM. ii. 1, 2.\n\n\nIn this tenderly affectionate address we have a very early indication of\nthe beginnings of Christian _tradition_ and Christian _schools_, two\nsubjects intimately connected with one another. St. Paul having pointed\nout as a warning to his \"child\" Timothy the cold or cowardly behaviour\nof those in Asia who had turned away from him, and as an example the\naffectionate courage of Onesiphorus, returns to the charge of which this\nletter is so full, that Timothy is \"not to be ashamed of the testimony\nof our Lord,\" but be willing to \"suffer hardship with the gospel\naccording to the power of God\" (i. 8). \"_Thou therefore_, my child,\"\nwith these instances in mind on the one hand and on the other, \"be\ninwardly strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.\" In his own\nstrength he will be able to do nothing; but in the grace which Christ\nfreely bestows on all believers who ask it of Him, Timothy will be able\nto find all that he needs for the strengthening of his own character and\nfor the instruction of others. And here St. Paul, in a way thoroughly\nnatural in one who is writing a letter which is personal rather than\nofficial, diverges for a moment to give utterance to the idea which\npasses through his mind of securing permanence in the instruction of the\nfaithful. Possibly it was in reference to this duty that he feared the\nnatural despondency and sensitiveness of Timothy. Timothy would be\nlikely to shrink from such work, or to do it in a half-hearted way. Or\nagain the thought that this letter is to summon Timothy to come to him\nis in his mind (iv. 9, 21), and he forthwith exhorts him to make proper\nprovision for continuity of sound teaching in the Church committed to\nhis care. \"The things which thou hast heard from me among many\nwitnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to\nteach others also.\" In other words, before leaving his flock in order to\nvisit his spiritual father and friend, he is to secure the establishment\nof apostolic tradition. And in order to do this he is to establish a\nschool,--a school of picked scholars, intelligent enough to appreciate,\nand trustworthy enough to preserve, all that has been handed down from\nChrist and His Apostles respecting the essentials of the Christian\nfaith. There is only one Gospel,--that which the Apostles have preached\never since the Ascension. It is so well known, so well authenticated\nboth by intrinsic sublimity and external testimony, that no one would be\njustified in accepting a different Gospel, even upon the authority of an\nangel from heaven. A second Gospel is an impossibility. That which is\nnot identical with the Gospel which St. Paul and the other Apostles have\npreached would be no Gospel at all (Gal. i. 6-9). And this Divine and\nApostolic Gospel is the Gospel which has been committed to Timothy's\ncharge. Let him take all reasonable care for its preservation.\n\nFor in the first place, such care was commanded from the outset. Christ\nhas promised that His truth shall continue and shall prevail. But He has\nnot exempted Christians from the duty of preserving and propagating it.\nHe, Who is the Truth, has declared that He is ever with His Church, even\nunto the end of the world (Matt. xxviii. 20); and in fulfilment of this\npromise He has bestowed the Spirit of truth upon it. But He has nowhere\nhinted that His Church is to leave the cause of His Gospel to take care\nof itself. On the contrary, at the very time that He promised to be\nalway with His disciples, He prefaced this promise with the command, \"Go\nye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, ... teaching them\nto observe all things whatsoever I commanded you;\" as if His promise\nwere contingent upon their fulfilment of this charge. At the very moment\nwhen the Church received the truth, it was told that it had the\nresponsibility of safeguarding it and making it known.\n\nAnd, secondly, experience has proved how entirely necessary such care\nis. The Gospel cannot be superseded by any announcement possessing a\nlarger measure of truth and authority. So far as the present\ndispensation goes, its claims are absolute and final. But it may be\nseriously misunderstood; it may be corrupted by large admixture of\nerror; it may be partially or even totally forgotten; it may be\nsupplanted by some meretricious counterfeit. There were Thessalonians\nwho had supposed that the Gospel exempted them from the obligation of\nworking to earn their bread. There were Christians at Corinth and\nEphesus who had confounded the liberty of the Gospel with antinomian\nlicense. There was the Church of Sardis which had so completely\nforgotten what it had received, that no works of its doing were found\nfulfilled before God, and the remnant of truth and life which survived\nwas ready to perish. And the Churches of Galatia had been in danger of\ncasting on one side the glories of the Gospel and returning to the\nbondage of the Law. Through ignorance, through neglect, through wilful\nmisrepresentation or interested opposition, the truth might be obscured,\nor depraved, or defeated; and there were few places where such\ndisastrous results were more possible than at Ephesus. Its restless\nactivity in commerce and speculation; its worldliness; the seductiveness\nof its forms of paganism;--all these constituted an atmosphere in which\nChristian truth, unless carefully protected, would be likely to become\ntainted or be ignored. Even without taking into account the proposal\nthat Timothy should leave Ephesus for awhile and visit the Apostle in\nhis imprisonment at Rome, it was no more than necessary precaution that\nhe should endeavour to secure the establishment of a permanent centre\nfor preserving and handing on in its integrity the faith once for all\ncommitted to the saints.\n\n\"The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses.\" The\nlast three words are remarkable; and they are still more remarkable in\nthe original Greek. St. Paul does not say simply \"_in the presence of_\nmany witnesses\" (=en\u00f4pion= or =paront\u00f4n poll\u00f4n martyr\u00f4n=) but \"_by means\nof_ many witnesses\" (=dia poll\u00f4n martyr\u00f4n=). In the First Epistle (vi.\n12) he had appealed to the good confession which Timothy had made \"in\nthe sight of many witnesses.\" As regards Timothy's confession these were\nwitnesses and no more. They were able for ever afterwards to testify\nthat he had made it; but they did not help him to make it. The\nconfession was his, not theirs, although no doubt they assented to it\nand approved it; and their presence in no way affected its goodness. But\nhere those who were present were something more than mere witnesses of\nwhat the Apostle said to Timothy; they were an integral part of the\nproceeding. Their presence was an element without which the Apostle's\nteaching would have assumed a different character. They were not a mere\naudience, able to testify as to what was said; they were guarantees of\nthe instruction which was given. The sentiments and opinions which St\nPaul might express in private to his disciple, and the authoritative\nteaching which he delivered to him in public under the sanction of many\nwitnesses, were two different things and stood on different grounds.\nTimothy had often heard from his friend his personal views on a variety\nof subjects; and he had often heard from the Apostle his official\ntestimony, delivered solemnly in the congregation, as to the truths of\nthe Gospel. It is this latter body of instruction, thus amply\nguaranteed, of which Timothy is to take such care. He is to treat it as\na treasure committed to his charge, a precious legacy which he holds in\ntrust. And in his turn he is to commit it to the keeping of trustworthy\npersons, who will know its value, and be capable of preserving it intact\nand of handing it on to others as trustworthy as themselves.\n\nSome expositors interpret the passage as referring, not to the Apostle's\npublic teaching as a whole, but to the instructions which he gave to\nTimothy at his ordination respecting the proper discharge of his office;\nand the aorist tense =\u00eakousas= favours the view that some definite\noccasion is intended (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6). In that case\nthe Apostle is here showing anxiety for the establishment of a sound\ntradition respecting the duties of ministers,--a very important portion,\nbut by no means the main portion of the teaching which he had imparted.\nBut the aorist does not compel us to confine the allusion to some one\nevent, such as Timothy's ordination or baptism; and it seems more\nreasonable to understand the charge here given as a continuation of that\nwhich occurs towards the close of the first chapter. There he says,\n\"Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard\" (=\u00eakousas=)\n\"from me;\" and here he charges Timothy not merely to hold this pattern\nof sound words fast himself, but to take care that it does not perish\nwith him.\n\nThis, then, may be considered as the earliest trace of the formation of\n_a theological school_,--a school which has for its object not merely\nthe instruction of the ignorant, but the protection and maintenance of a\ndefinite body of doctrine: That which the Apostle, when he was in\nEphesus, publicly taught, under the sanction of a multitude of\nwitnesses, is to be preserved and handed on without compromise or\ncorruption as a pattern of wholesome doctrine. There are unhealthy and\neven deadly distortions of the truth in the air, and unless care is\ntaken to preserve the truth, it may easily become possible to confuse\nweak and ignorant minds as to what are the essentials of the Christian\nfaith.\n\nThe question as to the earliest methods of Christian instruction and the\nprecautions taken for the preservation of Apostolic tradition is one of\nthe many particulars in which our knowledge of the primitive Church is\nso tantalizingly meagre. A small amount of information is given us in\nthe New Testament, for the most part quite incidentally, as here; and\nthen the history runs underground, and does not reappear for a century\nor more. The first few generations of Christians did not contain a large\nnumber of persons who were capable of producing anything very\nconsiderable in the way of literature. Of those who had the ability, not\nmany had the leisure or the inclination to write. It was more important\nto teach by word of mouth than with the pen; and where was the use of\nleaving records of what was being done, when (as was generally believed)\nChrist would almost immediately appear to put an end to the existing\ndispensation? Out of what was written much, as we know, has perished,\nincluding even documents of Apostolic origin (Luke i. 1, 2; 1 Cor. v. 9;\n3 John 9). Therefore, much as we lament the scantiness of the evidence\nthat has come down to us, there is nothing surprising about it. The\nmarvel is, not that so little contemporary history has reached us, but\nthat so much has done so. And what it behoves us to do is to make a\nsober use of such testimony as we possess.\n\nWe shall be doing no more than drawing a reasonable conclusion from the\npassage before us if we infer, that what St. Paul enjoins Timothy to do\nat Ephesus was done in many other Churches also, partly in consequence\nof this Apostolic injunction, and partly because what he enjoins would\nbe suggested in many cases by necessity and common sense. This inference\nis confirmed by the fact that it is precisely to the continuity of\ndoctrine secured by a regular succession of authorized and official\nteachers in the different Churches that appeal is continually made by\nsome of the earliest Christian writers whose works have come down to us.\nThus Hegesippus (c. A.D. 170) gives as the result of careful personal\ninvestigations at Corinth, Rome, and elsewhere, \"But in every succession\n(of bishops) and in every city there prevails just what the Law and the\nProphets and the Lord proclaim\" (Eus., H.E., IV. xxii. 3). Irenaeus, in\nhis great work against heresies, which was completed about A.D. 185,\nsays, \"We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles\nthemselves in the different Churches, and their successors down to our\nown day; and they neither taught nor acknowledged any such stuff as is\nraved by these men.... But since it would be a long business in a work\nof this kind to enumerate the successions in all the Churches,\" he\nselects as a primary example that of \"the very great and ancient Church,\nwell known to all men, founded and established by the two most glorious\nApostles Peter and Paul.\" After giving the succession of Roman bishops\nfrom Linus to Eleutherus, he glances at Smyrna, presided over by St.\nJohn's disciple, Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippian Church shows\nwhat he believed, and at Ephesus, founded as a Church by St. Paul and\npresided over by St. John, until the times of Trajan (III. iii. 1-3).\nAgain he says, that, although there may be different opinions respecting\nsingle passages of Scripture, yet there can be none as to the sum total\nof its contents, viz. \"that which the Apostles have deposited in the\nChurch as the fulness of truth, and which has been preserved in the\nChurch by the succession of bishops.\" And again, still more definitely,\n\"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world even to the\nends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples\nthe belief in one God, Father Almighty, etc.... Having received this\npreaching and this belief, the Church, as we said before, although\ndispersed about the whole world, carefully guards it, as if dwelling in\none house; and she believes these things, as if she had but one soul and\none and the same heart, and with perfect concord she preaches them and\nteaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For\nalthough the languages up and down the world are different, yet the\nimport of the tradition is one and the same. For neither the Churches\nwhich are established in Germany believe anything different or hand down\nanything different, nor in Spain, nor in Gaul, nor throughout the East,\nnor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those established about the central\nregions of the earth.... And neither will he who is very mighty in word\namong those who preside in the Churches utter different [doctrines] from\nthese (for no one is above the Master), nor will he who is weak in\nspeaking lessen the tradition\" (I. x. 1, 2). Clement of Alexandria (c.\nA.D. 200) tells us that he had studied in Greece, Italy, and the East,\nunder teachers from Ionia, Coelesyria, Assyria, and Palestine; and he\nwrites of his teachers thus: \"These men, preserving the true tradition\nof the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, from John and\nPaul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father (but few are they\nwho are like their fathers), came by God's providence even to us, to\ndeposit among us those seeds which are ancestral and apostolic\"\n(_Strom._, I. p. 322, ed. Potter). Tertullian in like manner appeals to\nthe unbroken tradition, reaching back to the Apostles, in a variety of\nChurches: \"Run over the Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs of\nthe Apostles still preside in their places, in which their own authentic\nwritings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each\nof them;\" and he mentions in particular Corinth, Philippi,\nThessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome. \"Is it likely that Churches of such\nnumber and weight should have _strayed_ into one and the same faith?\"\n(_De Praes. Haer._, xxviii., xxxvi.).\n\nThis evidence is quite sufficient to prove that what St. Paul charged\nTimothy to do at Ephesus was done not only there but at all the chief\ncentres of the Christian Church: viz., that everywhere great care was\ntaken to provide continuity of authoritative teaching respecting the\narticles of the faith. It indicates also that as a rule the bishop in\neach place was regarded as the custodian of the deposit, who was to be\nchiefly responsible for its preservation. But the precise method or\nmethods (for there was probably different machinery in different places)\nby which this was accomplished, cannot now be ascertained. It is not\nuntil near the end of the second century that we begin to get anything\nlike precise information as to the way in which Christian instruction\nwas given, whether to believers or heathen, in one or two of the\nprincipal centres of Christendom; _e.g._, Alexandria, Caesarea, and\nJerusalem.\n\nSt Paul himself had ruled that a bishop must be \"apt to teach\" (1 Tim.\niii. 2; comp. Tit. i. 9); and although we have no reason to suppose that\nas a rule the bishop was the only or even the chief instructor, yet he\nprobably selected the teachers, as Timothy is directed to do here. In\nthe great Catechetical School of Alexandria the appointment of what we\nshould now call the Rector or senior professor was in the hands of the\nbishop. And, as we might expect, bishops selected clergy for this most\nimportant office. It forms one of the many contrasts between primitive\nChristianity and heathenism, that Christians did, and pagans did not,\nregard it as one of the functions of the priesthood to give instruction\nin the traditional faith. The heathen clergy, if consulted, would give\ninformation respecting the due performance of rites and ceremonies, and\nthe import of omens and dreams; but of their giving systematic teaching\nas to what was to be believed respecting the gods, there is no trace.\n\nIt is more than probable that a great deal of the instruction both to\ncandidates for baptism and candidates for the ministry was from very\nearly times reduced to something like a formula; even before the dangers\nof corruption arising from Gnosticism rendered this necessary, we may\nbelieve that it took place. We know that the Gospel history was in the\nfirst instance taught orally; and the oral instruction very soon fell\ninto something that approached to a stereotyped form. This would\nprobably be the case with regard to statements of the essentials of the\nChristian faith. In Ignatius (_Philad._, viii.), Justin Martyr (_Apol._,\nI. 61, 66), and in Irenaeus (_Haer._, I. x. 1) we can trace what may well\nhave been formulas in common use. But it is not until the middle of the\nfourth century that we get a complete example of the systematic\ninstruction given by a Christian teacher, in the Catechetical Lectures\nof St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, delivered, however, before his\nepiscopate.\n\nBut what is _certain_ respecting the earliest ages of the Church is\nthis; that in every Church regular instruction in the faith was given by\npersons in authority specially selected for this work, and that frequent\nintercourse between the Churches showed that the substance of the\ninstruction given was in all cases the same, whether the form of words\nwas identical or not. These facts, which do not by any means stand\nalone, are conclusive against the hypothesis, that between the\nCrucifixion and the middle of the second century, a complete revolution\nin the creed was effected; and that the traditional belief of Christians\nis not that which Jesus of Nazareth taught, but a perversion of it which\nowes its origin mainly to the overwhelming influence of His professed\nfollower, but virtual supplanter, Saul of Tarsus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\n_THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC CONTEST; AS\nHUSBANDRY._\n\n \"Suffer hardships with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No\n soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life;\n that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier. And if also a\n man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have\n contended lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be the first\n to partake of the fruits. Consider what I say; for the Lord shall\n give thee understanding in all things.\"--2 TIM. ii. 3-7.\n\n\nSt. Paul represents the Christian life and the Christian ministry under\na variety of figures. Sometimes as _husbandry_; as when he tells the\nGalatians that \"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap;\" and\nthat \"in due season we shall reap, if we faint not\" (Gal. vi. 7, 9); or\nwhen he reminds the Corinthians that \"he that ploweth ought to plow in\nhope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking\" (1 Cor. ix.\n10). Sometimes as an _athletic contest_; as when he tells the\nCorinthians that \"every man who striveth in the games is temperate in\nall things\" (1 Cor ix. 25); or the Ephesians that \"our wrestling is not\nagainst flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the\npowers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual\nhosts of wickedness in the heavenly places\" (Eph. vi. 12). Sometimes,\nand most frequently, as _military service_; as when he charges the\nThessalonians to \"put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a\nhelmet the hope of salvation\" (1 Thess. v. 8); or when he writes to the\nPhilippians of Epaphroditus as his \"fellow-soldier\" (Phil. ii. 25).\n\nIn the passage before us he makes use of all three figures: but the one\nof which he seems to have been most fond is the one which he places\nfirst,--that of military service. \"Suffer hardships with me,\" or \"take\nthy share in suffering,\" as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier\non service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may\nplease him who enrolled him as a soldier.\" He had used the same kind of\nlanguage in the First Epistle, urging Timothy to \"war the good warfare\"\nand to \"fight the good fight of faith\" (i. 18; vi. 12). Every Christian,\nand especially every Christian minister, may be regarded as a soldier,\nas an athlete, as a husbandman; but of the three similitudes the one\nwhich fits him best is that of a soldier.\n\nEven if this were not so, St. Paul's fondness for the metaphor would be\nvery intelligible.