



Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)





  [Transcriber's Note:

  This e-text is intended for users whose text readers cannot display
  the Unicode (utf-8) version of the file. Greek words have been
  transliterated and enclosed in equals signs, e.g. =didache=.

  _Italic words_ in the original have been enclosed in underscores in
  this version.

  As the oe ligature cannot be included in this file format, for
  consistency both ae and oe ligatures have been replaced with the
  separate letters throughout.

  A few minor typographical errors have been silently corrected. Some
  inconsistent hyphenation has been retained.

  The Table of Contents and Index refer to original page numbers.]




             THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.

               EDITED BY THE REV.
           W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A.,
          _Editor of "The Expositor."_

             THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

                  BY THE REV.
           ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.

                    TORONTO:
    WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEPOT,
     CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.
                      1888.




             THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.


                  BY THE REV.
           ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,

  _Master of University College, Durham; formerly
  Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford;
  Author of "The Church of the Early Fathers," and
  Editor of "The Gospel and Epistles of St. John," etc._

                    TORONTO:
    WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEPOT,
     CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.
                      1888.




CONTENTS.


                                                                PAGE
_INTRODUCTORY._

CHAPTER I.

THE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES         3


_1 TIMOTHY._

CHAPTER II.

TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF S. PAUL.--HIS LIFE AND
CHARACTER                                                         19

CHAPTER III.

THE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM
OF GNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM                             32

CHAPTER IV.

THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART       42

CHAPTER V.

THE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A
PERSECUTOR TO BECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER
OF THE GOSPEL                                                     52

CHAPTER VI.

THE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION                          62

CHAPTER VII.

THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO
SATAN AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE
PERSONALITY OF SATAN                                              72

CHAPTER VIII.

ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND
THANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN
RACE                                                              82

CHAPTER IX.

BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.--MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND
MIND.--WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT                                94

CHAPTER X.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.--VARIOUS CERTAINTIES
AND PROBABILITIES DISTINGUISHED                                  104

CHAPTER XI.

THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES.--ITS MEANING
AND PRESENT OBLIGATION                                           118

CHAPTER XII.

THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS        130

CHAPTER XIII.

THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS        141

CHAPTER XIV.

THE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW          151

CHAPTER XV.

THE PASTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDAINING AND JUDGING
PRESBYTERS.--THE WORKS THAT GO BEFORE AND THAT FOLLOW US         164

CHAPTER XVI.

THE NATURE OF ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE APOSTLE'S ATTITUDE
TOWARDS IT.--A MODERN PARALLEL                                   175

CHAPTER XVII.

THE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE
OF GAIN                                                          188


_TITUS._

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.--HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER                    201

CHAPTER XIX.

THE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS FOR APPOINTING ELDERS                                 212

CHAPTER XX.

CHRISTIANITY AND UNCHRISTIAN LITERATURE                          224

CHAPTER XXI.

THE MEANING AND VALUE OF SOBERMINDEDNESS.--THE USE AND ABUSE
OF RELIGIOUS EMOTION                                             237

CHAPTER XXII.

THE MORAL CONDITION OF SLAVES.--THEIR ADORNMENT OF THE
DOCTRINE OF GOD                                                  248

CHAPTER XXIII.

HOPE AS A MOTIVE POWER.--THE PRESENT HOPES OF CHRISTIANS         259

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY WITH ITS LIMITS.--THE DUTY
OF COURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS                                       270

CHAPTER XXV.

THE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW
BIRTH.--THE LAVER OF REGENERATION                                282

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS RESPECTING HERETICAL PERSONS                          294


_2 TIMOTHY._

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF
S. PAUL.--THE NEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS                         309

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION
OF ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD                            319

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION
OF THE FAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH             331

CHAPTER XXX.

THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC
CONTEST; AS HUSBANDRY                                            343

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE
INCARNATION.--THE GOSPEL OF S. PAUL                              353

CHAPTER XXXII.

THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT,
OF A DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE
PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH          364

CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND
JAMBRES ON THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT
IN EPHESUS                                                       375

CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
LIFELONG CONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED
WRITINGS                                                         385

CHAPTER XXXV.

THE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT
FAILURE AND THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT
TEST OF SINCERITY                                                397

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE PERSONAL DETAILS A GUARANTEE OF GENUINENESS                  406

CHAPTER XXXVII.

THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE
LORD.--THE MISSION TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE,
AND THE FINAL HYMN OF PRAISE                                     418




_INTRODUCTORY._




CHAPTER I.

_THE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES._

    "Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus."--1 TIM. i; 2 TIM. i. 1.

    "Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ."--TITUS i.
    1.


The first question which confronts us on entering upon the study of the
Pastoral Epistles is that of their authenticity, which of late has been
confidently denied. In reading them are we reading the farewell words of
the great Apostle to the ministers of Christ? Or are we reading only the
well-meant but far less weighty counsels of one who in a later age
assumed the name and imitated the style of St. Paul? It seems necessary
to devote the first of these expositions to a discussion of this
question.

The title "Pastoral Epistles" could hardly be improved, but it might
easily be misunderstood as implying more than is actually the case. It
calls attention to what is the most conspicuous, but by no means the
only characteristic in these Epistles. Although the words which most
directly signify the pastor's office, such as "shepherd," "feed,"
"tend," and "flock," do not occur in these letters and do occur
elsewhere in Scripture, yet in no other books in the Bible do we find so
many directions respecting the pastoral care of Churches. The title is
much less appropriate to 2 Timothy than to the other two Epistles. All
three are both pastoral and personal; but while 1 Timothy and Titus are
mainly the former, 2 Timothy is mainly the latter. The three taken
together stand between the other Epistles of St. Paul and the one to
Philemon. Like the latter, they are personal; like the rest, they treat
of large questions of Church doctrine, practice, and government, rather
than of private and personal matters. Like that to Philemon, they are
addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals; yet they are written to
them, not as private friends, but as delegates, though not mere
delegates, of the Apostle, and as officers of the Church. Moreover the
important Church matters of which they treat are regarded, not, as in
the other Epistles, from the point of view of the congregation or of the
Church at large, but rather from that of the overseer or minister. And,
as being official rather than private letters, they are evidently
intended to be read by other persons besides Timothy and Titus.

Among the Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul none have excited so
much controversy as these, especially as regards their genuineness. But
the controversy is entirely a modern one. It is little or no
exaggeration to say that from the first century to the nineteenth no one
ever denied or doubted that they were written by St. Paul. It is true
that certain heretics of the second century rejected some or all of
them. Marcion, and perhaps Basilides, rejected all three. Tatian, while
maintaining the Apostolicity of the Epistle to Titus, repudiated those
to Timothy. And Origen tells us that some people doubted about 2 Timothy
because it contained the names of Jannes and Jambres, which do not occur
in the Old Testament. But it is well known that Marcion in framing his
mutilated and meagre canon of the Scriptures, did not profess to do so
on critical grounds. He rejected everything excepting an expurgated
edition of St. Luke and certain Epistles of St. Paul,--not because he
doubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. They
did not fit into his system. And the few others who rejected one or more
of these Epistles did so in a similar spirit. They did not profess to
find that these documents were not properly authenticated, but they were
displeased with passages in them. The evidence, therefore, justifies us
in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second
century, these three Epistles were, until quite recent times,
universally accepted as written by St. Paul.

This large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (1) The
repudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them.
They were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought
anything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance
of them as St. Paul's is full and positive, and reaches back to the
earliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the absence of
evidence to the contrary. Tertullian[1] wonders what can have induced
Marcion, while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to
Timothy and Titus: and of course those who repudiated them would have
pointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical, if such had
existed. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these
Epistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement[2] of Rome (c. A.D. 95),
Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A.D. 112),
and Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 180), we have direct evidence of a
very convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac
Version, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the
Muratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later
than A.D. 170. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that "Paul
mentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy," and he quotes Titus iii. 10
with the introduction "as Paul also says." Eusebius renders it probable
that both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from 1 Timothy; and he
himself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books
and not among the disputable writings: _i.e._, he places them with the
Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and
not with James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he
is preceded by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom quote
frequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture,
sometimes as of "the Apostle," sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the
Spirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are
addressed to Timothy or to Titus.

It would take us too far afield to examine in detail the various
considerations which have induced some eminent critics to set aside this
strong array of external evidence and reject one or more of these
Epistles. They fall in the main under four heads. (1) The difficulty of
finding a place for these letters in the life of St. Paul as given us in
the Acts and in his own writings. (2) The large amount of peculiar
phraseology not found in any other Pauline Epistles. (3) The Church
organization indicated in these letters which is alleged to be of a
later date than St. Paul's time. (4) The erroneous doctrines and
practices attacked, which are also said to be those of a later age. To
most of these points we shall have to return on some future occasion:
but for the present this much may be asserted with confidence. (1) In
the Acts and in the other Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle's life is
left incomplete. There is nothing to forbid us from supposing that the
remaining portion amounted to several years, during which these three
letters were written. The Second Epistle to Timothy in any case has the
unique interest of being the last extant utterance of the Apostle St.
Paul. (2) The phraseology which is peculiar to each of these Epistles is
not greater in amount than the phraseology which is peculiar to the
Epistle to the Galatians, which even Baur admits to be of unquestionable
genuineness. The peculiar diction which is common to all three Epistles
is well accounted for by the peculiarity of the common subject, and by
the fact that these letters are separated by several years from even the
latest among the other writings of St. Paul.[3] (3, 4) There is good
reason for believing that during the lifetime of St. Paul the
organization of the Church corresponded to that which is sketched in
these letters, and that errors were already in existence such as these
letters denounce.

Although the controversy is by no means over, two results of it are very
generally accepted as practically certain. (1) The three Epistles must
stand or fall together. It is impossible to accept two, or one, or any
portion of one of them, and reject the rest. (2) They stand or fall with
the hypothesis of St. Paul's second imprisonment. If the Apostle was
imprisoned at Rome only once, and was put to death at the end of that
imprisonment, then these three letters were not written by him.

(1) The Epistles stand or fall together: they are all three genuine, or
all three spurious. We must either with the scholars of the Early
Church, of the Middle Ages, and of the Renaissance, whether Roman or
Protestant, and with a clear majority of modern critics,[4] accept all
three letters; or else with Marcion, Basilides, Eichhorn, Bauer, and
their followers,[5] reject all three. As Credner himself had to
acknowledge, after having at first advocated the theory, it is
impossible to follow Tatian in retaining Titus as apostolic, while
repudiating the other two as forgeries. Nor have the two scholars[6] who
originated the modern controversy found more than one critic of eminence
to accept their conclusion that both Titus and 2 Timothy are genuine,
but 1 Timothy not. Yet another suggestion is made by Reuss, that 2
Timothy is unquestionably genuine, while the other two are doubtful. And
lastly we have Pfleiderer admitting that 2 Timothy contains at least two
sections which have with good reason been recognized as genuine (i.
15-18 and iv. 9-21), and Renan asking whether the forger of these three
Epistles did not possess some authentic letters of St. Paul which he has
enshrined in his composition.[7]

It will be seen, therefore, that those who impugn the authenticity of
the Pastoral Epistles are by no means agreed among themselves. The
evidence in some places is so strong, that many of the objectors are
compelled to admit that the Epistles are at least in part the work of
St. Paul. That is, certain portions, which admit of being severely
tested, are found to stand the test, and are passed as genuine, in spite
of surrounding difficulties. The rest, which does not admit of such
testing, is repudiated on account of the difficulties. No one can
reasonably object to the application of whatever tests are available,
nor to the demand for explanations of difficulties. But we must not
treat what cannot be satisfactorily tested as if it had been tested and
found wanting; nor must we refuse to take account of the support which
those parts which can be thoroughly sifted lend to those for which no
decisive criterion can be found. Still less must we proceed on the
assumption that to reject these Epistles or any portion of them is a
proceeding which gets rid of difficulties. It is merely an exchange of
one set of difficulties for another. To unbiassed minds it will perhaps
appear that the difficulties involved in the assumption that the
Pastoral Epistles are wholly or partly a forgery, are not less serious
than those which have been urged against the well-established tradition
of their genuineness. The very strong external evidence in their favour
has to be accounted for. It is already full, clear, and decided, as
soon as we could at all expect to find it, viz., in Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian. And it must be noticed that these witnesses
give us the traditional beliefs of several chief centres in Christendom.
Irenaeus speaks with full knowledge of what was accepted in Asia Minor,
Rome, and Gaul; Clement witnesses for Egypt, and Tertullian for North
Africa. And although the absence of such support would not have caused
serious perplexity, their direct evidence is very materially supported
by passages closely parallel to the words of the Pastoral Epistles found
in writers still earlier than Irenaeus. Renan admits the relationship
between 2 Timothy and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and suggests that
each writer has borrowed from a common source. Pfleiderer admits that
the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp "displays striking points of contact
with 2 Timothy." Bauer's theory, that all three letters are as late as
A.D. 150, and are an attack on Marcion, finds little support now. But we
are still asked to believe that 2 Timothy was forged in the reign of
Trajan (98-117) and the other two Epistles in the reign of Hadrian
(117-138). Is it credible that a forgery perpetrated A.D. 120-135 would
in less than fifty years be accepted in Asia Minor, Rome, Gaul, Egypt,
and North Africa, as a genuine letter of the Apostle St. Paul? And yet
this is what must have happened in the case of 1 Timothy, if the
hypothesis just stated is correct. Nor is this all, Marcion, as we know,
rejected all three of the Pastoral Epistles; and Tertullian cannot think
why Marcion should do so. But, when Marcion was framing his canon, about
the reign of Hadrian, 2 Timothy according to these dates, would be
scarcely twenty years old, and 1 Timothy would be brand-new. If this
had been so, would Marcion, with his intimate knowledge of St. Paul's
writings, have been in ignorance of the fact; and if he had known it,
would he have failed to denounce the forgery? Or again, if we assume
that he merely treated this group of Epistles with silent contempt,
would not his rejection of them, which was well-known, have directed
attention to them, and caused their recent origin to be quickly
discovered? From all which it is manifest that the theory of forgery by
no means frees us from grave obstacles.

It will be observed that the external evidence is large in amount and
overwhelmingly in favour of the Apostolic authorship. The objections are
based on internal evidence. But some of the leading opponents admit that
even the internal evidence is in favour of certain portions of the
Epistles. Let us, then, with Renan, Pfleiderer, and others admit that
parts of 2 Timothy were written by St. Paul; then there is strong
presumption that the whole letter is by him; for even the suspected
portions have the external evidence in their favour, together with the
support lent to them by those parts for which the internal evidence is
also satisfactory. Add to which the improbability that any one would
store up genuine letters of St. Paul for fifty years and then use parts
of them to give substance to a fabrication. Or let us with Reuss contend
that in 2 Timothy "the whole Epistle is so completely the natural
expression of the actual situation of the author, and contains, unsought
and for the most part in the form of mere allusions, such a mass of
minute[8] and unessential particulars, that even did the name of the
writer not chance to be mentioned at the beginning it would be easy to
discover it." Then there is strong presumption that the other two
letters are genuine also; for they have the external evidence on their
side, together with the good character reflected upon them by their
brother Epistle. This result is of course greatly strengthened, if,
quite independently of 2 Timothy, the claims of Titus to be Apostolic
are considered to be adequate. With two of the three letters admitted to
be genuine, the case for the remaining letter becomes a strong one. It
has the powerful external evidence on its side, backed up by the support
lent to it by its two more manifestly authentic companions. Thus far,
therefore, we may agree with Baur: "The three Epistles are so much alike
that none of them can be separated from the others; and from this
circumstance the identity of their authorship may be confidently
inferred."[9] But when he asserts that whichever of this family of
letters be examined will appear as the betrayer of his brethren, he just
reverses the truth. Each letter, upon examination, lends support to the
other two; "and a threefold cord is not easily broken." The strongest
member of the family is 2 Timothy: the external evidence in its favour
is ample, and no Epistle in the New Testament is more characteristic of
St. Paul. It would be scarcely less reasonable to dispute 2 Corinthians.
And if 2 Timothy be admitted, there is no tenable ground for excluding
the other two.

II. But not only do the three Epistles stand or fall together, they
stand or fall with the hypothesis of the release and second
imprisonment of the Apostle. The contention that no place can be found
for the Pastoral Epistles in the narrative of the Acts is valid; but it
is no objection to the authenticity of the Epistles. The conclusion of
the Acts implies that the end of St. Paul's life is not reached in the
narrative. "He abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling," implies
that after that time a change took place. If that change was his death,
how unnatural not to mention it! The conclusion is closely parallel to
that of St Luke's Gospel; and we might almost as reasonably contend that
"they were continually in the temple," proves that they were never
"clothed with power from on high," because they were told to "tarry in
the city" until they were so clothed, as contend that "abode two whole
years in his own hired dwelling," proves that at the end of the two
years came the end of St. Paul's life. Let us grant that the conclusion
of the Acts is unexpectedly abrupt, and that this abruptness constitutes
a difficulty. Then we have our choice of two alternatives. Either the
two years of imprisonment were followed by a period of renewed labour,
or they were cut short by the Apostle's martyrdom. Is it not more easy
to believe that the writer did not consider that this new period of
work, which would have filled many chapters, fell within the scope of
his narrative, than that he omitted so obvious a conclusion as St.
Paul's death, for which a single verse would have sufficed? But let us
admit that to assert that St. Paul was released at the end of two years
is to maintain a mere hypothesis: yet to assert that he was _not_
released is equally to maintain a mere hypothesis. If we exclude the
Pastoral Epistles, Scripture gives no means of deciding the question,
and whichever alternative we adopt we are making a conjecture. But
which hypothesis has most evidence on its side? Certainly the hypothesis
of the release. (1) The Pastoral Epistles, even if not by St. Paul, are
by some one who believed that the Apostle did a good deal after the
close of the Acts. (2) The famous passage in Clement of Rome (_Cor._ v.)
tells that St. Paul "won the noble renown which was the reward of his
faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and _having
reached the furthest bound of the West_ (=to terma tes dyseos=)." This
probably means Spain;[10] and if St. Paul ever went to Spain as he hoped
to do (Rom. xv. 24, 28), it was after the imprisonment narrated in the
Acts. Clement gives us the tradition in Rome (c. A.D. 95). (3) The
Muratorian fragment (c. A.D. 170) mentions the "departure of Paul from
the city to Spain." (4) Eusebius (_H.E._, II. xxii. 2) says that at the
end of the two years of imprisonment, according to tradition, the
Apostle went forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and on a second
visit to the city ended his career by martyrdom under Nero; and that
during this imprisonment he composed the Second Epistle to Timothy. All
this does not amount to proof; but it raises the hypothesis of the
release to a high degree of probability. Nothing of this kind can be
urged in favour of the counter hypothesis. To urge the improbability
that the labours of these last few years of St. Paul's life would be
left unrecorded is no argument. (1) They are partly recorded in the
Pastoral Epistles. (2) The entire labours of most of the Twelve are left
unrecorded. Even of St. Paul's life, whole years are left a blank. How
fragmentary the narrative in the Acts must be is proved by the
autobiography in 2 Corinthians. That we have very scanty notice of St.
Paul's doings between the two imprisonments does not render the
existence of such an interval at all doubtful.

The result of this preliminary discussion seems to show that the
objections which have been urged against these Epistles are not such as
to compel us to doubt that in studying them we are studying the last
writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. If any doubts still survive, a
closer examination of the details will, it is hoped, tend to remove
rather than to strengthen them. When we have completed our survey, we
may be able to add our testimony to those who through many centuries
have found these writings a source of Divine guidance, warning, and
encouragement, especially in ministerial work. The experience of
countless numbers of pastors attests the wisdom of the Church, or in
other words the good Providence of God, in causing these Epistles to be
included among the sacred Scriptures.

"It is an established fact," as Bernhard Weiss rightly points out
(_Introduction to the New Testament_, vol. i., p. 410), "that the
essential, fundamental features of the Pauline doctrine of salvation are
even in their specific expression reproduced in our Epistles with a
clearness such as we do not find in any Pauline disciple, excepting
perhaps Luke or the Roman Clement." Whoever composed them had at his
command, not only St. Paul's forms of doctrine and expression, but large
funds of Apostolic zeal and discretion, such as have proved capable of
warming the hearts and guiding the judgments of a long line of
successors. Those who are conscious of these effects upon themselves
will probably find it easier to believe that they have derived these
benefits from the great Apostle himself, rather than from one who, with
however good intentions, assumed his name and disguised himself in his
mantle. Henceforward, until we find serious reason for doubt, it will be
assumed that in these Epistles we have the farewell counsels of none
other than St Paul.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Adv. Marc._, V. xxi.

[2] _Clem. Rom._ I. ii., xxix., lxi.; Ign. _Magn._ viii., _Pol. passim_;
Polycarp, iv; Theoph. _Autol._, III., xiv,; Iren., _Haer._, III. iii. 3,
4; Euseb. _H. E._, III. xxv., 2., xxvi. 4., xxxii. 8.

[3] "The wealth and mobility of the Pauline intellect ... must not be
fettered in mode of teaching or expression by a rule taken from a number
of older epistles arbitrarily selected."--BERNHARD WEISS, _Introduction
to the N. T._, i. p. 410 (Hodder: 1887).

[4] Among them Alford, Baumgarten, Beck, Doellinger, Fairbairn, Farrar,
Guericke, Herzog, Hofmann, Huther, Koelling, Lange, Lightfoot, Neander,
Oosterzee, Otto, Plumptre, Salmon, Schaff, Thiersch, Wace, Wieseler,
Wiesinger, Wordsworth.

[5] Among them Credner, S. Davidson, Ewald, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld,
Holtzmann, Mangold, Schenkel, and on the whole De Wette.

[6] Schmidt and Schleiermacher followed by Bleek.

[7] Similar admissions, which are quite fatal to the view that the three
Epistles are not genuine, are made by Hausrath, Immer and Lemme; while
Ewald, Hitzig, Krenkel, and Weisse think that Titus contains authentic
fragments. See the exposition of 2 Tim. iv. 9-21.

[8] What forger would have thought of the cloak (or book-case) left at
Troas with Carpus, or would have been careful to speak only of "the
_house_ of Onesiphorus," and not of himself, in two places?

[9] _Paul, his Life and Works_, Pt. II., ch. viii. Eng. Trans., p. 105.

[10] It cannot possibly mean Rome; least of all in a document written in
Rome. Rome was a centre, not a frontier.




_THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY._




CHAPTER II.

_TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF ST. PAUL. HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER._

    "Timothy, my true child in faith."--1 TIM. i. 2.

    "Timothy, my beloved child."--2 TIM. i. 2.


In the relation of St. Paul to Timothy we have one of those beautiful
friendships between an older and a younger man which are commonly so
helpful to both. It is in such cases, rather than where the friends are
equals in age, that each can be the real complement of the other. Each
by his abundance can supply the other's want, whereas men of equal age
would have common wants and common supplies. In this respect the
friendship between St. Paul and Timothy reminds us of that between St.
Peter and St. John. In each case the friend who took the lead was much
older than the other; and (what is less in harmony with ordinary
experience) in each case it was the older friend who had the impulse and
the enthusiasm, the younger who had the reflectiveness and the reserve.
These latter qualities are perhaps less marked in St. Timothy than in
St. John, but nevertheless they are there, and they are among the
leading traits of his character. St. Paul leans on him while he guides
him, and relies upon his thoughtfulness and circumspection in cases
requiring firmness, delicacy, and tact. Of the affection with which he
regarded Timothy we have evidence in the whole tone of the two letters
to him. In the sphere of faith Timothy is his "_own true_ child" (not
merely adopted, still less supposititious), and his "beloved child." St.
Paul tells the Corinthians that as the best means of making them
imitators of himself he has sent unto them "Timothy, who is my beloved
and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my
ways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every Church" (1
Cor. iv. 17). And a few years later he tells the Philippians that he
hopes to send Timothy shortly unto them, that he may know how they fare.
For he has no one like him, who will have a genuine anxiety about their
welfare. The rest care only for their own interests. "But the proof of
him ye know, that, as a child a father, so he slaved with me for the
Gospel" (ii. 22). Of all whom he ever converted to the faith Timothy
seems to have been to St. Paul the disciple who was most beloved and
most trusted. Following the example of the fourth Evangelist, Timothy
might have called himself "The disciple whom Paul loved." He shared his
spiritual father's outward labours and most intimate thoughts. He was
with him when the Apostle could not or would not have the companionship
of others. He was sent on the most delicate and confidential missions.
He had charge of the most important congregations. When the Apostle was
in his last and almost lonely imprisonment it was Timothy whom he
summoned to console him and receive his last injunctions.

There is another point in which the beloved disciple of the Pastoral
Epistles resembles the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. We are apt
to think of both of them as always young. Christian art nearly
invariably represents St. John as a man of youthful and almost feminine
appearance. And, although in Timothy's case, painters and sculptors have
not done much to influence our imagination, yet the picture which we
form for ourselves of him is very similar to that which we commonly
receive of St. John. With strange logic this has actually been made an
argument against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Myth, we are
told, has given to this Christian Achilles the attributes of eternal
youth. Timothy was a lad of about fifteen when St. Paul converted him at
Lystra, in or near A.D. 45; and he was probably not yet thirty-five when
St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to him. Even if he had been much older
there would be nothing surprising in the tone of St. Paul's letters to
him. It is one of the commonest experiences to find elderly parents
speaking of their middle-aged children as if they were still boys and
girls. This trait, as being so entirely natural, ought to count as a
touch beyond the reach of a forger rather than as a circumstance that
ought to rouse our suspicions, in the letters of "Paul the aged"[11] to
a friend who was thirty years younger than himself.