\n\n1. Military service was very familiar to him, especially in his\nimprisonments. He had been arrested by soldiers at Jerusalem, escorted\nby troops to Caesarea, sent under the charge of a centurion and a band of\nsoldiers to Rome, and had been kept there under military surveillance\nfor many months in the first Roman imprisonment, and for we know not how\nlong in the second. And we may assume it as almost certain that the\nplace of his imprisonment was near the praetorian camp. This would\nprobably be so ordered for the convenience of the soldiers who had\ncharge of him. He therefore had very large opportunities of observing\nvery closely all the details of ordinary military life. He must\nfrequently have seen soldiers under drill, on parade, on guard, on the\nmarch; must have watched them cleaning, mending, and sharpening their\nweapons; putting their armour on, putting it off. Often during hours of\nenforced inactivity he must have compared these details with the details\nof the Christian life, and noticed how admirably they corresponded with\none another.\n\n2. Military service was not only very familiar to himself; it was also\nquite sufficiently familiar to those whom he addressed. Roman troops\nwere everywhere to be seen throughout the length and breadth of the\nEmpire, and nearly every member of society knew something of the kind of\nlife which a soldier of the Empire had to lead.\n\n3. The Roman army was the one great organization of which it was still\npossible, in that age of boundless social corruption, to think and speak\nwith right-minded admiration and respect. No doubt it was often the\ninstrument of wholesale cruelties as it pushed forward its conquests, or\nstrengthened its hold, over resisting or rebelling nations. But it\npromoted discipline and _esprit de corps_. Even during active warfare it\nchecked individual license; and when the conquest was over it was the\nrepresentative and mainstay of order and justice against high-handed\nanarchy and wrong. Its officers several times appear in the narrative\nportions of the New Testament, and they make a favourable impression\nupon us. If they are fair specimens of the military men in the Roman\nEmpire at that period, then the Roman army must have been indeed a fine\nservice. There is the centurion whose faith excited even Christ's\nadmiration; the centurion who confessed Christ's righteousness and\nDivine origin at the crucifixion; Cornelius, of the Italian cohort, to\nwhom St. Peter was sent; C. Lysias, the chief captain or tribune who\nrescued St. Paul, first from the mob, and then from the conspiracy to\nassassinate him; and Julius, who out of consideration for St. Paul\nprevented the soldiers from killing the prisoners in the shipwreck.\n\nBut the reasons for the Apostle's preference for this similitude go\ndeeper than all this.\n\n4. Military service involves self-sacrifice, endurance, discipline,\nvigilance, obedience, ready co-operation with others, sympathy,\nenthusiasm, loyalty. Tertullian in his _Address to Martyrs_ draws with\ncharacteristic incisiveness the stern parallel between the severity of\nthe soldier's life and that of the Christian. \"Be it so, that even to\nChristians a prison is distasteful. We were called to active service\nunder the Living God from the very moment of our response to the\nbaptismal formula. No soldier comes to the war surrounded by luxuries,\nnor goes into action from a comfortable bed-room, but from the\nmake-shift and narrow tent, where every kind of hardness and severity\nand unpleasantness is to be found. Even in peace soldiers learn betimes\nto suffer warfare by toil and discomforts, by marching in arms, running\nover the drill-ground, working at trench-making, constructing the\ntortoise, till the sweat runs again. In the sweat of the brow all things\nare done, lest body and mind should shrink at changes from shade to\nsunshine, and from sunshine to frost, from the dress of ease to the coat\nof mail, from stillness to shouting, from quiet to the din of war. In\nlike manner do ye, O blessed ones, account whatever is hard in this your\nlot as discipline of the powers of your mind and body. Ye are about to\nenter for the good fight, in which the Living God gives the prizes, and\nthe Holy Spirit prepares the combatants, and the crown is the eternal\nprize of an angel's nature, citizenship in heaven, glory for ever and\never. Therefore your trainer, Jesus Christ, Who has anointed you with\nthe Spirit and led you forth to this arena, has seen good to separate\nyou from a state of freedom for rougher treatment, that power may be\nmade strong in you. For the athletes also are set apart for stricter\ndiscipline, that they may have time to build up their strength. They are\nkept from luxury, from daintier meats, from too pleasant drink; they are\ndriven, tormented, distressed. The harder their labours in training, the\ngreater their hopes of victory. And they do it, says the Apostle, that\nthey may obtain a corruptible crown. We, with an eternal crown to\nobtain, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that we may be led\nto the arena of the judgment-seat well disciplined by every kind of\ndiscomfort: because virtue is built up by hardness, but by softness is\noverthrown\" (_Ad Mart._, iii). It will be observed that Tertullian\npasses by an easy transition from training for military service to\ntraining for athletic contests. The whole passage is little more than a\ngraphic amplification of what St. Paul writes to Timothy.\n\n5. But military service implies, what athletic contests do not,\nvigilant, unwearying, and organized opposition to a vigilant,\nunwearying, and organized foe. In many athletic contests one's opponent\nis a rival rather than an enemy. He may defeat us; but he inflicts no\ninjury. He may win the prizes; but he takes nothing of ours. And even in\nthe more deadly conflicts of the amphitheatre the enemy is very\ndifferent from an enemy in war. The combat is between individuals, not\narmies; it is the exception and not the rule; it is strictly limited in\ntime and place, not for all times and all places; it is a duel and not a\ncampaign,--still less a prolonged war. Military service is either\nperpetual warfare or perpetual preparation for it. And just such is the\nChristian life: it is either a conflict, or a preparation for one. The\nsoldier, so long as he remains in the service, can never say, \"I may lay\naside my arms and my drill: all enemies are conquered: there will never\nbe another war.\" And the Christian, so long as he remains in this world,\ncan never think that he may cease to watch and to pray, because the\nvictory is won, and he will never be tempted any more. It is for this\nreason that he cannot allow himself to be \"entangled in the affairs of\nthis life.\" The soldier on service avoids this error: he knows that it\nwould interfere with his promotion. The Christian must avoid it at least\nas carefully; for he is always on service, and the loss of promotion is\nthe loss of eternal life.\n\nObserve that St. Paul does not suggest that Christians should keep aloof\nfrom the affairs of this life, which would be a flat contradiction of\nwhat he teaches elsewhere. The Christian is to \"do his own business, and\nto work with his hands, that he may walk honestly toward them that are\nwithout, and may have need of nothing\" (1 Thess. iv. 11, 12). He has a\nduty to perform \"in the affairs of this life,\" but in doing it he is not\nto be _entangled_ in them. They are means, not ends; and must be made to\nhelp him on, not suffered to keep him back. If they become entanglements\ninstead of opportunities, he will soon lose that state of constant\npreparation and alertness, which is the indispensable condition of\nsuccess.\n\nThe same thought is brought out in the second metaphor by the word\n\"lawfully.\" The athlete who competes in the games does not receive a\ncrown, unless he has contended _lawfully_, _i.e._, according to rule\n(=nomim\u00f4s, nomos=). Even if he seems to be victorious, he nevertheless\nis not crowned, because he has violated the well-known conditions. And\nwhat is the rule, what are the conditions of the Christian's contest?\n\"If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his\ncross, and follow Me.\" If we wish to share Christ's victory, we must be\nready to share His suffering. No cross, no crown. To try to withdraw\noneself from all hardship and annoyance, to attempt to avoid all that is\npainful or disagreeable, is a violation of the rules of the arena. This,\nit would appear, Timothy was in some respects tempted to do: and\ntimidity and despondency must not be allowed to get the upper hand. Not\nthat what is painful, or distasteful, or unpopular, is necessarily\nright; but it is certainly not necessarily wrong: and to try to avoid\neverything that one dislikes is to ensure being fatally wrong. So that,\nas Chrysostom says, \"it behoves thee not to complain, if thou endurest\nhardness; but to complain, if thou dost not endure hardness.\"\n\nChrysostom and some modern commentators make the striving lawfully\ninclude not only the observance of the rules of the contest, but the\nprevious training and preparation. \"What is meant by _lawfully_? It is\nnot enough that he is anointed, and even engages, unless he complies\nwith all the regulations of training with respect to diet, temperance,\nand sobriety, and all the rules of the wrestling-school. Unless, in\nshort, he go through all that is befitting a wrestler, he is not\ncrowned.\" This makes good sense, if \"is not crowned\" be interpreted to\nmean \"is not likely to be first,\" rather than \"does not receive the\ncrown, even if he is first.\" A victorious athlete is rightly deprived\nof the reward, if he has violated the conditions of the contest: but no\none ever yet heard of a victor being refused the prize because he had\nnot trained properly. Moreover, there are enough examples to show that\n\"lawfully\" (=nomim\u00f4s=) does sometimes include the training as well as\nthe contest.\n\nBut this does not seem to be St Paul's meaning. In the first similitude\nhe takes no account of the time which precedes the soldier's service,\nduring which he may be supposed to be preparing himself for it. The\nChristian's life and the soldier's service are regarded as co-extensive,\nand there is no thought of any previous period. So also in the second\nsimilitude. The Christian's life and the athlete's contest are regarded\nas co-extensive, and no account is taken of anything that may have\npreceded. Baptism is entering the lists, not entering the\ntraining-school; and the only rules under consideration are the rules of\nthe arena.\n\nNo doubt there are analogies between the training-school and Christian\ndiscipline, and St. Paul sometimes makes use of them (1 Cor. ix. 25,\n27); but they do not seem to be included in the present metaphor.\n\nBut it is about the third similitude that there has been most\ndiscussion. \"The husbandman that laboureth must be the first to partake\nof the fruits:\" not, as the A. V., \"must be first partaker of the\nfruits;\" which seems to imply that he must partake of the fruits before\nhe labours. What is the meaning of \"first\"? Some commentators resort to\nthe rather desperate hypothesis that this word is misplaced, as it\nsometimes is in careless writing and conversation: and they suppose that\nwhat St. Paul means is, that \"the husbandman, who labours first, must\nthen partake of the fruits,\" or, more clearly, \"the husbandman, who\nwishes to partake of the fruits, must first of all labour.\" The margin\nof the A. V. suggests a similar translation. But this is to credit the\nApostle with great clumsiness of expression. And even if this\ntransposition of the \"first\" could be accepted as probable, there still\nremains the fact that we have the present and not the aorist participle\n(=kopi\u00f4nta= and not =kopiasanta=). Had St. Paul meant what is supposed, he\nwould have said \"The husbandman who _has_ first _laboured_,\" not \"who\n_labours_ first.\" But there is no transposition of the \"first.\" The\norder of the Greek shows that the emphatic word is \"labours.\" \"It is the\n_labouring_ husbandman who must be the first to partake of the fruits.\"\nIt is the man who works hard and with a will, and not the one who works\nlistlessly or looks despondently on, who, according to all moral fitness\nand the nature of things, ought to have the first share in the fruits.\nThis interpretation does justice to the Greek as it stands, without\nresorting to any manipulation of the Apostle's language. Moreover, it\nbrings the saying into perfect harmony with the context.\n\nIt is quite evident that the three metaphors are parallel to one another\nand are intended to teach the same lesson. In each of them we have two\nthings placed side by side,--a prize and the method to be observed in\nobtaining it. Do you, as a Christian soldier on service, wish for the\napprobation of Him who has enrolled you? Then you must avoid the\nentanglements which would interfere with your service. Do you, as a\nChristian athlete, wish for the crown of victory? Then you must not\nevade the rules of the contest. Do you, as a Christian husbandman, wish\nto be among the first to enjoy the harvest? Then you must be foremost\nin toil. And the Apostle draws attention to the importance of the lesson\nof self-devotion and endurance, inculcated under these three impressive\nfigures, by adding, \"Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee\nunderstanding in all things.\" That is, He has confidence that His\ndisciple will be enabled to draw the right conclusion from these\nmetaphors; and having done so, will have grace to apply it to his own\ncase.\n\nTimothy is not the only Christian, or the only minister, who is in\ndanger of being disgusted, and disheartened, and dismayed, by the\ncoldness and apathy of professing friends, and by the hostility and\ncontempt of secret or open enemies. We all of us need at times to be\nreminded that here we have no abiding city, but that our citizenship is\nin heaven. And we all of us are at times inclined to murmur, because the\nrest for which we so often yearn, is not given us here;--a rest from\ntoil, a rest from temptation, and a rest from sin. Such a sabbath-rest\nis the prize in store for us; but we cannot have it here. And if we\ndesire to have it hereafter, we must keep the rules of the arena; and\nthe rules are _self-control_, _self-sacrifice_, _and work_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\n_THE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE INCARNATION.--THE\nGOSPEL OF ST. PAUL._\n\n \"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David,\n according to my gospel: wherein I suffer hardship unto bonds, as a\n malefactor; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all\n things for the elects' sake, that they also may obtain the salvation\n which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.\"--2 TIM. ii. 8-10.\n\n\nThese words are a continuation of the same subject. They are additional\nthoughts supplied to the Apostle's beloved disciple to induce him to\ntake courage and to bear willingly and thankfully whatever difficulties\nand sufferings the preaching of the gospel in all its fulness may\ninvolve. In the three metaphors just preceding, St. Paul has indicated\nthat there is nothing amazing, nothing that ought to cause perplexity or\ndespondency, in the fact that ministers of the word have to encounter\nmuch opposition and danger. On the contrary, such things are the very\nconditions of the situation; they are the very rules of the course. One\nwould have to suspect that there was something seriously amiss, if they\ndid not occur; and without them there would be no chance of reward. Here\nhe goes on to point out that this hardship and suffering is very far\nfrom being mere hardship and suffering; it has its bright side and its\ncompensations, even in this life.\n\nThroughout this section it is well worth while to notice the very\nconsiderable improvements which the Revisers have made in it. One or two\nof these have been already noticed; but for convenience some of the\nprincipal instances are here collected together.\n\n\"Suffer hardship with me,\" or \"Take thy part in suffering hardship,\" is\nbetter than \"Thou therefore endure hardship,\" which while inserting a\nspurious \"therefore,\" omits the important intimation that the hardship\nto which Timothy is invited is one which others are enduring, and which\nhe is called upon, not to bear alone, but to share. \"No soldier on\nservice\" is better than \"No man that warreth,\" and \"if also a man\ncontend in the games\" is more definite than the vague \"if a man also\nstrive for masteries.\" The ambiguity of \"must be first partaker of the\nfruits\" is avoided in \"must be the first to partake of the fruits.\" But\nperhaps none of these corrections are so important as those in the\npassage now before us. \"Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David,\nwas raised from the dead, according to my gospel,\" gives quite a wrong\nturn to St. Paul's language. It puts the clauses in the wrong order, and\ngives an erroneous impression as to what is to be remembered. Timothy is\ncharged to \"remember Jesus Christ;\" and in remembering Him he is to\nthink of Him as one Who is \"risen from the dead,\" and Who is also \"of\nthe seed of David.\" These are central facts of the Gospel which St. Paul\nhas always preached; they have been his support in all his sufferings;\nand they will be the same support to the disciple as they have been to\nthe master.\n\n\"Remember Jesus Christ.\" Every Christian, who has to endure what seem to\nhim to be hardships, will sooner or later fall back upon this\nremembrance. He is not the first, and not the chief sufferer in the\nworld. There is One Who has undergone hardships, compared with which\nthose of other men sink into nothingness; and Who has expressly told\nthose Who wish to be His disciples, that they must follow Him along the\npath of suffering. It is specially in this respect that the servant is\nnot above his Lord. And just in proportion as we are true servants will\nthe remembrance of Jesus Christ help us to welcome what He lays upon us\nas proof that He recognizes and accepts our service.\n\nBut merely to remember Jesus Christ as a Master Who has suffered, and\nWho has made suffering a condition of service, will not be a permanently\nsustaining or comforting thought, if it ends there. Therefore St. Paul\nsays to his perplexed and desponding delegate, \"Remember Jesus Christ as\none _risen from the dead_.\" Jesus Christ has not only endured every kind\nof suffering, including its extreme form, death, but He has conquered it\nall by rising again. He is not only the sinless Sufferer, but also the\ntriumphant Victor over death and hell. He has set us an example of\nheroic endurance in obedience to the will of God; but He has also\nsecured for us that our endurance in imitation of Him shall be crowned\nwith victory. Had Christ's mission ended on Calvary, He would but have\ngiven to the world a purified form of Stoicism, a refined \"philosophy of\nsuffering;\" and His teaching would have failed, as Stoicism failed,\nbecause a mere philosophy of suffering is quickly proved by experience\nto be a \"philosophy of despair.\" Renan remarks with truth, that the\ngospel of Marcus Aurelius fortifies, but does not console: and all\nteaching is doomed from the outset, which comes to a groaning and\ntravailing humanity without any consolations to bestow. What is the\nthought which through long centuries has wrung, and is still wringing\nmillions of human hearts with anguish? It is the thought of the\nexistence and not only the existence but the apparent _predominance_, of\nevil. Everywhere experience seems to teach us that evil of every kind,\nphysical, intellectual, and moral, holds the field and appears likely to\nhold it. To allow oneself to be mastered by this thought is to be on the\nroad to doubting God's moral government of the world. What is the\nantidote to it? \"Remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead.\" When\nhas evil ever been so completely triumphant over good as when it\nsucceeded in getting the Prophet of Nazareth nailed to the tree, like\nsome vile and noxious animal? That was the hour of success for the\nmalignant Jewish hierarchy and for the spiritual powers of darkness. But\nit was an hour to which very strict limits were placed. Very soon He Who\nhad been dismissed to the grave by a cruel and shameful death, defeated\nand disgraced, rose again from it triumphant, not only over Jewish\npriests and Roman soldiers, but over death and the cause of death; that\nis, over every kind of evil--pain, and ignorance, and sin. It was for\nthat very purpose that He laid down His life, that He might take it\nagain: and it was for that reason that His Father loved Him, because He\nhad received the commandment to lay it down and take it again from His\nFather (John x. 17, 18).\n\nBut \"to remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead\" does more than\nthis. It not only shows us that the evil against which we have such a\nweary struggle in this life, both in others and in ourselves, is not (in\nspite of depressing appearances) permanently triumphant; it also assures\nus that there is another and a better life in which the good cause will\nbe supreme, and supreme without the possibility of disaster, of even of\ncontest. We talk in a conventional way of death as the country \"from\nwhose bourne no traveller returns:\" but we are wrong. We do not mean it\nso; yet this saying, if pressed, would carry with it a denial of a fact,\nwhich is better attested than any fact in ancient history. One Traveller\n_has_ returned; and His return is no extraordinary accident or\nexceptional and solitary success. It is a representative return and a\ntypical success. What the Son of Man has done, other sons of men can do,\nand will do. The solidarity between the human race and the Second Adam,\nbetween the Church and its Head, is such, that the victory of the Leader\ncarries with it the victory of the whole band. The breach made in the\ngates of death is one through which the whole army of Christ's followers\nmay pass out into eternal life, free from death's power for evermore.