Once more, the notices of Timothy which have come down to us, like those
which we have respecting the beloved disciple, are very fragmentary; but
they form a beautiful and consistent sketch of one whose full portrait
we long to possess.

Timothy was a native, possibly of Derbe, but more probably of the
neighbouring town of Lystra, where he was piously brought up in a
knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures by his grandmother Lois and his
mother Eunice. It was probably during St Paul's first visit to Lystra,
on his first missionary journey, that he became the boy's spiritual
father, by converting him to the Christian faith. It was at Lystra that
the Apostle was stoned by the mob and dragged outside the city as dead:
and there is no improbability in the suggestion that, when he recovered
consciousness and re-entered the town, it was in the home of Timothy
that he found shelter. In any case Lystra was to the Apostle a place of
strangely mixed associations; the brutality of the pagan multitude side
by side with the tender friendship of the young Timothy. When St. Paul
on his next missionary journey again visited Lystra he found Timothy
already enjoying a good report among the Christians of that place and of
Iconium for his zeal and devotion during the six or seven years which
had elapsed since his first visit. Perhaps he had been engaged in
missionary work in both places. The voices of the prophets had singled
him out as one worthy of bearing office in the Church; and the Apostle,
still grieving over the departure of Barnabas with John Mark, recognized
in him one who with Silas could fill the double vacancy. The conduct of
the Apostle of the Gentiles on this occasion has sometimes excited
surprise. Previously to the ordination, Paul, the great proclaimer of
the abrogation of the Law by the Gospel, circumcised the young
evangelist. The inconsistency is more apparent than real. It was an
instance of his becoming "all things to all men" for the salvation of
souls, and of his sacrificing his own convictions in matters that were
not essential, rather than cause others to offend. Timothy's father had
been a Gentile, and the son, though brought up in his mother's faith,
had never been circumcised. To St. Paul circumcision was a worthless
rite. The question was, whether it was a harmless one. This depended
upon circumstances. If, as among the Galatians, it caused people to rely
upon the Law and neglect the Gospel, it was a superstitious obstacle
with which no compromise could be made. But if it was a passport whereby
preachers, who would otherwise be excluded, might gain access to Jewish
congregations, then it was not only a harmless but a useful ceremony. In
the synagogue Timothy as an uncircumcised Jew would have been an
intolerable abomination, and would never have obtained a hearing. To
free him from this crippling disadvantage, St. Paul subjected him to a
rite which he himself knew to be obsolete. Then followed the ordination,
performed with great solemnity by the laying on of the hands of all the
elders of the congregation: and the newly ordained Evangelist forthwith
set out to accompany Paul and Silas in their labours for the Gospel.
Wherever they went they distributed copies of the decrees of the
Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which declared circumcision to be
unnecessary for Gentiles. Their true position with regard to
circumcision was thus made abundantly evident. For the sake of others
they had abstained from availing themselves of the very liberty which
they proclaimed.

In the Troad they met Luke the beloved physician (as indicated by the
sudden use of the first person plural in the Acts), and took him on with
them to Philippi. Here probably, as certainly afterwards at Beroea,
Timothy was left behind by Paul and Silas to consolidate their work. He
rejoined the Apostle at Athens, but was thence sent back on a mission to
Thessalonica, and on his return found St. Paul at Corinth. The two
Epistles written from Corinth to the Thessalonians are in the joint
names of Paul and Timothy. At Corinth, as at Lystra, Iconium, and
Philippi, Timothy became prominent for his zeal as an evangelist; and
then for about five years we lose sight of him. We may think of him as
generally at the side of St. Paul, and as always working with him; but
of the details of the work we are ignorant. About A.D. 57 he was sent by
St. Paul on a delicate mission to Corinth. This was before 1 Corinthians
was written; for in that letter St. Paul states that he has sent Timothy
to Corinth, but writes as if he expected that the letter would reach
Corinth before him. He charges the Corinthians not to aggravate the
young evangelist's natural timidity, and not to let his youth prejudice
them against him. When St. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia later
in the year, Timothy was again with him, for his name is coupled with
Paul's: and he is still with him when the Apostle wrote to the Romans
from Corinth, for he joins in sending salutations to the Roman
Christians. We find him still at St. Paul's side on his way back to
Jerusalem through Philippi, the Troad, Tyre, and Caesarea. And here we
once more lose trace of him for some years. We do not know what he was
doing during St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Caesarea; but he
joined him during the first imprisonment at Rome, for the Epistles to
the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon are written in the names
of Paul and Timothy. From the passage already quoted from Philippians we
may conjecture that Timothy went to Philippi and returned again before
the Apostle was released. At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews we
read, "Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty." It is
possible that the imprisonment to which this notice refers was
contemporaneous with the first imprisonment of St. Paul, and that it is
again referred to in 1 Timothy (vi. 12) as "the good confession" which
he "confessed in the sight of many witnesses."

The few additional facts respecting Timothy are given us in the two
letters to him. Some time after St. Paul's release the two were together
in Ephesus; and when the Apostle went on into Macedonia he left his
companion behind him to warn and exhort certain holders of erroneous
doctrine to desist from teaching it. There were tears, on the younger
friend's side at any rate, to which St. Paul alludes at the opening of
the Second Epistle; and they were natural enough. The task imposed upon
Timothy was no easy one; and after the dangers and sufferings to which
the Apostle had been exposed, and which his increasing infirmities
continually augmented, it was only too possible that the friends would
never meet again. So far as we know, these gloomy apprehensions may have
been realized. In his first letter, written from Macedonia, St. Paul
expresses a hope of returning very soon to Timothy; but, like some other
hopes expressed in St. Paul's Epistles, it was perhaps never fulfilled.
The second letter, written from Rome, contains no allusion to any
intermediate meeting. In this second letter he twice implores Timothy to
do all he can to come to him without delay, for he is left almost alone
in his imprisonment. But whether Timothy was able to comply with this
wish we have no means of knowing. We like to think of the beloved
disciple as comforting the last hours of his master; but, although the
conjecture may be a right one, we must remember that it is conjecture
and no more. With the Second Epistle to him ends all that we really know
of Timothy. Tradition and ingenious guesswork add a little more which
can be neither proved nor disproved. More than two hundred years after
his death, Eusebius tells us that he is related to have held the office
of overseer of the diocese of Ephesus; and five centuries later
Nicephorus tells us, that he was beaten to death by the Ephesian mob for
protesting against the licentiousness of their worship of Artemis. It
has been conjectured that Timothy may be the "Angel" of the Church of
Ephesus, who is partly praised and partly blamed in the Apocalypse, and
parallels have been drawn between the words of blame in Rev. ii. 4, 5,
and the uneasiness which seems to underlie one or two passages in the
Second Epistle to Timothy. But the resemblances are too slight to be
relied upon. All we can say is, that even if the later date be taken for
the Apocalypse, Timothy may have been overseer of the Church of Ephesus
at the time when the book was written.

But of all the scattered memorials that have come down to us respecting
this beautiful friendship between the great Apostle and his chief
disciple, the two letters of the older friend to the younger are by far
the chief. And there is so much in them that fits with exquisite nicety
into the known conditions of the case, that it is hard to imagine how
any forger of the second century could so have thrown himself into the
situation. Where else in that age have we evidence of any such literary
and historical skill? The tenderness and affection, the anxiety and
sadness, the tact and discretion, the strength and large-mindedness of
St. Paul are all there; and his relation to his younger but much-trusted
disciple is quite naturally sustained throughout. Against this it is not
much to urge that there are some forty words and phrases in these
Epistles which do not occur in the other Epistles of St. Paul. The
explanation of that fact is easy. Partly they are words which in his
other Epistles he had no need to use; partly they are words which the
circumstances of these later letters suggested to him, and which those
of the earlier letters did not. The vocabulary of every man of active
mind who reads and mixes with other men, especially if he travels much,
is perpetually changing. He comes across new metaphors, new figures of
speech, remembers them, and uses them. The reading of such a work as
Darwin's _Origin of Species_ gives a man command of a new sphere of
thought and expression. The conversation of such a man as "Luke the
beloved physician" would have a similar effect on St. Paul. We shall
never know the minds or the circumstances which suggested to him the
language which has now become our own possession; and it is unreasonable
to suppose that the process of assimilation came to a dead stop in the
Apostle's mind when he finished the Epistles of the first imprisonment.
The result, therefore, of this brief survey of the life of Timothy is to
confirm rather than to shake our belief that the letters which are
addressed to him were really written by his friend St. Paul.

The friendship between these two men of different gifts and very
different ages is full of interest. It is difficult to estimate which of
the two friends gained most from the affection and devotion of the
other. No doubt Timothy's debt to St. Paul was immense: and which of us
would not think himself amply paid for any amount of service and
sacrifice, in having the privilege of being the chosen friend of such a
man as St. Paul? But on the other hand, few men could have supplied the
Apostle's peculiar needs as Timothy did. That intense craving for
sympathy which breathes so strongly throughout the writings of St. Paul,
found its chief human satisfaction in Timothy. To be alone in a crowd
is a trial to most men; and few men have felt the oppressiveness of it
more keenly than St. Paul. To have some one, therefore, who loved and
reverenced him, who knew his "ways" and could impress them on others,
who cared for those for whom Paul cared and was ever willing to minister
to them as his friend's missioner and delegate--all this and much more
was inexpressibly comforting to St. Paul. It gave him strength in his
weaknesses, hope in his many disappointments, and solid help in his
daily burden of "anxiety for all the Churches." Specially consoling was
the clinging affection of his young friend at those times when the
Apostle was suffering from the coldness and neglect of others. At the
time of his first imprisonment the respect or curiosity of the Roman
Christians had moved many of them to come out thirty miles to meet him
on his journey from Caesarea to Rome; yet as soon as he was safely lodged
in the house of his gaoler they almost ceased to minister to him. But
the faithful disciple seems to have been ever at his side. And when the
Romans treated Paul with similar indifference during his second
imprisonment, it was this same disciple that he earnestly besought to
come with all speed to comfort him. It was not merely that he loved and
trusted Timothy as one upon whose devotion and discretion he could
always rely: but Timothy was the one among his many disciples who had
sacrificed everything for St. Paul and his Master. He had left a loving
mother and a pleasant home in order to share with the Apostle a task
which involved ceaseless labour, untold anxiety, not a little shame and
obloquy, and at times even danger to life and limb. When he might have
continued to live on as the favourite of his family, enjoying the
respect of the presbyters and prophets of Lycaonia, he chose to wander
abroad with the man to whom, humanly speaking, he owed his salvation,
"in journeyings often," in perils of every kind from the powers of
nature, and from the violence or treachery of man, and in all those
countless afflictions and necessities, of which St. Paul gives us such a
touching summary in the second letter to the Corinthians. All this St.
Paul knew, and he knew the value of it to himself and the Church; and
hence the warm affection with which the Apostle always speaks of him and
to him.

But what did not Timothy owe to his friend, his father in the faith, old
enough to be his father in the flesh? Not merely his conversion and his
building up in Christian doctrine, though that was much, and the chief
item of his debt. But St. Paul had tenderly watched over him among the
difficulties to which a person of his temperament would be specially
exposed. Timothy was young, enthusiastic, sensitive, and at times showed
signs of timidity. If his enthusiasm were not met with a generous
sympathy, there was danger lest the sensitive nature would shrivel up on
contact with an unfeeling world, and the enthusiasm driven in upon
itself would be soured into a resentful cynicism. St. Paul not only
himself gave to his young disciple the sympathy that he needed; he
encouraged others also to do the same. "Now if Timothy come," he writes
to the Corinthians, "see that he be with you without fear; for he
worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise
him." He warned these factious and fastidious Greeks against chilling
the generous impulses of a youthful evangelist by their sarcastic
criticisms. Timothy might be wanting in the brilliant gifts which
Corinthians adored: in knowledge of the world, in address, in oratory.
But he was real. He was working God's work with a single heart and with
genuine fervour. It would be a cruel thing to mar that simplicity or
quench that fervour, and thus turn a genuine enthusiast into a
cold-blooded man of the world. On their treatment of him might depend
whether he raised them to his own zeal for Christ, or they dragged him
down to the level of their own paralysing superciliousness.

The dangers from which St. Paul thus generously endeavoured to shield
Timothy, are those which beset many an ardent spirit, especially in
England at the present day. Everywhere there is a cynical disbelief in
human nature and a cold contempt for all noble impulses, which throw a
damp and chilling atmosphere over society. At school and at the
university, in family life and in domestic service, young men and young
women are encouraged to believe that there is no such thing as
unselfishness or holiness, and that enthusiasm is always either silly or
hypocritical. By sarcastic jests and contemptuous smiles they are taught
the fatal lesson of speaking slightingly, and at last of thinking
slightingly, of their own best feelings. To be dutiful and affectionate
is supposed to be childish, while reverence and trust are regarded as
mere ignorance of the world. The mischief is a grave one, for it poisons
life at its very springs. Every young man and woman at times has
aspirations which at first are only romantic and sentimental, and as
such are neither right nor wrong. But they are nature's material for
higher and better things. They are capable of being developed into a
zeal for God and for man, such as will ennoble the characters of all who
come under its influence. The sentimentalist may become an enthusiast,
and the enthusiast a hero or a saint. Woe to him who gives to such
precious material a wrong turn, and by offering cynicism instead of
sympathy turns all its freshness sour. The loss does not end with the
blight of an exuberant and earnest character. There are huge masses of
evil in the world, which seem to defy the good influences that from time
to time are brought to bear upon them. Humanly speaking, there seems to
be only one hope of overcoming these strongholds of Satan,--and that is
by the combined efforts of many enthusiasts. "This is the victory which
overcometh the world, even our faith." It will be a grievous prospect
for mankind, if faith in God, in ourselves, and in our fellow-men
becomes so unfashionable as to be impossible. And this is the faith
which makes enthusiasts. If we have not this faith ourselves, we can at
least respect it in others. If we cannot play the part of Timothy, and
go forth with glowing hearts to whatever difficult and distasteful work
may be placed before us, we can at least avoid chilling and
disheartening others; and sometimes at least we may so far follow in the
footsteps of St. Paul as to protect from the world's cynicism those who,
with hearts more warm perhaps than wise, are labouring manfully to leave
the world purer and happier than they found it.

FOOTNOTES:

[11] "Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ" is
probably right in Philemon; but even there "Paul the aged" would be
true.




CHAPTER III.

_THE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM OF
GNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM._

    "As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into
    Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a
    different doctrine, neither to give heed to fables and endless
    genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a
    dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now"--_1 Tim._ i. 2,
    3.


This Epistle falls into two main divisions, of which the first continues
down to the 13th verse of chap. iii. It treats of three different
subjects: Christian doctrine; Christian worship; and the Christian
ministry. The first of these three subjects is introduced in the words
of the text, which in the original form an incomplete sentence. The last
four words, "so do I now," are not expressed in the Greek. But something
must be supplied to complete the sense; and it is more natural to
understand with the Revisers "So do I now exhort thee," than with the A.
V. "So do thou tarry at Ephesus." But the question is not of great
moment and cannot be decided with absolute certainty. It is of more
importance to enquire what was the nature of the "different doctrine"
which Timothy was to endeavour to counteract. And on this point we are
not left in serious doubt. There are various expressions used respecting
it in these two letters to Timothy which seem to point to two factors
in the heterodoxy about which St. Paul is anxious. It is clear that the
error is Jewish in origin; and it is almost equally clear that it is
Gnostic as well. The evidence of the letter to Titus tends materially to
confirm these conclusions.

(1) The heresy is _Jewish_ in character. Its promoters "desire to be
teachers of the Law" (ver. 7). Some of them are "they of the
circumcision" (Tit. i. 10). It consists in "Jewish fables" (Tit. i. 14).
The questions which it raises are "fightings about the Law" (Tit. iii.
9).

(2) Its _Gnostic_ character is also indicated. We are told both in the
text and in the Epistle to Titus (i. 14; iii. 9) that it deals in
"fables and genealogies." It is "empty talking" (ver. 6), "disputes of
words" (vi. 4), and "profane babblings" (vi. 20). It teaches, an
unscriptural and unnatural asceticism (iv. 3, 8). It is "Gnosis falsely
so called" (vi. 20).

A heresy containing these two elements, Judaism and Gnosticism, meets us
both before and after the period covered by the Pastoral Epistles:
before in the Epistle to the Colossians; afterwards in the Epistles of
Ignatius. The evidence gathered from these three sources is entirely in
harmony with what we learn elsewhere--that the earliest forms of
Christian Gnosticism were Jewish in character. It will be observed that
this is indirect confirmation of the genuineness of the Pastoral
Epistles. The Gnosticism condemned in them is Jewish; and any form of
Gnosticism that was in existence in St. Paul's time would almost
certainly be Jewish.[12]

Professor Godet has pointed out how entirely the relation of Judaism to
Christianity which is implied in these Epistles, fits in with their
being the last group of Epistles written by St. Paul. At first, Judaism
was entirely outside the Church, opposing and blaspheming. Then it
entered the Church and tried to make the Church Jewish, by foisting the
Mosaic Law upon it. Lastly, it becomes a fantastic heresy inside the
Church, and sinks into profane frivolity. "Pretended revelations are
given as to the names and genealogies of angels; absurd ascetic rules
are laid down as counsels of perfection, while daring immorality defaces
the actual life."[13] This is the phase which is confronted in the
Pastoral Epistles: and St. Paul meets it with a simple appeal to faith
and morality.

It is quite possible that the "fables," or "myths," and "genealogies"
ought to be transferred from the Gnostic to the Jewish side of the
account. And thus Chrysostom interprets the passage. "By fables he does
not mean the Law; far from it; but inventions and forgeries, and
counterfeit doctrines. For, it seems, the Jews wasted their whole
discourse on these unprofitable points. They numbered up their fathers
and grandfathers, that they might have the reputation of historical
knowledge and research." The "fables" then, may be understood to be
those numerous legends which the Jews added to the Old Testament,
specimens of which abound in the Talmud. But similar myths abound in
Gnostic systems, and therefore "fables" may represent _both_ elements of
the heterodox teaching. So also with the "endless genealogies." These
cannot well refer to the genealogies in Genesis, for they are not
endless, each of them being arranged in tens. But it is quite possible
that Jewish speculations about the genealogies of angels may be meant.
Such things, being purely imaginary, would be endless. Or the Gnostic
doctrine of emanations, in its earlier and cruder forms, may be
intended. By genealogies in this sense early thinkers, especially in the
East, tried to bridge the chasm between the Infinite and the Finite,
between God and creation. In various systems it is assumed that matter
is inherently evil. The material universe has been from the beginning
not "very good" but very bad. How then can it be believed that the
Supreme Being, infinite in goodness, would create such a thing? This is
incredible: the world must be the creature of some inferior and perhaps
evil being. But when this was conceded, the distance between this
inferior power and the supreme God still remained to be bridged. This,
it was supposed, might be done by an indefinite number of generations,
each lower in dignity than the preceding one, until at last a being
capable of creating the universe was found. From the Supreme God
emanated an inferior deity, and from this lower power a third still more
inferior; and so on, until the Creator of the world was reached. These
ideas are found in the Jewish philosopher Philo; and it is to these that
St. Paul probably alludes in the "endless genealogies which minister
questionings rather than a dispensation of God." The idea that matter is
evil dominates the whole philosophy of Philo. He endeavoured to
reconcile this with the Old Testament, by supposing that matter is
eternal; and that it was out of pre-existing material that God, acting
through His creative powers, made the world which He pronounced to be
"very good." These powers are sometimes regarded as the angels,
sometimes as existences scarcely personal. But they have no existence
apart from their source, any more than a ray apart from the sun. They
are now the instruments of God's Providence, as formerly of His creative
power.

St. Paul condemns such speculations on four grounds. (1) They are
_fables_, myths, mere imaginings of the human intellect in its attempt
to account for the origin of the world and the origin of evil. (2) They
are _endless_ and interminable. From the nature of things there is no
limit to mere guesswork of this kind. Every new speculator may invent a
fresh genealogy of emanations in his theory of creation, and may make it
any length that he pleases. If hypotheses need never be verified,--need
not even be _capable_ of verification,--one may go on constructing them
_ad infinitum_. (3) As a natural consequence of this (=haitines=) they
_minister questionings_ and nothing better. It is all barren speculation
and fruitless controversy. Where any one may assert without proof, any
one else may contradict without proof; and nothing comes of this see-saw
of affirmation and negation. (4) Lastly, these vain imaginings are _a
different doctrine_. They are not only empty but untrue, and are a
hindrance to the truth. They occupy the ground which ought to be filled
with the _dispensation of God which is in faith_. Human minds are
limited in their capacity, and, even if these empty hypotheses were
innocent, minds that were filled with them would have little room left
for the truth. But they are not innocent: and those who are attracted by
them become disaffected towards the truth. It is impossible to love
both, for the two are opposed to one another. These fables are
baseless; they have no foundation either in revelation or in human life.
Moreover they are vague, shifting, and incoherent. They ramble on
without end. But the Gospel is based on a Divine Revelation, tested by
human experience. It is an economy, a system, an organic whole, a
dispensation of means to ends. Its sphere is not unbridled imagination
or audacious curiosity, but faith.

The history of the next hundred and fifty years amply justifies the
anxiety and severity of St. Paul. The germs of Gnostic error, which were
in the air when Christianity was first preached, fructified with amazing
rapidity. It would be hard to find a parallel in the history of
philosophy to the speed with which Gnostic views spread in and around
Christendom between A.D. 70 and 220. Eusebius tells us that, as soon as
the Apostles and those who had listened "with their own ears to their
inspired wisdom had passed away, then the conspiracy of godless error
took its rise through the deceit of false teachers, who (now that none
of the Apostles was any longer left) henceforth endeavoured with brazen
face to preach their _knowledge falsely so called_ in opposition to the
preaching of the truth."[14] Throughout the Christian world, and
especially in intellectual centres such as Ephesus, Alexandria and Rome,
there was perhaps not a single educated congregation which did not
contain persons who were infected with some form of Gnosticism. Jerome's
famous hyperbole respecting Arianism might be transferred to this
earlier form of error, perhaps the most perilous that the Church has
ever known: "The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself
_Gnostic_."

However severely we may condemn these speculations, we cannot but
sympathize with the perplexities which produced them. The origin of the
universe, and still more the origin of evil, still remain unsolved
problems. No one in this life is ever likely to reach a complete
solution of either. What is the origin of the material universe? To
assume that it is not a creature, but that matter is eternal, is to make
two first principles, one spiritual and one material; and this is
perilously near making two Gods. But the belief that God made the world
is by no means free from difficulty. What was His motive in making the
world? Was His perfection increased by it? Then God was once not fully
perfect. Was His perfection diminished by the act of creation? Then God
is now not fully perfect; and how can we suppose that He would
voluntarily surrender anything of His absolute perfection? Was God
neither the better nor the worse for the creation of the universe? Then
the original question returns with its full force: What induced Him to
create it? We cannot suppose that creation was an act of caprice. No
complete answer to this enigma is possible for us. One thing we
know;--that _God is light_ and that _God is love_. And we may be sure
that in exercising His creative power He was manifesting His perfect
wisdom and His exhaustless affection.

But will the knowledge that _God is light_ and that _God is love_ help
us to even a partial solution of that problem which has wrung the souls
of countless saints and thinkers with anguish--the problem of the origin
of evil? How could a God who is perfectly wise and perfectly good, make
it possible for evil to arise, and allow it to continue after it had
arisen? Once more the suggestion that there are two First Principles
presents itself, but in a more terrible form. Before, it was the thought
that there are two co-eternal Existences, God and Matter. Now, it is the
suggestion that there are two co-eternal, and perhaps co-equal Powers,
Good and Evil. This hypothesis, impossible for a Christian and rejected
by John Stuart Mill,[15] creates more difficulties than it solves. But,
if this is the wrong answer, what is the right one? Cardinal Newman, in
one of the most striking passages even in his works, has told us how the
problem presents itself to him. "Starting then with the being of God
(which, as I have said, is as certain to me as the certainty of my own
existence, though when I try to put the grounds of that certainty into
logical shape, I find difficulty in doing so in mood and figure to my
satisfaction), I look out of myself into the world of men, and there I
see a sight which fills me with unspeakable distress. The world seems
simply to give the lie to that great truth, of which my whole being is
so full; and the effect upon me is, in consequence, as a matter of
necessity, as confusing as if it denied that I am in existence myself.
_If I looked into a mirror, and did not see my face, I should have the
sort of feeling which actually comes upon me, when I look into this
living busy world and see no reflection of its Creator._ This is, to me,
one of the great difficulties of this absolute primary truth, to which I
referred just now. Were it not for this voice, speaking so clearly in my
conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist, or a
polytheist, when I looked into the world. I am speaking for myself only;
and I am far from denying the real force of the arguments in proof of a
God, drawn from the general facts of human society, but these do not
warm me or enlighten me; they do not take away the winter of my
desolation, or make the buds unfold and the leaves grow within me, and
my moral being rejoice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the
prophet's scroll full of 'lamentations, and mourning, and woe.' ... What
shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can
only answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of
men is in a true sense discarded from His presence. Did I see a boy of
good make and mind, with the tokens on him of a refined nature, cast
upon the world without provision, unable to say whence he came, his
birthplace or his family connexions, I should conclude that there was
some mystery connected with his history, and that he was one, of whom,
from one cause or other, his parents were ashamed. Thus only should I be
able to account for the contrast between the promise and condition of
his being. And so I argue about the world;--_if_ there be a God, _since_
there is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal
calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a
fact, a fact as true as the fact of its existence; and thus the doctrine
of what is theologically called original sin becomes to me almost as
certain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God."[16]

But this only carries us a short way towards a solution. Why did God
allow the "aboriginal calamity" of sin to be possible? This was the
Gnostic's difficulty, and it is our difficulty still. Can we say more
than this by way of an answer? God willed that angels and men should
honour Him with a voluntary and not a mechanical service. If they
obeyed Him, it should be of their own free will, and not of necessity.
It should be possible to them to refuse service and obedience. In short,
God willed to be reverenced and worshipped, and not merely served and
obeyed. A machine can render service; and a person under the influence
of mesmerism may be forced to obey. But do we not all feel that the
voluntary service of a conscious and willing agent, who prefers to
render rather than to withhold his service, is a nobler thing both for
him who gives, and him who receives it? Compulsory labour is apt to turn
the servant into a slave and the master into a tyrant. We see,
therefore, a reason why the Creator in creating conscious beings made
them also moral; made them capable of obeying Him of their own free
will, and therefore also capable of disobeying Him. In other words, He
made sin, with all its consequences, possible. Then it became merely a
question of historical fact whether any angelic or human being would
ever abuse his freedom by choosing to disobey. That "aboriginal
calamity," we know, has taken place; and all the moral and physical evil
which now exists in the world, is the natural consequence of it.