\nThis thought is full of comfort and encouragement to those who feel\nthemselves almost overwhelmed by the perplexities, and contradictions,\nand sorrows of this life. However grievous this life may be, it has this\nmerciful condition attached to it, that it lasts only for a short time;\nand then the risen Christ leads us into a life which is free from all\ntrouble, and which knows no end. The miseries of this life are lessened\nby the knowledge that they cannot last long. The blessedness of the life\nto come is perfected by the fact that it is eternal.\n\nOnce more, to \"remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead,\" is to\nremember One Who claimed to be the promised Saviour of the world, and\nWho _proved His claim_. By its countless needs, by many centuries of\nyearning, by its consciousness of failure and of guilt, the whole human\nrace had been led to look forward to the coming of some great Deliverer,\nWho would rescue mankind from its hopeless descent down the path of sin\nand retribution, as a _possibility_. By the express promise of Almighty\nGod, made to the first generation of mankind, and renewed again and\nagain to patriarchs and prophets, the chosen people had been taught to\nlook forward to the coming of a Saviour as a _certainty_. And Jesus of\nNazareth had claimed to be this longed for and expected Deliverer, the\nDesire of all nations and the Saviour of the world. \"I that speak unto\nthee am He\" (John iv. 26). By His mighty works, and still more by His\nlife-giving words, He had shown that He had Divine credentials in\nsupport of His claim: but not until He rose again from the dead was His\nclaim absolutely proved. It was the proof which He Himself volunteered.\n\"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up\" (John ii.\n19). \"There shall no sign be given but the sign of Jonah the prophet:\nfor as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,\nso shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of\nthe earth\" (Matt. xii. 39, 40), and then return again to the light of\nday as Jonah did. He had raised others from the dead; but so had Elijah\nand Elisha done. That proved no more than that He was a prophet as\nmighty as they. But no one before Jesus had ever raised Himself. If His\nMessiahship was doubtful before, all doubt vanished on Easter morning.\n\nAnd this leads St. Paul on to the second point which his downcast\ndisciple is to remember in connexion with Jesus Christ. He is to\nremember Him as \"of the seed of David.\" He is not only truly God, but\ntruly man. He was risen from the dead, and yet He was born of flesh and\nblood, and born of that royal line of which Timothy, who \"from a babe\nhad known the sacred writings,\" had many times heard and read. The\nResurrection and the Incarnation;--those are the two facts on which a\nfaltering minister of the Gospel is to hold fast, in order to comfort\nhis heart and strengthen his steps.\n\nIt is worth noting that St. Paul places the Resurrection before the\nIncarnation, a fact which is quite lost in the transposed order of the\nA. V. St. Paul's order, which at first sight seems to be illogical, was\nthe usual order of the Apostles' preaching. They began, not with the\nmiraculous birth of Christ, but with His resurrection. They proved by\nabundant testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead, and thence argued\nthat He must have been more than man. They did not preach His birth of a\nvirgin, and thence argue that He was Divine. How was His miraculous\nbirth to be proved, to those who were unwilling to accept His mother's\nword for it? But thousands of people had seen Him dead upon the Cross,\nand hundreds had seen Him alive again afterwards. No matter of fact was\nmore securely established for all those who cared to investigate the\nevidence. With the Resurrection proved, the foundations of the faith\nwere laid. The Incarnation followed easily after this, especially when\ncombined with the descent from David, a fact which helped to prove His\nMessiahship. Let Timothy boldly and patiently preach these great truths\nin all their grand simplicity, and they will bring comfort and strength\nto him in his distress and difficulty, as they have done to the Apostle.\n\nThis is the meaning of \"according to my gospel.\" These are the truths\nwhich St. Paul has habitually preached, and of the value of which he\ncan speak from full experience. He knows what he is talking about, when\nhe affirms, that these things are worth remembering when one is in\ntrouble. The Resurrection and the Incarnation are facts on which he has\nceaselessly insisted, because in the wear and tear of life he has found\nout their worth.\n\nThere is no emphasis on the \"my,\" as the Greek shows. An enclitic cannot\nbe emphatic. The Apostle is not contrasting his Gospel with that of\nother preachers, as if he would say, \"Others may teach what they please,\nbut this is the substance of _my_ Gospel.\" And Jerome is certainly\nmistaken, if what is quoted as a remark of his is rightly assigned to\nhim by Fabricius, to the effect that whenever St. Paul says \"according\nto my Gospel\" he means the written Gospel of his companion St. Luke, who\nhad caught much of his spirit and something of his language. It would be\nmuch nearer the truth to say that St. Paul never refers to a written\nGospel. In every one of the passages in which the phrase occurs the\ncontext is quite against any such interpretation (Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25;\ncf Tim. 1. i. 11). In this place the words which follow are conclusive:\n\"Wherein I suffer hardship unto bonds, as a malefactor.\" How could he be\nsaid to suffer hardship unto bonds in the Gospel of St. Luke?\n\nA word of protest may be added against the strange and impossible theory\nthat the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by St.\nPaul himself. If there is one thing which is certain with regard to the\nauthorship of the Books of the New Testament, it is that the Acts was\nwritten by a companion of St. Paul. Even destructive critics who spare\nlittle else, admit this of portions of the Acts; and the Book must be\naccepted or rejected as a whole. Moreover, it is admitted by both\ndefenders and assailants that the writer of the Acts did not know the\nEpistle to the Galatians; and it is highly probable that when he wrote\nhe had not seen the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians.[92]\nHow then can he have been St. Paul? And why should the Apostle write\nsometimes in the third person of what _Paul_ said and did, and sometimes\nin the first person of what _we_ did? All this is quite natural, if the\nwriter is a companion of the Apostle, who was sometimes with him and\nsometimes not; it is most extraordinary if the Apostle himself is the\nwriter. And of course if the Acts is not by St. Paul, the third Gospel\ncannot be; for it is impossible to assign them to different writers.\nMoreover, not to mention other difficulties, it may be doubted whether,\nmore than two years (Acts xxviii. 30) before the death of St. Paul,\nthere would have been time for \"_many_\" to \"have taken in hand to draw\nup a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among\nus\" (Luke i. 1), and then for him to have collected material for the\nthird Gospel and to have written it, and then, after an interval, for\nhim to have written the Acts. All the arguments in favour of the Pauline\nauthorship of the third Gospel and of the Acts are satisfied by the\nalmost universally accepted view, that these two works were written by\na companion of the Apostle, who was thoroughly familiar with his modes\nof thought and expression.\n\nThe preaching of this Gospel of the Resurrection and the Incarnation had\ncaused the Apostle (as he here tells us) to suffer much evil, as if he\nhad done much evil, even to the extent of a grievous imprisonment. He is\nbound as a malefactor; but his Gospel \"is not bound,\" because it is \"the\nword of God.\" He perhaps changes the expression from \"my Gospel\" to \"the\nword of God\" in order to indicate why it is that, although the preacher\nis in prison, yet his Gospel is free;--because the word which he\npreaches is not his own, but God's.\n\n\"The word of God is not bound.\" The Apostle is imprisoned; but his\ntongue and his companion's pen are free. He can still teach those who\ncome to him; can still dictate letters for others to Luke and the\nfaithful few who visit him. He can still, as in his first Roman\nimprisonment, see that what has befallen him may \"have fallen out rather\nunto the progress of the gospel; so that his bonds became manifest in\nChrist throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest\"\n(Phil. i. 12, 13). He has been able to influence those whom, but for his\nimprisonment, he would never have had an opportunity of reaching,--Roman\nsoldiers, and warders, and officials, and all who have to take\ncognisance of his trial before the imperial tribunal.\n\n\"The word of God is not bound.\" While he is in prison, Timothy, and\nTitus, and scores of other evangelists and preachers, are free. Their\naction is not hampered because a colleague is shut up. The loss of him\nmight have a depressing and discouraging effect on some; but this ought\nnot to be so, and he hopes will not be so. Those who are left at large\nought to labour all the more energetically and enthusiastically, in\norder to supply whatever is lost by the Apostle's want of freedom, and\nin order to convince the world that this is no contest with a human\norganization or with human opinion, but with a Divine word and a Divine\nPerson.\n\n\"The word of God is not bound,\" because His word is the truth, and it is\nthe truth that makes men free. How can that of which the very essence is\nfreedom, and of which the attribute is that it confers freedom, be\nitself kept in bondage? Truth is freer than air and more incompressible\nthan water. And just as men must have air and must have water, and you\ncannot keep them long from either; so you cannot long keep them from the\ntruth or the truth from them. You may dilute it, or obscure it, or\nretard it, but you cannot bury it or shut it up. Laws which are of\nDivine origin will surely and irresistibly assert themselves, and truth\nand the mind of man will meet.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[92] It is not credible that a writer who was very familiar with the\nincidents and persons mentioned and alluded to in Gal. i. 17; ii. 1-5,\n11-14; Rom. xv. 19, 28; xvi. 1-3, 23; 1 Cor. i. 11-16; v. 1; xi. 30;\nxvi. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 12; vii. 5; xi. 24; xii. 3, 7, 18, should make no\nmention of them or reference to them. The silence respecting Titus would\nbe most extraordinary if the Apostle himself were the author of the\nActs. See Bishop Lightfoot's article on the Acts in the new edition of\nthe _Dict. of the Bible_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\n_THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT, OF\nDILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS\nUP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH._\n\n \"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them in the sight\n of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the\n subverting of them that hear. Give diligence to present thyself\n approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,\n handling aright the word of truth. But shun profane babblings: for\n they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as\n doth a gangrene; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who\n concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is\n passed already, and overthrow the faith of some.\"--2 TIM. ii. 14-18.\n\n\nWe here enter upon a new section of the Epistle, which continues down to\nthe end of the chapter. It consists in the main of directions as to\nTimothy's own behaviour in the responsible post in which he has been\nplaced. And these are both positive and negative; he is told what to aim\nat, and what to avoid.\n\nAs to the meaning of \"these things,\" of which he is to put his flock in\nremembrance, it seems most natural to refer the expression to the\n\"faithful saying\" with which the previous section closes. He is to\nremind others (and thereby strengthen his own courage and faith), that\nto die for Christ is to live with Him, and to suffer for Christ is to\nreign with Him, while to deny Him is to involve His denying us; for,\nhowever faithless we may be, He must abide by what He has promised both\nof rewards and punishments. The fact that the Apostle uses the\nexpression \"put them in remembrance,\" implying that they already know\nit, is some confirmation of the view that the \"faithful saying\" is a\nformula that was often recited in the congregation; a view which the\nrhythmical character of the passage renders somewhat probable.\n\nHaving reminded them of what they already know well, Timothy is to\n\"charge them in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about\nwords.\" This phrase \"charge them in the sight of the Lord\" is worthy of\nnotice. The Apostle twice uses it in addressing Timothy himself. \"I\ncharge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels,\nthat thou observe these things without prejudice\" (1 Tim. v. 21); and \"I\ncharge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, Who shall judge\nthe quick and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom; preach the\nword\" (2 Tim. iv. 1). The word for \"charge\" (=diamartythesthai=)\nindicates the interposition (=dia=) of two parties, and hence comes to\nmean to \"call heaven and earth to witness;\" in other words, to \"testify\nsolemnly\" or \"adjure;\" and from this latter meaning it easily becomes\nemployed for a solemn charge or exhortation. In translating, it would be\nquite legitimate to insert an adverb to express this: \"_solemnly_\ncharging them in the sight of God.\" In dealing with these pestilent\ndisputes and perilous opinions Timothy, both for his own sake and for\nthat of his hearers, is to remember, and to remind them, in Whose\npresence he is speaking. God's eye is upon both preacher and\ncongregation; and in pleading the cause of truth and sobriety the\npreacher is in fact pleading before the Divine tribunal. This will make\nthe teacher wary in his words, and will lead his hearers to listen to\nthem in a spirit of sobriety.\n\nIt has been debated whether St. Paul has in his mind those \"faithful\nmen\" to whom Timothy is to commit the substance of the Apostle's\nteaching (ver. 2), or whether he is not now taking a wider view and\nincluding the whole of the disciple's flock. It is impossible to\ndetermine this with certainty; and it is not a question of much moment.\nOne thing is clear; viz., that the whole section is applicable to\nministers throughout the Church in all ages; and the words under\nconsideration seem to be well worthy of attention at the present time,\nwhen so many unworthy topics and so much unworthy language may be heard\nfrom the pulpit. One is inclined to think that if ministers always\nremembered that they were speaking \"in the sight of God,\" they would\nsometimes find other things to say, and other ways of saying them. We\ntalk glibly enough of another man's words and opinions, when he is not\npresent. We may be entirely free from the smallest wish to misrepresent\nor exaggerate; but at the same time we speak with great freedom and\nalmost without restraint. What a change comes over us, if, in the midst\nof our glib recital of his views and sayings, the man himself enters the\nroom! At once we begin to measure our words and to speak with more\ncaution. Our tone becomes less positive, and we have less confidence\nthat we are justified in making sweeping statements on the subject.\nOught not something of this circumspection and diffidence to be felt by\nthose who take the responsibility of telling others about the mind of\nGod? And if they remembered constantly that they speak \"in the sight of\nthe Lord,\" this attitude of solemn circumspection would become habitual.\n\n\"That they strive not about words.\" The spirit of controversy is a bad\nthing in itself; but the evil is intensified when the subject of\ncontroversy is a question of words. Controversy is necessary; but it is\na necessary evil: and that man has need of searchings of heart who finds\nthat he enjoys it, and sometimes even provokes it, when it might easily\nhave been avoided. But a fondness for strife about words is one of the\nlowest forms which the malady can take. Principles are things worth\nstriving about, when opposition to what we know to be right and true is\nunavoidable. But disputatiousness about words is something like proof\nthat love of self has taken the place of love of truth. The\nword-splitter wrangles, not for the sake of arriving at the truth, but\nfor the sake of a dialectical victory. He cares little as to what is\nright or wrong, so long as he comes off triumphant in the argument.\nHence the Apostle said in the first Epistle, that the natural fruit of\nthese disputes about words is \"envy, strife, and railings\" (vi. 4). They\nare an exhibition of dexterity in which the object of the disputants is\nnot to investigate, but to baffle; not to enlighten, but to perplex. And\nhere he says that they are worse than worthless. They tend \"to no\nprofit:\" on the contrary they tend \"to the subverting of those who\nlisten to them.\" This subversion or overthrow (=katastroph\u00ea=) is the\nexact opposite of what ought to be the result of Christian discussion,\nviz., edification or building up (=oikodom\u00ea=). The audience, instead of\nbeing built up in faith and principle, find themselves bewildered and\nlowered. They have a less firm grasp of truth and a less loyal affection\nfor it. It is as if some beautiful object, which they were learning to\nunderstand and admire, had been scored all over with marks by those who\nhad been disputing as to the meaning and relation of the details. It has\nbeen a favourite device of the heretics and sceptics of all ages to\nendeavour to provoke a discussion on points about which they hope to\nplace an opponent in a difficulty. Their object is not to settle, but to\nunsettle; not to clear up doubts but to create them: and hence we find\nBishop Butler in his Durham Charge recommending his clergy to avoid\nreligious discussions in general conversation, because the clever\npropounder of difficulties will find ready hearers, while the patient\nanswerer of them will not do so. To dispute is to place truth at an\nunnecessary disadvantage.\n\n\"Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that\nneedeth not to be ashamed.\" In the previous section St. Paul exhorted\nTimothy to be ready to suffer for Christ: here he charges him to work\nfor Him; and in the language which he uses he indicates that such work\nis a serious matter;--\"Give diligence.\" The word which he uses\n(=spoudazein=) is one which scarcely occurs in the New Testament except\nin the writings of St. Paul. And the corresponding substantive\n(=spoud\u00ea=) is also much more common in his Epistles than it is\nelsewhere. It indicates that ceaseless, serious, earnest zeal, which was\none of his chief characteristics. And certainly if the proposed standard\nis to be reached, or even seriously aimed at abundance of this zeal will\nbe required. For the end proposed is not the admiration or affection of\nthe congregation, or of one's superiors, nor yet success in influencing\nand winning souls; but that of presenting oneself to God in such a way\nas to secure His approval, without fear of incurring the reproach of\nbeing a workman who has shirked or scamped his work. The Apostle's\ncharge is a most wholesome one: and if it is acted upon, it secures\ndiligence without fussiness, and enthusiasm without fanaticism. The\nbeing \"approved\" (=dokimos=) implies being tried and proved as precious\nmetals are proved before they are _accepted_ (=dechomai=) as genuine. It\nis the word used of the \"_pure_ gold\" with which Solomon overlaid his\nivory throne (2 Chron. ix. 17). In the New Testament it is always used\nof persons, and with one exception (James i. 12) it is used by no one\nbut St. Paul. He uses it of being approved both of men (Rom. xiv. 18)\nand of God (2 Cor. x. 18).\n\nThe single word which represents \"that needeth not to be ashamed\"\n(=anepaischyntos=) is a rare formation, which occurs nowhere else in the\nNew Testament. Its precise meaning is not quite certain. The more simple\nand frequent form (=anaischyntos=) means \"shameless,\" _i.e._, one who\ndoes not feel shame when he ought to do so. Such a meaning, if taken\nliterally, would be utterly unsuitable here. And we then have choice of\ntwo interpretations, either (1) that which is adopted in both A. V. and\nR. V., who _need_ not feel shame, because his work will bear\nexamination, or (2) who _does_ not feel shame, although his work is of a\nkind which the world holds in contempt. The latter is the interpretation\nwhich Chrysostom adopts, and there is much to be said in its favour.\nThree times already in this letter has the Apostle spoken of not being\nashamed of the Gospel. He says \"Be not ashamed of the testimony of our\nLord, nor of me His prisoner.\" Again, \"I suffer these things; yet I am\nnot ashamed.\" And again of Onesiphorus, \"He oft refreshed me, and was\nnot ashamed of my chain\" (i. 8, 12, 16). Does he not, therefore, mean\nhere also, \"Present thyself to God as a workman who is not ashamed of\nbeing in His service and of doing whatever work may be assigned to him\"?\nThis brings us very close to what would be the natural meaning of the\nword, according to the analogy of the simpler form. \"If you are to work\nfor God,\" says Paul, \"you must be in a certain sense _shameless_. There\nare some men who set public opinion at defiance, in order that they may\nfollow their own depraved desires. The Christian minister must be\nprepared sometimes to set public opinion at defiance, in order that he\nmay follow the commands of God.\" The _vox populi_, even when taken in\nits most comprehensive sense, is anything but an infallible guide.\nPublic opinion is nearly always against the worst forms of selfishness,\ndishonesty, and sensuality; and to set it at defiance in such matters is\nto be \"shameless\" in the worst sense. But sometimes public opinion is\nvery decidedly against some of the noblest types of holiness; and to be\n\"shameless\" under such circumstances is a necessary qualification for\ndoing one's duty. It is by no means certain that this is not St. Paul's\nmeaning. If we translate, \"A workman that feeleth no shame,\" we shall\nhave a phrase that would cover either interpretation.