This is, perhaps, the best solution that the human mind is likely to
discover, respecting this primeval and terrible mystery. But it is only
a partial solution; and the knowledge that we have still not attained to
a complete answer to the question which perplexed the early Gnostics,
ought to banish from our minds anything like arrogance or contempt, when
we condemn their answer as unchristian and inadequate. "The end of the
charge" which has been given to us is not the condemnation of others,
but "love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith
unfeigned."

FOOTNOTES:

[12] F. C. Baur himself contends that the false teachers here condemned
are "Judaizing Gnostics, who put forth their figurative interpretation
of the Law as true knowledge of the Law. Such were the earlier Gnostics,
such as the Ophites and Saturninus" (_Protestant Commentary_, note on 1
Tim. i. 7).

[13] _Expositor_, July, 1888, p. 42.

[14] _H. E._, VI, xxxii. 8.

[15] _Three Essays on Religion_, pp. 185, 186.

[16] _Apologia pro Vita Sua_ (Longmans, 1864), pp. 376-379.




CHAPTER IV.

_THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART._

    "But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully, as
    knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
    lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and
    profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
    man-slayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men,
    for men-stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any
    other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel
    of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust"--1
    Tim. i. 8-11.


The speculations of the Gnostics in their attempts to explain the origin
of the universe and the origin of evil, were wild and unprofitable
enough; and in some respects involved a fundamental contradiction of the
plain statements of Scripture. But it was not so much their metaphysical
as their moral teaching, which seemed so perilous to St. Paul. Their
"endless genealogies" might have been left to fall with their own dead
weight, so dull and uninteresting were they. Specimens of them still
survive, in what is known to us of the systems of Basilides and
Valentinus; and which of us, after having laboriously worked through
them, ever wished to read them a second time? But it is impossible to
keep one's philosophy in one compartment in one's mind, and one's
religion and morality quite separate from it in another. However
unpractical metaphysical speculations may appear, it is beyond question
that the views which we hold respecting such things may have momentous
influence upon our life. It was so with the early Gnostics, whom St.
Paul urges Timothy to keep in check. Their doctrine respecting the
nature of the material world and its relation to God, led to two
opposite forms of ethical teaching, each of them radically opposed to
Christianity.

This fact fits in very well with the character of the Pastoral Epistles,
all of which deal with this early form of error. They insist upon
discipline and morality, more than upon doctrine. These last solemn
charges of the great Apostle aim rather at making Christian ministers,
and their congregations, lead pure and holy lives, than at constructing
any system of theology. Erroneous teaching must be resisted; the plain
truths of the Gospel must be upheld; but the main thing is holiness of
life. By prayer and thanksgiving, by quiet and grave conduct, by modesty
and temperance, by self-denial and benevolence, by reverence for the
sanctity of home life, Christians will furnish the best antidote to the
intellectual and moral poison which the false teachers are propagating.
"The sound doctrine" has its fruit in a healthy, moral life, as surely
as the "different doctrine" leads to spiritual pride and lawless
sensuality.

The belief that Matter and everything material is inherently evil,
involved necessarily a contempt for the human body. This body was a vile
thing; and it was a dire calamity to the human mind to be joined to such
a mass of evil. From this premise various conclusions, some doctrinal
and some ethical, were drawn.

On the doctrinal side it was urged that the resurrection of the body was
incredible. It was disastrous enough to the soul that it should be
burdened with a body in this world. That this degrading alliance would
be continued in the world to come, was a monstrous belief. Equally
incredible was the doctrine of the Incarnation. How could the Divine
Word consent to be united with so evil a thing as a material frame?
Either the Son of Mary was a mere man, or the body which the Christ
assumed was not real. It is with these errors that St. John deals, some
twelve or fifteen years later, in his Gospel and Epistles.

On the ethical side the tenet that the human body is utterly evil
produced two opposite errors,--asceticism and antinomian sensuality. And
both of these are aimed at in these Epistles. If the enlightenment of
the soul is everything, and the body is utterly worthless, then this
vile clog to the movement of the soul must be beaten under and crushed,
in order that the higher nature may rise to higher things. The body must
be denied all indulgence, in order that it may be starved into
submission (iv. 3). On the other hand, if enlightenment is everything
and the body is worthless, then every kind of experience, no matter how
shameless, is of value, in order to enlarge knowledge. Nothing that a
man can do can make his body more vile than it is by nature, and the
soul of the enlightened is incapable of pollution. Gold still remains
gold, however often it is plunged in the mire.

The words of the three verses taken as a text, look as if St. Paul was
aiming at evil of this kind. These Judaizing Gnostics "desired to be
teachers of the Law." They wished to enforce the Mosaic Law, or rather
their fantastic interpretations of it, upon Christians. They insisted
upon its excellence, and would not allow that it has been in many
respects superseded. "We know quite well," says the Apostle, "and
readily admit, that the Mosaic Law is an excellent thing; provided that
those who undertake to expound it make a legitimate use of it. They must
remember that, just as law in general is not made for those whose own
good principles keep them in the right, so also the restrictions of the
Mosaic Law are not meant for Christians who obey the Divine will in the
free spirit of the Gospel." Legal restrictions are intended to control
those who will not control themselves; in short, for the very men who by
their strange doctrines are endeavouring to curtail the liberties of
others. What they preach as "the Law" is really a code of their own,
"commandments of men who turn away from the truth.... They profess that
they know God; but by their works they deny Him, being abominable, and
disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Tit. i. 14, 16). In
rehearsing the various kinds of sinners for whom law exists, and who are
to be found (he hints) among these false teachers, he goes roughly
through the Decalogue. The four commandments of the First Table are
indicated in general and comprehensive terms; the first five
commandments of the Second Table are taken one by one, flagrant
violators being specified in each case. Thus the stealing of a human
being in order to make him a slave, is mentioned as the most outrageous
breach of the eighth commandment. The tenth commandment is not
distinctly indicated, possibly because the breaches of it are not so
easily detected. The overt acts of these men were quite sufficient to
convict them of gross immorality, without enquiring as to their secret
wishes and desires. In a word, the very persons who in their teaching
were endeavouring to burden men with the ceremonial ordinances, which
had been done away in Christ, were in their own lives violating the
moral laws, to which Christ had given a new sanction. They tried to keep
alive, in new and strange forms, what had been provisional and was now
obsolete, while they trampled under foot what was eternal and Divine.

"If there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine." In these
words St. Paul sums up all the forms of transgression not specified in
his catalogue. The sound, healthy teaching of the Gospel is opposed to
the morbid and corrupt teaching of the Gnostics, who are sickly in their
speculations (vi. 4), and whose word is like an eating sore (2 Tim. ii.
17). Of course healthy teaching is also _health-giving_, and corrupt
teaching is _corrupting_; but it is the primary and not the derived
quality that is stated here. It is the healthiness of the doctrine in
itself, and its freedom from what is diseased or distorted, that is
insisted upon. Its wholesome character is a consequence of this.

This word "sound" or "healthy" (=hygiainon, hygies=), as applied to
doctrine,[17] is one of a group of expressions which are peculiar to the
Pastoral Epistles, and which have been condemned as not belonging to St.
Paul's style of language. He never uses "healthy" in his other Epistles;
therefore these three Epistles, in which the phrase occurs eight or nine
times, are not by him.

This kind of argument has been discussed already, in the first of these
expositions. It assumes the manifest untruth, that as life goes on men
make little or no change in the stock of words and phrases which they
habitually use. With regard to this particular phrase, the source of it
has been conjectured with a fair amount of probability. It may have come
from "the beloved physician," who, at the time when St. Paul wrote the
Second Epistle to Timothy, was the Apostle's sole companion. It is worth
remarking that the word here used for "sound" (with the exception of one
passage in the Third Epistle of St. John) occurs nowhere in the New
Testament in the literal sense of being in sound bodily health, except
in the Gospel of St. Luke. And it occurs nowhere in a figurative sense,
except in the Pastoral Epistles. It is obviously a medical metaphor; a
metaphor which any one who had never had anything to do with medicine
might easily use, but which is specially likely to be used by a man who
had lived much in the society of a physician. Before we call such a
phrase un-Pauline we must ask: (1) Is there any passage in the earlier
Epistles of St. Paul where he would certainly have used this word
"sound," had he been familiar with it? (2) Is there any word in the
earlier Epistles which would have expressed his meaning here equally
well? If either of these questions is answered in the negative, then we
are going beyond our knowledge in pronouncing the phrase "sound
doctrine"[18] to be un-Pauline.

"Contrary to the sound doctrine." It sums up in a comprehensive phrase
the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Gnostics. What they taught was
unsound and morbid, and as a consequence poisonous and pestilential.
While professing to accept and expound the Gospel, they really
disintegrated it and explained it away. They destroyed the very basis
of the Gospel message; for they denied the reality of sin. And they
equally destroyed the contents of the message; for they denied the
reality of the Incarnation. Nor were they less revolutionary on the
moral side than on the doctrinal. The foundations of morality are sapped
when intellectual enlightenment is accounted as the one thing needful,
while conduct is treated as a thing of no value. Principles of morality
are turned upside down when it is maintained that any act which adds to
one's knowledge is not only allowable, but a duty. It is necessary to
remember these fatal characteristics of this early form of error, in
order to appreciate the stern language used by St. Paul and St. John
respecting it, as also by St. Jude and the author of the Second Epistle
of Peter.

St. John in his Epistles deals mainly with the doctrinal side of the
heresy,--the denial of the reality of sin and of the reality of the
Incarnation:[19] although the moral results of doctrinal error are also
indicated and condemned.[20] In the Apocalypse, as in St. Paul and in
the Catholic Epistles, it is mainly the moral side of the false teaching
that is denounced, and that in both its opposite phases. The Epistle to
the Colossians deals with the _ascetic_ tendencies of early
gnosticism.[21] The Apocalypse and the Catholic Epistles deal with its
_licentious_ tendencies.[22] The Pastoral Epistles treat of both
asceticism and licentiousness, but chiefly of the latter, as is seen
from the passage before us and from the first part of chapter iii. in
the Second Epistle. As we might expect, St. Paul uses stronger language
in the Pastoral Epistles than he does in writing to the Colossians; and
in St. John and the Catholic Epistles we find stronger language still.
Antinomian licentiousness is a far worse evil than misguided asceticism,
and in the interval between St. Paul and the other writers the
profligacy of the antinomian Gnostics had increased. St. Paul warns the
Colossians against delusive "persuasiveness of speech," against "vain
deceit," "the rudiments of the world," "the precepts and doctrines of
men." He cautions Timothy and Titus respecting "seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils," "profane and old wives' fables," "profane
babblings" and teachings that "will eat as doth a gangrene," "vain
talkers and deceivers" whose "mind and conscience is deceived," and the
like. St. John denounces these false teachers as "liars," "seducers,"
"false prophets," "deceivers," and "antichrists;" and in Jude and the
Second Epistle of Peter we have the profligate lives of these false
teachers condemned in equally severe terms.

It should be observed that here again everything falls into its proper
place if we assume that the Pastoral Epistles were written some years
later than the Epistle to the Colossians and some years earlier than
those of St. Jude and St. John. The ascetic tendencies of Gnosticism
developed first. And though they still continued in teachers like Tatian
and Marcion, yet from the close of the first century the licentious
conclusions drawn from the premises that the human body is worthless and
that all knowledge is divine, became more and more prevalent; as is seen
in the teaching of Carpocrates and Epiphanes, and in the monstrous sect
of the Cainites. It was quite natural, therefore, that St. Paul should
attack Gnostic asceticism first in writing to the Colossians, and
afterwards both it and Gnostic licentiousness in writing to Timothy and
Titus. It was equally natural that his language should grow stronger as
he saw the second evil developing, and that those who saw this second
evil at a more advanced stage should use sterner language still.

The extravagant theories of the Gnostics to account for the origin of
the universe and the origin of evil are gone and are past recall. It
would be impossible to induce people to believe them, and only a
comparatively small number of students ever even read them. But the
heresy that knowledge is more important than conduct, that brilliant
intellectual gifts render a man superior to the moral law, and that much
of the moral law itself is the tyrannical bondage of an obsolete
tradition, is as dangerous as ever it was. It is openly preached and
frequently acted upon. The great Florentine artist, Benvenuto Cellini,
tells us in his autobiography that when Pope Paul III. expressed his
willingness to forgive him an outrageous murder committed in the streets
of Rome, one of the gentlemen at the Papal Court ventured to remonstrate
with the Pope for condoning so heinous a crime. "You do not understand
the matter as well as I do," replied Paul III.: "I would have you to
know that men like Benvenuto, unique in their profession, _are not bound
by the laws_." Cellini is a braggart, and it is possible that in this
particular he is romancing. But, even if the story is his invention, he
merely attributes to the Pope the sentiments which he cherished himself,
and upon which (as experience taught him) other people acted. Over and
over again his murderous violence was overlooked by those in authority,
because they admired and wished to make use of his genius as an artist.
"Ability before honesty" was a common creed in the sixteenth century,
and it is abundantly prevalent in our own. The most notorious scandals
in a man's private life are condoned if only he is recognized as having
talent. It is the old Gnostic error in a modern and sometimes agnostic
form. It is becoming daily more clear that the one thing needful for the
regeneration of society, whether upper, middle, or lower, is the
creation of a "sound" public opinion. And so long as this is so, God's
ministers and all who have the duty of instructing others will need to
lay to heart the warnings which St. Paul gives to his followers Timothy
and Titus.

FOOTNOTES:

[17] 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 8.

[18] The Revisers as a rule render =didaskalia= by "doctrine," as here,
iv. 6, vi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, 7, 10 (but not in iv.
13, 16, v. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16), while they render =didache= by
"teaching," as 2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 9, and frequently in the Gospels.
But =didaskalia=, as being closer to =didaskalos= "a teacher," is
"teaching" rather than "doctrine," and =didache= is "doctrine" rather
than "teaching." See p. 238.

[19] 1 John i. 8-10, ii. 22, 23, iii. 4, 8, iv. 2, 3, 15, v. 1, 5, 16,
17; 2 John 7.

[20] ii. 9, 11, iii. 15, 17.

[21] ii. 16, 21, 23.

[22] Rev. ii. 14, 20-22; 2 Peter ii. 10-22; Jude 8, 10, 13, 16, 18.




CHAPTER V.

_THE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A PERSECUTOR TO
BECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER OF THE GOSPEL._

    "I thank Him that enabled me, even Christ Jesus our Lord, for that
    He counted me faithful, appointing me to His service; though I was
    before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I
    obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; and the
    grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is
    in Christ Jesus."--1 TIM. i. 12-14.


In the concluding sentence of the preceding paragraph (vv. 3, 11) the
Apostle points out that what he has been saying respecting the erroneous
teaching and practice of the heterodox innovators is entirely in harmony
with the spirit of the Gospel which had been committed to his trust.[23]
This mention of his own high commission to preach "the Gospel of the
glory of the blessed God" suggests at once to him some thoughts both of
thankfulness and humility, to which he now gives expression. His own
experience of the Gospel, especially in connexion with his conversion
from being a persecutor to becoming a preacher, offer further points of
contrast between Gnosticism and Christianity.

The false teachers wasted thought and attention upon barren
speculations, which, even if they could under any conceivable
circumstances be proved true, would have supplied no guidance to mankind
in regulating conduct. And whenever Gnostic teaching became practical,
it frittered away morality in servile observances, based on capricious
interpretations of the Mosaic Law. Of true morality there was an utter
disregard, and frequently an open violation. Of the one thing for which
the self-accusing conscience was yearning--the forgiveness of sin--it
knew nothing, because it had no appreciation of the reality of sin. Sin
was only part of the evil which was inherent in the material universe,
and therefore in the human body. A system which had no place for the
forgiveness of sin had also no place for the Divine compassion, which it
is the purpose of the Gospel to reveal. How very real this compassion
and forgiveness are, and how much human beings stand in need of them,
St. Paul testifies from his own experience, the remembrance of which
makes him burst out into thanksgiving.

The Apostle offers thanks to Jesus Christ, the source of all his
strength, for having confidence in him as a person worthy of trust. This
confidence He proved by "appointing Paul to His service;" a confidence
all the more marvellous and worthy of gratitude because Paul had before
been "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious." He had been a
blasphemer, for he had thought that he "ought to do many things contrary
to the name of Jesus of Nazareth;" and he had been a persecutor for he
had punished believers "often-times in all the synagogues," and "strove
to make them blaspheme." That is ever the persecutor's aim;--to make
those who differ from him speak evil of what they reverence but he
abhors; to say they renounce what in their heart of hearts they believe.
There is, therefore, thus far an ascending scale in the iniquity which
the Apostle confesses. He not only blasphemed the Divine Name himself,
but he endeavoured to compel others to do the same. The third word,
although the English Version obscures the fact, continues the ascending
scale of self-condemnation. "Injurious" does scant justice to the force
of the Greek word used by the Apostle (=hybristes=), although it is not
easy to suggest a better rendering. The word is very common in classical
authors, but in the New Testament occurs only here and in Rom. i. 30,
where the A.V. translates it "despiteful" and the R.V. "insolent." It is
frequent in the Septuagint. It indicates one who takes an insolent and
wanton delight in violence, one whose pleasure lies in outraging the
feelings of others. The most conspicuous instance of it in the New
Testament, and perhaps anywhere, would be the Roman soldiers mocking and
torturing Jesus Christ with the crown of thorns and the royal robe. Of
such conduct St. Paul himself since his conversion had been the victim,
and he here confesses that before his conversion he had been guilty of
it himself. In his misguided zeal he had punished innocent people, and
he had inflicted punishment, not with pitying reluctance, but with
arrogant delight.

It is worth pointing out that in this third charge against himself, as
well as in the first, St. Paul goes beyond what he states in the similar
passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, and Galatians.
There he simply draws attention to the fact that he had been a
persecutor who had made havoc of the Church.[24] He says nothing about
blaspheming or taking an insolent satisfaction in the pain which he
inflicted. This has some bearing on the genuineness of this Epistle. (1)
It shows that St. Paul was in the habit of alluding to the fact that he
had been a persecutor. It was part of his preaching, for it proved that
his conversion was directly and immediately God's work. He did not owe
the Gospel which he preached to any persuasion on the part of man. It
is, therefore, quite in harmony with St. Paul's practice to insist on
his former misconduct. But it may be urged that a forger might notice
this and imitate it. That of course is true. But if these Epistles are a
forgery, they are certainly not forged with any intention of injuring
St. Paul's memory. Is it likely, then, that a forger in imitating the
self-accusation of the Apostle, would use stronger language than the
Apostle himself uses in those Epistles which are indisputably his? Would
he go out of his way to use such strong language as "blasphemer," and
"insolent oppressor"? But, if St. Paul wrote these Epistles, this
exceptionally strong language is thoroughly natural in a passage in
which the Apostle wishes to place in as strong a light as may be the
greatness of the Divine compassion in forgiving sins, as manifested in
his own case. He had been foremost as a bitter and arrogant opponent of
the Gospel; and yet God had singled him out to be foremost in preaching
it. Here was a proof that no sinner need despair. What comfort for a
fallen race could the false teachers offer in comparison with this?

Like St. Peter's sin in denying His Lord, St. Paul's sin in persecuting
Him was overruled for good. The Divine process of bringing good out of
evil was strongly exemplified in it. The Gnostic teachers had tried to
show how, by a gradual degradation, evil might proceed from the Supreme
Good. There is nothing Divine in such a process as that. The fall from
good to evil is rather a devilish one, as when an angel of light became
the evil one and involved mankind in his own fall. Divinity is shown in
the converse process of making what is evil work towards what is good.
Under Divine guidance St. Paul's self-righteous confidence and arrogant
intolerance were turned into a blessing to himself and others. The
recollection of his sin kept him humble, intensified his gratitude, and
gave him a strong additional motive to devote himself to the work of
bringing others to the Master who had been so gracious to himself. St.
Chrysostom in commenting on this passage in his Homilies on the Pastoral
Epistles points out how it illustrates St. Paul's humility, a virtue
which is more often praised than practised. "This quality was so
cultivated by the blessed Paul, that he is ever looking out for
inducements to be humble. They who are conscious to themselves of great
merits must struggle much with themselves if they would be humble. And
he too was one likely to be under violent temptations, his own good
conscience swelling him up like a gathering tumour.... Being filled,
therefore, with high thoughts, and having used magnificent expressions,
he at once depresses himself, and engages others also to do the like.
Having said, then, that _the Gospel was committed to his trust_, lest
this should seem to be said with pride, he checks himself at once,
adding by way of correction, _I thank Him that enabled me, Christ Jesus
our Lord, for that He counted me_ _faithful, appointing me to His
service_. Thus everywhere, we see, he conceals his own merit and
ascribes everything to God, yet so far only as not to take away free
will."

These concluding words are an important qualification. The Apostle
constantly insists on his conversion as the result of a special
revelation of Jesus Christ to himself, in other words a miracle: he
nowhere hints that his conversion in itself was miraculous. No
psychological miracle was wrought, forcing him to accept Christ against
his will. God converts no one by magic. It is a free and reasonable
service that he asks for from beings whom He has created free and
reasonable. Men were made moral beings, and He who made them such does
not treat them as machines. In his defence at Caesarea St. Paul tells
Herod Agrippa that he "was not _disobedient_ to the heavenly vision." He
might have been. He might, like Judas, have resisted all the miraculous
power displayed before him and have continued to persecute Christ. If he
had no choice whatever in the matter, it was an abuse of language to
affirm that he "was not disobedient." And in that case we should need
some other metaphor than "kicking against the goads." It is impossible
to kick against the goads if one has no control over one's own limbs.
The limbs and the strength to use them were God's gifts, without which
he could have done nothing. But with these gifts it was open to him
either to obey the Divine commands or "even to fight against God"--a
senseless and wicked thing, no doubt, but still possible. In this
passage the Divine and the human sides are plainly indicated. On the one
hand, Christ enabled him and showed confidence in him: on the other,
Paul accepted the service and was faithful. He might have refused the
service; or, having accepted it, he might have shown himself unfaithful
to his trust.

"Howbeit, I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."
These words are sometimes misunderstood. They are not intended as an
excuse, any more than St. John's designation of himself as "the disciple
whom Jesus loved" are intended as a boast. St. John had been the
recipient of very exceptional favours. Along with only St. Peter and St.
James he had been present at the raising of Jairus's daughter, at the
Transfiguration, and at the Agony in the Gethsemane. From even these
chosen three he had been singled out to be told who was the traitor; to
have the lifelong charge of providing for the Mother of the Lord; to be
the first to recognize the risen Lord at the sea of Tiberias.[25] What
was the explanation of all these honours? The recipient of them had only
one to give. He had no merits, no claim to anything of the kind; but
Jesus loved him.

So also with St. Paul. There were multitudes of Jews who, like himself,
had had, as he tells the Romans, "a zeal for God, but not according to
knowledge."[26] There were many who, like himself, had opposed the truth
and persecuted the Christ. Why did any of them obtain mercy? Why did he
receive such marked favour and honour? Not because of any merit on their
part or his: but because they had sinned ignorantly (_i.e._, without
knowing the enormity of their sin), and because "the grace of the Lord
abounded exceedingly." The Apostle is not endeavouring to extenuate his
own culpability, but to justify and magnify the Divine compassion. Of
the whole Jewish nation it was true that "they knew not what they did"
in crucifying Jesus of Nazareth; but it was true in very various
degrees. "Even of the rulers many believed on Him; but because of the
Pharisees they did not confess, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God."
It was because St. Paul did not in this way sin against light that he
found mercy, not merely in being forgiven the sin of persecuting Christ,
but in being enabled to accept and be faithful in the service of Him
whom he had persecuted.

Two of the changes made by the Revisers in this passage seem to call for
notice: they both occur in the same phrase and have a similar tendency.
Instead of "_putting_ me into the _ministry_" the R.V. gives us
"_appointing_ me to His _service_." A similar change has been made in
_v._ 7 of the next chapter, where "I was _appointed_ a preacher" takes
the place of "I am ordained a preacher," and in John xv. 16 where "I
chose you and _appointed_ you" has been substituted for "I have chosen
you and _ordained_ you."[27] In these alterations the Revisers are only
following the example set by the A.V. itself in other passages. In 2
Tim. i. 11, as in Luke x. 1, and 1 Thess. v. 9, both versions have
"appointed." The alterations are manifest improvements. In the passage
before us it is possible that the Greek has the special signification of
"putting me into the ministry," but it is by no means certain, and
perhaps not even probable, that it does so. Therefore the more
comprehensive and general translation, "appointing me to His service,"
is to be preferred. The wider rendering includes and covers the other;
and this is a further advantage. To translate the Greek words used in
these passages (=tithenai, poiein, k.t.l.=) by such a very definite word
as "ordain" leads the reader to suppose these texts refer to the
ecclesiastical act of ordination; of which there is no evidence. The
idea conveyed by the Greek in this passage, as in John xv. 16, is that
of placing a man at a particular post, and would be as applicable to
civil as to ministerial duties. We are not, therefore, justified in
translating it by a phrase which has distinct ecclesiastical
associations.

The question is not one of mere linguistic accuracy. There are larger
issues involved than those of correct translation from Greek to English.
If we adopt the wider rendering, then it is evident that the blessing
for which St. Paul expresses heartfelt gratitude, and which he cites as
evidence of Divine compassion and forgiveness, is not the call to be an
Apostle, in which none of us can share, nor _exclusively_ the call to be
a minister of the Gospel, in which only a limited number of us can
share; but also the being appointed to any service in Christ's kingdom,
which is an honour to which all Christians are called. Every earnest
Christian knows from personal experience this evidence of the Divine
character of the Gospel. It is full of compassion for those who have
sinned; not because, like the Gnostic teachers, it glosses over the
malignity and culpability of sin, but because, unlike Gnosticism, it
recognizes the preciousness of each human soul, and the difficulties
which beset it. Every Christian knows that he has inherited an evil
nature:--so far he and the Gnostic are agreed. But he also knows that to
the sin which he has inherited he has added sin for which he is
personally responsible, and which his conscience does not excuse as if
it were something which is a misfortune and not a fault. Yet he is not
left without remedy under the burden of these self-accusations. He knows
that, if he seeks for it, he can find forgiveness, and forgiveness of a
singularly generous kind. He is not only forgiven, but restored to
favour and treated with respect. He is at once placed in a position of
trust. In spite of the past, it is assumed that he will be a faithful
servant, and he is allowed to minister to his Master and his Master's
followers. To him also "the grace of our Lord" has "abounded exceedingly
with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." The generous compassion
shown to St. Paul is not unique or exceptional; it is typical. And it is
a type, not to the few, but to many; not to clergy only, but to all.
"For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ
show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of _them which should
hereafter believe on Him_ unto eternal life."

FOOTNOTES:

[23] It is worth while pointing out that the peculiar construction =ho
episteuthen ego= occurs in the New Testament, only in the Pastoral
Epistles and in other Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of which is now
scarcely disputed--1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii.
7.

[24] 1 Cor. xv. 8, 10; Gal. i. 13, 23; Phil. iii. 6; comp. Acts xxii. 4,
5, 19.

[25] St. John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7.

[26] Rom. x. 2.

[27] Comp. Acts xxii. 14 and 2 Cor. viii. 19; also Mark iii. 14 and Acts
xiv. 23. See on Tit. i. 5-7.




CHAPTER VI.

_THE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION._

    "This charge I commit unto thee, my own child Timothy, according to
    the prophecies which went before on thee, that by them thou mayest
    war the good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which
    some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of
    whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that
    they might be taught not to blaspheme."--1 TIM. i. 18-20.


In this section St. Paul returns from the subject of the false teachers
against whom Timothy has to contend (vv. 3-11), and the contrast to
their teaching exhibited by the Gospel in the Apostle's own case (vv.
12-17), to the main purpose of the letter, viz., the instructions to be
given to Timothy for the due performance of his difficult duties as
overseer of the Church of Ephesus. The section contains two subjects of
special interest, each of which requires consideration;--the prophecies
respecting Timothy and the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander.

1. "This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, _according to the
prophecies which went before on thee_." As the margin of the R.V. points
out, this last phrase might also be read "according to the prophecies
which _led the way to thee_," for the Greek may mean either. The
question is, whether St. Paul is referring to certain prophecies which
"led the way to" Timothy, _i.e._, which designated him as specially
suited for the ministry, and led to his ordination by St. Paul and the
presbyters; or whether he is referring to certain prophecies which were
uttered _over_ Timothy (=epi se=) either at the time of his conversion
or of his admission to the ministry. Both the A.V. and the R.V. give the
preference to the latter rendering, which (without excluding such a
view) does not commit us to the opinion that St. Paul was in any sense
led to Timothy by these prophecies, a thought which is not clearly
intimated in the original. All that we are certain of is, that long
before the writing of this letter prophecies of which Timothy was the
object were uttered over him, and that they were of such a nature as to
be an incentive and support to him in his ministry.

But if we look on to the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter in this
Epistle and to the sixth of the first chapter in the Second, we shall
not have much doubt when these prophecies were uttered. There we read,
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee _by
prophecy_, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery!" and "For
which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God,
which is in thee through the laying on of my hands." Must we not believe
that these two passages and the passage before us all refer to the same
occasion--the same crisis in Timothy's life? In all three of them St.
Paul appeals to the spiritual gift that was bestowed upon his disciple
"_by means of_ prophecy" and "_by means of_ the laying on of hands." The
same preposition and case (=dia= with the genitive) is used in each
case. Clearly, then, we are to understand that the prophesying and the
laying on of hands accompanied one another. Here only the prophesying is
mentioned. In chapter iv. the prophesying, accompanied by the imposition
of the presbyters' hands, is the means by which the grace is conferred.
In the Second Epistle only the laying on of the Apostle's hands is
mentioned, and it is spoken of as the means by which the grace is
conferred. Therefore, although the present passage by itself leaves the
question open, yet when we take the other two into consideration along
with it, we may safely neglect the possibility of prophecies which _led
the way_ to the ordination of Timothy, and understand the Apostle as
referring to those sacred utterances which were a marked element in his
disciple's ordination and formed a prelude and earnest of his ministry.
These sacred utterances indicated a Divine commission and Divine
approbation publicly expressed respecting the choice of Timothy for this
special work. They were also a means of grace; for by means of them a
spiritual blessing was bestowed upon the young minister. In alluding to
them here, therefore, St. Paul reminds him _Who_ it was by whom he was
really chosen and ordained. It is as if he said, "We laid our hands upon
you; but it was no ordinary election made by human votes. It was God who
elected you; God who gave you your commission, and with it the power to
fulfil it. Beware, therefore, of disgracing His appointment and of
neglecting or abusing His gift."[28]

The voice of prophecy, therefore, either pointed out Timothy as a chosen
vessel for the ministry, or publicly ratified the choice which had
already been made by St. Paul and others. But by whom was this voice of
prophecy uttered? By a special order of prophets? Or by St. Paul and the
presbyters specially inspired to act as such? The answer to this
question involves some consideration of the office, or rather
_function_, of a prophet, especially in the New Testament.

The word "prophet" is frequently understood in far too limited a sense.
It is commonly restricted to the one function of predicting the future.
But, if we may venture to coin words in order to bring out points of
differences, there are three main ideas involved in the title "prophet."
(1) A _for_-teller; one who speaks _for_ or instead of another,
especially one who speaks _for_ or in the name of God; a Divine
messenger, ambassador, interpreter, or _spokesman_. (2) A
_forth_-teller; one who has a special message to deliver _forth_ to the
world; a proclaimer, harbinger, or herald. (3) A _fore_-teller; one who
tells _beforehand_ what is coming; a predicter of future events. To be
the bearer or interpreter of a Divine message is the fundamental
conception of the prophet in classical Greek; and to a large extent this
conception prevails in both the Old and the New Testament. To be in
immediate intercourse with Jehovah, and to be His spokesman to Israel,
was what the Hebrews understood by the gift of prophecy. It was by no
means necessary that the Divine communication which the prophet had to
make known to the people should relate to the future. It might be a
denunciation of past sins, or an exhortation respecting present conduct,
quite as naturally as a prediction of what was coming. And in the Acts
and Pauline Epistles the idea of a prophet remains much the same. He is
one to whom has been granted special insight into God's counsels, and
who communicates these mysteries to others. Both in the Jewish and
primitive Christian dispensations, the prophets are the means of
communication between God and His Church. Eight persons are mentioned by
name in the Acts of the Apostles as exercising this gift of prophecy:
Agabus, Barnabas, Symeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the
foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, Judas, Silas, and St. Paul
himself. On certain occasions the Divine communication made to them by
the Spirit included a knowledge of the future; as when Agabus foretold
the great famine (xi. 28) and the imprisonment of St. Paul (xxi. 11),
and when St. Paul told that the Holy Spirit testified to him in every
city, that bonds and afflictions awaited him at Jerusalem (xx. 23). But
this is the exception rather than the rule. It is in their character of
prophets that Judas and Silas exhort and confirm the brethren. And, what
is of special interest in reference to the prophecies uttered over
Timothy, we find a group of prophets having special influence in the
selection and ordination of Apostolic evangelists. "And as they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me
Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when
they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them
away" (xiii. 2, 3).

We see, therefore, that these New Testament prophets were not a
regularly constituted order, like apostles, with whom they are joined
both in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 28) and in that to
the Ephesians (iv. 11). Yet they have this in common with apostles, that
the work of both lies rather in founding Churches than in governing
them. They have to convert and edify rather than to rule. They might or
might not be apostles or presbyters as well as prophets; but as
prophets they were men or women (such as the daughters of Philip) on
whom a special gift of the Holy Spirit had been conferred: and this gift
enabled them to understand and expound Divine mysteries with inspired
authority, and at times also to foretell the future.

So long as we bear these characteristics in mind, it matters little how
we answer the question as to who it was that uttered the prophecies over
Timothy at the time of his ordination. It may have been St. Paul and the
presbyters who laid their hands upon him, and who on this occasion at
any rate were endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Or it may have been
that besides the presbyters there were prophets also present, who, at
this solemn ceremony, exercised their gift of inspiration. The former
seems more probable. It is clear from chap. iv. 14, that prophecy and
imposition of hands were two concomitant acts by means of which
spiritual grace was bestowed upon Timothy; and it is more reasonable to
suppose that these two instrumental acts were performed by the same
group of persons, than that one group prophesied, while another laid
their hands on the young minister's head.

This gift of prophecy, St. Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv.), was
one specially to be desired; and evidently it was by no means a rare one
in the primitive Church. As we might expect, it was most frequently
exercised in the public services of the congregation. "When ye come
together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation,
hath a tongue, hath an interpretation.... Let the prophets speak by two
or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to
another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For _ye all can prophesy
one by one_, that all may learn and all may be comforted; and the
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." The chief object
of the gift, therefore, was instruction and consolation, for the
conversion of unbelievers (24, 25), and for the building up of the
faithful.

But we shall probably be right in making a distinction between the
prophesying which frequently took place in the first Christian
congregations, and those special interventions of the Holy Spirit of
which we read occasionally. In these latter cases it is not so much
spiritual instruction in an inspired form that is communicated, as a
revelation of God's will with regard to some particular course of
action. Such was the case when Paul and Silas were "forbidden of the
Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia," and when "they assayed to go into
Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not:" or when on his
voyage to Rome Paul was assured that he would stand before Caesar, and
that God had given him the lives of all those who sailed with him.[29]

Some have supposed that the Revelation of St. John was intended to mark
the close of New Testament prophecy and to protect the Church against
unwarrantable attempts at prophecy until the return of Christ to judge
the world. This view would be more probable if the later date for the
Apocalypse could be established. But if, as is far more probable, the
Revelation was written c. A.D. 68, it is hardly likely that St. John,
during the lifetime of Apostles, would think of taking any such decisive
step. In his First Epistle, written probably fifteen or twenty years
after the Revelation, he gives a test for distinguishing true from
false prophets (iv. 1-4); and this he would not have done, if he had
believed that all true prophecy had ceased.

In the newly discovered "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" we find
prophets among the ministers of the Church, just as in the Epistles to
the Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians. The date of this
interesting treatise has yet to be ascertained; but it seems to belong
to the period between the Epistles of St. Paul and those of Ignatius. We
may safely place it between the writings of St. Paul and those of Justin
Martyr. In the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xii. 28) we have
"First apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then" those who
had special gifts, such as healing or speaking with tongues. In Ephes.
iv. 11 we are told that Christ "gave some to be apostles; and some
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." The Epistle to the
Philippians is addressed "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," where the plural shows that
"bishop" cannot be used in the later diocesan sense; otherwise there
would be only one bishop at Philippi. Prophets, therefore, in St. Paul's
time are a common and important branch of the ministry. They rank next
to apostles, and a single congregation may possess several of them. In
Ignatius and later writers the ministers who are so conspicuous in the
Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles disappear, and their place is taken by
other ministers whose offices, at any rate in their later forms, are
scarcely found in the New Testament at all. These are the bishops,
presbyters, and deacons; to whom were soon added a number of subordinate
officials, such as readers, exorcists, and the like. The ministry, as we
find it in the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles," is in a state of
transition from the Apostolic to the latter stage. As in the time of
St. Paul we have both itinerant and local ministers; the itinerant
ministers being chiefly apostles and prophets, whose functions do not
seem to be marked off from one another very distinctly; and the local
ministry consisting of two orders only, bishops and deacons, as in the
address to the Church of Philippi. When we reach the Epistles of
Ignatius and other documents of a date later than A.D. 110, we lose
distinct traces of these itinerant apostles and prophets. The title
"Apostle" is becoming confined to St. Paul and the Twelve, and the title
of "Prophet" to the Old Testament prophets.

The gradual cessation or discredit of the function of the Christian
prophet is thoroughly intelligible. Possibly the spiritual gift which
rendered it possible was withdrawn from the Church. In any case the
extravagances of enthusiasts who deluded themselves into the belief that
they possessed the gift, or of impostors who deliberately assumed it,
would bring the office into suspicion and disrepute. Such things were
possible even in Apostolic times, for both St. Paul and St. John give
cautions about it, and directions for dealing with the abuse and the
false assumption of prophecy. In the next century the eccentric
delusions of Montanus and his followers, and their vehement attempts to
force their supposed revelations upon the whole Church, completed the
discredit of all profession to prophetical power. This discredit has
been intensified from time to time whenever such professions have been
renewed; as, for example, by the extravagances of the Zwickau Prophets
or Abecedarians in Luther's time, or of the Irvingites in our own day.
Since the death of St. John and the close of the Canon, Christians have
sought for illumination in the written word of Scripture rather than in
the utterances of prophets. It is there that each one of us may find
"the prophecies that went before on" us, exhorting us and enabling us to
"war the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience." There will
always be those who crave for something more definite and personal; who
long for, and perhaps create for themselves and believe in, some living
authority to whom they can perpetually appeal. Scripture seems to them
unsatisfying, and they erect for themselves an infallible pope, or a
spiritual director, whose word is to be to them as the inspired
utterances of a prophet. But we have to fall back on our own consciences
at last: and whether we take Scripture or some other authority as our
infallible guide, the responsibility of the choice still rests with
ourselves. If a man will not hear Christ and His Apostles, neither will
he be persuaded though a prophet was granted to him. If we believe not
their writings, how shall we believe his words?

FOOTNOTES:

[28] Chrysostom _in loco. Hom._ v. _sub init._

[29] Acts xvi. 6, 7, xxvii. 24; comp. xviii. 9, xx. 23, xxi. 4, 11,
xxii. 17-21.




CHAPTER VII.

_THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO SATAN AN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN._

    "Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from
    them made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I
    delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to
    blaspheme."--1 TIM. i. 19, 20.


In the preceding discourse one of the special _charismata_ which
distinguish the Church of the Apostolic age was considered,--the gift of
prophecy. It seems to have been an exceptional boon to enable the first
Christians to perform very exceptional work. On the present occasion we
have to consider a very different subject--the heavy penalty inflicted
on two grievous offenders. This again would seem to be something
exceptional. And the special gift and the special punishment have this
much in common, that both of them were extraordinary means for promoting
and preserving the holiness of the Church. The one existed for the
edification, the other for the purification, of the members of the
Christian community.

The necessity of strict discipline both for the individual and for the
community had been declared by Christ from the outset. The eye that
caused offence was to be plucked out, the hand and the foot that caused
offence were to be cut off, and the hardened offender who refused to
listen to the solemn remonstrances of the congregation was to be treated
as a heathen and an outcast. The experience of the primitive Church had
proved the wisdom of this. The fall of Judas had shown that the
Apostolic band itself was not secure from evil of the very worst kind.
The parent Church of Jerusalem was no sooner founded than a dark stain
was brought upon it by the conduct of two of its members. In the very
first glow of its youthful enthusiasm Ananias and Sapphira conspired
together to pervert the general unselfishness to their own selfish end,
by attempting to gain the credit for equal generosity with the rest,
while keeping back something for themselves. The Church of Corinth was
scarcely five years old, and the Apostle had been absent from it only
about three years, when he learnt that in this Christian community, the
firstfruits of the heathen world, a sin which even the heathen regarded
as a monstrous pollution had been committed, and that the congregation
were glorying in it. Christians were boasting that the incestuous union
of a man with his father's wife during his father's lifetime was a
splendid illustration of Christian liberty. No stronger proof of the
dangers of lax discipline could have been given. In the verses before us
we have instances of similar peril on the doctrinal side. And in the
insolent opposition which Diotrephes offered to St. John we have an
illustration of the dangers of insubordination. If the Christian Church
was to be saved from speedy collapse, strict discipline in morals, in
doctrine, and in government, was plainly necessary.

The punishment of the incestuous person at Corinth should be placed
side by side with the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as recorded
here. The two cases mutually explain one another. In each of them there
occurs the remarkable formula of _delivering_ or _handing over to
Satan_. The meaning of it is not indisputable, and in the main two views
are held respecting it. Some interpret it as being merely a synonym for
excommunication. Others maintain that it indicates a much more
exceptional penalty, which might or might not accompany excommunication.

1. On the one hand it is argued that the expression "deliver unto Satan"
is a very intelligible periphrasis for "excommunicate." Excommunication
involved "exclusion from all Christian fellowship, and consequently
banishment to the society of those among whom Satan dwelt, and from
which the offender had publicly severed himself."[30] It is admitted
that "handing over to Satan" is strong language to use in order to
express ejection from the congregation and exclusion from all acts of
worship, but it is thought that the acuteness of the crisis makes the
strength of language intelligible.

2. But the strength of language needs no apology, if the "delivering
unto Satan" means something extraordinary, over and above
excommunication. This, therefore, is an advantage which the second mode
of interpreting the expression has at the outset. Excommunication was a
punishment which the congregation itself could inflict; but this handing
over to Satan was an Apostolic act, to accomplish which the community
without the Apostle had no power. It was a supernatural infliction of
bodily infirmity, or disease, or death, as a penalty for grievous sin.
We know this in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira and of Elymas. The
incestuous person at Corinth is probably another instance: for "the
destruction of the flesh" seems to mean some painful malady inflicted on
that part of his nature which had been the instrument of his fall, in
order that by its chastisement the higher part of his nature might be
saved. And, if this be correct, then we seem to be justified in assuming
the same respecting Hymenaeus and Alexander. For although nothing is said
in their case respecting "the destruction of the flesh," yet the
expression "that they may be _taught_ not to blaspheme," implies
something of a similar kind. The word for "taught" =paideuthosi= implies
discipline and chastisement, sometimes in Classical Greek, frequently in
the New Testament, a meaning which the word "teach" also not
unfrequently has in English (Judges viii. 16). In illustration of this
it is sufficient to point to the passage in Heb. xii., in which the
writer insists that "whom the Lord loveth He _chasteneth_." Throughout
the section this very word (=paideuein=) and its cognate (=paideia=) are
used.[31] It is, therefore, scarcely doubtful that St. Paul delivered
Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, in order that Satan might have power to
afflict their bodies (just as he was allowed power over the body of
Job), with a view to their spiritual amelioration. This personal
suffering, following close upon their sin and declared by the Apostle to
be a punishment for it, would teach them to abandon it. St. Paul
himself, as he has just told us, had been a blasphemer and by a
supernatural visitation had been converted: why should not these two
follow in both respects in his steps? Satan's willingness to co-operate
in such measures need not surprise us. He is always ready to inflict
suffering; and the fact that suffering sometimes draws the sufferer away
from him and nearer to God, does not deter him from inflicting it. He
knows well that suffering not unfrequently has the very opposite effect.
It hardens and exasperates some men, while it humbles and purifies
others. It makes one man say "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and
ashes." It makes another will to "renounce God and die." Satan hoped in
Job's case to be able to provoke him to "renounce God to His face." In
the case of these two blasphemers he would hope to induce them to
blaspheme all the more.

We may pass by the question, "In what way did Hymenaeus and Alexander
blaspheme?" We can only conjecture that it was by publicly opposing some
article of the Christian faith. But conjectures without evidence are not
very profitable. If we were certain that the Hymenaeus here mentioned
with Alexander is identical with the one who is condemned with Philetus
in 2 Tim. ii. 18 for virtually denying the resurrection, we should have
some evidence. But this identification, although probable, is not
certain. Still less certain is the identification of the Alexander
condemned here with "Alexander the coppersmith," who in 2 Tim. iv. 14 is
said to have done the Apostle much evil. But none of these questions is
of great moment. What is of importance to notice is the Apostolic
sentence upon the two blasphemers. And in it we have to notice four
points. (1) It is almost certainly not identical with excommunication by
the congregation, although it very probably was accompanied by this
other penalty. (2) It is of a very extraordinary character, being a
handing over into the power of the evil one. (3) Its object is the
reformation of the offenders, while at the same time (4) it serves as a
warning to others, lest they by similar offences should suffer so awful
a punishment. To all alike it brought home the serious nature of such
sins. Even at the cost of cutting off the right hand, or plucking out
the right eye, the Christian community must be kept pure in doctrine as
in life.

These two passages,--the one before us, and the one respecting the case
of incest at Corinth,--are conclusive as to St. Paul's teaching
respecting the existence and personality of the devil. They are
supported and illustrated by a number of other passages in his writings;
as when he tells the Thessalonians that "Satan hindered" his work, or
warns the Corinthians that "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel
of light," and tells them that his own sore trouble in the flesh was,
like Job's, "a messenger of Satan to buffet" him. Not less clear is the
teaching of St. Peter and St. John in Epistles which, with those of St.
Paul to the Corinthians, are among the best authenticated works in
ancient literature. "Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour," says the one: "He that doeth sin is
of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning," says the other.
And, if we need higher authority, there is the declaration of Christ to
the malignant and unbelieving Jews. "Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar, and the father thereof."[32] With regard to this last passage,
those who deny the personal existence of Satan must maintain either (1)
that the Evangelist here attributes to Christ words which He never used;
or (2) that Christ was willing to make use of a monstrous superstition
in order to denounce his opponents with emphasis; or (3) that He Himself
erroneously believed in the existence of a being who was a mere figment
of an unenlightened imagination: in other words, that "the Son of God
was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil," when all
the while there was no devil and no works of his to be destroyed.

The first of these views cuts at the root of all trust in the Gospels as
historical documents. Words which imply that Satan is a person are
attributed to Christ by the Synoptists no less than by St. John; and if
the Evangelists are not to be believed in their report of Christ's
sayings on this topic, what security have we that they are to be
believed as to their reports of the rest of His teaching; or indeed as
to anything which they narrate? Again, how are we to account for the
very strong statements made by the Apostles themselves respecting the
evil one, if they had never heard anything of the kind from Christ.

The second view has been adopted by Schleiermacher, who thinks that
Christ accommodated His teaching to the ideas then prevalent among the
Jews respecting Satan without sharing them Himself. He knew that Satan
was a mere personification of the moral evil which every man finds in
his own nature and in that of his fellow-men: but the Jews believed in
the personality of this evil principle, and He acquiesced in the
belief, not as being true, but as offering no fundamental opposition to
His teaching. But is this consistent with the truthfulness of Christ? If
a personal devil is an empty superstition, He went out of his way to
confirm men in their belief in it. Why teach that the enemy who sowed
the tares is the devil? Why interpret the birds that snatch away the
freshly sown seed as Satan? It would have been so easy in each case to
have spoken of impersonal temptations. Again, what motive can Christ
have had for telling His _Apostles_ (not the ignorant and superstitious
multitude), that He Himself had endured the repeated solicitations of a
personal tempter, who had conversed and argued with Him?

Those who, like Strauss and Renan, believe Jesus of Nazareth to have
been a mere man, would naturally adopt the third view. In believing in
the personality of Satan Jesus merely shared the superstitions of His
age. To all those who wish to discuss with him whether we are still
Christians, Strauss declares that "the belief in a devil is one of the
most hideous sides of the ancient Christian faith," and that "the extent
to which this dangerous delusion still controls men's ideas or has been
banished from them is the very thing to regard as a measure of culture."
But at the same time he admits that "to remove so fundamental a stone is
dangerous for the whole edifice of the Christian faith. It was the young
Goethe who remarked against Bahrdt that if ever an idea was biblical,
this one [of the existence of a personal Satan] was such."[33] And
elsewhere Strauss declares that the conception of the Messiah and His
kingdom without the antithesis of an infernal kingdom with a personal
chief is as impossible as that of North pole without a South pole.[34]

To refuse to believe in an evil power external to ourselves is to
believe that human nature itself is diabolical. Whence come the devilish
thoughts that vex us even at the most sacred and solemn moments? If they
do not come from the evil one and his myrmidons, they come from
ourselves:--they are our own offspring. Such a belief might well drive
us to despair. So far from being a "hideous" element in the Christian
faith, the belief in a power, "_not ourselves_, that makes for"
wickedness, is a most consoling one. It has been said that, if there
were no God, we should have to invent one: and with almost equal truth
we might say that, if there were no devil, we should have to invent one.
Without a belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to
conquer their evil passions. Without a belief in a devil good men would
have little hope of ever being able to do so.