\n\n\"Handling aright the word of truth,\" or \"Rightly dividing the word of\ntruth.\" There is some doubt here also as to the explanation of the word\nrendered \"handling aright\" or \"rightly dividing\" (=orthotomein=). Once\nmore we have a word which occurs nowhere else in New Testament. Its\nradical meaning is to \"cut aright\" or \"cut straight,\" especially of\ndriving a straight road through a district, or a straight furrow across\na field. In the LXX. it is twice used of making straight or directing a\nperson's path. \"In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy\npaths;\" and \"The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way\"\n(Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5). The idea of rightness seems to be the dominant\none; that of cutting quite secondary; so that the Revisers are quite\njustified in following the example of the Vulgate (_recte tractantem_),\nand translating simply \"rightly handling.\" But this right handling may\nbe understood as consisting in seeing that the word of truth moves in\nthe right direction and progresses in the congregation by a legitimate\ndevelopment. The word, therefore, excludes all fanciful and perilous\ndeviations and evasions, such as those in which the false teachers\nindulged, and all those \"strivings about words,\" which distract men's\nminds and divert them from the substance of the Gospel. It may be\ndoubted whether the word contains any idea of _distribution_, as that\nthe word of truth is to be preached according to the capacity of the\nhearers,--strong meat to the strong, and milk to those who are still but\nbabes in the faith. We may feel sure that the expression has nothing to\ndo with the cutting up of victims in sacrifices, or with cutting\nstraight to the heart of a thing, as if the word of truth had a kernel\nwhich must be reached by cleaving it down the middle. Yet both these\nexplanations have been suggested. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius use\nthe substantive derived from St. Paul's verb (=orthotomia=) in the sense\nof orthodoxy; which seems to imply that they understood the verb in the\nsense of handling aright (_Strom._, VII. xvi.; _H. E._, IV. iii.).\n\nOnce more (1 Tim. vi. 20) the Apostle warns his disciple against\n\"profane babblings.\" He is (according to St. Paul's graphic word) to\nmake a circuit in order to avoid such things, to \"give them a wide\nberth\" (=periistaso=; comp. Tit. iii. 9). These empty profanities, with\ntheir philosophic pretentiousness, had done much harm already, and would\ndo still more; for the men who propagate them would certainly go still\ngreater lengths in impiety; and they must receive no encouragement.\nTheir teaching is of a kind that will spread rapidly, and it is deadly\nin its effects. It \"will eat as doth a gangrene.\"\n\nThe substitution of \"gangrene\" for \"cancer\" is an improvement, as giving\nthe exact word used in the original, which expresses the meaning more\nforcibly than \"cancer.\" Cancer is sometimes very slow in its ravages,\nand may go on for years without causing serious harm. Gangrene poisons\nthe whole frame and quickly becomes fatal. The Apostle foresees that\ndoctrines, which really ate out the very heart of Christianity, were\nlikely to become very popular in Ephesus and would do incalculable\nmischief. The nature of these doctrines we gather from what follows.\nThey are preached by the kind of people (=hoitines=) who miss their aim\nas regards the truth. They profess to be aiming at the truth, but they\ngo very wide of the mark. For instance, some of them say that it is\nquite a mistake to look forward to a resurrection of the body, or indeed\nto any resurrection at all. The only real resurrection has taken place\nalready and cannot be repeated. It is that intellectual and spiritual\nprocess which is involved in rising from degrading ignorance to a\nrecognition and acceptance of the truth. What is commonly called death,\nviz., the separation of soul and body, is not really death at all. Death\nin the true sense of the word means ignorance of God and of Divine\nthings; to be buried is to be buried in error. Consequently the true\nresurrection is to be reanimated by the truth and to escape from the\nsepulchre of spiritual darkness; and this process is accomplished once\nfor all in every enlightened soul. We learn from the writings of\nIrenaeus (_Haer._, II. xxxi. 2) and of Tertullian (_De Res. Carn._, xix.)\nthat this form of error was in existence in their day: and Augustine in\na letter to Januarius (lv. iii. 4) shows how such false notions might\nhave grown out of St. Paul's own teaching. The Apostle insisted so\nfrequently upon the fact of our being dead with Christ and raised\ntogether with Him, that some persons jumped to the conclusion that this\nwas the whole of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. The\nresurrection of the body was a great stumbling-block to Greeks and\nOrientals, with their low notions of the dignity of the human body; and\ntherefore any interpretation of the resurrection which got rid of the\ndifficulty of supposing that in the world to come also men would have\nbodies, was welcome. It was calamity enough to be burdened with a body\nin this life: it was appalling to think of such a condition being\ncontinued in eternity. Hence the obnoxious doctrine was explained away\nand resolved into allegory and metaphor.\n\nOf Hymenaeus and Philetus nothing further is known. Hymenaeus is probably\nthe same person as is mentioned in the first Epistle with Alexander, as\nhaving made shipwreck of the faith, and been delivered unto Satan by the\nApostle, to cure him of his blasphemies. We are told here that much\nmischief had been done by such teaching: for a number of persons had\nbeen seduced from the faith. \"Some,\" in the English phrase \"overthrow\nthe faith of _some_,\" conveys an impression, which is not contained in\nthe Greek (=tin\u00f4n=), that the number of those who were led astray was\nsmall. The Greek indicates neither a large nor a small number; but what\nis told us leads to the conclusion that the number was not small. It is\nprobably to this kind of teaching that St. John alludes, when he writes\nsome twenty or more years later than this, and says, \"Even now there\nhave arisen _many_ antichrists\" (1 John ii. 18). Teaching of this kind\nwas only too likely to be popular in Ephesus.\n\nIt is by no means unknown among ourselves. At the present time also\nthere is a tendency to retain the old Christian terms and to deprive\nthem of all Christian meaning. Not only such words as \"miracle,\"\n\"Church,\" \"catholic,\" and \"sacrament\" are evaporated and etherealized,\nuntil they lose all definite meaning; but even such fundamental terms as\n\"atonement,\" \"redemption,\" and \"immortality.\" Nay it is quite possible\nto find even the word \"God\" used to express a Being which is neither\npersonal nor conscious. And thus language, which has been consecrated to\nthe service of religion for a long series of centuries, is degraded to\nthe unworthy purpose of insinuating pantheism and agnosticism. This\nperversion of well established phraseology is to be condemned on purely\nliterary grounds: and on moral grounds it may be stigmatized as\ndishonest. If Hymenaeus and Philetus wish to deny the resurrection, let\nthem also surrender the word which expresses it. They have abundance of\nwords wherewith to express mental and moral enlightenment. Let them not\nso handle a word of truth as to make it suggest a lie.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n_THE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND JAMBRES ON THE\nQUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT IN EPHESUS._\n\n \"But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For\n men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty,\n railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.... And like as\n Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the\n truth; men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.\"--2\n TIM. iii. 1, 2, 8.\n\n\nIn the first chapter the Apostle looks back over the past; in the second\nhe gives directions about the present; in the third he looks forward\ninto the future. These divisions are not observed with rigidity\nthroughout, but they hold good to a very considerable extent. Thus in\nthe first division he remembers Timothy's affectionate grief at parting,\nhis faith and that of his family, and the spiritual gift conferred on\nhim at his ordination. And respecting himself he remembers his teaching\nTimothy, his being deserted by those in Asia, his being ministered to by\nOnesiphorus. In the second chapter he charges Timothy to be willing to\nsuffer hardships with him, and instructs him how to conduct himself in\nthe manifold difficulties of his present position. And now he goes on to\nforewarn and forearm him against dangers and troubles which he foresees\nin the future.\n\nThere are several prophecies in the New Testament similar to the one\nbefore us. There is that of St. Paul to the Ephesian Church some ten\nyears before, just before his final departure for the bonds and\nafflictions which awaited him at Jerusalem. \"I know that after my\ndeparting grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the\nflock; and from your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse\nthings, to draw away disciples after them\" (Acts xx. 29, 30). The\nEpistles to Timothy show that this prediction was already being\nfulfilled during the Apostle's lifetime. There is, secondly, the\nprophecy respecting the great falling away and the revealing of the man\nof sin, which is somewhat parallel to the one before us (2 Thess. ii.\n3-7). Thirdly, there is the similar prediction in the First Epistle to\nTimothy (iv. 1-3). And besides these three by St. Paul, there are those\ncontained in 2 Peter ii. 1, 2 about the rise of false teachers, and in\nthe First Epistle of St. John (ii. 18 and iv. 3) about the coming of\nantichrist. Those in 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter should be compared with\nthe one before us, as containing a mixture of present and future. This\nmixture has been made the basis of a somewhat frivolous objection. It\nhas been urged that the shifting from future to present and back again\nindicates the hand of a writer who is contemporary with the events which\nhe pretends to foretell. Sometimes he adopts the form of prophecy and\nuses the future tense. But at other times the influence of facts is too\nstrong for him. He forgets his assumed part as a prophet, and writes in\nthe present tense of his own experiences. Such an objection credits the\nfeigned prophet with a very small amount of intelligence. Are we\nseriously to suppose that any one would be so stupid as to be unable to\nsustain his part for half a dozen verses, or less, without betraying\nhimself? But, in fact, the change of tense indicates nothing of the\nkind. It is to be explained in some cases by the fact that the germs of\nthe evils predicted were already in existence, in others by the practice\n(especially common in prophecy) of speaking of what is certain to happen\nas if it were already a fact. The prophet is often a _seer_, who sees as\npresent what is distant or future; and hence he naturally uses the\npresent tense, even when he predicts.\n\nThe meaning of the \"last days\" is uncertain. The two most important\ninterpretations are: (1) the _whole_ time between Christ's first and\nsecond coming, and (2) the portion _immediately_ before Christ's second\ncoming. Probability is greatly in favour of the latter; for the other\nmakes the expression rather meaningless. If these evils were to come at\nall, they _must_ come between the two Advents; for there is no other\ntime: and in that case why speak of this period as the \"last days\"? It\nmight be reasonable to call them \"_these_ last days,\" but not \"last\ndays\" without such specification. At the present time it would not be\nnatural to speak of an event as likely to happen in the last days, when\nwe meant that it would happen between our own time and the end of the\nworld. The expression used in 1 Tim. iv. 1 very probably does mean no\nmore than \"in future times; hereafter\" (=en hysterois kairois=). But\nhere and in 2 Pet. iii. 3 the meaning rather is \"in the last days; when\nthe Lord is at hand.\" It is then that the enemy will be allowed to put\nforth all his power, in order to be more completely overthrown. Then\nindeed there will be perilous, critical, grievous times (=kairoi\nchalepoi=). The Apostle treats it as possible, or even probable, that\nTimothy will live to see the troubles which will mark the eve of\nChrist's return. The Apostles shared, and contributed to produce, the\nbelief that the Lord would come again soon, within the lifetime of some\nwho were then alive. Even at the close of a long life we find the last\nsurviving Apostle pointing out to the Church that \"it is the last hour\"\n(1 John ii. 18), obviously meaning by that expression, that it is the\ntime immediately preceding the return of Christ to judge the world. And\nsome twenty years later we find Ignatius writing to the Ephesians \"These\nare the last times (=eschatoi kairoi=). Henceforth let us be reverent;\nlet us fear the longsuffering of God, lest it turn into a judgment\nagainst us. For either let us fear the wrath which is to come, or let us\nlove the grace which now is\" (_Eph._ xi.). Only by the force of\nexperience was the mind of the Church cleared so as to see the Kingdom\nof Christ in its true perspective. The warning which Jesus had given,\nthat \"of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in\nheaven, neither the Son, but the Father,\" seems to have been understood\nas meaning no more than the declaration \"in an hour that ye think not\nthe Son of man cometh.\" That is, it was understood as a warning against\nbeing found unprepared, and not as a warning against forming conjectures\nas to how near Christ's return was. Therefore we need not be at all\nsurprised at St. Paul writing to Timothy in a way which implies that\nTimothy will probably live to see the evils which will immediately\nprecede Christ's return, and must be on his guard against being amazed\nor overwhelmed by them. He is to \"turn away from\" the intense wickedness\nwhich will then be manifested, and go on undismayed with his own work.\n\n\"Like as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand\nthe truth.\" The Apostle is obviously referring to the Egyptian magicians\nmentioned in Exodus. But in the Pentateuch neither their number nor\ntheir names are given; so that we must suppose that St. Paul is\nreferring to some Jewish tradition on the subject. The number two was\nvery possibly suggested by the number of their opponents:--Moses and\nAaron on one side, and two magicians on the other. And on each side it\nis a pair of brothers; for the Targum of Jonathan represents the\nmagicians as sons of Balaam, formerly instructors of Moses, but\nafterwards his enemies. The names vary in Jewish tradition. Jannes is\nsometimes Johannes, and Jambres is sometimes either Mambres or\nAmbrosius. The tradition respecting them was apparently widely spread.\nIt was known to Numenius, a Platonic philosopher of Apameia in Syria,\nwho is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, I. xxii.), and\nquoted by Origen and Eusebius as giving an account of Jannes and Jambres\n(_Con. Cels._, IV. li.; _Praep. Evang._, IX. viii.). In Africa we find\nsome knowledge of the tradition exhibited by Appuleius, the famous\nauthor of the _Golden Ass_, who like Numenius flourished in the second\ncentury. And in the previous century another Latin writer, Pliny the\nElder, shows a similar knowledge. Both of them mention Jannes as a\nmagician in connexion with Moses, who is also in their eyes a magician;\nbut Pliny appears to think that both Moses and Jannes were Jews.[93] It\nis highly improbable that any of these writers derived their knowledge\nof these names from the passage before us; in the case of Pliny this\nwould scarcely have been possible. His _Natural History_ was published\nabout A.D. 77, and at that time the Second Epistle to Timothy must have\nbeen known to but few, even among Christians. The author of the\napocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus very possibly did derive his knowledge of\nthe names from St. Paul; yet he may have had independent sources of\ninformation. He represents Nicodemus as pleading before Pilate that\nJannes and Jambres worked miracles before Pharaoh; \"but because they\nwere not from God, what they did was destroyed.\" Whereas \"Jesus raised\nup Lazarus, and he is alive\" (chap. v.).\n\nOne of the ablest of English commentators on these Epistles remarks upon\nthis passage, \"It is probable that the Apostle derived these names from\na current and (being quoted by him) _true_ tradition of the Jewish\nChurch.\" And in a similar spirit a writer in the _Dictionary of the\nBible_ thinks that it would be \"inconsistent with the character of an\ninspired record for a baseless or incorrect current tradition to be\ncited.\"\n\nLet us look at the phenomena of the case and see whether the number and\nthe names appear to be trustworthy or otherwise, and then consider the\nquestion of inspiration. To drag in the latter question in order to\ndetermine the former, is to begin at the wrong end.\n\nThat there should be a pair of brothers to oppose a pair of brothers,\nhas been pointed out already as a suspicious circumstance. The jingling\npairing of the names is also more like fiction than fact. Thirdly, the\nnames appear to be in formation, not Egyptian, but Hebrew; which would\nnaturally be the case if Jews invented them, but would be extraordinary\nif they were genuine names of Egyptians. Lastly, Jannes might come from\na Hebrew root which means \"to seduce,\" and Jambres from one which means\n\"to rebel.\" If Jews were to invent names for the Egyptian magicians,\nwhat names would they be more likely to fasten on them than such as\nwould suggest seductive error and rebellious opposition? And is it\nprobable that a really trustworthy tradition, on such an unimportant\nfact as the names of the enchanters who opposed Moses, would have\nsurvived through so many centuries? Sober and unbiassed critics will for\nthe most part admit that the probabilities are very decidedly against\nthe supposition that these names are true names, preserved from oblivion\nby some written or unwritten tradition outside Scripture.\n\nBut is it consistent with the character of an inspired writer to quote\nan incorrect tradition? Only those who hold somewhat narrow and rigid\ntheories of inspiration will hesitate to answer this question in the\naffirmative. No one believes that inspired persons are in possession of\nall knowledge on all subjects. And if these names were commonly accepted\nas authentic by the Jews of St. Paul's day, would his inspiration\nnecessarily keep him from sharing that belief? Even if he were well\naware that the tradition respecting the names was untrustworthy, there\nwould be nothing surprising in his speaking of the magicians under their\ncommonly accepted names, when addressing one to whom the tradition would\nbe well known. And if (as is more probable) he believed the names to be\ngenuine, there is still less to surprise us in his making use of them\nto add vivacity to the comparison. Nothing in God's dealings with\nmankind warrants us in believing that He would grant a special\nrevelation to an Apostle, in order to preserve him from so harmless a\nproceeding as illustrating an argument by citing the incorrect details\nwhich tradition had added to historical facts. And it is worth noting\nthat nothing is _based_ upon the names; they occur in what is mere\nillustration. And even in the illustration it is not the names that have\npoint, but the persons, who are supposed to have borne them; and the\npersons are real, although the names are probably fictitious. Still less\nare we warranted in believing, as Chrysostom suggests, that St. Paul by\ninspiration had supernatural knowledge of the names. As we have seen,\nthe names were known even to Gentiles who cannot well have derived their\nknowledge from him; and why should he have received a revelation about a\ntrifle which in no way helps his argument? Such views of inspiration,\nalthough the product of a reverential spirit, degrade rather than exalt\nour conceptions of it. The main point of the comparison between the two\ncases appears to be opposition to the truth. But there is perhaps more\nin it than that. The magicians withstood Moses by professing to do the\nsame wonders that he did; and the heretics withstood Timothy by\nprofessing to preach the same gospel as he did. This was frequently the\nline taken by heretical teachers; to disclaim all intention of teaching\nanything new, and to profess substantial, if not complete, agreement\nwith those whom they opposed. They affirmed that their teaching was only\nthe old truth looked at from another point of view. They used the same\nphraseology as Apostles had used: they merely gave it a more\ncomprehensive (or, as would now be said, a more _catholic_) meaning. In\nthis way the unwary were more easily seduced, and the suspicions of the\nsimple were less easily aroused. But such persons betray themselves\nbefore long. Their mind is found to be tainted; and when they are put to\nthe proof respecting the faith, they cannot stand the test (=adokimoi=).