The passage before us supplies us with another consoling thought with
regard to this terrible adversary, who is always invisibly plotting
against us. It is often _for our own good_ that God allows him to have
an advantage over us. He is permitted to inflict loss upon us through
our persons and our property, as in the case of Job, and the woman whom
he bowed down for eighteen years, in order to chasten us and teach us
that "we have not here an abiding city." And he is permitted even to
lead us into sin, in order to save us from spiritual pride, and to
convince us that apart from Christ and in our own strength we can do
nothing. These are not Satan's motives, but they are God's motives in
allowing him to be "the ruler of this world," and to have much power
over human affairs. Satan inflicts suffering from love of inflicting it,
and leads into sin from love of sin: but God knows how to bring good out
of evil by making the evil one frustrate his own wiles. The devil
malignantly afflicts souls that come within his power; but the
affliction leads to those souls being "saved in the day of the Lord." It
had that blessed effect in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth.
Whether the same is true of Hymenaeus and Alexander, there is nothing in
Scripture to tell us. It is for us to take care that in our case the
chastisements which inevitably follow upon sin do not drive us further
and further into it, but teach us to sin no more.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] Dr. David Brown in Schaff's _Popular Commentary_, iii., p. 180.

[31] Heb. xii. 5, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25;
Luke xxiii. 16, 22: Soph., _Ajax_ 595; Xen., _Mem._ I. iii. 5.

[32] 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8;
John viii. 44.

[33] Strauss, _Der alte und der neue Glaube_, p. 22.

[34] Herzog und Plitt, XV. p. 361.




CHAPTER VIII.

_ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP; INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND
THANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN RACE._

    "I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers,
    intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all
    that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life
    in all godliness and gravity"--1 TIM. ii. 1.


The first chapter of the Epistle is more or less introductory. It
repeats what St. Paul had already said to his beloved disciple by word
of mouth, on the subject of Christian doctrine, and the necessity of
keeping it pure. It makes a digression respecting the Apostle's own
conversion. It reminds Timothy of the hopeful prophecies uttered over
him at his ordination; and it points out the terrible consequences of
driving conscience from the helm and placing oneself in antagonism to
the Almighty. In this second chapter St Paul goes on to mention in order
the subjects which led to the writing of the letter; and the very first
exhortation which he has to give is that respecting Christian worship
and the duty of intercessory prayer and thanksgiving.

There are two things very worthy of remark in the treatment of the
subject of worship in the Pastoral Epistles. First, these letters bring
before us a more developed form of worship than we find indicated in
the earlier writings of St. Paul. It is still very primitive, but it has
grown. And this is exactly what we ought to expect, especially when we
remember how rapidly the Christian Church developed its powers during
the first century and a half. Secondly, the indications of this more
developed form of worship occur only in the letters to Timothy, which
deal with the condition of things in the Church of Ephesus, a Church
which had already been founded for a considerable time, and was in a
comparatively advanced stage of organization. Hence we are not surprised
to find in these two Epistles fragments of what appear to be primitive
liturgical forms. In the First Epistle we have two grand doxologies,
which may be the outcome of the Apostle's devotion at the moment, but
are quite as likely to be quotations of formulas well known to Timothy
(i. 17; vi. 15, 16). Between these two we have what looks like a portion
of a hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, suitable for singing antiphonally
(iii. 16; comp. Pliny, _Epp._ x. 96): and also what may be a baptismal
exhortation (vi. 12). In the Second Epistle we have traces of another
liturgical formula (ii. 11-13).

St. Paul of course does not mean, as the A.V. might lead us to suppose,
that in all Christian worship intercession ought to come first; still
less that intercession is the first duty of a Christian. But he does
place it first among those subjects about which he has to give
directions in this Epistle. He makes sure that it shall not be forgotten
by himself in writing to his delegate at Ephesus; and he wishes to make
sure that it shall not be forgotten by Timothy in his ministration. To
offer prayers and thanksgivings on behalf of all men is a duty of such
high importance that the Apostle places it first among the topics of his
pastoral charge.

Was it a duty which Timothy and the congregation committed to his care
had been neglecting, or were in serious danger of neglecting? It may
well have been so. In the difficulties of the overseer's own personal
position, and in the varied dangers to which his little flock were so
unceasingly exposed, the claims of others upon their united prayer and
praise may sometimes have been forgotten. When the Apostle had left
Timothy to take his place for a time in Ephesus he had hoped to return
very soon, and consequently had given him only brief and somewhat hasty
directions as to his course of action during his absence. He had been
prevented from returning; and there was a probability that Timothy would
have to be his representative for an indefinite period. Meanwhile the
difficulties of Timothy's position had not diminished. Many of his flock
were much older men than himself, and some of them had been elders in
the Church of Ephesus long before the Apostle's beloved disciple was
placed in charge of them. Some of the leaders in the congregation had
become tainted with the Gnostic errors with which the intellectual
atmosphere of Ephesus was charged, and were endeavouring to make
compromise and confusion between heathen lawlessness and Christian
liberty. Besides which, there was the bitter hostility of the Jews, who
regarded both Paul and Timothy as renegades from the faith of their
ancestors, and who never lost an opportunity of thwarting and reviling
them. Above all there was the ever-present danger of heathenism, which
confronted the Christians every time they left the shelter of their own
houses. In the city which counted it as its chief glory that it was the
"Temple-keeper of the great Artemis" (Acts xix. 35), every street
through which the Christians walked, and every heathen house which they
entered, was full of pagan abominations; to say nothing of the
magnificent temples, beautiful groves, and seductive idolatrous rites,
which were among the main features that attracted such motley crowds to
Ephesus. Amid difficulties and perils such as these, it would not be
wonderful if Timothy and those committed to his care had been somewhat
oblivious of the fact that "behind the mountains also there are people;"
that beyond the narrow limits of their contracted horizon there were
interests as weighty as their own--Christians who were as dear to God as
themselves, whose needs were as great as their own, and to whom the Lord
had been equally gracious; and moreover countless hosts of heathen, who
also were God's children, needing His help and receiving His blessings;
for all of whom, as well as for themselves, the Church in Ephesus was
bound to offer prayer and thanksgiving.

But there is no need to assume that Timothy, and those committed to his
care, had been specially neglectful of this duty. To keep clearly in
view our responsibilities towards the whole human race, or even towards
the whole Church, is so difficult a thing for all of us, that the
prominent place which St. Paul gives to the obligation to offer prayers
and thanksgivings for all men is quite intelligible, without the
supposition that the disciple whom he addresses was more in need of such
a charge than other ministers in the Churches under St. Paul's care.

The Apostle uses three different words for prayer, the second of which
is a general term and covers all kinds of prayer to God, and the first a
still more general term, including petitions addressed to man. Either
of the first two would embrace the third, which indicates a bold and
earnest approach to the Almighty to implore some great benefit. None of
the three words necessarily means intercession in the sense of prayer
_on behalf of others_. This idea comes from the context. St. Paul says
plainly that it is prayers and thanksgivings "for all men" that he
desires to have made: and in all probability he did not carefully
distinguish in his mind the shades of meaning which are proper to the
three terms which he uses. Whatever various kinds of supplication there
may be which are offered by man at the throne of grace, he urges that
the whole human race are to have the benefit of them. Obviously, as
Chrysostom long ago pointed out, we cannot limit the Apostle's "all men"
to all believers. Directly he enters into detail he mentions "kings and
all that are in high place;" and in St. Paul's day not a single king,
and we may almost say not a single person in high place, was a believer.
The scope of a Christian's desires and gratitude, when he appears before
the Lord, must have no narrower limit than that which embraces the whole
human race. This important principle, the Apostle charges his
representative, must be exhibited in the public worship of the Church in
Ephesus.

The solidarity of the whole body of Christians, however distant from one
another in space and time, however different from one another in
nationality, in discipline, and even in creed, is a magnificent fact, of
which we all of us need from time to time to be reminded, and which,
even when we are reminded of it, we find it somewhat difficult to grasp.
Members of sects that we never heard of, dwelling in remote regions of
which we do not even know the names, are nevertheless united to us by
the eternal ties of a common baptism and a common belief in God and in
Jesus Christ. The eastern sectarian in the wilds of Asia, and the
western sectarian in the backwoods of North America, are members of
Christ and our brethren; and as such have spiritual interests identical
with our own, for which it is not only our duty but our advantage to
pray. "Whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or
one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it." The ties which
bind Christians to one another are at once so subtle and so real, that
it is impossible for one Christian to remain unaffected by the progress
or retrogression of any other. Therefore, not only does the law of
Christian charity require us to aid all our fellow-Christians by praying
for them, but the law of self-interest leads us to do so also; for their
advance will assuredly help us forward, and their relapse will assuredly
keep us back. All this is plain matter of fact, revealed to us by Christ
and His apostles, and confirmed by our own experience, so far as our
feeble powers of observation are able to supply a test. Nevertheless, it
is a fact of such enormous proportions (even without taking into account
our close relationship with those who have passed away from this world),
that even with our best efforts we fail to realize it in its immensity.

What shall we say, then, about the difficulty of realizing the
solidarity of the whole human race? For they also are God's offspring,
and as such are of one family with ourselves. If it is hard to remember
that the welfare of the humblest member of a remote and obscure
community in Christendom intimately concerns ourselves, how shall we
keep in view the fact that we have both interests and obligations in
reference to the wildest and most degraded heathens in the heart of
Africa or in the islands of the Pacific? Here is a fact on a far more
stupendous scale; for in the population of the globe, those who are not
even in name Christians, outnumber us by at least three to one. And yet
let us never forget that our interest in these countless multitudes,
whom we have never seen and never shall see in this life, is not a mere
graceful sentiment or empty flourish of rhetoric, but a sober and solid
fact. The hackneyed phrase, "a man and a brother," represents a vital
truth. Every human being is one of our brethren, and, whether we like
the responsibility or not, we are still our "brother's keeper." In our
keeping, to a very real extent, lie the supreme issues of his spiritual
life, and we have to look to it that we discharge our trust faithfully.
We read with horror, and it may be with compassion, of the monstrous
outrages committed by savage chiefs upon their subjects, their wives, or
their enemies. We forget that the guilt of these things may lie partly
at our door, because we have not done our part in helping forward
civilizing influences which would have prevented such horrors, above all
because we have not prayed as we ought for those who commit them. There
are few of us who have not some opportunities of giving assistance in
various ways to missionary enterprise and humanizing efforts. But all of
us can at least pray for God's blessing upon such things, and for His
mercy upon those who are in need of it. Of those who, having nothing
else to give, give their struggles after holiness and their prayers for
their fellow-men, the blessed commendation stands written, "They have
done what they could."

"For kings and all that are in high place." It is quite a mistake to
suppose that "kings" here means the Roman Emperors. This has been
asserted, and from this misinterpretation has been deduced the
erroneous conclusion that the letter must have been written at a time
when it was customary for the Emperor to associate another prince with
him in the empire, with a view to securing the succession. As Hadrian
was the first to do this, and that near to the close of his reign, this
letter (it is urged) cannot be earlier than A.D. 138. But this
interpretation is impossible, for "kings" in the Greek has no article.
Had the writer meant the two reigning Emperors, whether Hadrian and
Antoninus, or M. Aurelius and Verus, he would inevitably have written
"for _the_ kings and for all in high place." The expression "for kings,"
obviously means "for monarchs of all descriptions," including the Roman
Emperor, but including many other potentates also. Such persons, as
having the heaviest responsibilities and the greatest power of doing
good and evil, have an especial claim upon the prayers of Christians. It
gives us a striking illustration of the transforming powers of
Christianity when we think of St. Paul giving urgent directions that
among the persons to be remembered first in the intercessions of the
Church are Nero and the men whom he put "in high place," such as Otho
and Vitellius, who afterwards became Emperor: and this, too, after
Nero's peculiarly cruel and wanton persecution of the Christians A.D.
64. How firmly this beautiful practice became established among
Christians, is shown from their writings in the second and third
centuries. Tertullian, who lived through the reigns of such monsters as
Commodus and Elagabalus, who remembered the persecution under M.
Aurelius, and witnessed that under Septimius Severus, can nevertheless
write thus of the Emperor of Rome: "A Christian is the enemy of no one,
least of all of the Emperor, whom he knows to have been appointed by
his God, and whom he therefore of necessity loves, and reverences, and
honours, and desires his well-being, with that of the whole Roman
Empire, so long as the world shall stand; for it shall last as long. To
the Emperor, therefore, we render such homage as is lawful for us and
good for him, as the human being who comes next to God, and is what he
is by God's decree, and to God alone is inferior.... And so we sacrifice
also for the well-being of the Emperor; but to our God and his; but in
the way that God has ordained, with a prayer that is pure. For God, the
Creator of the universe, has no need of odours or of blood."[35] In
another passage Tertullian anticipates the objection that Christians
pray for the Emperor, in order to curry favour with the Roman government
and thus escape persecution. He says that the heathen have only to look
into the Scriptures, which to Christians are the voice of God, and see
that to pray for their enemies and to pray for those in authority is a
fundamental rule with Christians. And he quotes the passage before
us.[36] But he appears to misunderstand the concluding words of the
Apostle's injunction,--"that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in
all godliness and gravity." Tertullian understands this as a reason for
praying for kings and rulers; because they are the preservers of the
public peace, and any disturbance in the empire will necessarily affect
the Christians as well as other subjects,--which is giving a rather
narrow and selfish motive for this great duty. "That we may lead a
tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity," is the object and
consequence, not of our praying for kings and rulers in particular, but
of our offering prayers and thanksgivings _on behalf of all men_.

When this most pressing obligation is duly discharged, then, and only
then, can we hope with tranquil consciences to be able to live Christian
lives in retirement from the rivalries and jealousies and squabbles of
the world. Only in the attitude of mind which makes us pray and give
thanks for our fellow-men is the tranquillity of a godly life possible.
The enemies of Christian peace and quietness are anxiety and strife. Are
we anxious about the well-being of those near and dear to us, or of
those whose interests are bound up with our own? Let us pray for them.
Have we grave misgivings respecting the course which events are taking
in Church, or in State, or in any of the smaller societies to which we
belong? Let us offer supplications and intercessions on behalf of all
concerned in them. Prayer offered in faith to the throne of grace will
calm our anxiety, because it will assure us that all is in God's hand,
and that in His own good time He will bring good out of the evil. Are we
at strife with our neighbours, and is this a constant source of
disturbance? Let us pray for them. Fervent and frequent prayers for
those who are hostile to us will certainly secure this much,--that we
ourselves become more wary about giving provocation; and this will go a
long way towards bringing the attainment of our desire for the entire
cessation of the strife. Is there any one to whom we have taken a strong
aversion, whose very presence is a trial to us, whose every gesture and
every tone irritates us, and the sight of whose handwriting makes us
shiver, because of its disturbing associations? Let us pray for him.
Sooner or later dislike must give way to prayer. It is impossible to go
on taking a real interest in the welfare of another, and at the same
time to go on detesting him. And if our prayers for his welfare are
genuine, a real interest in it there must be. Is there any one of whom
we are jealous? Of whose popularity, so dangerous to our own, we are
envious? Whose success--quite undeserved success, as it seems to
us--disgusts and frightens us? Whose mishaps and failures, nay even
whose faults and misdeeds, give us pleasure and satisfaction? Let us
thank God for the favour which He bestows upon this man. Let us praise
our heavenly Father for having in His wisdom and His justice given to
another of His children what He denies to us; and let us pray Him to
keep this other from abusing His gifts.

Yes, let us never forget that not only prayers but _thanksgivings_ are
to be offered _for all men_. He who is so good to the whole Church, of
which we are members, and to the great human family to which we belong,
certainly has claim upon the gratitude of every human being, and
especially of every Christian. His bounty is not given by measure or by
merit. He maketh His sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and
sendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust: and shall we pick and
choose as to what we will thank Him for, and what not? The sister who
loves her erring or her half-witted brother is grateful to her father
for the care which he bestows upon his graceless and his useless son.
And shall we not give thanks to our heavenly Father for the benefits
which He bestows on the countless multitudes whose interests are so
closely interwoven with our own? Benefits bestowed upon any human being
are an answer to our prayers, and as such we are bound to give thanks
for them. How much more grateful shall we be, when we are able to look
on them as benefits bestowed upon those whom we love!

This is the cause of so much of our failure in prayer. We do not couple
our prayers with thanksgiving; or at any rate our thanksgivings are far
less hearty than our prayers. We give thanks for benefits received by
ourselves: we forget to give thanks "for all men." Above all, we forget
that the truest gratitude is shown, not in words or feelings, but in
conduct. We should send good deeds after good words to heaven. Not that
our ingratitude provokes God to withhold His gifts; but that it does
render us less capable of receiving them. For the sake of others no less
than for ourselves let us remember the Apostle's charge that
"thanksgivings be made for all men." We cannot give plenty and
prosperity to the nations of the earth. We cannot bestow on them peace
and tranquillity. We cannot bring them out of darkness to God's glorious
light. We cannot raise them from impurity to holiness. We can only do a
little, a very little, towards these great ends. But one thing we can
do. We can at least thank Him who has already bestowed some, and is
preparing to bestow others, of these blessings. We can praise Him for
the end towards which He will have all things work.--"He willeth that
_all_ men should be saved" (ver. 4), "that God may be all in all."

FOOTNOTES:

[35] _Ad Scapulam_, ii.

[36] _Apol._, xxxi.




CHAPTER IX.

_BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND MIND:
WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT._

    "I desire, therefore, that the men pray in every place, lifting up
    holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner, that women
    adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and
    sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly
    raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through
    good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But
    I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but
    to be in quietness."--1 TIM. ii. 8-12.


In the preceding verses of this chapter, St. Paul has been insisting on
the duty of unselfishness in our devotions. Our prayers and
thanksgivings are not to be bounded in their scope by our own personal
interests, but are to include the whole human race; and for this obvious
and sufficient reason,--that in using such devotions we know that our
desires are in harmony with the mind of God, "who willeth that _all_ men
should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." Having thus
laid down the principles which are to guide Christian congregations in
the _subject-matter_ of their prayers and thanksgivings, he passes on
now to give some directions respecting the _behaviour_ of men and women,
when they meet together for common worship of the one God and the one
Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.

There is no reasonable doubt (although the point has been disputed) that
St. Paul is here speaking of public worship in the congregation; the
whole context implies it. Some of the directions would be scarcely
intelligible, if we were to suppose that the Apostle is thinking of
private devotions, or even of family prayer in Christian households. And
we are not to suppose that he is indirectly finding fault with other
forms of worship, Jewish or heathen. He is merely laying down certain
principles which are to guide Christians, whether at Ephesus or
elsewhere, in the conduct of public service. Thus there is no special
emphasis on "in every place," as if the meaning were, "Our ways are not
like those of the Jews; for they were not allowed to sacrifice and
perform their services anywhere, but assembling from all parts of the
world were bound to perform all their worship in the temple. For as
Christ commanded us to pray for _all_ men, because He died for all men,
so it is good to pray _everywhere_."[37] Such an antithesis between
Jewish and Christian worship, even if it were true, would not be in
place here. Every place is a place of private prayer to both Jew and
Christian alike: but not every place is a place of public prayer to the
Christian any more than to the Jew.[38] Moreover, the Greek shows
plainly that the emphasis is not on "in every place," but on "pray."
Wherever there may be a customary "house of prayer," whether in Ephesus
or anywhere else, the Apostle desires that prayers should be offered
publicly by the men in the congregation. After "pray," the emphasis
falls on "the men," public prayer is to be made, and it is to be
conducted by the men and not by the women in the congregation.

It is evident from this passage, as from 1 Cor. xiv., that in this
primitive Christian worship great freedom was allowed. There is no
Bishop, President, or Elder, to whom the right of leading the service or
uttering the prayers and thanksgivings is reserved. This duty and
privilege is shared by all the males alike. In the recently discovered
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ nothing is said as to who is to offer
the prayers, of which certain forms are given. It is merely stated that
in addition to these forms _extempore_ prayer may be offered by "the
prophets." And Justin Martyr mentions that a similar privilege was
allowed to "the president" of the congregation according to his
ability.[39] Thus we seem to trace a gradual increase of strictness, a
development of ecclesiastical order, very natural under the
circumstances. First, all the men in the congregation are allowed to
conduct public worship, as here and in 1 Corinthians. Then, the right of
adding to the prescribed forms is restricted to the prophets, as in the
_Didache_. Next, this right is reserved to the presiding minister, as in
Justin Martyr. And lastly, free prayer is abolished altogether. We need
not assume that precisely this development took place in all the
Churches; but that something analogous took place in nearly all. Nor
need we assume that the development was simultaneous: while one Church
was at one stage of the process, another was more advanced, and a third
less so. Again, we may conjecture that forms of prayer gradually
increased in number, and in extent, and in stringency. But in the
directions here given to Timothy we are at the beginning of the
development.

"Lifting up holy hands." Here again we need not suspect any polemical
purpose. St. Paul is not insinuating that, when Gnostics or heathen lift
up their hands in prayer, their hands are not holy. Just as every
Christian is ideally a saint, so every hand that is lifted up in prayer
is holy. In thus stating the ideal, the Apostle inculcates the
realization of it. There is a monstrous incongruity in one who comes
red-handed from the commission of a sin, lifting up the very members
which witness against him, in order to implore a blessing from the God
whom he has outraged. The same idea is expressed in more general terms
by St. Peter: "Like as He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves
also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, ye shall be
holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). In a passage more closely
parallel to this, Clement of Rome says, "Let us therefore approach Him
in holiness of soul, _lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him_,
with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father who made us an
elect portion unto Himself" (_Cor._ xxix). And Tertullian urges that "a
defiled spirit cannot be recognized by the Holy Spirit" (_De Orat._,
xiii). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of this attitude of
lifting up the hands during prayer. But to this day it is common in the
East. Solomon at the dedication of the temple "stood before the altar of
the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and _spread
forth his hands toward heaven_" (1 Kings viii. 22); and the Psalmist
repeatedly speaks of "lifting up the hands" in worship (xxviii. 2;
lxiii. 4; cxxxiv. 2). Clement of Alexandria seems to have regarded it as
the ideal attitude in prayer, as symbolizing the desire of the body to
abstract itself from the earth, following the eagerness of the spirit in
yearning for heavenly things.[40] Tertullian, on the other hand,
suggests that the arms are spread out in prayer in memory of the
crucifixion, and directs that they should be extended, but only slightly
raised, an attitude which is more in harmony with a humble spirit: and
in another place he says that the Christian by his very posture in
prayer is ready for every infliction. He asserts that the Jews in his
day did _not_ raise the hands in prayer, and characteristically gives as
a reason that they were stained with the blood of the Prophets and of
Christ. With evident reference to this passage, he says that Christian
hands must be lifted up pure from falsehood, murder, and all other sins
of which the hands can be the instruments.[41] Ancient Christian
monuments of the earliest age frequently represent the faithful as
standing with raised hands to pray. Eusebius tells us that Constantine
had himself represented in this attitude on his coins, "looking upwards,
stretching up toward God, like one praying."[42] Of course this does not
mean that kneeling was unusual or irregular; there is plenty of evidence
to the contrary. But the attitude here commended by St. Paul was very
ancient when he wrote, and has continued in some parts of the world ever
since. Like so many other things in natural religion and in Judaism, it
received a new and intensified meaning when it was adopted among the
usages of the Christian Church.

"Without wrath and disputing:" that is, in the spirit of Christian peace
and trust. Ill-will and misgiving respecting one another are
incompatible with united prayer to our common Father. The atmosphere of
controversy is not congenial to devotion. Christ Himself has told us to
be reconciled to our brother before presuming to offer our gift on the
altar. In a similar spirit St. Paul directs that those who are to
conduct public service in the sanctuary must do so without angry
feelings or mutual distrust. In the Pastoral Epistles warnings against
quarrelsome conduct are frequent; and the experience of every one of us
tells us how necessary they are. The bishop is charged to be "no
brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious." The deacons must not
be "double-tongued." Women must not be "slanderers." Young widows have
to be on their guard against being "tattlers and busybodies." Timothy is
charged to "follow after ... love, patience, meekness," and is reminded
that "the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt
to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose
themselves." Titus again is told that a bishop must be "not self-willed,
not soon angry," "no brawler, no striker," that the aged women must not
be "slanderers," that all men are to be put in mind "to speak evil of no
man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward
all men."[43] There is no need to assume that that age, or that those
Churches, had any special need of warnings of this kind. All ages and
all Churches need them. To keep one's tongue and one's temper in due
order is to all of us one of the most constant and necessary duties of
the Christian life; and the neglect cannot fail to be disastrous to the
reality and efficacy of our devotions. Those who have ill-will and
strife in their hearts cannot unite to much purpose in common
thanksgiving and prayer.

And just as the men have to take care that their attitude of body and
mind is such as befits the dignity of public worship, in like manner the
women also have to take care that their presence in the congregation
does not appear incongruous. They must come in seemly attire and with
seemly behaviour. Everything which might divert attention from the
service to themselves must be avoided. Modesty and simplicity must at
all times be the characteristics of a Christian woman's dress and
bearing; but at no time is this more necessary than in the public
services of the Church. Excessive adornment, out of place at all times,
is grievously offensive there. It gives a flat contradiction to the
profession of humility which is involved in taking part in common
worship, and to that natural sobriety which is a woman's fairest
ornament and best protection. Both reverence and self-reverence are
injured by it. Moreover, it may easily be a cause of offence to others,
by provoking jealousy or admiration of the creature, where all ought to
be absorbed in the worship of the Creator.

Here again St. Paul is putting his finger upon dangers and evils which
are not peculiar to any age or any Church. He had spoken of the same
thing years before, to the women of Corinth, and St. Peter utters
similar warnings to Christian women throughout all time.[44] Clement of
Alexandria abounds in protests against the extravagance in dress so
common in his own day. In one place he says; "Apelles the painter seeing
one of his pupils painting a figure thickly with gold colour to
represent Helen, said to him; 'My lad, you were unable to paint her
beautiful, and so you have made her rich.' Such Helens are the ladies of
the present day; not really beautiful, but richly got up. To these the
Spirit prophesies by Zephaniah: And their gold shall not be able to
deliver them in the day of the Lord's anger."[45] Tertullian is not less
emphatic. He says that most Christian women dress like heathen, as if
modesty required nothing more than stopping short of actual impurity.
"What is the use," he asks, "of showing a decent and Christian
simplicity in your face, while you load the rest of your body with the
dangling absurdities of pomps and vanities?"[46] Chrysostom also, in
commenting on this very passage, asks the congregation at Antioch: "And
what then is _modest apparel_? Such as covers them completely and
decently, and not with superfluous ornaments; for the one is decent and
the other is not. What? Do you approach God to pray with broidered hair
and ornaments of gold? Are you come to a ball? to a marriage-feast? to a
carnival? There such costly things might have been seasonable: here not
one of them is wanted. You are come to pray, to ask pardon for your
sins, to plead for your offences, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to
render Him propitious to you. Away with such hypocrisy! God is not
mocked. This is the attire of actors and dancers, who live upon the
stage. Nothing of this kind becomes a modest woman, who should be
adorned with shamefastness and sobriety.... And if St. Paul" (he
continues) "would remove those things which are merely the marks of
wealth, as gold, pearls, and costly array; how much more those things
which imply studied adornment, as painting, colouring the eyes, a
mincing walk, an affected voice, a languishing look? For he glances at
all these things in speaking of modest apparel and shamefastness."

But there is no need to go to Corinth in the first century, or
Alexandria and Carthage in the second and third, or Antioch in the
fourth, in order to show that the Apostle was giving no unnecessary
warning in admonishing Timothy respecting the dress and behaviour of
Christian women, especially in the public services of the congregation.
In our own age and our own Church we can find abundant illustration.
Might not any preacher in any fashionable congregation echo with a good
deal of point the questions of Chrysostom? "Have you come to dance or a
levee? Have you mistaken this building for a theatre?" And what would be
the language of a Chrysostom or a Paul if he were to enter a theatre
nowadays and see the attire, I will not say of the actresses, but of the
audience? There are some rough epithets, not often heard in polite
society, which express in plain language the condition of those women
who by their manner of life and conversation have forfeited their
characters. Preachers in earlier ages were accustomed to speak very
plainly about such things: and what the Apostle and Chrysostom have
written in their epistles and homilies does not leave us in much doubt
as to what would have been their manner of speaking of them.

But what is urged here is sufficient. "You are Christian women," says
St. Paul, "and the profession which you have adopted is reverence
towards God (=theosebeian=). This profession you have made known to the
world. It is necessary, therefore, that those externals of which the
world takes cognisance should not give the lie to your profession. And
how is unseemly attire, paraded at the very time of public worship,
compatible with the reverence which you have professed? Reverence God by
reverencing yourselves; by guarding with jealous care the dignity of
those bodies with which He has endowed you. Reverence God by coming
before Him clothed both in body and soul in fitting attire. Let your
bodies be freed from meretricious decoration. Let your souls be adorned
with abundance of good works."

FOOTNOTES:

[37] So Chrysostom _in loco_: but this is an exaggeration respecting
Jewish limitations.

[38] See Clement of Rome, _Cor._ xli.

[39] _Didache_, x. 7; Just. Mart., _Apol._, 1. lxvii. Justin probably
uses the term "president" =ho proestos= in order to be intelligible to
heathen readers.

[40] _Strom._, VII. vii.

[41] _De Orat._, xiii., xiv., xvii.; _Apol._ xxx.; Comp. _Adv. Jud._, x.

[42] _Vit. Const._, IV. xv. 1.

[43] 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8, 11; v. 13; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Tit. i. 7; ii.
3; iii. 2.

[44] 1 Cor. xi. 2-16; 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.

[45] _Paed._, II. xiii.

[46] _De Cult Fem._, II. i. ix.




CHAPTER X.

_ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES
DISTINGUISHED._

    "If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
    The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one
    wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to
    teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover
    of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
    subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule
    his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?) not a
    novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the
    devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are
    without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
    Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given
    to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the
    faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then
    let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless."--1 TIM. iii. 1-10.


This passage is one of the most important in the New Testament
respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does
not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is
again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus (i. 5-9), and the
qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the
two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in
the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the
Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to
arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive
Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being
investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and
substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word
will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which
considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable:
and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who
are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the
subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of
fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what
is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to
certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant
certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.

It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon
all the points which have been raised in connexion with this problem;
but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important
features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two
heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific
enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a
useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of
certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly
investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their
proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only
constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items
from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of
what is certain.

At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is
meant, in a question of this kind, by _certainty_. There are no limits
to scepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly
shown. It is possible to question one's own existence, and still more
possible to question the irresistible evidence of one's senses or the
irresistible conclusions of one's reason. _A fortiori_ it is possible to
throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the
assassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the
AEneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not
certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an
experiment in chemistry or physics. But a sceptical criticism of this
kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of
certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the
nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to
treat evidence as adequate, which they would be willing to recognize as
such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain
amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind
makes a thing "practically certain:" _i.e._, with this amount of
evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the
thing was true.

In the question before us there are four or five things which may with
great reason be treated as practically certain.

1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian
ministry, _has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians_. For
us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As
students of Church History we are bound to investigate the _origines_ of
the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history:
but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the
result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution
consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged
from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages,
and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great
branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no
way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church
during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the
writings of his disciple's disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule episcopal,
collegiate, or presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the episcopal
form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the
enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least
seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to
be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of
the various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no
practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which
is already ample. To prove that the episcopal form of government was
founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical
importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century
had closed, the practical question, _if there ever was one_, had settled
itself. God's providence ordained that the universal form of Church
government should be the episcopal form and should continue to be such;
and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which
it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of
Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established
independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its
accumulated authority.

2. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this
question, is, that _for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the
age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything
like proof_. The evidence has received important additions during the
present century, and still more important additions are by no means
impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the
evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large
as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in
itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty.
Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as
yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date
of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but
this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really
serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to
the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of
information; _e.g._, the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, the Epistles
of Ignatius, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ and the _Clementines_. Here also
our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of
these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about
precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that
with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing
that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval
which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last
quarter of the second.

This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful
metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period "passes
through a tunnel" or "runs underground." We are in the light of day
during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again
in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant
writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But
during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but
in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an
occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about
which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not
likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next
certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.

3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the
Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not
discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words _a distinction was
made from the first between clergy and laity_. Of this fact the Pastoral
Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up
and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to
the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly
the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St.
Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that
_labour among you_, and _are over you in the Lord_, and _admonish_ you;
and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake" (v.
12, 13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to
be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which
every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.
John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest,
of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about
Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but
ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence
in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the pre-eminence" (9,
10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: "Obey them that _have the rule over you_ and submit to them:
for they watch in behalf of your _souls_, as they that shall give
account" (xiii. 17). And directly we go outside the New Testament and
look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same
distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which
almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read
that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed
their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in
no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and
deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a
certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their
deacons in faith"--the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the
LXX. of Isa. lx. 17. And a little further on Clement writes: "Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife
over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having
received complete fore-knowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons,
and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those
therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of
repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered
unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and
with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with
all--these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their
ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those
who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have
displaced certain persons, though they were living honourably, from the
ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (xlii., xliv.).

Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what
has been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction
made between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary
arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person
who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or
bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to
Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious
offence, to depose him is no light sin.

None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tell
us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as
distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these
functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that
they concerned men's souls rather than their bodies, and that they were
connected with religious service (=leitourgia=). But the one thing which
is quite clear is this,--that the Church had, and was always intended to
have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they
ministered and over which they ruled.

4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of
the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last
quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly
established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this.
We find a _regularly organized clergy_, not only distinctly marked off
from the laity, but distinctly _marked off among themselves by well
defined gradations of rank_. And, secondly, we find that _each local
Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer_, whose powers
are large and seldom resisted, and _who universally receives the title
of bishop_. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of
any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local
Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and
it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the
latter part of the second century--say A.D. 180 to 200--were fully
persuaded that the episcopal form of government had prevailed in the
different Churches from the Apostles' time to their own. Just as in the
case of the Gospels, Irenaeus and his contemporaries not only do not know
of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but
cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less than these four:
so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy
as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any
previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although
Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops
under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at
that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess
episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the
martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy
in the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; and he
held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202.
From Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we
learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in
not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the
names of their predecessors are given up to the times of the Apostles.
Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is
connected with "the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul": and, in
the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been
appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or
may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus
and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the
universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have
prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.[47]

5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the
Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty
from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and
that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn,
and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the
Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot
as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred
in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be
later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not
conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their
testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long
before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government
throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks
of "the bishops that are settled _in the farthest parts of the earth_
(=kata ta perata horisthentes=)" they prove that, according to his
belief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere (_Ephes._ iii.).
This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all
sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius
were evidently not written in order to magnify the episcopal office, or
to preach up the episcopal system. The writer's main object is to
deprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion
the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop.
Thus, the magnifying of the episcopal office comes about incidentally;
because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in
each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will
be a security against all schismatical tendencies.

These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent
which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other
points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of
a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that
we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the
distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the
first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise
functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With
regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a
considerable amount of probability.

1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy
and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles
(who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists.
Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons,
as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) as well as in the
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, presbyter or elder being sometimes
used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant
and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (xii. 28), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11), and
perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.
John. In the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ it is clearly marked.

2. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did,
and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title
of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who
possessed this gift: and the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ shows a
great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when
these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of
extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet.
Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some
dishonest persons pretended to be prophets, when they were not such. The
office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he
always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably
a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as
a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of
prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (vi.).

3. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or
representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be
discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and
their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or
recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons (Acts vi.
4-6), they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of
laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already
ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was
still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is
good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was
from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting
prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating
it.

But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to
a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord's Day or holy seasons, for
all days are the Lord's, and all seasons are holy; there are no places
especially dedicated to God's worship, for the whole universe is His
temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers,
for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it
exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places
holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all
Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that
none are such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose
will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church
throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to
anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the
conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous
confusion.

In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They
come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an
Episcopalian Church.

"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view
of what the Church is must be affected and moulded. We shall either
accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ
rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has
attached a blessing, _the fulness of which we have no right to look for
except through the channels He has ordained_ (and it ought to be
needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest
satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of
individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with
ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to
which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of
a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly
principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men.
Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot
fail to affect in the most vital manner the Church's life and relation
to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary
result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed
and still living priesthood among men."[48]

FOOTNOTES:

[47] See an admirable article on the Christian ministry by Dr. Salmon in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1887; also the present writer's _Church of the
Early Fathers_, pp. 58 ff.; 92 ff.; 2nd ed. Longmans, 1887.

[48] Professor W. Milligan, D.D., on "The Idea of the Priesthood," in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1888, p. 7.




CHAPTER XI.

_THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT
OBLIGATION._

    "The husband of one wife."--1 TIM. iii. 2.


The Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked
for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be "husband
of one wife." The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never
cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase
is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly
contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of
probability is so largely in favour of one of the meanings, that the
remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for
being supported in competition with it.

Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered
together, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the
passage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 about deacons,
and (3) another in Tit. i. 6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul
afterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages
we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as
a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in
a deacon, that he should be a "man of one woman" or "husband of one
wife" (=mias gynaikos aner=). In the fourth passage (1 Tim. v. 9) he
gives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the
roll of church widows, that she must be a "woman of one man" or "wife of
one husband" (=henos andros gyne=). This fourth passage is of much
importance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the
other three passages.

There are four main interpretations of the expression in question.

1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind,--that the
person to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not
more; that he must not be a _polygamist_. According to this
interpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean,
that a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to
baptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be
admitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks
simple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that
polygamy in St. Paul's day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr,
in the _Dialogue with Trypho_, says to the Jews, "It is better for you
to follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this
day allow you each to have four and five wives" (Sec. 134). But polygamy in
the Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law,
which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time,
and treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and
void, but infamous. Where it was practised it must have been practised
secretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus,
not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith.
Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had
not yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in
which the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become
Christians, amounts to something like proof that such cases were
extremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should
think it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted
polygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is
no likelihood that any one of them knew of a single instance of a
polygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this
interpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected.

But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence
of the converse phrase, "wife of one husband." If men with more than one
wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women
with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the
Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as
monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case
in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification "wife of one husband."
Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this
"wife of one husband" must be a person who at the time had _no_ husband.
The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her
husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression,
"husband of one wife," cannot have any reference to polygamy.

2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in
both cases is not polygamy, but _divorce_. Divorce, as we know from
abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans
in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked
the special condemnation of Christ: and one of the many influences which
Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for
divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce
for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women
sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either
husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances
are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as
Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and
often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St.
Paul's day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had
been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing
improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such
persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to
legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they
must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation
of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy
capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more
influential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from
precisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians,
officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of
the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" cannot be
condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount
of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation
(which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.

3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases
are a vague way of indicating _misconduct of any kind in reference to
marriage_. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the
Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the
Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins
of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is
not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have
seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth
chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other
examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate
persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he
would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under
discussion.

4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant
one, that these passages all refer to _second marriage after the first
marriage has been dissolved by death_. A widower who has married a
second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has
married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church
widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with
the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is
confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy
by the early Church.

(_a_) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons
who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second
marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so
far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a
serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any
but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be
hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen
certainly felt a special respect for the _univira_, the woman who did
not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing
that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of
men, _e.g._, in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may
safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had
abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those
who had not abstained.

(_b_) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage
before us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression,
"husband of one wife," is "without reproach"; in the Epistle to Titus it
is "blameless." In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be
nothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could
afterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent
with his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and
_therefore_ he must not have been twice married.

(_c_) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His
statements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that
there is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and
what is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle
strongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all (1 Cor. vii. 28, 36;
1 Tim. iv. 3). For _those who are equal to it_, whether single or
widowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more
blessed condition (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 32, 34, 40; 1 Tim. v. 7). But so
few persons are equal to this, that it is prudent for those who desire
to marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so (1
Cor. vii. 2, 9, 39; 1 Tim. v. 14). These being his convictions, is it
not reasonable to suppose, that in selecting ministers for the Church he
would look for them in the class which had given proof of moral strength
by remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time. In an age of
such boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and
a person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have
his moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and
semi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over
passions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which
the infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning
to advantage.

And here we may note St. Paul's wisdom in giving no preference to those
who had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he
done so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who
disparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which
abounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious,
that, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet
he assumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the
rule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of
giving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a
celibate deacon.[49]

5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly
confirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first
few centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely
influenced by St. Paul's language, and therefore being a guide as to
what his words were then supposed to mean.

Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later
Fathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement
of second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to
fall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel
constitution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage
"respectable adultery," and to say that one who thus severs himself from
his dead wife is an "adulterer in disguise." Respecting the clergy,
Origen says plainly, "Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon,
nor a widow, can be twice married." The canons of councils are not less
plain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the
laity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the
clergy. The synods of Ancyra (_Can._ 19), of Neocaesarea (_Can._ 3 and
7), and of Laodicea (_Can._ 1) subjected lay persons who married more
than once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different
Churches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The
Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members
of the Puritan sect of _Cathari_ are not to be received into the Church
unless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have
married a second time (Can. 8). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (vi. 17)
and the so-called _Apostolic Canons_ (17) absolutely forbid the
promotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or
deacon; and the _Apostolic Constitutions_ forbid the marriage of one who
is already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but
if he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of
course, if his wife dies, he is not to marry again. Even singers,
readers, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been
admitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to
marry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a
second time.

All these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the
early Church understood St. Paul's language: viz., that one who had
exhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted
to the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was
already in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from
this they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage
contract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop,
presbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but
ordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but
the higher orders of clergy might not become married.

A little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from
St. Paul's rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would
have sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have
shown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be
ordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if
they find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind _after_
their ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are
unequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly
lays down, decides the case: "If they have not continency, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." And if this holds good
of clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as
strongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination.
Those Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to
marry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly
claim to have the Apostle on their side.

But there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which
disregard the Apostle's directions, in admitting those who have been
more than once married to the diaconate, and even to the episcopate.
What defence is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount
to lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St.
Paul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is
quite possible that his directions are given "by reason of the present
distress." We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which
has far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the
eating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which
most of the Apostles were present, forbad the eating of these things. It
also forbad the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led
the way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the
whole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of
these cases is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were
likely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood,
it was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to
think lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating
what had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to
forbid it. When these dangers ceased the reason for the enactment
ceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle
applies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married.
Nowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because
he has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be
to lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is
great; and this loss would be without compensation.

And we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostle's rule
about digamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist
treatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their
bishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the
Pastoral Epistles were read;[50] and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on
Callistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice
and thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we
know that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who
had married twice _as Christians_, and those who had concluded the
second marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from
ordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage
took place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be
considered as having been married only once.[51] This freedom in
interpreting the Apostle's rule not unnaturally led to its being, in
some branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, "Do not ordain
a man who has married more than once." If you may say, "This man, who
has married more than once, shall be _accounted_ as having married only
once;" you may equally well say "The Apostle's rule was a temporary one,
and we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to
particular circumstances." We may feel confidence that in such a matter
it was not St. Paul's wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of
their liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] As the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (vol. i. p. 324) has
given its sanction to the view that "St. Paul _required_ the
presbyter-bishop to have had the experience of marriage and with at
least a preference for those who had brought up children (1 Tim. iii. 2,
4), and extended the requirement even to the deacons of the Church (1
Tim. iii. 11, 12)," it seems to be worth while to repeat the declaration
of Ellicott and Huther, that "the strange opinion of Bretschneider, that
=mias= is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant that a bishop
should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is
accorded to it by Winer, _Grammar of New Testament_, III. 18 (Eng. Tr.,
p. 146)." Would any Englishman ever say "a bishop must have one wife,"
when his meaning was "a bishop must have a wife"?

[50] _De Monog._, xii.

[51] See Doellinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_ (pp. 129-147 Eng.
Trans.) for a full discussion of the question.




CHAPTER XII.

_THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS._

    "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;
    but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave
    themselves in the house of God, which is the Church of the living
    God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy
    great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the
    flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the
    nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory"--1 TIM.
    iii. 14-16.


St. Paul here makes a pause in the Epistle. He has brought to a close
some of the principal directions which he has to give respecting the
preservation of pure doctrine, the conduct of public worship, and the
qualifications for the ministry: and before proceeding to other topics
he halts in order to insist upon the importance of these things, by
pointing out what is really involved in them. Their importance is one
main reason for his writing at all. Although he hopes to be with Timothy
again even sooner than might be expected, he nevertheless will not allow
matters of this gravity to wait for his return to Ephesus. For, after
all, this hope may be frustrated, and it may be a long time before the
two friends meet again face to face. The way in which Christians ought
to behave themselves in the house of God is not a matter which can wait
indefinitely, seeing that this house of God is no lifeless shrine of a
lifeless image, which knows nothing and cares nothing about what goes on
in its temple; but a congregation of immortal souls and of bodies that
are temples of the living God, Who will destroy him who destroys His
temple (1 Cor. iii. 17). God's house must have regulations to preserve
it from unseeming disorder. The congregation which belongs to the living
God must have a constitution to preserve it from faction and anarchy.
All the more so, seeing that to it has been assigned a post of great
responsibility. Truth in itself is self-evident and self-sustained: it
needs no external support or foundation. But truth as it is manifested
to the world needs the best support and the firmest basis that can be
found for it. And it is the duty and privilege of the Church to supply
these. God's household is not only a community which in a solemn and
special way belongs to the living God: it is also the "pillar and ground
of the truth." These considerations show how vital is the question, In
what way ought one to behave oneself in this community?[52]

For the truth, to the support and establishment of which every Christian
by his behaviour in the Church is bound to contribute, is indisputably
something great and profound. By the admission of all, the mystery of
the Christian faith is a deep and weighty one; and the responsibility of
helping or hindering its establishment is proportionately deep and
weighty. Other things may be matter of dispute, but this not. "Without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness."

Why does St. Paul speak of the Truth as "the mystery of godliness"? In
order to express both the Divine and the human aspects of the Christian
faith. On the Divine side the Gospel is a mystery, a disclosed secret.
It is a body of truth originally hidden from man's knowledge, to which
man by his own unaided reason and abilities would never be able to find
the way. In one word it is a revelation: a communication by God to men
of Truth which they could not have discovered for themselves. "Mystery"
is one of those words which Christianity has borrowed from paganism, but
has consecrated to new uses by gloriously transfiguring its meaning. The
heathen mystery was something always kept hidden from the bulk of
mankind; a secret to which only a privileged few were admitted. It
encouraged, in the very centre of religion itself, selfishness and
exclusiveness. The Christian mystery, on the other hand, is something
once hidden, but now made known, not to a select few, but to all. The
term, therefore, involves a splendid paradox: it is a secret revealed to
every one. In St. Paul's own words to the Romans (xvi. 25), "the
revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times
eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets,
according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all
the nations." He rarely uses the word mystery without combining with it
some other word signifying to reveal, manifest, or make known.[53]

But the Christian faith is not only a mystery but a "mystery of
godliness." It not only tells of the bounty of Almighty God in revealing
His eternal counsels to man, but it also tells of man's obligations in
consequence of being initiated. It is a mystery, not "of lawlessness" (2
Thess. ii. 7), but "of godliness." Those who accept it "profess
godliness"; profess reverence to the God who has made it known to them.
It teaches plainly on what principle we are to regulate "how men ought
to behave themselves in the household of God." The Gospel is a mystery
of piety, a mystery of reverence and of religious life. Holy itself, and
proceeding from the Holy One, it bids its recipients be holy, even as He
is Holy Who gives it.

"Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of
angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received
up in glory."

After the text about the three Heavenly Witnesses in the First Epistle
of St. John, no disputed reading in the New Testament has given rise to
more controversy than the passage before us. Let us hope that the day is
not far distant when there will be no more disputing about either text.
The truth, though still doubted, especially in reference to the passage
before us, is not really doubtful. In both cases the reading of the A.V.
is indefensible. It is certain that St. John never wrote the words about
the "three that bear witness in heaven": and it is certain that St. Paul
did not write, "_God_ was manifest in the flesh," but "_Who_ was
manifested in the flesh." The reading "_God_ was manifested in the
flesh" appears in no Christian writer until late in the fourth century,
and in no translation of the Scriptures, earlier than the seventh or
eighth century. And it is not found in any of the five great primary
MSS., except as a correction made by a later scribe, who knew of the
reading "God was manifested," and either preferred it to the other, or
at least wished to preserve it as an alternative reading, or as an
interpretation. Even so cautious and conservative a commentator as the
late Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln declares that "the preponderance of
testimony is overwhelming" against the reading "_God_ was manifested in
the flesh." In an old Greek MS., it would require only two small strokes
to turn "Who" into "God"; and this alteration would be a tempting one,
seeing that the masculine "Who" after the neuter "mystery," looks harsh
and unnatural.[54]

But here we come upon a highly interesting consideration. The words that
follow look like a quotation from some primitive Christian hymn or
confession. The rhythmical movement and the parallelism of the six
balanced clauses, of which each triplet forms a climax, points to some
such fact as this. It is possible that we have here a fragment of one of
the very hymns which, as Pliny the Younger tells the Emperor Trajan, the
Christians were accustomed to sing antiphonally at daybreak to Christ as
a God.[55] Such a passage as this might well be sung from side to side,
line by line or triplet by triplet, as choirs still chant the Psalms in
our churches.

    "Who was manifested in the flesh,
    "Justified in the spirit,
    "Seen of angels,
    "Preached among the nations,
    "Believed on in the world,
    "Received up in glory."

Let us assume that this very reasonable and attractive conjecture is
correct, and that St. Paul is here quoting from some well-known form of
words. Then the "Who" with which the quotation begins will refer to
something in the preceding lines which are not quoted. How natural,
then, that St. Paul should leave the "Who" unchanged, although it does
not fit on grammatically to his own sentence. But in any case there is
no doubt as to the antecedent of the "Who." "The mystery of godliness"
has for its centre and basis the life of a Divine Person; and the great
crisis in the long process by which the mystery was revealed was reached
when this Divine Person "was manifested in the flesh." That in making
this statement or quotation the Apostle has in his mind the Gnostics who
"teach a different doctrine" (i. 3), is quite possible, but is by no
means certain. The "manifestation" of Christ in the flesh is a favourite
topic with him, as with St. John, and is one of the points in which the
two Apostles not only teach the same doctrine, but teach it in the same
language. The fact that he had used the word "mystery" would be quite
enough to make him speak of "manifestation," even if there had been no
false teachers who denied or explained away the fact of the Incarnation
of the Divine Son. The two words fit into one another exactly.
"Mystery," in Christian theology, implies something which once was
concealed but has now been made known; "manifest" implies making known
what had once been concealed. _An historical appearance of One Who had
previously existed, but had been kept from_ _the knowledge of the
world_, is what is meant by, "Who was manifested in the flesh."