\n\nThere is nothing improbable in the supposition that St. Paul mentions\nthe magicians who withstood Moses as typical opponents of the truth,\nbecause the false teachers at Ephesus used magic arts; and the word\nwhich he uses for impostors (=go\u00eates=) in ver. 13 fits in very well with\nsuch a supposition, although it by no means makes it certain. Ephesus\nwas famous for its charms and incantations (=Ephesia grammata=), and\naround the statue of its goddess Artemis were unintelligible\ninscriptions, to which a strange efficacy was ascribed. The first body\nof Christians in Ephesus had been tainted by senseless wickedness of\nthis kind. After accepting Christianity they had secretly retained their\nmagic. The sons of the Jew Sceva had tried to use the sacred name of\nJesus as a magical form of exorcism; and this brought about the crisis\nin which numbers of costly books of incantations were publicly burned\n(Acts xix. 13-20). The evil would be pretty sure to break out again,\nespecially among new converts; just as it does among negro converts at\nthe present day. Moreover we know that in some cases there was a very\nclose connexion between some forms of heresy and magic: so that the\nsuggestion that St. Paul has pretensions to miraculous power in his\nmind, when he compares the false teachers to the Egyptian magicians, is\nby no means improbable.\n\nThe connexion between heresy and superstition is a very real and a very\nclose one. The rejection or surrender of religious truth is frequently\naccompanied by the acceptance of irrational beliefs. People deny\nmiracles and believe in spiritualism; they cavil at the efficacy of\nsacraments and accept as credible the amazing properties of an 'astral\nbody.' There is such a thing as the nemesis of unbelief. The arrogance\nwhich rejects as repugnant to reason and morality truths which have\nthroughout long centuries satisfied the highest intellects and the\nnoblest hearts, is sometimes punished by being seduced into delusions\nwhich satisfy nothing higher than a grovelling curiosity.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[93] Est et alia Magices factio a Moyse, et Janne, et Jotape Judaeis\npendens (Plin. _Hist. Nat._, XXX. ii.).\n\nSi quamlibet emolumentum probaveritis, ego ille sim Carinondas, vel\nDamigeron, vel is Moses, vel Jannes [_al. l._ Johannes], vel Apollonius,\nvel ipse Dardanus, vel quieunque post Zoroastren et Hostanen inter Magos\ncelebratus est (Appul., _Apologia_, 544, p. 580 ed. Oudendorp).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n_THE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LIFELONG\nCONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED WRITINGS._\n\n \"But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been\n assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a\n babe thou hast known the sacred writings, which are able to make\n thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.\n Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for\n reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:\n that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every\n good work.\"--2 TIM. iii. 14-17.\n\n\nFor the second time in this paragraph the Apostle puts his faithful\ndisciple in marked contrast to the heretical teachers. A few lines\nbefore, after comparing the latter to the Egyptian magicians, he\ncontinues, \"But _thou_ (=sy de=) didst follow my teaching.\" And in the\npassage before us, after saying that \"evil men and impostors shall wax\nworse and worse,\" he continues, \"But abide _thou_ (=sy de mene=) in the\nthings which thou hast learned.\" Here there is a double contrast; first\nbetween Timothy and the impostors, and secondly between his abiding in\nthe truth and their going away from it, and so from bad to worse, first\nas deceivers and then as being deceived. They begin by being seducers\nand end in being dupes, and the dupes (very often) of their own\ndeceptions; for deceit commonly leads to self-deceit. Such a result may\nwell act as a warning to Timothy and those committed to his charge of\nthe peril of trifling with the fundamentals of religious truth.\n\nThe articles of the Christian faith are not like the commodities in a\nbazaar from which one can pick and choose at pleasure, and of which one\ncan take three or four without in any way affecting one's relation to\nthe remainder, or reject three or four, without in any way affecting the\nsecurity of one's hold upon those which one decides to take. With regard\nto the truths of religion, our right to pick and choose has very strict\nlimits. When the system as a whole has presented its credentials to the\nreason and the conscience, and these have decided that the bearer of\nsuch credentials must be the representative of a Divine Being, then the\nattempt to pick and choose among the details of the system becomes\nperilous work. To reject this or that item, as being mere fringe and\nsetting rather than a constituent element, or as being at any rate\nunessential, may be to endanger the whole structure. We may be leaving\nan impregnable position for an exposed and untenable one, or be\nexchanging a secure platform for an inclined plane, on which we shall\nfind no lasting resting place until the bottom is reached. And this was\nwhat the men, against whom Timothy is warned, had done. They had left\nthe sure position, and were sometimes sliding, sometimes running,\nfurther and further away from the truth.\n\nIn other words, there is a right and a wrong use of reason in matters of\nfaith. The wrong use is sometimes spoken of as \"Rationalism,\" and\n(adopting that term as convenient) the following clear statement,\nborrowed from another writer, will show in a striking way where it was\nthat St. Paul wished Timothy to part company with the principles of his\nopponents. \"As regards Revealed Truth,\" wrote J. H. Newman in 1835, \"it\nis _not_ Rationalism to set about to ascertain, by the exercise of\nreason, what things are attainable by reason, and what are not; nor, in\nthe absence of an express Revelation, to inquire into the truths of\nReligion, as they come to us by nature; nor to determine what proofs are\nnecessary for the acceptance of a Revelation, if it be given; nor to\nreject a Revelation on the plea of insufficient proof; nor, after\nrecognising it as Divine, to investigate the meaning of its\ndeclarations, and to interpret its language; nor to use its doctrines,\nas far as they can be fairly used, in inquiring into its divinity; nor\nto compare and connect them with our previous knowledge, with a view of\nmaking them parts of a whole; nor to bring them into dependence on each\nother, to trace their mutual relations, and to pursue them to their\nlegitimate issues. This is not Rationalism. But it is Rationalism to\naccept the Revelation, and then to _explain it away_; to speak of it as\nthe Word of God, and to treat it as the word of man; to refuse to let it\nspeak for itself; to claim to be told the _why_ and the _how_ of God's\ndealings with us, as therein described, and to assign to Him a motive\nand a scope of our own; to stumble at the partial knowledge which He may\ngive us of them; to put aside what is obscure, as if it had not been\nsaid at all; to _accept one half of what has been told us, and not the\nother half_; to assume that the contents of Revelation are also its\nproof; to frame some gratuitous hypothesis about them, and then to\ngarble, gloss, and colour them, to trim, clip, pare away and twist them,\nin order to bring them into conformity with the idea to which we have\nsubjected them.\"[94]\n\nTimothy is to abide in those things which he has \"learned and been\nassured of.\" He has experienced the result which St. Luke wished to\nproduce in Theophilus when he wrote his Gospel: he has attained to \"full\nknowledge of the certainty concerning the things wherein he had been\ninstructed\" (Luke i. 4). And he is not to allow the wild teaching of his\nopponents, thoroughly discredited as it is and will be by equally wild\nconduct, to shake his security. Not everything that is disputed is\ndisputable, nor everything that is doubted doubtful. And if the fruits\nof the two kinds of teaching do not fully convince him of the necessity\nof abiding by the old truths rather than by the suggestions of these\ninnovators, let him remember those from whom he first learnt the truths\nof the Gospel,--his grandmother Lois, his mother Eunice, and the Apostle\nhimself. When it comes to a question of the authority of the teachers,\nwhich group will he choose? Those who established him in the faith, or\nthose who are trying to seduce men away from it?\n\nThere is a little doubt about the word \"of _whom_ thou hast learned\nthem.\" The \"whom\" is probably plural (=para tin\u00f4n=); but a reading which\nmakes it singular (=para tinos=) is strongly supported. The plural must\ninclude all Timothy's chief instructors in the faith, especially the\nearliest, as is clear from the nature of the case and from what follows.\nIf the singular is adopted, we must refer it to St. Paul, in accordance\nwith \"the things which thou hast heard from me ... the same commit thou\nto faithful men\" (ii. 2). It is possible that the words just quoted have\ninfluenced the reading in the passage under consideration, and have\ncaused the substitution of the singular for the plural.\n\nBut there is a further consideration. There is not only the _character_\nof the doctrine on each side, and the _fruits_ of the doctrine on each\nside, and the _teachers_ of whom Timothy has had personal experience,\nand about whose knowledge and trustworthiness he can judge; there is\nalso the fact that from his tenderest infancy he has had the blessing of\nbeing in contact with the truth, first as it is revealed in the Old\nTestament, and then as it is still further revealed in the Gospel. The\nresponsibilities of those who from their earliest days have been allowed\nto grow in the knowledge of God and of His government of the world, are\nfar greater than the responsibilities of those who have had no\nopportunity of acquiring this knowledge until late in life. Old habits\nof thought and conduct are not extinguished by baptism; and the false\nopinion and vicious behaviour of many of those who are vexing, or will\nhereafter vex, the Church in Ephesus, may be traced to influences which\nhad become dominant in them long before they came into contact with\nGod's revealed law. No such allowance can be made for Timothy. He has\nhad the inestimable privilege of knowing the sacred writings from his\nearliest childhood. It will be his own fault if they do not \"make him\nwise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.\"\n\nThe expression \"sacred writings\" (=hiera grammata=) occurs nowhere else\nin the New Testament. The usual expression is \"the scriptures\" (=hai\ngraphai=); and once (Rom. i. 2) we have \"holy scriptures\" (=graphai\nhagiai=). Here both substantive and adjective are unusual. The adjective\noccurs in only one other passage in the New Testament, a passage which\nthrows light upon this one. \"Know ye not that they who perform the\nsacred rites, from the sacred place get their food?\" (_Speaker's\nCommentary_, on 1 Cor. ix. 13.) And just as in that passage \"the sacred\nrites\" are the Jewish sacrifices, and \"the sacred place\" the Jewish\nTemple, so here \"the sacred writings\" are the Jewish Scriptures. It is\nutterly improbable that any Christian writings are included. How could\nTimothy have known any of these from infancy? Even at the time when St.\nPaul wrote this farewell letter, there was little Christian literature,\nexcepting his own Epistles; and he was not likely to speak of them as\n\"sacred writings,\" or to include them under one expression with the Old\nTestament Scriptures. The suggestion that Christian writings are\nincluded, or are mainly intended, seems to be made with the intention of\ninsinuating that this letter cannot have been written by the Apostle,\nbut by some one of a later age. But would even a writer of the second\ncentury have made such a blunder as to represent Timothy as knowing\nChristian literature from his childhood?\n\nWith the use of the substantive \"writings\" (=grammata=) in this passage,\nshould be compared the use of the same word in Christ's discourse at\nJerusalem after the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, where he shows the\nJews how hopeless their unbelief is, and how vain their appeal to Moses,\nwho is really their accuser. \"But if ye believe not _his_ writings\n(=grammata=), how shall ye believe _My_ words?\" The Jews had had two\nopportunities of knowing and accepting the truth; the writings of Moses,\nand the words of Jesus. So also Timothy had had two sets of instructors;\nthe holy women who had brought him up, whose work had been completed by\nthe Apostle, and the sacred writings. If the authority of the former\nshould seem to be open to question, there could be no doubt of the\nsufficiency of the latter. They \"are able to make him wise unto\nsalvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.\"\n\nIt must be observed that the Apostle uses the present tense and not the\npast (=dynamena=) in expressing the power of the sacred writings in\ncommunicating a saving wisdom to him who uses them aright. This power\nwas not exhausted when the young Timothy was brought to the ampler\ntruths of the Gospel. However far advanced he may be in sacred\nknowledge, he will still find that they are able to make him increase in\nthe wisdom which enlightens and saves souls.\n\nBut Scripture confers this life-giving wisdom in no mechanical manner.\nIt is not a charm, which has a magical effect upon every one who reads\nit. The most diligent study of the sacred writings will do nothing for\nthe salvation of a man who does not prosecute his researches in\nsomething more than the mere spirit of curious enquiry. Therefore St.\nPaul adds, \"through faith which is in Christ Jesus.\" It is when this is\nadded to the soul of the enquirer that the sacred writings of the Old\nCovenant have their illuminating power; without it, so far from leading\nto the salvation won for us by Christ, they may keep those who study\nthem away from the truth, as in the case of the Jews to this day. The\npillar of fire becomes a pillar of cloud, and what should have been for\nwealth becomes an occasion of falling.\n\n\"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for\nreproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.\"\nThis is the Revisers' rendering. Besides one or two smaller changes,\nthey have made two important alterations of the A. V. (1) They have\nsubstituted \"every scripture\" for \"all scripture,\" without allowing the\nold rendering even a place in the margin. (2) They have inserted the\n\"is\" (which _must_ be supplied somewhere in the sentence) _after_\ninstead of _before_ \"inspired by God;\" thus making \"inspired by God\" an\nepithet of Scripture and not something stated respecting it. \"Every\nscripture inspired by God _is also_ profitable,\" instead of \"_is_\ninspired of God _and_ profitable:\" but they allow the latter rendering a\nplace in the margin.\n\nThis treatment of the passage appears to be very satisfactory, so far as\nthe second of these two points are concerned. Certainty is not\nattainable in either. Yet, as regards the second, the probabilities are\ngreatly in favour of the Apostle's meaning that \"inspired scripture is\nalso profitable,\" rather than \"scripture is inspired and profitable.\"\nBut, with regard to the first point, it may be doubted whether the\nbalance is so decidedly against the translation \"all scripture\" as to\nwarrant its exclusion. No doubt the absence of the article in the Greek\n(=pasa graph\u00ea=, and not =pasa h\u00ea graph\u00ea=) is against the old rendering;\nbut it is by no means conclusive, as other instances both in the New\nTestament and in classical Greek prove.[95] Nevertheless, there is the\nfurther fact that in the New Testament \"the scripture\" generally means a\nparticular passage of Scripture (Mark xii. 10; Luke iv. 21; John xix.\n24, 28, 36, 37; Acts viii. 32, 35). When Scripture as a whole is meant,\nthe word, is commonly used in the plural, \"the scriptures\" (Matt. xxi.\n42; Mark xii. 24; John v. 39). In the passage before us the meaning is\nnot seriously affected by the change. It matters little whether we say\n\"the whole of scripture,\" or \"every passage of scripture.\"\n\n\"Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for\nreproof, for correction, for discipline (=paideia=) which is in\nrighteousness:\" _i.e._, is of use both for doctrinal and for practical\npurposes, for informing both faith and conduct. It is because it is\n\"inspired by God,\" because God's Spirit breathes through the whole of\nit, making every passage of it to be a portion of a living whole, that\nScripture possesses this unique utility. And if the Apostle can say this\nof the Old Testament, much more may we affirm it of the New Testament.\nFrom the two together, everything that a Christian ought to believe,\neverything that a Christian ought to do, may be learned.\n\nBut while this declaration of the Apostle assures us that there is no\npassage in Holy Writ, which, when properly handled, does not yield\nDivine instruction for the guidance of our minds, and hearts, and wills,\nyet it gives no encouragement to hard and fast theories as to the\n_manner_ in which the Spirit of God operated upon the authors of the\nsacred writings. Inspiration is no mechanical process. It is altogether\nmisleading to speak of it as Divine _dictation_, which would reduce\ninspired writers to mere machines. There are certain things which it\nclearly does _not_ do.\n\n1. While it governs the substance of what is written, it does not govern\nthe language word by word. We have no reasons for believing in _verbal_\ninspiration, and have many reasons for not believing in it. For no one\nbelieves that copyists and printers are miraculously preserved from\nmaking verbal mistakes. Is it, then, reasonable to suppose that God\nwould work a miracle to produce what He takes no care to preserve. Of\nthe countless various readings, which are the words which are inspired?\n\n2. Inspiration does not preserve the inspired writers from _every_ kind\nof mistake. That it guards them from error in respect to matters of\nfaith and morality, we may well believe; but whether it does more than\nthis remains to be proved. On the other hand it can be proved that it\ndoes not preserve them from mistakes in _grammar_; for there is plenty\nof unquestionably bad grammar in the Bible. Look for instance at the\nGreek of Mark vi. 8, 9; Acts xv. 22; xix. 34; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 16;\nRev. vii. 9; etc., etc. And it may be doubted whether inspiration\npreserves the inspired writer from all possibility of error as regards\nmatters of fact, as to whether there were two men healed or only one; as\nto whether the healing took place as Christ entered the city or as He\nleft it; as to whether the prophecy quoted comes from Jeremiah or\nZechariah, and the like. Can there be any reasonable doubt that St.\nMatthew has made a slip in writing \"Zechariah the son of Barachiah\"\ninstead of \"Zechariah the son of Jehoiada\"? And is there any honest\nmethod of bringing St. Stephen's speech into complete harmony with\nstatements in the Old Testament respecting all the facts mentioned? Must\nwe not suppose that there is error on one side or the other? If, as is\nquite certain, inspiration does not make a man a grammatical scholar, or\ngive him a perfect literary style, ought we to conclude that it will\nmake him a faultless historian or chronologer? A Divine Revelation\nthrough a series of inspired writers has been granted in order to save\nour souls. We have no right to assume that it has been granted in order\nto save us trouble. Those saving truths about God and our relations to\nHim, which we could never have discovered without a revelation, we may\nexpect to find set forth without taint of error in the sacred writings.\nBut facts of geology, or history, or physiology, which our own\nintelligence and industry can discover, we ought not to expect to find\naccurately set forth for us in the Bible: and we ought to require very\nfull evidence before deciding that in such matters inspired writers may\nbe regarded as infallible. St. Luke tells us in the Preface to his\nGospel that he took great pains to obtain the best information. Need he\nhave done so, if inspiration protected him from all possibility of\nmistake?\n\n3. Inspiration does not override and overwhelm the inspired writer's\npersonal characteristics. There appears to be no such thing as an\ninspired style. The style of St. John is as different from that of St.\nPaul as the style of Bishop Butler is from that of Jeremy Taylor. Each\ninspired writer uses the language, and the illustrations, and the\narguments that are natural and familiar to him. If he has an\nargumentative mind, he argues his points; if he has not, he states them\nwithout argument. If he has literary skill, he exhibits it; if he has\nnone, inspiration does not give it to him. \"No inspiration theory can\nstand for a moment which does not leave room for the personal agency and\nindividual peculiarities of the sacred authors and the exercise of their\nnatural faculties in writing\" (Schaff, _Apostolic Christianity_, p.\n608).\n\nWhat inspiration has _not_ done in these various particulars is manifest\nto every one who studies the sacred writings. What it _has_ done is\nscarcely less manifest, and is certainly much more generally recognized.\nIt has produced writings which are absolutely without a parallel in the\nliterature of the world. Even as regards literary merits they have few\nrivals. But it is not in their literary beauty that their unique\ncharacter consists. It lies rather in their lofty spirituality; their\ninexhaustible capacities for instruction and consolation; their\nboundless adaptability to all ages and circumstances; above all, in\ntheir ceaseless power of satisfying the noblest cravings and aspirations\nof the human heart. Other writings are profitable for knowledge, for\nadvancement, for amusement, for delight, for wealth. But these \"make\nwise unto salvation.\" They produce that discipline which has its sphere\nin righteousness. They have power to instruct the ignorant, to convict\nthe guilty, to reclaim the fallen, to school all in holiness; that all\nmay be complete as men of God, \"furnished completely unto every good\nwork.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[94] \"Rationalism in Religion,\" in _Tracts for the Times_, republished\nin _Essays Critical and Historical_, vol. i. p. 32.\n\n[95] See the quotations given in Alford's note on =pasa oikodom\u00ea= in\nEph. ii. 21, which might be increased, if necessary: _e.g._ =pan s\u00f4ma=,\nin Arist., _Nic. Eth._, I. xiii. 7, which must = \"the whole body.