"Justified in the spirit." Spirit here cannot mean the Holy Spirit, as
the A.V. would lead us to suppose. "In spirit" in this clause is in
obvious contrast to "in flesh" in the previous clause. And if "flesh"
means the material part of Christ's nature, "spirit" means the
immaterial part of His nature, and the higher portion of it. His flesh
was the sphere of His manifestation: His spirit was the sphere of His
justification. Thus much seems to be clear. But what are we to
understand by His justification? And how did it take place in His
spirit? These are questions to which a great variety of answers have
been given; and it would be rash to assert of any one of them that it is
so satisfactory as to be conclusive.

Christ's human nature consisted, as ours does, of three elements, body,
soul, and spirit. The body is the flesh spoken of in the first clause.
The soul (=psyche=), as distinct from the spirit (=pneuma=), is the seat
of the natural affections and desires. It was Christ's soul that was
troubled at the thought of impending suffering. "My soul is exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34). "Now is My
soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour"
(John xii. 27). The spirit is the seat of the religious emotions: it is
the highest, innermost part of man's nature; the sanctuary of the
temple. It was in His spirit that Christ was affected when the presence
of moral evil distressed Him. He was moved with indignation in His
spirit when He saw the hypocritical Jews mingling their sentimental
lamentations with the heartfelt lamentations of Martha and Mary at the
grave of Lazarus (John xi. 33). It was in His spirit also that He was
troubled when, as Judas sat at table with Him and possibly next to
Him,[56] He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray Me" (John xiii. 21). This spiritual part of His nature, which was
the sphere of His most intense suffering, was also the sphere of His
most intense joy and satisfaction. As moral evil distressed His spirit,
so moral innocence delighted it. In a way that none of us can measure,
Jesus Christ knew the joy of a good conscience. The challenge which He
made to the Jews, "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" was one which He
could make to His own conscience. It had nothing against Him and could
never accuse Him. He was _justified_ when it spake, and clear when it
judged (Rom. iii. 4; Ps. li. 4). Perfect Man though He was, and
manifested in weak and suffering flesh, He was nevertheless "justified
in the spirit."[57]

"Seen of angels." It is impossible to determine the precise occasion to
which this refers. Ever since the Incarnation Christ has been visible to
the angels; but something more special than the fact of the Incarnation
seems to be alluded to here. The wording in the Greek is exactly the
same as in "_He appeared to_ Cephas; then _to_ the twelve; then _He
appeared to_ above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater
part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then _He appeared to_
James; then _to_ all the Apostles; last of all, as _to_ one born out of
due time, _He appeared to_ me also" (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Here, therefore,
we might translate "_appeared to_ angels." What appearance, or
appearances, of the incarnate Word to the angelic host can be intended?

The question cannot be answered with any certainty; but with some
confidence we can venture to say what can _not_ be intended. "Appeared
to angels" can scarcely refer to the angelic appearances which are
recorded in connexion with the Nativity, Temptation, Agony,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. On those occasions angels
appeared to Christ and to others, not He to angels. With still greater
confidence we may reject the suggestion that "angels" here means either
the Apostles, as the angels or _messengers_ of Christ, or evil spirits,
as the angels of Satan. It may be doubted whether anything at all
parallel to either explanation can be found in Scripture. Moreover,
"appeared to evil spirits" is an interpretation which makes the passage
more difficult than it was before. The manifestation of Christ to the
angelic host either at the Incarnation or at the return to glory is a
far more reasonable meaning to assign to the words.

The first three clauses of this primitive hymn may thus be summed up.
The mystery of godliness has been revealed to mankind, and revealed in a
historical Person, Who, while manifested in human flesh, was in His
inmost spirit declared free from all sin. And this manifestation of a
perfectly righteous Man was not confined to the human race. The angels
also witnessed it and can bear testimony to its reality.

The remaining triplet is more simple: the meaning of each one of its
clauses is clear. The same Christ, who was seen of angels, was also
preached among the nations of the earth and believed on in the world:
yet He Himself was taken up from the earth and received once more in
glory. The propagation of the faith in an ascended Christ is here
plainly and even enthusiastically stated. To all the nations, to the
whole world, this glorified Saviour belongs. All this adds emphasis to
the question "how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God" in
which such truths are taught and upheld.

It is remarkable how many arrangements of these six clauses are
possible, all making excellent sense. We may make them into two triplets
of independent lines: or we may couple the two first lines of each
triplet together and then make the third lines correspond to one
another. In either case each group begins with earth and ends with
heaven. Or again, we may make the six lines into three couplets. In the
first couplet flesh and spirit are contrasted and combined; in the
second, angels and men; in the third, earth and heaven.

Yes, beyond dispute the mystery of godliness is a great one. The
revelation of the Eternal Son, which imposes upon those who accept it a
holiness of which His sinlessness must be the model, is something awful
and profound. But He, Who along with every temptation which He allows
"makes also the way of escape," does not impose a pattern for imitation
without at the same time granting the grace necessary for struggling
towards it. To reach it is impossible--at any rate in this life. But the
consciousness that we cannot reach perfection is no excuse for aiming at
imperfection. The sinlessness of Christ is immeasurably beyond us here;
and it may be that even in eternity the loss caused by our sins in this
life will never be entirely cancelled. But to those who have taken up
their cross daily and followed their Master, and who have washed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, will be granted
hereafter to stand sinless "before the throne of God and serve Him day
and night in His temple." Having followed Christ on earth, they will
follow Him still more in heaven. Having shared His sufferings here, they
will share His reward there. They too will be "seen of angels" and
"received up in glory."

FOOTNOTES:

[52] To take the "pillar and ground of the truth" as meaning Timothy
makes sense, but not nearly such good sense: moreover, it is almost
certain that if St. Paul had meant this, he would have expressed himself
differently. There is no intolerable mixture of metaphors in speaking of
Christians first as a house and then as a pillar, any more than in
speaking of any one as both a pillar and a basis. In vi. 9 we have the
covetous falling into a _snare_ and hurtful lusts such as _drown_ men.

[53] 1 Cor. ii 1, 7, xv. 51; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, vi. 19; Col. i. 26,
27, ii. v. 3, comp. Rom. xi. 25, and see Lightfoot on Col. i. 26.

[54] Cf. Col. i. 27, which throws much light on this passage; and also
Col. ii. 2. In some MSS. and Versions the "Who" has been changed into
"which," in order to make the construction less harsh.

[55] Carmen Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem (Plin., _Ep._ x. 97).

[56] St. John reclined on our Lord's right; Judas seems to have been on
His left. He must have been very close to be able to hear without the
others hearing.

[57] Cf. the partly parallel passage 1 Pet. iii. 18: "Put to death in
the flesh, but quickened in the spirit." But "flesh" and "spirit" have
no preposition in the original Greek in 1 Pet. iii. 18: here each has
the =en=.




CHAPTER XIII.

_THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS._

    "Exercise thyself unto godliness: for bodily exercise is profitable
    for a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having
    promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come"--1
    TIM. iv. 7, 8.


It is almost impossible to decide what St. Paul here means by "bodily
exercise." Not that either the phrase or the passage in which it occurs
is either difficult or obscure. But the phrase may mean either of two
things, both of which make excellent sense in themselves, and both of
which fit the context.

At the beginning of this chapter the Apostle warns Timothy against
apostates who shall "give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils ... forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats."
St. Paul has in his mind those moral teachers who made bodily
mortifications the road, not to self-discipline, but to self-effacement;
and who taught that such things were necessary, not because our bodies
are prone to evil, but because they exist at all. To have a body, they
held, was a degradation: and such a possession was a curse, a burden,
and a shame. Instead of believing, as every Christian must, that a human
body is a very sacred thing, to be jealously guarded from all that may
harm or pollute it, these philosophers held that it was worse than
worthless, fit for nothing but to be trampled upon and abused. That it
may be sanctified here and be glorified hereafter,--that it may be the
temple of God's Holy Spirit now and be admitted to share the blessedness
of Christ's ascended humanity in the world to come,--they could not and
would not believe. It must be made to feel its own vileness. It must be
checked, and thwarted, and tormented into subjection, until the blessed
time should come when death should release the unhappy soul that was
linked to it from its loathsome and intolerable companion.

It cannot, of course, for a moment be supposed that St. Paul would admit
that "bodily exercise" of this suicidal kind was "profitable" even "for
a little." On the contrary, as we have seen already, he condemns the
whole system in the very strongest terms. It is a blasphemy against
God's goodness and a libel on human nature. But some persons have
thought that the Apostle may be alluding to practices which, externally
at any rate, had much resemblance to the practices which he so
emphatically condemns. He may have in his mind those fasts, and vigils,
and other forms of bodily mortification, which within prudent limits and
when sanctified by humility and prayer, are a useful, if not a necessary
discipline for most of us. And it has been thought that Timothy himself
may have been going to unwise lengths in such ascetic practices: for in
this very letter we find his affectionate master charging him, "Be no
longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake
and thine often infirmities."

This then is one possible meaning of the Apostle's words in the passage
before us. Discipline of the body by means of a severe rule of life is
profitable for something: but it is not everything. It is not even the
chief thing, or anything approaching to the chief thing. The chief thing
is godliness. To the value of bodily exercise of this kind there are
limits, and rather narrow limits: it "is profitable for _a little_." To
the value of godliness there are no limits: it is "profitable for _all_
things." Mortifications of the body may preserve us from sins of the
flesh: but they are no certain protection even against these. They are
no protection at all--sometimes they are the very reverse of
protection--against sins of self-complacency and spiritual pride.
Asceticism may exist without godliness; and godliness may exist without
asceticism. Bodily mortifications may be useful; but they may also be
harmful to both soul and body. Godliness must always be useful to both;
can never be harmful to either.

But it is quite possible to understand the expression "bodily exercise,"
in the sense in which the phrase is most commonly used in ordinary
conversation among ourselves. In the text which we are considering it
may mean that exercise of the body which we are accustomed to take, some
of us of necessity, because the work by which we earn our daily bread
involves a great deal of physical exertion; some of us for health's
sake, because our work involves a great deal of sitting still; some of
us for pleasure, because bodily exercise of various kinds is delightful
to us. This interpretation of the Apostle's statement, like the other
interpretation, makes good sense of itself and fits the context. And
whereas that was in harmony with the opening words of the chapter, this
fits the immediate context.

St. Paul has just said "Exercise thyself unto godliness." In using the
expression "Exercise thyself" (=gymnaze seauton=) he was of course
borrowing, as he so constantly does borrow, from the language which was
used respecting gymnastic contests in the public games. The Christian is
an athlete, who must train himself and exercise himself for a lifelong
contest. He has to wrestle and fight with the powers of evil, that he
may win a crown of glory that fadeth not away. How natural, then, that
the Apostle, having just spoken of spiritual exercise for the attainment
of godliness, should go on to glance at bodily exercise, in order to
point out the superiority of the one over the other. The figurative
would easily suggest the literal sense; and it is therefore quite lawful
to take the words "bodily exercise" in their most literal sense. Perhaps
we may go further and say, that this is just one of those cases in
which, because the literal meaning makes excellent sense, the literal
meaning is to be preferred. Let us then take St. Paul's words quite
literally and see what meaning they will yield.

"Bodily exercise is profitable for a little." It is by no means a
useless thing. In its proper place it has a real value. Taken in
moderation it tends to preserve health and increase strength. It may
sometimes be the means of gaining for ourselves and for the circle to
which we belong praise and distinction. It makes us more capable of
aiding ourselves and others in times of physical danger. It may even be
the means of enabling us to save life. By taking us out of ourselves and
turning our thoughts into new channels, it is an instrument of mental
refreshment, and enables us to return to the main business of our lives
with increased intellectual vigour. And beyond all this, if kept within
bounds, it has a real moral value. It sometimes keeps us out of mischief
by giving us innocent instead of harmful recreation. And bodily training
and practice, if loyally carried out, involve moral gains of another
kind. Dangerous appetites have to be kept in check, personal wishes have
to be sacrificed, good temper has to be cultivated, if success is to be
secured for ourselves or the side to which we belong. All this is
"profitable" in a very real degree. But the limits to all these good
results are evident; and they are somewhat narrow. They are confined to
this life, and for the most part to the lower side of it; and they are
by no means certain. Only indirectly does bodily exercise yield help to
the intellectual and spiritual parts of our nature; and as regards both
of them it may easily do more harm than good. Like excessive meat and
drink, it may brutalize instead of invigorating. Have we not all of us
seen men whose extravagant devotion to bodily exercise has extinguished
almost all intellectual interests, and apparently all spiritual
interests also?

But there are no such drawbacks to the exercise of godliness. "Godliness
is profitable for _all_ things, having promise" not only "of the life
which now is, but of that which is to come." Its value is not confined
to the things of this world, although it enriches and glorifies them
all. And, unlike bodily exercise, its good results are certain. There is
no possibility of excess. We may be unwise in our pursuit of godliness,
as in our pursuit of bodily strength and activity; but we cannot have
too much exercise in godliness, as we easily can in athletics. Indeed,
we cannot with any safety lay aside the one, as we not only can, but
must, frequently lay aside the other. And we need to bear this simple
truth in mind. Most of us are willing to admit that godliness is an
excellent thing for attaining to a peaceful death; but we show little
evidence that we are convinced of its being necessary for spending a
happy life. We look upon it as a very suitable thing for the weak, the
poor, the sickly, the sorrowful, and perhaps also for sentimental
persons who have plenty of leisure time at their disposal. We fail to
see that there is much need for it, or indeed much room for it, in the
lives of busy, capable, energetic, and practical men of the world. In
other words, we are not at all convinced of the truth of the Apostle's
words, that "Godliness is profitable for _all_ things," and we do not
act as if they had very much interest for us. They express a truth which
is only too likely to be crowded out of sight and out of mind in this
bustling age. Let us be as practical as our dispositions lead us and our
surroundings require us to be; but let us not forget that godliness is
really the most practical of all things. It lays hold on a man's whole
nature. It purifies his body, it illumines and sanctifies his intellect;
it braces his will. It penetrates into every department of life, whether
business or amusement, social intercourse or private meditation. Ask the
physicians, ask employers of labour, ask teachers in schools and
universities, ask statesmen and philosophers, what their experience
teaches them respecting the average merits of the virtuous and the
vicious. They will tell you that the godly person has the healthiest
body, is the most faithful servant, the most painstaking student, the
best citizen, the happiest man. A man who is formed, reformed, and
informed by religion will do far more effectual work in the world than
the same man without religion. He works with less friction, because his
care is cast upon his heavenly Father; and with more confidence, because
his trust is placed on One much more sure than himself. Moreover, in the
long run he is trusted and respected. Even those who not only abjure
religion in themselves, but ridicule it in others, cannot get rid of
their own experience. They find that the godly man can be depended upon,
where the merely clever man cannot; and they act in accordance with this
experience. Nor does the profitableness of godliness end with the
possession of blessings so inestimable as these. It holds out rich
promises respecting future happiness, and it gives an earnest and
guarantee for it. It gives a man the blessing of a good conscience,
which is one of our chief foretastes of the blessedness which awaits us
in the world to come.

Let us once for all get rid of the common, but false notion that there
is anything unpractical, anything weak or unmanly, in the life of
holiness to which Christ has called us, and of which He has given us an
example: and by the lives which we lead let us prove to others that this
vulgar notion _is_ a false one. Nothing has done more harm to the cause
of Christianity than the misconceptions which the world has formed as to
what Christianity is and what it involves. And these misconceptions are
largely caused by the unworthy lives which professing Christians lead.
And this unworthiness is of two kinds. There is first the utter
worldliness, and often the downright wickedness, of many who are not
only baptized Christians, but who habitually keep up some of the
external marks of an ordinary Christian life, such as going to church,
having family prayers, attending religious meetings, and the like. And
perhaps the worst form of this is that in which religion is made a
trade, and an appearance of godliness is assumed in order to make money
out of a reputation for sanctity. Secondly, there is the seriously
mistaken way in which many earnest persons set to work in order to
attain to true godliness. By their own course of life they lead people
to suppose that a religious life, the life of an earnest Christian, is a
dismal thing and an unpractical thing. They wear a depressed and joyless
look; they not only abstain from, but leave it to be supposed that they
condemn, many things which give zest and brightness to life, and which
the Gospel does not condemn. In their eagerness to show their conviction
as to the transcendent importance of spiritual matters, they exhibit a
carelessness and slovenliness in reference to the affairs of this life,
which is exceedingly trying to all those who have to work with them.
Thus they stand forward before the world as conspicuous evidence that
godliness is _not_ "profitable for all things." The world is only too
ready to take note of evidence which points to a conclusion so in
harmony with its own predilections. It is, and has been from the
beginning, prejudiced against religion; and its adherents are quick to
seize upon, and make the most of, anything which appears to justify
these prejudices. "In a world such as this," they say, "so full of care
and suffering, we cannot afford to part with anything which gives
brightness and refreshment to life. A religion which tells us to abjure
all these things, and live perpetually as if we were at the point of
death or face to face with the Day of Judgment, may be all very well for
monks and nuns, but is no religion for the mass of mankind. Moreover,
this is a busy age. Most of us have much to do; and, if we are to live
at all, what we have to do must be done quickly and thoroughly. That
means that we must give our minds to it; and a religion which tells us
that we must not give our minds to our business, but to other things
which it says are of far greater importance, is no religion for people
who have to make their way in the world and keep themselves and their
children from penury. We flatly refuse to accept a gospel which is so
manifestly out of harmony with the conditions of average human life."
This charge against Christianity is a very old one: we find it taken up
and answered in some of the earliest defences of the gospel which have
come down to us. The unhappy thing is, not that such charges should be
made, but that the lives of Christian men and women should prove that
there is at least a _prima facie_ case for bringing such accusations.
The early Christians had to confront the charge that they were joyless,
useless members of society and unpatriotic citizens. They maintained
that, on the contrary, they were the happiest and most contented of men,
devoted to the well-being of others, and ready to die for their country.
They kept aloof from many things in which the heathen indulged, not
because they were pleasures, but because they were sinful. And there
were certain services which they could not, without grievous sin, render
to the State. In all lawful matters no men were more ready than they
were to be loyal and law-abiding citizens. In this, as in any other
matter of moral conduct, they were quite willing to be compared with
their accusers or any other class of men. On which side were to be found
those who were bright and peaceful in their lives, who cherished their
kindred, who took care of the stranger, who succoured their enemies, who
shrank not from death?

A practical appeal of this kind is found to be in the long run far more
telling than exposition and argument. It may be impossible to get men to
listen to, or take interest in, statements as to the principles and
requirements of the Christian religion. You may fail to convince them
that its precepts and demands are neither superstitious nor
unreasonable. But you can always show them what a life of godliness
really is;--that it is full of joyousness, and that its joys are neither
fitful nor uncertain; that it is no foe to what is bright and beautiful,
and is neither morose in itself nor apt to frown at lightheartedness in
others; that it does not interfere with the most strenuous attention to
business and the most capable despatch of it. Men refuse to listen to or
to be moved by words; but they cannot help noticing and being influenced
by facts which are all round them in their daily lives. So far as man
can judge, the number of vicious, mean, and unworthy lives is far in
excess of those which are pure and lofty. Each one of us can do
something towards throwing the balance the other way. We can prove to
all the world that godliness is not an unreality, and does not make
those who strive after it unreal; that it is hostile neither to
joyousness nor to capable activity; that, on the contrary, it enhances
the brightness of all that is really beautiful in life, while it raises
to a higher power all natural gifts and abilities; that the Apostle was
saying no more than the simple truth when he declared that it is
"profitable for all things."




CHAPTER XIV.

_THE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW._

    "Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow hath
    children or grandchildren, let them learn first to shew piety
    towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is
    acceptable in the sight of God.... Let none be enrolled as a widow
    under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well
    reported of for good works"--1 TIM. v. 3, 4, 9.


The subject of this fifth chapter is "The Behaviour of the Pastor
towards the older and younger men and women in the congregation." Some
have thought that it forms the main portion of the letter, to which all
the rest is more or less introductory or supplementary. But the
structure of the letter cannot easily be brought into harmony with this
view. It seems to be much nearer the truth to say that the
unpremeditated way in which this subject is introduced, cannot well be
explained unless we assume that we are reading a genuine letter, and not
a forged treatise. The connexion of the different subjects touched upon
is loose and not always very obvious. Points are mentioned in the order
in which they occur to the writer's mind without careful arrangement.
After the personal exhortations given at the close of Chapter iv., which
have a solemnity that might lead one to suppose that the Apostle was
about to bring his words to a close, he makes a fresh start and treats
of an entirely new subject which has occurred to him.

It is not difficult to guess what has suggested the new subject. The
personal exhortations with which the previous section ends contain these
words, "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an ensample to them
that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity."
Timothy is not to allow the fact that he is younger than many of those
over whom he is set to interfere with the proper discharge of his
duties. He is to give no one a handle for charging him with want of
gravity or propriety. Sobriety of conduct is to counterbalance any
apparent lack of experience. But St. Paul remembers that there is
another side to that. Although Timothy is to behave in such a way as
never to remind his flock of his comparative youthfulness, yet he
himself is always to bear in mind that he is still a young man. This is
specially to be remembered in dealing with persons of either sex who are
older than himself, and in his bearing towards young women. St. Paul
begins with the treatment of older men and returns to this point again
later on. Between these two passages about men he gives directions for
Timothy's guidance respecting the women in his flock, and specially
respecting widows. This subject occupies more than half the chapter and
is of very great interest, as being our chief source of information
respecting the treatment of widows in the early Church. Commentators are
by no means unanimous in their interpretation of the details of the
passage, but it is believed that the explanation which is now offered is
in harmony with the original Greek, consistent with itself, and not
contradicted by anything which is known from other sources.

It is quite evident that more than one kind of widow is spoken of: and
one of the questions which the passage raises is--How many classes of
widows are indicated? We can distinguish four kinds; and it seems
probable that the Apostle means to give us four kinds.

1. There is "the widow indeed (=he ontos chera=)." Her characteristic is
that she is "desolate," _i.e._, quite alone in the world. She has not
only lost her husband, but she has neither children nor any other near
relation to minister to her necessities. Her hope is set on God, to Whom
her prayers ascend night and day. She is contrasted with two other
classes of widow, both of whom are in worldly position better off than
she is, for they are not desolate or destitute; yet one of these is far
more miserable than the widow indeed, because the manner of life which
she adopts is so unworthy of her.

2. There is the widow who "hath children or grandchildren." Natural
affection will cause these to take care that their widowed parent does
not come to want. If it does not, then they must learn that "to show
piety towards their own family and to requite their parents" is a
paramount duty, and that the congregation must not be burdened with the
maintenance of their mother until they have first done all they can for
her. To ignore this plain duty is to deny the first principles of
Christianity, which is the Gospel of love and duty, and to fall below
the level of the unbelievers, most of whom recognized the duty of
providing for helpless parents. Nothing is said of the character of the
widow who has children or grandchildren to support her; but, like the
widow indeed, she is contrasted with the third class of widow, and
therefore we infer that her character is free from reproach.

3. There is the widow who "giveth herself to pleasure." Instead of
continuing in prayers and supplications night and day, she continues in
frivolity and luxury, or worse. Of her, as of the Church of Sardis, it
may be said, "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead"
(Rev. iii. 1).

4. There is the "enrolled" widow; _i.e._, one whose name has been
entered on the Church rolls as such. She is a "widow indeed" and
something more. She is not only a person who needs and deserves the
support of the congregation, but has special rights and duties. She
holds an office, and has a function to discharge. She is a widow, not
merely as having lost her husband, but as having been admitted to the
company of those bereaved women whom the Church has entrusted with a
definite portion of Church work. This being so, something more must be
looked to than the mere fact of her being alone in the world. She must
be sixty years of age, must have had only one husband, have had
experience in the bringing up of children, and be well known as devoted
to good works. If she has these qualifications, she may be enrolled as a
Church widow; but it does not follow that because she has them she will
be appointed.

The work to which these elderly women had to devote themselves was
twofold: (1) Prayer, especially intercession for those in trouble; (2)
Works of mercy, especially ministering to the sick, guiding younger
Christian women in lives of holiness, and winning over heathen women to
the faith. These facts we learn from the frequent regulations respecting
widows during the second, third, and fourth, centuries. It was
apparently during the second century that the order of widows flourished
most.

This primitive order of Church widows must be distinguished from the
equally primitive order of deaconesses, and from a later order of
widows, which grew up side by side with the earlier order, and continued
long after the earlier order had ceased to exist. But it would be
contrary to all probability, and to all that we know about Church
offices in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age, to suppose that the
distinctions between different orders of women were as marked in the
earliest periods as they afterwards became, or that they were precisely
the same in all branches of the Church.

It has been sometimes maintained that the Church widow treated of in the
passage before us is identical with the deaconess. The evidence that the
two orders were distinct is so strong as almost to amount to
demonstration.