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\n_THE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT FAILURE AND\nTHE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT TEST OF SINCERITY._\n\n \"But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an\n evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. For I am already being offered, and\n the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I\n have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is\n laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the\n righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me,\n but also to all them that have loved His appearing.\"--2 TIM. iv.\n 5-8.\n\n\nSt. Chrysostom tells us that this passage was for a long time a source\nof perplexity to him. \"Often,\" he says, \"when I have taken the Apostle\ninto my hands and have considered this passage, I have been at a loss to\nunderstand why Paul here speaks so loftily: _I have fought the good\nfight_. But now by the grace of God I seem to have found it out. For\nwhat purpose then does he speak thus? He writes to console the\ndespondency of his disciple; and he therefore bids him be of good cheer,\nsince he was going to his crown, having finished all his work and\nobtained a glorious end. Thou oughtest to rejoice, he says; not to\ngrieve. And why? Because _I have fought the good fight_. Just as a son,\nwho was sitting bewailing his orphan state, might be consoled by his\nfather saying to him, Weep not, my son. We have lived a good life; we\nhave reached old age; and now we are leaving thee. Our life has been\nfree from reproach; we are departing with glory; and thou mayest be held\nin honour for what we have done.... And this he says not\nboastfully;--God forbid;--but in order to raise up his dejected son, and\nto encourage him by his praises to bear firmly what had come to pass, to\nentertain good hopes, and not to think it a matter grievous to be\nborne.\"\n\nChrysostom's explanation is no doubt part of the reason why the Apostle\nhere speaks in so exalted a key. This unusual strain _is_ partly the\nresult of a wish to cheer his beloved disciple and assure him that there\nis no need to grieve for the death which now cannot be very far off.\nWhen it comes, it will be a glorious death and a happy one. A glorious\ndeath, for it will crown with the crown of victory struggles in a weary\ncontest which is now ending triumphantly. And a happy death; for Paul\nhas for years had the longing \"to depart and be with Christ, which is\nfar better.\" The crown is one which will not wither; for it is not made\nof olive, bay, or laurel. And it is not one of which the glory is\ndoubtful, or dependent upon the fickle opinions of a prejudiced crowd;\nfor it is not awarded by a human umpire, nor amid the applauses of human\nspectators. The Giver is Christ, and the theatre is filled with angels.\nIn the contests of this world men labour many days and suffer hardships;\nand for one hour they receive the crown. And forthwith all the pleasure\nof it passes away. In the good fight which St. Paul fought a crown of\nrighteousness is won, which continues for ever in brightness and glory.\n\nBut besides wishing to console Timothy for the bereavement which was\nimpending, St. Paul also wished to encourage him, to stimulate him to\ngreater exertion and to a larger measure of courage. \"Be _thou_ sober in\nall things, suffer hardship, do the work of an Evangelist, fulfil thy\nministry. For _I_ am already being poured out as a drink-offering, and\nthe time of my departure is at hand.\" That is: _You_ must be more\nvigorous, more enduring, more devoted; for _I_ am going away, and must\nleave you to carry on to perfection that which I have begun. My fighting\nis over; therefore do you fight more bravely. My course is finished;\ntherefore do you run more perseveringly. The faith entrusted to me has\nbeen preserved thus far inviolate: see to it, that what has been\nentrusted to you be kept safe. The crown which righteousness wins is\nwaiting now for me: so strive that such a crown may await you also. For\nthis is a contest in which all may have crowns, if only they will live\nso as to feel a longing for the appearing of the righteous Judge who\ngives them.\n\nBut there is more in this passage than the desire to comfort Timothy for\nthe approaching loss of his friend and instructor, and the desire to\nspur him on to greater usefulness, not merely in spite of, but because\nof, that loss. There is also the ecstatic joy of the great Apostle, as\nwith the eye of faith he looks back over the work which he has been\nenabled to perform, and balances the cost of it against the great\nreward.\n\nAs has been already pointed out in an earlier passage, there is nothing\nin this touching letter which is more convincingly like St. Paul than\nthe way in which conflicting emotions succeed one another and come to\nthe surface in perfectly natural expression. Sometimes it is anxiety\nthat is uppermost; sometimes it is confidence. Here he is overflowing\nwith affection; there he is stern and indignant. One while he is deeply\ndepressed; and then again becomes triumphant and exulting. Like the\nsecond Epistle to the Corinthians this last letter to the beloved\ndisciple is full of intense personal feelings, of a different and\napparently discordant character. The passage before us is charged with\nsuch emotions, beginning with solemn warning and ending in lofty\nexultation. But it is the warning, not of fear, but of affection; and it\nis the exultation, not of sight, but of faith.\n\nLooked at with human eyes the Apostle's life at that moment was a\nfailure,--a tragic and dismal failure. In his own simple but most\npregnant language, he had been \"the _slave_ of Jesus Christ.\" No Roman\nslave, driven by whip and goad, could have been made to work as Paul had\nworked. He had taxed his fragile body and sensitive spirit to the\nutmost, and had encountered lifelong opposition, derision, and\npersecution, at the hands of those who ought to have been his friends,\nand had been his friends until he entered the service of Jesus Christ.\nHe had preached and argued, had entreated and rebuked, and in doing so\nhad rung the changes on all the chief forms of human suffering. And what\nhad been the outcome of it all? The few Churches which he had founded\nwere but as handfuls in the cities in which he had established them; and\nthere were countless cities in which he had established nothing. Even\nthe few Churches which he had succeeded in founding had in most cases\nsoon fallen away from their first faith and enthusiasm. The\nThessalonians had become tainted with idleness and disorder, the\nCorinthians with contentiousness and sensuality, the Galatians,\nColossians, and Ephesians with various forms of heresy; while the Roman\nChurch, in the midst of which he was suffering an imprisonment which\nwould almost certainly end in death, was treating him with coldness and\nneglect. At his first defence no one took his part, but all forsook him;\nand in his extremity he was almost deserted. As the results of a life of\nintense energy and self-devotion, all these things had the appearance of\ntotal failure.\n\nAnd certainly if the work of his life seemed to have been a failure with\nregard to others, it did not bear any resemblance to success as regards\nhimself. From the world's point of view he had given up much, and gained\nlittle, beyond trouble and disgrace. He had given up a distinguished\nposition in the Jewish Church, in order to become the best hated man\namong that people of passionate hatreds. While his efforts on behalf of\nthe Gentiles had ended for a third time in confinement in a Gentile\nprison, from which, as he saw clearly, nothing but death was likely to\nrelease him.\n\nAnd yet, in spite of all this, St. Paul is exultingly triumphant. Not at\nall because he does not perceive, or cannot feel, the difficulties and\nsorrows of his position. Still less because he wishes to dissemble\neither to himself or others the sufferings which he has to endure. He is\nno Stoic, and makes no profession of being above human infirmities and\nhuman emotions. He is keenly sensitive to all that affects his own\naspirations and affections and the well-being of those whom he loves. He\nis well aware of the dangers both of body and soul which beset those who\nare far dearer to him than life. And he gives strong expression to his\ntrouble and anxiety. But he measures the troubles of time by the glories\nof eternity. With the eye of faith he looks across all this apparent\nfailure and neglect to the crown of righteousness which the righteous\nJudge has in store for him, and for thousands upon thousands of others\nalso,--even for _all_ those who have learned to look forward with\nlonging to the time when their Lord shall appear again.\n\nIn all this we see in miniature the history of Christendom since the\nApostle's death. His career was a fore-shadowing of the career of the\nChristian Church. In both cases there appears to be only a handful of\nreal disciples with a company of shallow and fickle followers, to set\nagainst the stolid, unmoved mass of the unconverted world. In both\ncases, even among the disciples themselves, there is the cowardice of\nmany, and the desertions of some. In both cases those who remain true to\nthe faith dispute among themselves which of them shall be accounted the\ngreatest. St. Paul was among the first to labour that Christ's ideal of\none holy catholic Church might be realized. Eighteen centuries have\npassed away, and the life of the Church, like that of St. Paul, looks\nlike a failure. With more than half the human race still not even\nnominally Christian; with long series of crimes committed not only in\ndefiance, but in the name, of religion; with each decade of years\nproducing its unwholesome crop of heresies and schisms;--what has become\nof the Church's profession of being catholic, holy, and united?\n\nThe failure, as in St. Paul's case, is more apparent than real. And it\nmust be noted at the outset that our means of gauging success in\nspiritual things are altogether uncertain and inadequate. Anything at\nall like scientific accuracy is quite out of our reach, because the data\nfor a trustworthy conclusion cannot be obtained. But the case is far\nstronger than this. It is impossible to determine even roughly where the\nbenefits conferred by the Gospel end; what the average holiness among\nprofessing Christians really is; and to what extent Christendom, in\nspite of its manifold divisions, is really one. It is more than possible\nthat the savage in central Africa is spiritually the better for the\nIncarnation of which he knows nothing, and which his whole life seems to\ncontradict; for at least he is one of those for whom Christ was born and\ndied. It is probable that among quite ordinary Christians there are many\nwhom the world knows as sinners, but whom God knows as saints. And it is\ncertain that a belief in a Triune God and in a common Redeemer unites\nmillions far more closely than their differences about ministers and\nsacraments keeps them apart. The Church's robe is tattered and\ntravel-stained; but she is still the Bride of Christ, and her children,\nhowever much they may quarrel among themselves, are still one in Him.\n\nAnd where the failure of St. Paul and of those who have followed him can\nbe shown to be unquestionably real, it can generally be shown to be\nthoroughly intelligible. Although Divine in its origin, the Gospel has\nfrom the first used human instruments with all the\nweaknesses,--physical, intellectual, and moral,--which characterize\nhumanity. When we remember what this implies, and also remember the\nforces against which Christianity has had to contend, the marvel rather\nis that the Gospel has had so large a measure of success, than that its\nsuccess is not yet complete. It has had to fight against the passions\nand prejudices of individuals and nations, debased by long centuries of\nimmorality and ignorance, and strengthened in their opposition to the\ntruth by all the powers of darkness. It has had to fight, moreover, with\nother religions, many of which are attractive by their concessions to\nhuman frailty, and others by the comparative purity of their rites and\ndoctrines. And against them all it has won, and continues to win, man's\napprobation and affection, by its power of satisfying his highest\naspirations and his deepest needs. No other religion or philosophy has\nhad success so various or so far reaching. The Jew and the Mahometan,\nafter centuries of intercourse, remain almost without influence upon\nEuropean minds; while to Western civilization the creed of the Buddhist\nremains not only without influence, but without meaning. But the nation\nhas not yet been found to which Christianity has been proved to be\nunintelligible or unsuitable. To whatever quarter of the globe we look,\nor to whatever period of history during the Christian era, the answer is\nstill the same. Multitudes of men, throughout eighteen centuries, under\nthe utmost variety of conditions, whether of personal equipment or of\nexternal circumstance, have made trial of Christianity, and have found\nit satisfying. They have testified as the result of their countless\nexperiences that it can stand the wear and tear of life; that it can not\nonly fortify but console; and that it can rob even death of its sting\nand the grave of its victory by a sure and certain hope of the crown of\nrighteousness, which the righteous Judge prepares for all those who\nlove, and have long loved, His appearing.\n\n\"Who have loved and do love His appearing.\"[96] That is the full force\nof the Greek perfect (=tois \u00eagap\u00eakosin=), which expresses the present\nand permanent result of past action; and therein lies the test whereby\nto try the temper of our Christianity. St. Paul, who had long yearned to\ndepart and be with Christ, could not easily have given a more simple or\nsure method of finding out who those are who have a right to believe\nthat the Lord has a crown of righteousness in store for them. Are we\namong the number? In order to answer this question we must ask ourselves\nanother. Are our lives such that we are longing for Christ's return? Or\nare we dreading it, because we know that we are not fit to meet Him, and\nare making no attempt to become so. Supposing that physicians were to\ntell us, that we are smitten with a deadly disease, which must end\nfatally, and that very soon,--what would be our feeling? When the first\nshock was over, and we were able to take a calm view of the whole case,\ncould we welcome the news as the unexpected fulfilment of a long\ncherished wish that Christ would deliver us out of the miseries of this\nsinful world and take us to Himself? The Bible sets before us the crown\nof righteousness which fadeth not away, and the worm which never dieth.\nLeaning upon God's unfailing love let us learn to long for the coming of\nthe one; and then we shall have no need to dread, or even to ask the\nmeaning of, the other.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[96] The somewhat unusual word here used for Christ's second coming\n(=epiphaneia=) has been condemned as un-Pauline; but it occurs 2 Thess.\nii. 8, and the cognate verb =phaneroun= is found Col. iii. 4. Cf. 2 Tim.\ni. 10; iv. 1; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 14.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\n_THE PERSONAL DETAILS A GUARANTEE OF GENUINENESS._\n\n \"Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas forsook me,\n having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens\n to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark,\n and bring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering. But\n Tychicus I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that I left at Troas with\n Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the\n parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord\n will render to him according to his works: of whom be thou ware\n also; for he greatly withstood our words.\"--2 TIM. iv. 9-15.\n\n \"Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus. Erastus\n abode at Corinth: but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. Do thy\n diligence to come before winter. Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens,\n and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.\" vv. 19-21.\n\n\nIt would scarcely be exceeding the limits of legitimate hyperbole to say\nthat these two passages prove the authenticity and genuineness of the\nPastoral Epistles; that they are sufficient to show that these letters\nare an authentic account of the matters of which they treat, and that\nthey are genuine letters of the Apostle Paul.\n\nIn the first of these expositions it was pointed out how improbable it\nis that a portion of one of these letters should be genuine, and not the\nremainder of it; or that one of the three should be genuine, and not\nthe other two; and _a fortiori_, that two of the three should be\ngenuine, and not the remaining one.\n\nThe passages before us are among those of which it has been truly said\nthat they \"cling so closely to Paul that it is only by tearing the\nletter to pieces that any part can be dissociated from that\nApostle.\"[97] The internal evidence is here too strong even for those\ncritics who deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles as a\nwhole. Thus Renan and Weisse are disposed to admit that we have here\nembedded in the work of a later writer portions of a genuine letter of\nthe Apostle; while Ewald, Hausrath, and Pfleiderer accept not only these\nverses, but the earlier passage about Phygelus, Hermogenes, and\nOnesiphorus as genuine also. Similar views are advocated by Hitzig,\nKrenkel, and Immer, of whom the two first admit that the Epistle to\nTitus also contains genuine fragments. And quite recently (1882) we have\nLemme contending that only the central portion of 2 Timothy (ii. 11 to\niv. 5) is an interpolation.\n\nThese concessions amount to a concession of the whole case. It is\nimpossible to stop there. Either much more must be conceded or much\nless. For, (1) we cannot without very strong evidence indeed accept so\nimprobable a supposition as that a Christian long after the Apostle's\ndeath was in possession of letters written by him, of which no one else\nknew anything, that he worked bits of these into writings of his own,\nwhich he wished to pass off as Apostolic, and that he then destroyed the\ngenuine letters, or disposed of them in such a way that no one knew\nthat they had ever existed. Such a story is not absolutely impossible,\nbut it is so unlikely to be true, that to accept it without clear\nevidence would be most uncritical. And there is not only no clear\nevidence; there is no evidence at all. The hypothesis is pure\nimagination. (2) The portions of this letter which are allowed by\nadverse critics to be genuine are precisely those in which a forger\nwould be pretty sure to be caught tripping. They are full of personal\ndetails, some of which admit of being tested, and all of which can be\ncriticized, as to whether they are natural and consistent or not. Would\na forger be likely to risk detection by venturing on such dangerous\nground? He would put into the letter those doctrines for which he wished\nto appear to have St. Paul's authority; and, if he added anything else,\nhe would take care not to go beyond vague generalities, too indefinite\nto be caught in the meshes of criticism. But the writer of this letter\nhas done the reverse of all this. He has given an abundance of personal\ndetail, such as can be found in only one other place in the New\nTestament, and that in the concluding portion of the Epistle to the\nRomans, one of the indisputable writings of St. Paul.\n\nAnd he has not been caught tripping. Hostile writers have subjected\nthese details to the most searching criticism; and the result, as we\nhave seen, is that many of them are constrained to admit that these\nportions of the letter are genuine productions of the Apostle. That is,\nthose portions of the Epistle which can be subjected to a severe test,\nare allowed to be by St. Paul, because they stand the test; while those\nwhich do not admit of being thus tested are rejected, not because there\nis any proof of their being spurious, but because critics think that\nthe style is not like the Apostle's. Would they not be the first to\nderide others for such an opinion? Supposing that these details had\ncontained absurdities or contradictions, which _could_ not have been\nwritten by St. Paul, would they not have maintained, and reasonably\nmaintained, that it was monstrous to surrender as spurious those\nsections of the letter which had been tested and found wanting, and to\ndefend as genuine the other sections, which did not admit of being\ntested?\n\nLet us look at the details a little more closely. Besides St. Paul and\nTimothy, twenty-three Christians of the Apostolic age are mentioned in\nthis short letter. A considerable number of these are persons of whom we\nread in the Acts or in St. Paul's other letters; but the majority are\nnew names, and in most of these cases we know nothing about the bearers\nof the names beyond what is told us here. Would a forger have given us\nthis mixture of known and unknown? If he ventured upon names at all,\nwould he not either have given us imaginary persons, whose names and\nactions could not be checked by existing records, or else have kept\nclosely to the records, so that the checking might tell in his favour?\nHe has done neither. The new names do not look like those of imaginary\npersons, and the mention of known persons is by no means a mere\nreproduction of what is said of them elsewhere.\n\n\"Demas forsook me, having loved this present world.... Take Mark and\nbring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering.\" A forger\nwith the Acts and the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon before him\nwould have made Mark forsake Paul, and Demas be commended as useful to\nhim; for in the Acts (xv. 38) Paul had to condemn Mark for slackness,\nand in the Epistles to the Colossians (iv. 14) and to Philemon (24)\nDemas with Luke is waiting on the Apostle in his imprisonment. And yet\nhow natural that the Apostle's condemnation should rouse Mark to greater\nearnestness, and that the Apostle should recognize that earnestness in\nthis farewell letter? And how consistent with human frailty also that\nDemas should have courage enough to stand by St. Paul during his first\nRoman imprisonment, and yet should quail before the greater risks of the\nsecond! That the Apostle's complaint respecting him means more than\nthis, is unlikely. Yet some have exaggerated it into a charge of heresy,\nor even utter apostasy. We are simply to understand that Demas preferred\ncomfort and security away from Rome to the hardship and danger of a\nRoman prison; and therefore went to Thessalonica. Why he selected that\ntown we are not told, but there being a Christian community there would\nbe one reason.\n\n\"Titus to Dalmatia.\" Why should a forger send Titus to Dalmatia? The\nPastoral Epistles, whether a forgery or not, are all by one hand, and\nseem to have been written within a short time of one another. Would not\na forger have sent Titus either to Crete (Tit. i. 5), or to Nicopolis\n(Tit. iii. 12)? But if Titus went to Nicopolis, and failed to find Paul\nthere, owing to his having been meanwhile arrested, what more probable\nthan that he should go on into Dalmatia? The forger, if he had thought\nof this, would have called attention to it, to ensure that his ingenuity\nwas not overlooked.\n\n\"But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.\" The meaning of the \"but\" is not quite\nclear. Perhaps the most probable supposition is that it indicates the\nreason why the Apostle needs a useful person like Mark. \"I had such a\nperson in Tychicus; but he is gone on a mission for me to Ephesus.\" How\nnatural all this is! And what could induce a forger to put it in? We are\ntold in the Acts that Tychicus belonged to the Roman province of Asia\n(xx. 4), and that he was with St. Paul at the close of his third\nmissionary journey about nine years before the writing of this letter to\nTimothy. Three or four years later we find Tychicus once more with St.\nPaul during the first Roman imprisonment; and he is sent with Onesimus\nas the bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 7) and to the\nEphesians (vi. 21). And we learn from the sentence before us, as well as\nfrom Titus iii. 12, that he still enjoys the confidence of the Apostle,\nfor he is sent on missions for him to Crete and to Ephesus. All these\nseparate notices of him hang together consistently representing him as\n\"the beloved brother,\" and also as a \"faithful minister and\nfellow-servant in the Lord,\" whom St. Paul was accustomed to entrust\nwith special commissions. If the mission to Ephesus mentioned here is a\nmere copy of the other missions, would not a forger have taken some\npains to ensure that the similarity between his fiction and previous\nfacts should be observed?\n\n\"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and\nthe books, especially the parchments.\" Here the arguments against the\nprobability of forgery reach a climax; and this verse should be\nremembered side by side with \"Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a\nlittle wine for thy stomach's sake\" in the First Epistle (v. 23). What\nwriter of a fictitious letter would ever have dreamed of inserting\neither passage? To an unbiassed mind they go a long way towards\nproducing the impression that we are dealing with real letters and not\nwith inventions. And this argument holds good equally well, whatever\nmeaning we give to the word (=phelon\u00ea=) which is rendered \"cloke.\" It\nprobably means a cloke, and is a Greek form of the Latin _penula_. It\nappears to have been a circular garment without sleeves, but with a hole\nin the middle for the head. Hence some persons have made the astounding\nsuggestion that it was a eucharistic vestment analogous to a chasuble,\nand have supposed that the Apostle is here asking, not for warm clothing\n\"before winter,\" but for a sacerdotal dress for ritualistic purposes.\nBut since Chrysostom's day there has been a more credible suggestion\nthat the word means a bag or case for books. If so, would the Apostle\nhave mentioned both the book-bag and the books, and would he have put\nthe bag before the books? He might naturally have written, \"Bring the\nbook-bag,\"--of course with the books in it; or, \"Bring the books and the\nbag also.\" But it seems a strange way of putting the request to say,\n\"The book-bag that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest;\nthe books also, especially the parchments,\" as if the bag were the chief\nthing that he thought about. It seems better to abide by the old\nrendering \"cloke;\" and, if this is correct, then it fits in well with\n\"Do thy diligence to come _before winter_.\" Yet the writer in no way\ndraws our attention to the connexion between the need of the thick cloke\nand the approach of winter: and the writer of a real letter would have\nno need to do so. But would a forger have left the connexion to\nchance?[98]\n\nWhether Alexander the coppersmith is the person of that name who was put\nforward by the Jews in the riot raised by Demetrius (Acts xix. 33), is\nnot more than a possibility. The name Alexander was exceedingly common;\nand we are not told that the Jew in the riot at Ephesus was a smith, or\nthat Alexander the smith was a Jew. In what way the coppersmith \"showed\nmuch ill-treatment\" to the Apostle, we are not told. As St. Paul goes on\nimmediately afterwards to speak of his \"first defence,\" it seems\nreasonable to conjecture that Alexander had seriously injured the\nApostle's cause in some way. But this is pure conjecture; and the\nill-treatment may refer to general persecution of St. Paul and\nopposition to his teaching. On the whole the latter hypothesis appears\nto be safer.\n\nThe reading, \"The Lord _will_ render to him\" (=apod\u00f4sei=), is shown by\nan overwhelming balance of evidence to be preferable to \"The Lord reward\nhim (=apod\u00f4\u00ea=) according to his works.\" There is no malediction. Just as\nin ver. 8 the Apostle expresses his conviction that the Lord will render\n(=apod\u00f4sei=) a crown of righteousness to all those who love His\nappearing, so here he expresses a conviction that He will render a just\nrecompense to all those who oppose the work of His kingdom. What follows\nin the next verse, \"may it not be laid to their account,\" seems to show\nthat the Apostle is in no cursing mood. He writes in sorrow rather than\nin anger. It is necessary to put Timothy on his guard against a\ndangerous person; but he leaves the requital of the evil deeds to God.\n\n\"Salute Prisca and Aquila.\" A forger with the Apostle's indisputable\nwritings before him, would hardly have inserted this; for he would have\nconcluded from Rom. xvi. 3, 4, that these two well-known helpers of St.\nPaul were in Rome at this very time. Aquila was a Jew of Pontus who had\nmigrated from Pontus to Rome, but had had to leave the capital again\nwhen Claudius expelled the Jews from the city (Acts xviii. 2). He and\nhis wife Prisca or Priscilla then settled in Corinth, where St. Paul\ntook up his abode with them, because they were Jews and tent-makers,\nlike himself. And in their workshop the foundations of the Corinthian\nChurch were laid. Thenceforward they became his helpers in preaching the\nGospel, and went with him to Ephesus, where they helped forward the\nconversion of the eloquent Alexandrian Jew Apollos. After much service\nto the Church they returned once more to Rome, and were there when St.\nPaul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Either the persecution under Nero,\nor possibly missionary enterprise, induced them once more to leave Rome\nand return to Asia. The Apostle naturally puts such faithful friends,\n\"who for his life laid down their necks\" (Rom. xvi. 3), in the very\nfirst place in sending his personal greetings; and they are equally\nnaturally coupled with the household of Onesiphorus, who had done\nsimilar service in courageously visiting St. Paul in his imprisonment\n(ver. 16). The double mention of \"the _household_ of Onesiphorus\" (not\nof Onesiphorus himself) has been commented upon in a former exposition\n(see No. XXVIII.).\n\nOf the statements, \"Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus I left at\nMiletus sick,\" no more need be said than to point out how lifelike and\nnatural they are in a real letter from one friend to another who knows\nthe persons mentioned; how unlikely they are to have occurred to a\nwriter who was inventing a letter in order to advocate his own doctrinal\nviews. That Trophimus is the same person as the Ephesian, who with\nTychicus accompanied St. Paul on his third missionary journey (Acts xx.\n4; xxi. 29), may be safely assumed. Whether Erastus is identical with\nthe treasurer of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23), or with the Erastus who was\nsent by Paul with Timothy to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), must remain\nuncertain.\n\n\"Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia.\" With this\ngroup of names our accumulation of arguments for the genuineness of this\nportion of the letter, and therefore of the whole letter, and therefore\nof all three Pastoral Epistles, comes to an end. The argument is a\ncumulative one, and this last item of the internal evidence is by no\nmeans the least important or least convincing. About Eubulus, Pudens,\nand Claudia we know nothing beyond what this passage implies, viz., that\nthey were members of the Christian Church in Rome; for the very bare\npossibility that Pudens and Claudia may be the persons of that name who\nare mentioned by Martial, is not worth more than a passing reference.\nBut Linus is a person about whom something is known. It is unlikely that\nin the Apostolic age there were two Christians of this name in the Roman\nChurch; and therefore we may safely conclude that the Linus who here\nsends greeting is identical with the Linus, who, according to very early\ntestimony preserved by Irenaeus (_Haer._, III. iii. 3), was first among\nthe earliest bishops of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus himself expressly\nidentifies the first Bishop of Rome with the Linus mentioned in the\nEpistles to Timothy, and that in a passage in which (thanks to Eusebius)\nwe have the original Greek of Irenaeus as well as the Latin translation.\nFrom his time (c. A.D. 180) to the present day, Linus, Anencletus or\nAnacletus or Cletus (all three forms of the name are used), and Clement\nhave been commemorated as the three first Bishops of Rome. They must all\nof them have been contemporaries of the Apostle. Of these three far the\nmost famous was Clement; and a writer at the end of the first century,\nor beginning of the second, inventing a letter for St. Paul, would be\nmuch more likely to put Clement into it than Linus. Again, such a writer\nwould know that Linus, after the Apostle's death, became the presiding\npresbyter of the Church of Rome, and would place him before Eubulus and\nPudens. But here Linus is placed after the other two. The obvious\ninference is, that, at the time when this letter was written, Linus was\nnot yet in any position of authority. Like the other persons here named,\nhe was a leading member of the Church in Rome, otherwise he would hardly\nhave been mentioned at all; but he has not yet been promoted to the\nchief place, otherwise he would at least have been mentioned first, and\nprobably with some epithet or title. Once more one asks, what writer of\nfiction would have thought of these niceties? And what writer who\nthought of them, and elaborated them thus skilfully, would have\nabstained from all attempt to prevent their being overlooked and\nunappreciated?\n\nThe result of this investigation is greatly to increase our confidence\nin the genuineness of this letter and of all three Pastoral Epistles. We\nbegan by treating them as veritable writings of the great Apostle, and a\ncloser acquaintance with them has justified this treatment. Doubts may\nbe raised about everything; but reasonable doubts have their limits. To\ndispute the authenticity of the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans,\nand Galatians is now considered to be a sure proof that the doubter\ncannot estimate evidence; and we may look forward to the time when the\nSecond Epistle to Timothy will be ranked with those four great Epistles\nas indisputable. Meanwhile let no student of this letter doubt that in\nit he is reading the touching words in which the Apostle of the Gentiles\ngave his last charge to his beloved disciple, and through him to the\nChristian Church.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[97] Salmon's _Historical Introduction to the New Testament_, p. 426,\n3rd ed., to which the writer of this exposition is under great\nobligations. The book should be in the hands of every student of the N.\nT.\n\n[98] The striking parallel to this request afforded by that of William\nTyndale is pointed out in Farrar's _St. Paul_, ii. p. 571. Tyndale\nwrites from his prison in the Castle of Vilvorden to ask, \"idque per\nDominum Jesum,\" for warmer clothing, and above all for his Hebrew Bible,\ngrammar, and dictionary.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\n_THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE LORD.--THE MISSION\nTO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE, AND THE FINAL HYMN OF\nPRAISE._\n\n \"At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me: may it\n not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and\n strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully\n proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was\n delivered out of the mouth of the lion. The Lord will deliver me\n from evil work, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom: to whom\n be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\"--2 TIM. iv. 16-18.\n\n\nThere is a general agreement at the present time that Eusebius is in\nerror, when, in a well-known passage in his Ecclesiastical History (II.\nxxii. 2-7), he refers this \"first defence\" and the \"deliverance out of\nthe lion's mouth\" to the first Roman imprisonment and the release which\nput an end to it, probably A.D. 63. The deliverance does not mean\nrelease from prison following upon acquittal, but temporary rescue from\nimminent danger. Eusebius makes a second mistake in this chapter which\nis the result of the first error; but an avoidance of the second would\nhave preserved him from the first. He says that the Apostle shows in the\nSecond Epistle to Timothy that only Luke was with him when he wrote, but\nat his former defence not even he. Now during the first Roman\nimprisonment St. Paul was not alone, and one of the persons who was\nwith him was Timothy himself, as we see from the opening of the letter\nto the Philippians. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the Apostle\nwould think it worth while to tell Timothy what took place at the trial\nwhich ended the first imprisonment, seeing that Timothy was then in\nRome. And even if Timothy had left Rome before the trial came on, which\nis not very likely, he would long since have heard what took place, both\nfrom others and from the Apostle himself. It is obvious that in the\npresent passage St. Paul is giving his disciple information respecting\nsomething which has recently taken place, of which Timothy is not likely\nto have heard.\n\nThe value of the witness of Eusebius is not, however, seriously\ndiminished by this twofold mistake. It is clear that he was fully\nconvinced that there were two Roman imprisonments; one early in Nero's\nreign, when the Emperor was more disposed to be merciful, and one later;\nand that he was convinced of this on independent grounds, and not\nbecause he considered that the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles\nwould be untenable without the hypothesis of a second imprisonment.\n\nAnother confirmation of the view of Eusebius is found in the statement\nrespecting Trophimus, that Paul had left him sick at Miletus. It is\nimpossible to place the Apostle at Miletus with Trophimus prior to the\nfirst imprisonment. Consequently some who deny the second imprisonment,\nand yet maintain the genuineness of this letter, resort to the desperate\nmethod of making the verb to be third person plural instead of first\nperson singular (=apeleipon= or =apelipon=), and translating \"Trophimus\n_they_ left at Miletus sick.\"\n\n\"At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me.\" He had\nno _patronus_, no _advocatus_, no _clientela_. Among all the Christians\nin Rome there was not one who would stand at his side in court either to\nspeak on his behalf, or to advise him in the conduct of his case, or to\nsupport him by a demonstration of sympathy. The expression for \"no one\ntook my part\" (=oudeis moi paregeneto=) literally means \"no one came to\nmy side,\" or \"became present on my behalf.\" The verb is specially\nfrequent in the writings of St. Luke. And the word which is rendered\n\"forsook\" (=enkatelipon=) is still more graphic. It signifies \"leaving a\nperson _in_ a position,\" and especially in a _bad_ position; leaving him\nin straits. It is almost the exact counterpart of our colloquial phrase\n\"to leave in the lurch.\" St. Paul uses it elsewhere of those who with\nhim are \"pursued, but not _forsaken_\" (2 Cor. iv. 9). And both St. Mark\nand St. Luke, following the LXX., use it in translating Christ's cry\nupon the cross: \"Why hast thou _forsaken_ Me?\" Hence it signifies not\nmerely desertion (=kataleipein=), but desertion at a time when help and\nsupport are needed.\n\nWhat is the meaning of the \"all\"? \"_All_ forsook me.\" Does it include\nLuke, whom he has just mentioned as being the only person with him? And,\nif so, is it meant as an indirect reproach? Some would have it that we\nhave here an indication of the spurious character of the letter. The\nforger is unable consistently to maintain the part which he has assumed.\nIn writing \"all forsook me\" he has already forgotten what he has just\nwritten about Luke: and he forgets both statements when a few lines\nfurther on he represents Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and others as\nsending greetings.\n\nBut, like so many of these objections, this criticism turns out, when\nreasonably examined, to be an argument for the genuineness of the\nletter. These apparent inconsistencies are just the things which a\nforger could and would have avoided. Even a very blundering forger would\nhave avoided three glaring contradictions in about thirty lines: and\nthey _are_ glaring contradictions, if they are interpreted as they must\nbe interpreted for the purposes of this criticism. \"Only Luke is with\nme.\" \"Every one has forsaken me.\" \"All the brethren salute thee.\" Any\none of these statements, if forced to apply to the same set of\ncircumstances, contradicts the other two. But then this meaning is\nforced upon them, and is not their natural meaning: and these are just\nthe apparent inconsistencies which the writer of a real letter takes no\npains to avoid, because there is not the smallest danger of his being\nmisunderstood.\n\n\"All forsook me\" is exactly a parallel to \"all that are in Asia turned\naway from me\" (see pp. 321, 322.) The \"all\" in both cases means \"all who\nmight have been expected to help.\" It refers to those who could have\nbeen of service, who in many cases had been asked to render service, by\nbeing witnesses in Paul's favour and the like, and who abstained from\ndoing anything for him. The Apostle's \"first defence\" probably took\nplace some weeks, or even months, before the writing of this letter.\nFrom our knowledge of the delays which often took place in Roman legal\nproceedings, there would be nothing surprising if a whole year had\nelapsed since the first opening of the case. It is quite possible,\ntherefore, that at the time when it began St. Luke was not yet in Rome,\nand consequently had no opportunity of aiding his friend. And it is also\npossible that he was not in a position to render any assistance,\nhowever anxious he may have been to do so. There is no reason whatever\nfor supposing that the Apostle includes him among those for whom he\nprays that God will forgive them their desertion of him, even as he\nhimself forgives it.\n\nNor is there any contradiction between \"Only Luke is with me,\" and the\nsalutations sent by Eubulus and others. There were various members of\nthe Church in Rome who occasionally visited St. Paul in his\nimprisonment, or at least kept up a certain amount of communication with\nhim. But Luke was the only _outsider_ who was with him, the only one who\nhad come to him from a distance and been both able and willing to\n_remain_ with him. Others both in Rome and from other Churches had paid\nvisits to the prisoner; but they had been unable or unwilling to stay\nwith him. Luke was the only person who had done that. Therefore the fact\nthat various Roman Christians were ready to send greetings to Timothy is\nin no way inconsistent with the special commendation bestowed upon St.\nLuke for being his friend's sole companion in prison.\n\nFor the cowardly or unkind abstention of the rest the Apostle has no\nstronger word of condemnation than \"may it not be laid to their\naccount.\" No one knew better than himself how weak-hearted many of these\ndisciples were, and how great were the dangers of his own position and\nof all those who ventured to associate themselves with him. It was\notherwise in his first imprisonment. Then Nero was not quite the monster\nthat he had since become. At that time the burning of Rome had not yet\ntaken place, nor had the cruel outcry against the Christians, of which\nthe conflagration was made the occasion, as yet been raised. It was\nquite otherwise now. To be known as a Christian might be dangerous; and\nto avow oneself as the associate of so notorious a leader as Paul could\nnot fail to be so. Therefore, \"May it not be laid to their account\" (=m\u00ea\nautois logisthei\u00ea=). This is the very spirit which the Apostle himself\nyears before had declared to be a characteristic of Christian charity;\n\"it taketh not account of evil\" (=ou logizetai to kakon=): and of God\nHimself, Who in dealing with mankind, \"lays not to their account their\ntrespasses\" (=m\u00ea logizomenos autois ta parapt\u00f4mata aut\u00f4n=).[99]\n\n\"But,\" in contrast to these timid friends, \"_the Lord_ stood by me and\nstrengthened me.\" Christ did not desert His faithful servant in the hour\nof need, but gave him courage and strength to speak out bravely before\nthe court all that it was right that he should say. The contrast which\nthe Apostle here makes between the many who forsook him and the One who\nstood by him reminds us of a similar contrast made by the Lord Himself.\n\"Behold, the hour cometh, yea is come, that ye shall be scattered, every\nman to his own, and shall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone,\nbecause the Father is with Me\" (John xvi. 32). In this respect also the\nsaying remains true \"A servant is not greater than his lord\" (John xv.\n20); and Apostles must expect no better treatment than their Master\nreceived. If they are deserted by their disciples and friends in the\nhour of danger, so also was He. But in each case those who are deserted\nare not alone, because, although human help fails, Divine support is\nalways present.\n\n\"The Lord\" in this passage, both here and a few lines further on, means\nChrist rather than the Father. This is in accordance with St. Paul's\nusage. \"Lord\" here has the article (=ho kyrios=): and when that is the\ncase it commonly means Jesus Christ (comp. ii. 7, 14, 22; iii. 11; iv.\n14, 22; 1 Tim. i. 2, 12, 14; vi. 3, 14; 1 Cor. iv. 5; vi. 13; vii. 10,\n12, 34; etc., etc. In Titus the word does not occur). Where \"Lord\" has\nno article in the Greek (=kyrios=) St. Paul usually means God and not\nChrist. Some would assert that, excepting where he quotes from the Old\nTestament (_e.g._, 1 Cor. x. 26), this usage is invariable; but that is\nprobably too sweeping an assertion. Nevertheless, there is no reason for\ndoubting that in this passage \"the Lord\" means Jesus Christ. We may\ncompare our own usage, according to which \"our Lord\" almost invariably\nmeans Christ, whereas \"the Lord\" more commonly means God the Father.\n\nThe word for \"strengthen\" (=endynamoun=) means literally \"to infuse\npower into\" a person. It is one of which the Apostle is rather fond; and\noutside his writings it occurs in the New Testament only in the Acts and\nin Hebrews, once in each (Rom. iv. 20; Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iv. 13; 1 Tim.\ni. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1). It is worth while to compare the passage in which\nhe speaks to Timothy of Christ having given him power to turn to Him and\nbecome His servant; and still more the passage in which, during his\nfirst Roman imprisonment, he tells the Philippians \"I can do all things\nin Him that strengthened me.\" The same thing was true in the second\nimprisonment.\n\nThe special purpose for which Christ stood by His Apostle and put\nstrength and power into him is stated. \"That through me the message\nmight be fully proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear.\" Those\nwho follow Eusebius in the mistake of supposing that the \"first defence\"\nrefers to the trial which ended in St. Paul's release after the first\nimprisonment, understand this proclamation of the message to the\nGentiles as referring to the missionary work which St. Paul was enabled\nto do during the few years of interval (c. A.D. 63-66) before he was\nagain arrested. But if the proclamation of the message took place in\nconsequence of the Apostle's release, then it would have been placed\nafter, and not before, the mention of deliverance out of the mouth of\nthe lion. It is not said that he was _delivered_ in order that through\nhim the message might be proclaimed, but that he was _strengthened_ in\norder that it might be proclaimed. And the special strengthening by\nChrist took place in reference to the first hearing of the case in\ncourt, when all human friends forsook him, while Christ stood by him. It\nwas in court, therefore, that the proclamation of the message was made,\nand that through the instrumentality of the Apostle the preaching of the\nGospel reached its culmination (=to k\u00earygma pl\u00earophor\u00eath\u00ea=). This was\nthe climax;--that in the metropolis of the world, in open court, before\nthe imperial tribunal, the Gospel proclamation should be made with all\nsolemnity and power. It is quite possible that this event, which the\nApostle of the Gentiles regards as the completing act of his own mission\nand ministry, took place in the forum itself. Here Tiberius had caused a\ntribunal to be erected for causes which he had to hear as Emperor. But\nClaudius sometimes heard such cases elsewhere; and his successors\nprobably followed his example. So that in the reign of Nero we cannot be\ncertain that such a case as St. Paul's would be heard in the forum. But\nat any rate it would be held in a court to which the public had access;\nand the Roman public at this time was the most representative in the\nworld. The Apostle is fully justified, therefore, in the language which\nhe uses. This opportunity and power were granted \"in order that through\nme the message might be fully proclaimed, and _that all the Gentiles\nmight hear_.\" In that representative city and before that representative\naudience he preached Christ; and through those who were present and\nheard him the fact would be made known throughout the civilized world\nthat in the imperial city and before the imperial bench the Apostle of\nChrist had proclaimed the coming of His Kingdom.\n\nAnd the result of it was that he was \"delivered out of the mouth of the\nlion.\" This was a second consequence of the Lord's standing by him and\nstrengthening him. He was enabled to speak with such effect, that the\nsentence of condemnation, which had been feared, was for the present\naverted. He was neither acquitted nor convicted; but the court, being\nunable to arrive at a satisfactory decision, granted an extension of\ntime (_ampliatio_); that is an adjournment. In technical phraseology the\n_actio prima_ ended in a verdict of _non liquet_, and an _actio secunda_\nbecame necessary; and as this second trial might have a similar result,\nthe amount of delay that was possible was almost boundless.\n\nTo ask who is meant by the lion is a futile question. Whom did the\nPsalmist mean by the lion, when he prayed \"Save me from the lion's\nmouth\"? (Ps. xxii. 21.) He meant no one by the lion; but by the lion's\nmouth he meant some great and imminent danger. And that is what we must\nunderstand here. All kinds of gratuitous conjectures have been made by\nthose who have insisted on identifying the lion;--the lion of the\namphitheatre, to whom the Apostle might have been thrown, had he been\ncondemned; the Emperor Nero, or, as he was possibly in Greece at this\ntime, his prefect and representative Helius; or, the chief accuser; or\nagain, Satan, whom St. Peter describes as \"a roaring lion.\" All these\nare answers to a question which does not arise out of the text. The\nquestion is not, \"Who is the lion?\" but, \"What is the meaning of the\nlion's mouth?\" And the answer to that is, \"a terrible danger,\" and\nespecially \"peril of death.\"\n\nThe goodness of the Lord does not end with this welcome, but temporary\ndeliverance. \"The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will\nsave me unto His heavenly kingdom.\" Paul's enemies are not likely to be\nidle during the extension of time granted by the court. They will do\ntheir utmost to secure a sentence of condemnation at the second hearing\nof the case, and thus get the man whom they detest removed from the\nearth. Whether they will succeed in this or not, the Apostle does not\nknow. But one thing he knows;--that whatever is really evil in their\nworks against him will be powerless to harm him. The Lord will turn\ntheir evil into good. They may succeed in compassing his death. But,\neven if they do so, the Lord will make their work of death a work of\nsalvation; and by the severing of the thread which still binds Paul to\nthis life \"will save him unto,\" that is, will translate him safe into,\n\"His heavenly kingdom.\"\n\nIt is utterly improbable that by \"every evil work,\" St. Paul means any\nweakness or sin into which he himself might be betrayed through want of\ncourage and steadfastness. Even if the lion's mouth could mean Satan,\nthis would not be probable; for it would be Satan's attacks from\nwithout, by means of opposition and persecution, and not his attempts\nfrom within by means of grievous temptations, that would be meant. What\nis said above about Alexander the coppersmith shows what kind of \"evil\"\nand what kind of \"works\" is intended in \"every evil work.\" The\nexpression evidently refers to the machinations of Paul's enemies.\n\nIt is also highly improbable that \"will save me unto His heavenly\nkingdom\" means \"will keep me alive until He returns in glory.\" There was\na time when the Apostle expected, like most other Christians of that\nday, to live to behold the second coming of Christ. But what we have\nalready seen in this Epistle shows that in St. Paul's mind that\nexpectation is extinct. He no longer thinks that he will be one of those\n\"that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord\" (1 Thess.\niv. 15, 17); that he will be among the living, who \"shall be changed,\"\nrather than among the dead, who \"shall be raised\" at the sounding of the\nlast trump (1 Cor. xv. 53). He does not repeat, what seems almost to\nhave been a familiar watchword among the Christians of that day,--\"Maran\natha\"; \"the Lord is at hand\" (1 Cor. xvi. 22; Phil. iv. 5). On the\ncontrary, it is his own hour that is at hand: \"I am already being\noffered, and the time of my departure is come.\" He is fully persuaded\nnow that he will not live to see Christ's return in glory; and he does\nnot expect that return to come speedily; for, as we have seen, one of\nhis chief anxieties is that there should be a permanently organized\nministry in the Churches, and that provision should be made for handing\non the faith intact from generation to generation (Tit. i, 5; 2 Tim. ii.\n2). There can be little doubt, therefore, that when the Apostle\nexpresses a conviction that the Lord will save him unto His heavenly\nkingdom, he is not expecting to reach that kingdom without first passing\nthrough the gate of death. What he is sure of is this,--that the evil\nworks of his adversaries will never be allowed to prevent him from\nreaching that blessed resting place. Christ's kingdom is twofold; He has\na kingdom on earth and a kingdom in heaven. The saints who are in the\nkingdom on earth are still exposed to many kinds of evil works; and the\nApostle is persuaded that in his case such works will be overruled by\nthe Lord to further his progress from the earthly to the heavenly\nkingdom.\n\n\"To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\nIf what was said above about \"the Lord\" is correct, then here we have a\ndoxology which manifestly is addressed to Christ. It is possible that in\nRom. ix. 5 and xvi. 27 we have other examples, as also in Heb. xiii. 21;\nbut in all these three cases the construction is open to question. Here,\nhowever, there can be no doubt that \"the glory for ever and ever\" is\nascribed to the Lord Who stood by Paul at his trial and will deliver him\nfrom all evil works hereafter; and the Lord is Jesus Christ. As\nChrysostom pointedly remarks without further comment: \"Lo, here is a\ndoxology to the Son.\" And it is word for word the same as that which in\nGal. i. 5 is addressed to the Father.\n\nWith these words of praise on his lips we take our leave of the Apostle.\nHe is a wearied worker, a forlorn and all but deserted teacher, a\ndespised and all but condemned prisoner; but he knows that he has made\nno mistake. The Master, Who seems to have requited His servant so ill,\nis a royal Master, Who has royal gifts in store. He has never failed His\nservant in this life, in which His presence, though but dimly reflected,\nhas always brightened suffering; and He will not fail in His promises\nrespecting the life which is to come. The Apostle has had to sustain\nhim, not merely Divine truth wherewith to enlighten his soul, and\nDivine rules, wherewith to direct his conduct; he has had also a Divine\nPerson, wherewith to share his life. He has kept the faith in the Divine\ntruth; he has finished his course according to the Divine rules; yet\nthese things he has done, not in his own strength, but in Christ Who\nlives in him. It is this gracious indwelling which made the victory that\nhas been won possible; and it is this which gives it its value. The\nfaith which has been kept is faith in Him Who is the Truth. The course\nwhich has been finished is according to Him Who is the Way. And the life\nwhich has been shared has been united with Him Who is the Life. That\nunion will never end. It began here; and it will be continued throughout\neternity in \"the life which is life indeed.\" And therefore, with a heart\nfull of thankfulness to the Master Who has shared his sufferings and\nwill share his bliss, he leaves us as his last address to Christ, \"To\nHim be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[99] 1 Cor. xiii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n Abecedarians, 70.\n\n Acts of the Apostles not written by Titus, 207, nor by St. Paul,\n 360-362.\n\n Adornment, The nature of, 251, 252.\n\n Alexander, 75, 76, 373, 413.\n\n Ambrose, 230.\n\n Anacletus, 416.\n\n Ananias and Sapphira, 73, 75.\n\n Anarchy in the Church, 73, 271.\n\n Angels, 138.\n\n Antinomian doctrine, 44, 49, 298, 299.\n\n Apocalypse, 48, 68.\n\n Apollos, 203, 208, 414.\n\n Apostles, 69, 70.\n\n Apostolic Constitutions, 126, 156, 232.\n\n Appuleius, 379.\n\n Aquila, 413, 414.\n\n Aratus, 225.\n\n Aristotle, 240.\n\n Army, Roman, 345, 346.\n\n Artemis, Temple of, 84, 198.\n\n Article, The Greek, 89, 189, 392.\n\n Asceticism, 44, 142, 143.\n\n Athenagoras, 125.\n\n Athleticism, 144.\n\n Aurelius, M., 89, 257.\n\n Augustine, 229, 373.\n\n Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, 4-16, 33, 52, 55, 163, 169,\n 294, 295, 312, 322, 404, 406-417, 421.\n\n Authority, Divine origin of, 273-275.\n\n Avarice, Dangers of, 196-198.\n\n\n Baptism, 284-293.\n\n Basilides, 8, 42.\n\n Bauer, 8, 10, 12, 33.\n\n Blandina, 257.\n\n Bodily exercise profitable, 143-145.\n\n Bretschneider, 125.\n\n Butler's Durham Charge, 368.\n\n\n Carpus, 11, 411.\n\n Cathari, 126.\n\n Celsus, 229, 253.\n\n Cellini, 50.\n\n Certainty, Nature of historical, 105.\n\n Children, Care of, 256.\n\n Chrysostom, 34, 56, 95, 101, 249, 349, 369, 382, 397, 429.\n\n Circumcision of Timothy, 22.\n\n Claudia, 415.\n\n Claudius, 414, 425.\n\n Cleanthes, 225.\n\n Clement of Alexandria, 6, 97, 100, 228, 339, 373.\n\n Clement of Rome, 5, 14, 97, 110, 416.\n\n Clergy and laity from the first distinct, 109.\n\n Cloke, 412.\n\n Collection for Jewish Christians, 205.\n\n Conscientious disobedience, 278.\n\n Contentment, 192-196.\n\n Continuity of doctrine, 336-340.\n\n Controversial spirit, 367.\n\n Controversial violence, 280.\n\n Corinth, Case of incest at, 73, 265.\n\n Corinth, Timothy at, 23, 24, 29.\n\n Corinth, Titus at, 204-206.\n\n Cosin, Bishop, 328.\n\n Credner, 8.\n\n Crete, The Church in, 212-215, 271.\n\n Cynicism, Evils of, 29-31.\n\n Cyril of Jerusalem, 341.\n\n\n Davies, T. Ll., 301.\n\n Deaconesses, 155, 158.\n\n Dead, Prayers for the, 325-330.\n\n Delivering to Satan, 74.\n\n Demas, 409, 410.\n\n Devil, Personality of the, 77-80.\n\n Diogenes Laertius, 296.\n\n Discipline necessary to the Church, 72, 73.\n\n Divinity of Christ, 268, 269, 283, 429.\n\n Divorce, 120.\n\n Doctrinal statements in the Pastoral Epistles, 259, 282.\n\n Doctrine, Continuity of, 336-340.\n\n Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, 69, 96, 108, 115.\n\n D\u00f6llinger, 8, 129.\n\n Doxology addressed to Christ, 249.\n\n Dress of women, 101.\n\n\n Ecstasy, 241.\n\n Elders or presbyters, 67, 112, 115, 118, 165, 213, 217.\n\n Elymas, 75.\n\n Emotion in religion, 244-247.\n\n Ephesus, Timothy at, 25, 84, 198, 265, 320, 323.\n\n Epimenides, 224, 225.\n\n Epiphanies of Christ, 260, 269.\n\n Episcopacy, 107, 112, 114, 221.\n\n Erastus, 414, 415.\n\n Evans, T. S., 287.\n\n Eunice, 21, 388.\n\n Eubulus, 415.\n\n Eusebius, 6, 14, 26, 37, 257, 371, 379, 415, 418, 419.\n\n Ewald, 9, 407.\n\n Excommunication, 74, 303.\n\n Extempore prayer, 96.\n\n\n Failure, Apparent, of the Gospel, 402.\n\n Faith, Test of, 290.\n\n Farrar, F. W., 412.\n\n Flood, The, a type of baptism, 289.\n\n Free will, 40, 41, 57.\n\n Freedom of the Gospel, 362, 363.\n\n Friendship of Paul and Timothy, 26-30.\n\n\n Genealogies, 34, 35.\n\n Genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, 4-16, 33, 52, 55, 163, 169,\n 294, 295, 312, 322, 404, 406-417, 421.\n\n Gessius Florus, 276.\n\n Gladiatorial shows, 179, 347.\n\n Gnosticism, its rapid progress, 37; its problem, 38; its moral\n teaching, 44, 53, 151.\n\n Godet, 34.\n\n Goethe, 79.\n\n Golden ages of the Church, 264.\n\n Grammatical errors in Scripture, 394.\n\n Gregory the Great, 231, 232.\n\n Gregory of Tours, 233.\n\n\n Hadrian, 89.\n\n Handling aright, 370.\n\n Hands, Imposition of, 63, 64, 67, 166, 167, 315.\n\n Hands lifted in prayer, 97, 98.\n\n Hausrath, 9, 407.\n\n Hegesippus, 6, 337.\n\n Helius, 275, 427.\n\n Heresy, Meaning of in New Testament, 296-299.\n\n Heresy and magic, 383.\n\n Heretical teachers, 53, 382.\n\n Hermas, 108, 125.\n\n Hermogenes, 319-323.\n\n Hippolytus, 128.\n\n Hitzig, 9, 407.\n\n Hooker, 285, 286.\n\n Husband of one wife, 118.\n\n Huxley, 173.\n\n Hymenaeus, The punishment of, 74-76, 373.\n\n Hymns, Ancient Christian, 134.\n\n\n Ideal Church, 116.\n\n Ignatius, 5, 10, 33, 69, 113, 114, 378.\n\n Immer, 9, 407.\n\n Imposition of hands, 63, 64, 67, 166, 167, 315.\n\n Imprisonments of St. Paul, 13, 24, 28, 362, 401.\n\n Imprisonment of Timothy, 24.\n\n Incarnation, The, 44, 358, 359.\n\n Inspiration of Scripture, 381, 393-396.\n\n Intercession, 83, 86, 326.\n\n Irenaeus, 6, 112, 113, 294, 338, 373, 415.\n\n\n Jannes and Jambres, 379-383.\n\n Jerome, 230, 360.\n\n Jewish Gnosticism, 33, 34.\n\n Job, 76, 77, 192.\n\n Julian the Apostate, 230, 231.\n\n Justin Martyr, 6, 96, 119.\n\n\n K\u00f6lling, 8.\n\n Krenkel, 9, 207, 407.\n\n\n Lambeth Conferences, 266.\n\n Last days, 377.\n\n Latin Fathers and Pagan culture, 227, 230, 232.\n\n Laver of regeneration, 285-292.\n\n Lemme, 9, 407.\n\n Lightfoot, Bishop, 113, 227, 361.\n\n Linus, 113, 338, 415, 416.\n\n Lion's mouth, 426.\n\n Liturgical forms in New Testament, 83, 134.\n\n Lois, 21, 388.\n\n Lord, when used of Christ, 424.\n\n Luke, 23, 27, 207, 209, 421-423.\n\n Lystra, 21, 22, 24.\n\n\n Magic, 383.\n\n Mahometanism and slavery, 182.\n\n Maine, 159.\n\n Manumission of slaves, 181, 184, 248.\n\n Marcion's rejection of the Pastoral Epistles, 4, 5, 8, 10.\n\n Mark, 409, 410.\n\n Marriages, Second, 122, 125.\n\n Mill, J. S., 39.\n\n Milligan, 117.\n\n Missions, 266.\n\n Money, Love of, 193-198.\n\n Montanus, 70, 115.\n\n Mouth of the lion, 426.\n\n Muratorian Canon, 6, 14.\n\n Mystery, Meaning of in New Testament, 132, 135.\n\n\n Nero, 14, 89, 275, 414, 419, 422, 426.\n\n Newman, J. H., 39, 40, 233-235, 387.\n\n Nicodemus, Gospel of, 380.\n\n Numenius, 379.\n\n\n Obedience, Duty of, 272, 275.\n\n Onesimus, 411.\n\n Onesiphorus, 313, 319, 320, 323, 414.\n\n Ordination, 60, 63, 220, 314.\n\n Origen, 125, 228, 229, 379.\n\n Origin of the Christian ministry, 104-117.\n\n\n Pastoral Epistles, Character of, 3, 4, 15, 16, 201, 309, 312.\n\n Paul III., Pope, 50.\n\n Pedanius Secundus, 179.\n\n Persecution, 54, 275.\n\n Peshitto, 6.\n\n Pfleiderer, 8, 10, 11, 407.\n\n Philetus, 373.\n\n Phraseology of the Pastoral Epistles, 7, 26, 47, 52, 404, 424.\n\n Phygelus, 319, 323.\n\n Plato, 178, 240, 241.\n\n Pliny the Elder, 379, 380.\n\n Pliny the Younger, 83, 134.\n\n Polycarp, 5, 338.\n\n Polygamy, 119.\n\n Prayer, Forms of, 96.\n\n Prayers for the dead, 325-330.\n\n Presbyters or elders, 67, 112, 115, 118, 166, 214, 217, 221.\n\n Priesthood, The idea of, 117.\n\n Prisca, 413, 414.\n\n Prophecies on Timothy, 62-64.\n\n Prophet, Meanings of the term, 65.\n\n Prophets in New Testament, 66, 69; in the Primitive Church, 70, 96,\n 115.\n\n Public worship, 95-102.\n\n Pudens, 415.\n\n Punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, 74-76.\n\n\n Rationalism, 387.\n\n Red Sea, Passage of the, a type of baptism, 289.\n\n Regeneration, Laver of, 285-292.\n\n Religious emotion, the use of, 244-247.\n\n Renan, 8, 11, 79, 276, 355, 407.\n\n Resurrection, Belief in the, 355-359, 372.\n\n Reunion of Christendom, 267.\n\n Reuss, 11.\n\n Revisers, Changes made by the, 32, 47, 59, 219, 268, 269, 285, 354,\n 371, 391.\n\n Roman Church, Its neglect of St. Paul, 28, 400, 420, 421.\n\n\n Salmon, 8, 113, 407.\n\n Satan, Delivering unto, 74.\n\n Satan, Personality of, 77-80.\n\n Schaff, 395.\n\n Schleiermacher, 78.\n\n Second Advent, Nearness of the, 378, 428.\n\n Second Roman imprisonment of St. Paul, 13, 28, 362, 401.\n\n Second marriages, 122, 125.\n\n Shamelessness in serving God, 370.\n\n Slavery, 175-184, 248-250, 253-257.\n\n Sobriety in religion, 241, 245.\n\n Socialism, 185-187.\n\n Solidarity of Christendom, 86.\n\n Strauss, 79.\n\n Superstition and heresy, 384.\n\n\n Tatian's rejection of 1 and 2 Tim., 8, 202.\n\n Tertullian, 6, 10, 89, 90, 98, 101, 128, 166, 227, 294, 295, 300,\n 339, 346.\n\n Thanksgivings for all men, 92.\n\n Theophilus of Antioch, 6.\n\n Threefold ministry, 221.\n\n Tiberius, 425.\n\n Tigellinus, 275.\n\n Timothy compared with St. John, 19-21.\n\n Timothy at Corinth, 23, 24, 29.\n\n Titus compared with Timothy, 209.\n\n Titus at Corinth, 204-206.\n\n Titus in Dalmatia, 410.\n\n Trinitarian doctrine, 283, 284.\n\n Trophimus, 414, 415, 419.\n\n Trullo, Council in, 155.\n\n Tychicus, 410, 411.\n\n Tyndale, 412, 413.\n\n\n Verbal inspiration, 393.\n\n Visible means an aid to faith, 291.\n\n\n Washing of regeneration, 285-292.\n\n Waterland, 293, 306.\n\n Weiss, 7, 15.\n\n Weisse, 9, 407.\n\n Widows, 153-155, 158, 163.\n\n Will, Freedom of the, 40, 41, 57.\n\n Women, Social position of, 256.\n\n Women's dress, 101, 102.\n\n Worship, Public, 95, 100.\n\n Wordsworth, Bishop C., 134.\n\n\n Zenas, 203, 208.\n\n Zwickau prophets, 70.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":125499}