1. It is quite possible that this very Epistle supplies enough evidence
to make the identification very improbable. If the "women" mentioned in
the section about deacons (iii. 11) are deaconesses, then the
qualifications for this office are quite different from the
qualifications for that of a widow, and are treated of in quite
different sections of the letter. But even if deaconesses are not
treated of at all in that passage, the limit of age seems quite out of
place, if they are identical with the widows.[58] In the case of the
widows it was important to enrol for this special Church work none who
were likely to wish to marry again. And as their duties consisted in a
large measure in prayer, advanced age was no impediment, but rather the
contrary. But the work of the deaconess was for the most part active
work, and it would be unreasonable to admit no one to the office until
the best part of her working life was quite over.

2. The difference in the work assigned to them points in the same
direction. As already stated, the special work of the widow was
intercessory prayer and ministering to the sick. The special work of the
deaconess was guarding the women's door in the churches, seating the
women in the congregation, and attending women at baptisms.[59] Baptism
being usually administered by immersion, and adult baptism being very
frequent, there was much need of female attendants.

3. At her appointment the deaconess received the imposition of hands,
the widow did not. The form of prayer for the ordination of a deaconess
is given in the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (viii. 19, 20), and is
worthy of quotation. "Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this
constitution: O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the
presence of the presbytery and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shalt
say; O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of
man and of woman; Who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, Deborah,
Anna, and Huldah; Who didst not disdain that Thy Only begotten Son
should be born of a woman; Who also in the tabernacle of the testimony
and in the temple didst ordain women to be _keepers of Thy holy
gates_;--look down now also upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained
to the office of a deaconess. Grant her Thy Holy Spirit and _cleanse her
from all defilement of flesh and spirit_,[60] that she may worthily
discharge the work which is committed to her, to Thy glory and the
praise of Thy Christ, with Whom be glory and adoration to Thee and to
the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen." Nothing of the kind is found
for the appointment of a Church widow.

4. It is quite in harmony with the fact that the deaconesses were
ordained, while the widows were not, that the widows are placed under
the deaconesses. "The widows ought to be grave, obedient to their
bishops, their presbyters, and their deacons; and besides these to the
deaconesses, with piety, reverence, and fear."[61]

5. The deaconess might be either an unmarried woman or a widow, and
apparently the former was preferred. "Let the deaconess be a pure
virgin; or at least a widow who has been but once married."[62] But,
although such things did occur, Tertullian protests that it is a
monstrous irregularity to admit an unmarried woman to the order of
widows.[63] Now, if widows and deaconesses were identical, unmarried
"widows" would have been quite common, for unmarried deaconesses were
quite common. Yet he speaks of the one case of a "virgin widow" which
had come under his notice as a marvel, and a monstrosity, and a
contradiction in terms. It is true that Ignatius in his letter to the
Church of Smyrna uses language which has been thought to support the
identification: "I salute the households of my brethren with their
wives and children, and _the virgins who are called widows_."[64] But it
is incredible that at Smyrna _all_ the Church widows were unmarried; and
it is equally improbable that Ignatius should send a salutation to the
unmarried "widows" (if such there were), and ignore the rest. His
language, however, may be quite easily explained without any such
strange hypothesis. He may mean "I salute those who are called widows,
but whom one might really regard as virgins." And in support of this
interpretation Bishop Lightfoot quotes Clement of Alexandria, who says
that the continent man, like the continent widow, becomes again a
virgin; and Tertullian, who speaks of continent widows as being in God's
sight maidens (_Deo sunt puellae_), and as for a second time virgins.[65]
But, whatever Ignatius may have meant by "the virgins who are called
widows," we may safely conclude that neither in his time, any more than
that of St. Paul, were the widows identical with the deaconesses.

The later order of widows, which grew up side by side with the Apostolic
order, and in the end supplanted, or at any rate survived, the older
order, came into existence about the third century. It consisted of
persons who had lost their husbands and made a vow never to marry again.
From the middle of the second century or a little later we find a strong
feeling against second marriages springing up, and this feeling was very
possibly intensified when the Gospel came in contact with the German
tribes, among whom the feeling already existed independently of
Christianity. In this new order of widows who had taken the vow of
continence there was no restriction of age, nor was it necessary that
they should be persons in need of the alms of the congregation. In the
Apostolic order the fundamental idea seems to have been that destitute
widows ought to be supported by the Church, and that in return for this,
those of them who were qualified should do some special Church work. In
the later order the fundamental idea was that it was a good thing for a
widow to remain unmarried, and that a vow to do so would help her to
persevere.

In commanding Timothy to "honour widows that are widows indeed" the
Apostle states a principle which has had a wide and permanent influence
not only on ecclesiastical discipline but upon European legislation.
Speaking of the growth of the modern idea of a will, by which a man can
regulate the descent of his property inside and outside his family, Sir
Henry Maine remarks, that "the exercise of the Testamentary power was
seldom allowed to interfere with the right of the widow to a definite
share, and of the children to certain fixed proportions, of the
devolving inheritance. The shares of the children, as their amount
shows, were determined by the authority of Roman law. _The provision for
the widow was attributable to the exertions of the Church, which never
relaxed its solicitude for the interest of wives surviving their
husbands_--winning, perhaps, one of the most arduous of its triumphs
when, after exacting for two or three centuries an express promise from
the husband at marriage to endow his wife, it at length succeeded in
engrafting the principle of Dower on the Customary Law of all Western
Europe."[66] This is one of the numerous instances in which the Gospel,
by insisting upon the importance of some humane principle, has
contributed to the progress and security of the best elements in
civilization.

Not only the humanity, but the tact and common sense of the Apostle is
conspicuous throughout the whole passage, whether we regard the general
directions respecting the bearing of the young pastor towards the
different sections of his flock, old and young, male and female, or the
special rules respecting widows. The sum and substance of it appears to
be that the pastor is to have abundance of zeal and to encourage it in
others, but he is to take great care that, neither in himself nor in
those whom he has to guide, zeal outruns discretion. Well-deserved
rebukes may do far more harm than good, if they are administered without
respect to the position of those who need them. And in all his
ministrations the spiritual overseer must beware of giving a handle to
damaging criticism. He must not let his good be evil spoken of. So also
with regard to the widows. No hard and fast rule can be safely laid
down. Almost everything depends upon circumstances. On the whole, the
case of widows is analogous to that of unmarried women. For those who
have strength to forego the married state, _in order to devote more time
and energy to the direct service of God_, it is better to remain
unmarried, if single, and if widows, not to marry again. But there is no
peculiar blessedness in the unmarried state, if the motive for avoiding
matrimony is a selfish one, _e.g._, to avoid domestic cares and duties
and have leisure for personal enjoyment. Among younger women the higher
motive is less likely to be present, or at any rate to be permanent.
They are so likely sooner or later to desire to marry, that it will be
wisest not to discourage them to do so. On the contrary, let it be
regarded as the normal thing that a young woman should marry, and that a
young widow should marry again. It is not the best thing for them, but
it is the safest. Although the highest work for Christ can best be done
by those who by remaining single have kept their domestic ties at a
minimum, yet young women are more likely to do useful work in society,
and are less likely to come to harm, if they marry and have children. Of
older women this is not true. Age itself is a considerable guarantee:
and a woman of sixty, who is willing to give such a pledge, may be
encouraged to enter upon a life of perpetual widowhood. But there must
be other qualifications as well, if she wishes to be enrolled among
those, who not only are entitled by their destitute condition to receive
maintenance from the Church, but by reason of their fitness are
commissioned to undertake Church work. And these qualifications must be
carefully investigated. It would be far better to reject some, who might
after all have been useful, than to run the risk of admitting any who
would exhibit the scandal of having been supported by the Church and
specially devoted to Christian works of mercy, and of having after all
returned to society as married women with ordinary pleasures and cares.

One object throughout these directions is the _economy of Christian
resources_. The Church accepts the duty which it inculcates of
"providing for its own." But it ought not to be burdened with the
support of any but those who are really destitute. The near relations of
necessitous persons must be taught to leave the Church free to relieve
those who have no near relations to support them. Secondly, so far as is
possible, those who are relieved by the alms of the congregation must
be encouraged to make some return in undertaking Church work that is
suitable to them. St. Paul has no idea of pauperizing people. So long as
they can, they must maintain themselves. When they have ceased to be
able to do this, they must be supported by their children or
grandchildren. If they have no one to help them, the Church must
undertake their support; but both for their sake as well as for the
interests of the community, it must, if possible, make the support
granted to be a return for work done rather than mere alms. Widowhood
must not be made a plea for being maintained in harmful idleness. But
the point which the Apostle insists on most emphatically, stating it in
different ways no less than three times in this short section (vv. 4, 8,
16) is this,--that widows as a rule ought to be supported by their own
relations; only in exceptional cases, where there are no relations who
can help, ought the Church to have to undertake this duty. We have here
a warning against the mistake so often made at the present day of
_freeing people from their responsibilities_ by undertaking for them in
mistaken charity the duties which they ought to discharge, and are
capable of discharging, themselves.

We may, therefore, sum up the principles laid down thus:--

Discretion and tact are needed in dealing with the different sections of
the congregation, and especially in relieving the widows. Care must be
taken not to encourage either a rigour not likely to be maintained, or
opportunities of idleness certain to lead to mischief. Help is to be
generously afforded to the destitute; but the resources of the Church
must be jealously guarded. They must not be wasted on the unworthy, or
on those who have other means of help. And, so far as possible, the
independence of those who are relieved must be protected by employing
them in the service of the Church.

In conclusion it may be worth while to point out that this mention of an
order of widows is no argument against the Pauline authorship of these
Epistles, as if no such thing existed in his time. In Acts vi. 1 the
widows appear as a distinct _body_ in the Church at Jerusalem. In Acts
ix. 39, 41, they appear almost as an _order_ in the Church at Joppa.
They "show the coats and garments which Dorcas made" in a way which
seems to imply that it was their business to distribute such things
among the needy. Even if it means no more than that Dorcas made them for
the relief of the widows themselves, still the step from a body of
widows set apart for the reception of alms to an order of widows set
apart for the duty of intercessory prayer and ministering to the sick is
not a long one, and may easily have been made in St. Paul's lifetime.

FOOTNOTES:

[58] The Council in Trullo (A.D. 691), the great authority for
discipline in the Greek Church, fixed the age of forty for admission to
the office of a deaconess and sixty for that of a widow.

[59] In the middle recension of the Ignatian Epistles we read "I salute
the keepers of the holy doors, the deaconesses in Christ" (_Ant._ xii.).
"Let the deaconesses stand at the entries of the women" (_Apost. Const._
ii. 57, 58). "For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many
necessities, and first in the baptism of women," etc.--(_Ib._ iii. 15.)

[60] 1 Cor. vii. 1.

[61] _Apost. Const._, iii. 7.

[62] _Apost. Const._, vi. 17.

[63] _De Virg. Vel._, ix.

[64] _Smyrn._ xiii.

[65] _Strom._, vii. 12; _Ad Uxor._, I. iv.; _De Exh. Cast._, 1.

[66] _Ancient Law_, p. 224.




CHAPTER XV.

_THE PASTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDAINING AND JUDGING PRESBYTERS.--THE
WORKS THAT GO BEFORE AND THAT FOLLOW US._

    "Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men's
    sins: keep thyself pure. Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a
    little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. Some
    men's sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men
    also they follow after. In like manner also there are good works
    that are evident; and such as are otherwise cannot be hid"--1 TIM.
    v. 22-25.


The section of which these verses form the conclusion, like the
preceding section about behaviour towards the different classes of
persons in the congregation, supplies us with evidence that we are
dealing with a real letter, written to give necessary advice to a real
person, and not a theological or controversial treatise, dressed up in
the form of a letter, in order to obtain the authority of St. Paul's
name for its contents. Here, as before, the thoughts follow one another
in an order which is quite natural, but which has little plan or
arrangement. An earnest and affectionate friend, with certain points in
his mind on which he was anxious to say something, might easily treat of
them in this informal way just as they occurred to him, one thing
suggesting another. But a forger, bent on getting his own views
represented in the document, would not string them together in this
loosely connected way: he would disclose more arrangement than we can
find here. What forger again, would think of inserting that advice
about ceasing to be a water-drinker into a most solemn charge respecting
the election and ordination of presbyters? And yet how thoroughly
natural it is found to be in this very context when considered as coming
from St. Paul to Timothy!

We shall go seriously astray if we start with the conviction that the
word "elder" has the same meaning throughout this chapter. When in the
first part of it St. Paul says "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a
father," it is quite clear that he is speaking simply of elderly men,
and not of persons holding the office of an elder: for he goes on at
once to speak of the treatment of younger men, and also of older and
younger women. But when in the second half of the chapter he says "Let
the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour," and
"Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two
or three witnesses," it is equally clear that he is speaking of official
persons, and not merely of persons who are advanced in years. The way in
which the thoughts suggested one another throughout this portion of the
letter is not difficult to trace. "Let no man despise thy youth"
suggested advice as to how the young overseer was to behave towards
young and old of both sexes. This led to the treatment of widows, and
this again to the manner of appointing official widows. Women holding an
official position suggests the subject of men holding an official
position in the Church. If the treatment of the one class needs wisdom
and circumspection, not less does the treatment of the other. And
therefore, with even more solemnity than in the previous section about
the widows, the Apostle gives his directions on this important subject
also. "I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the
elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing
nothing by partiality." And then he passes on to the words which form
our text.

It has been seriously doubted whether the words "Lay hands hastily on no
man" do refer to the ordination of the official elders or presbyters. It
is urged that the preceding warnings about the treatment of charges made
against presbyters, and of persons who are guilty of habitual sin, point
to _disciplinary_ functions of some kind rather than to ordination.
Accordingly some few commentators in modern times have treated the
passage as referring to _the laying on of hands at the readmission of
penitents to communion_. But of any such custom in the Apostolic age
there is no trace. There is nothing improbable in the hypothesis,
imposition of hands being a common symbolical act. But it is a mere
hypothesis unsupported by evidence. Eusebius, in speaking of the
controversy between Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage about the
re-baptizing of heretics, tells us that the admission of heretics to the
Church by imposition of hands with prayer, but without second baptism,
was the "old custom." But the admission of heretics is not quite the
same as the readmission of penitents: and a custom might be "old"
(=palaion ethos=) in the time of Eusebius, or even of Cyprian, without
being Apostolic or coeval with the Apostles. Therefore this statement of
Eusebius gives little support to the proposed interpretation of the
passage; and we may confidently prefer the explanation of it which has
prevailed at any rate since Chrysostom's time, that it refers to
ordination.[67] Of the laying on of hands at the appointment of
ministers we have sufficient evidence in the New Testament, not only in
these Epistles (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), but in the Acts (xiii. 3).
Moreover this explanation fits the context at least as well as the
supposed improvement.

1. The Apostle is speaking of the treatment of presbyters, not of the
whole congregation. Imposition of hands at the admission of a heretic or
re-admission of a penitent would apply to any person, and not to
presbyters in particular. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that
the laying on of hands which accompanied ordination is meant.

2. He has just been warning Timothy against prejudice or partiality in
dealing with the elders. While prejudice might lead him to be hasty in
condemning an accused presbyter, before he had satisfied himself that
the evidence was adequate, partiality might lead him to be hasty in
acquitting him. But there is a more serious partiality than this, and it
is one of the main causes of such scandals as unworthy presbyters. There
is the partiality which leads to a hasty ordination, before sufficient
care has been taken to ensure that the qualifications so carefully laid
down in chapter iii. are present in the person selected. Prevention is
better than cure. Proper precautions taken beforehand will reduce the
risk of true charges against an elder to a minimum. Here again the
traditional explanation fits the context admirably.

"Neither be partaker of other men's sins." It is usual to understand
this warning as referring to the responsibility of those who ordain. If,
through haste or carelessness you ordain an unfit person, you must
share the guilt of the sins which he afterwards commits as an elder. The
principle is a just one, but it may be doubted whether this is St.
Paul's meaning. The particular form of negative used seems to be against
it. He says "Nor _yet_ (=mede=) be partaker of other men's sins,"
implying that this is something different from hastiness in ordinary. He
seems to be returning to the warnings about partiality to elders who are
living in sin. The meaning, therefore, is--"Beware of a haste in
ordaining which may lead to the admission of unworthy men to the
ministry. And if, in spite of all your care, unworthy ministers come
under your notice, beware of an indifference or partiality towards them
which will make you a partaker in their sins." This interpretation fits
on well to what follows. "Keep _thyself_ pure"--with a strong emphasis
on the pronoun. "Strictness in enquiring into the antecedents of
candidates for ordination and in dealing with ministerial depravity will
have a very poor effect, unless your own life is free from reproach."
And, if we omit the parenthetical advice about taking wine, the thought
is continued thus: "As a rule it is not difficult to arrive at a wise
decision respecting the fitness of candidates, or the guilt of accused
presbyters. Men's characters both for evil and good are commonly
notorious. The vices of the wicked and the virtues of the good outrun
any formal judgment about them, and are quite manifest before an enquiry
is held. No doubt there are exceptions, and then the consequences of
men's lives must be looked to before a just opinion can be formed. But,
sooner or later (and generally sooner rather than later) men, and
especially ministers, will be known for what they are."

It remains to ascertain the meaning of the curious parenthesis "Be no
longer a drinker of water," and its connexion with the rest of the
passage.

It was probably suggested to St. Paul by the preceding words, "Beware of
making yourself responsible for the sins of others. Keep your own life
above suspicion." This charge reminds the Apostle that his beloved
disciple has been using ill-advised means to do this very thing. Either
in order to mark his abhorrence of the drunkenness, which was one of the
most conspicuous vices of the age, or in order to bring his own body
more easily into subjection, Timothy had abandoned the use of wine
altogether, in spite of his weak health. St. Paul, therefore, with
characteristic affection, takes care that his charge is not
misunderstood. In urging his representative to be strictly careful of
his own conduct, he does not wish to be understood as encouraging him to
give up whatever might be abused or made the basis of a slander, nor yet
as approving his rigour in giving up the use of wine. On the contrary,
he thinks it a mistake; and he takes this opportunity of telling him so,
while it is in his mind. Christ's ministers have important duties to
perform, and have no right to play tricks with their health. We may here
repeat, with renewed confidence, that a touch of this kind would never
have occurred to a forger. Hence, in order to account for such natural
touches as these, those who maintain that these Epistles are a
fabrication now resort to the hypothesis that the forger had some
genuine letters of St. Paul and worked parts of them into his own
productions. It seems to be far more reasonable to believe that St. Paul
wrote the whole of them. (See above, pp. 8 and 9, and below, pp. 407,
ff.).

Let us return to the statement with which the Apostle closes this
section of his letter. "Some men's sins are evident, going before unto
judgment; and some men also they follow after. In like manner also there
are good works that are evident; and such as are otherwise cannot be
hid."

We have seen already what relation these words have to the context. They
refer to the discernment between good and bad candidates for the
ministry, and between good and bad ministers, pointing out that in most
cases such discernment is not difficult, because men's own conduct acts
as a herald to their character, proclaiming it to all the world. The
statement, though made with special reference to Timothy's
responsibilities towards elders and those who wish to become such, is a
general one, and is equally true of all mankind. Conduct in most cases
is quite a clear index of character, and there is no need to have a
formal investigation in order to ascertain whether a man is leading a
wicked life or not. But the words have a still deeper significance--one
which is quite foreign to the context, and therefore can hardly have
been in St. Paul's mind when he wrote them, but which as being true and
of importance, ought not to be passed over.

For a formal investigation into men's conduct before an ecclesiastical
or other official, let us substitute the judgment-seat of Christ. Let
the question be, not the worthiness of certain persons to be admitted to
some office, but their worthiness to be admitted to eternal life. The
general statement made by the Apostle remains as true as ever. There are
some men who stand, as before God, so also before the world, as open,
self-proclaimed sinners. Wherever they go, their sins go before them,
flagrant, crying, notorious. And when they are summoned hence, their
sins again precede them, waiting for them as accusers and witnesses
before the Judge. The whole career of an open and deliberate sinner is
the procession of a criminal to his doom.[68] His sins go before, and
their consequences follow after, and he moves on in the midst, careless
of the one and ignorant of the other. He has laughed at his sins and
chased remorse for them away. He has by turns cherished and driven out
the remembrance of them; dwelt on them, when to think of them was a
pleasant repetition of them; stifled the thought of them, when to think
of them might have brought thoughts of penitence; and has behaved
towards them as if he could not only bring them into being without
guilt, but control them or annihilate them without difficulty. He has
not controlled, he has not destroyed, he has not even evaded, one of
them. Each of them, when brought into existence, became his master,
going on before him to herald his guiltiness, and saddling him with
consequences from which he could not escape. And when he went to his own
place, it was his sins that had gone before him and prepared the place
for him.

"And some men also they follow after." There are cases in which men's
sins, though of course not less manifest to the Almighty, are much less
manifest to the world, and even to _themselves_, than in the case of
flagrant, open sinners. The consequences of their sins are less
conspicuous, less easily disentangled from the mass of unexplained
misery of which the world is so full. Cause and effect cannot be put
together with any precision; for sometimes the one, sometimes the
other, sometimes even both, are out of sight. There is no anticipation
of the final award to be given at the judgment-seat of Christ. Not until
the guilty one is placed before the throne for trial, is it at all known
whether the sentence will be unfavourable or not. Even the man himself
has lived and died without being at all fully aware what the state of
the case is. He has not habitually examined himself, to see whether he
has been living in sin or not. He has taken no pains to remember, and
repent of, and conquer, those sins of which he has been conscious. The
consequences of his sins have seldom come so swiftly as to startle him
and convince him of their enormity. When they have at last overtaken
him, it has been possible to doubt or to forget that it was his sins
which caused them. And consequently he has doubted, and he has
forgotten. But for all that, "they follow after." They are never eluded,
never shaken off. A cause must have its effect; and a sin must have its
punishment, if not in this world, then certainly in the next. "Be sure
your sin will find you out"--probably in this life, but at any rate at
the day of judgment. As surely as death follows on a pierced heart or on
a severed neck, so surely does punishment follow upon sin.

How is it that in the material world we never dream that cause and
effect can be separated, and yet easily believe that in the moral world
sin may remain for ever unpunished? Our relation to the material
universe has been compared to a game of chess. "The chess-board is the
world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the
game are what we call the laws of nature. The player on the other side
is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and
patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a
mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. To the man who
plays well, the highest stakes are paid, with that sort of over-flowing
generosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who
plays ill is checkmated--without haste, but without remorse."[69] We
believe this implicitly of the material laws of the universe; that they
cannot be evaded, cannot be transgressed with impunity, cannot be obeyed
without profit. Moral laws are not one whit less sure. Whether we
believe it or not (and it will but be the worse for us if we refuse to
believe it), sin, both repented and unrepented, must have its penalty.
We might as well fling a stone, or shoot a cannon-ball, or send a
balloon into the air, and say "You shall not come down again," as sin,
and say "I shall never suffer for it." Repentance does not deprive sin
of its natural effect. We greatly err in supposing that, if we repent in
time, we escape the penalty. To refuse to repent is a second and a worse
sin, which, added to the first sin, increases the penalty incalculably.
To repent is to escape this terrible augmentation of the original
punishment; but it is no escape from the punishment itself.

But there is a bright side to this inexorable law. If sin must have its
own punishment, virtue must have its own reward. The one is as sure as
the other; and in the long run the fact of virtue and the reward of
virtue will be made clear to all the world, and especially to the
virtuous man himself. "The works that are good are evident; and such as
are not evident cannot be hid." No saint knows his own holiness; and
many a humble seeker after holiness does good deeds without knowing how
good they are. Still less are all saints known as such to the world, or
all good deeds recognized as good by those who witness them. But,
nevertheless, good works as a rule are evident, and, if they are not so,
they will become so hereafter. If not in this world, at any rate before
Christ's judgment-seat, they will be appraised at their true value. It
is as true of the righteous as of the wicked, that "their works do
follow them." And, if there is no more terrible fate than to be
confronted at the last day by a multitude of unknown and forgotten sins,
so there can hardly be any lot more blessed than to be welcomed then by
a multitude of unknown and forgotten deeds of love and piety. "Inasmuch
as ye did it unto one of these My brethren, even these least, ye did it
unto Me." "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world."

FOOTNOTES:

[67] Tertullian (_De Bapt._, xviii.) seems to understand St. Paul to be
speaking of the imposition of hands after _Baptism_ (Acts viii. 17, xix.
6), which can hardly be correct.

[68] Manning's _Sermons_, vol. iii., p. 74, Burns, 1847.

[69] Huxley's _Lay Sermons_, Essay I. Macmillan.




CHAPTER XVI.

_THE NATURE OF ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE APOSTLE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS IT.--A
MODERN PARALLEL._

    "Let as many as are bond-servants under the yoke count their own
    masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and the doctrine
    be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them
    not despise them, because they are brethren; but let them serve them
    the rather, because they that partake of the benefit are believing
    and beloved. These things teach and exhort."--1 TIM. vi. 1, 2.


There are four passages in which St. Paul deals directly with the
relations between slaves and their masters:--in the Epistles to the
Ephesians (vi. 5-9), to the Colossians (iii. 22-iv. 1), to Philemon
(8-21), and the passage before us. Here he looks at the question from
the slave's point of view; in the letter to Philemon from that of the
master: in the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians he
addresses both. In all four places his attitude towards this monster
abomination is one and the same; and it is a very remarkable one. He
nowhere denounces slavery. He does not state that such an intolerable
iniquity as man possessing his fellow-man must be done away as speedily
as may be. He gives no encouragement to slaves to rebel or to run away.
He gives no hint to masters that they ought to let their slaves go free.
Nothing of the kind. He not only accepts slavery as a fact; he seems to
treat it as a necessary fact, a fact likely to be as permanent as
marriage and parentage, poverty and wealth.

This attitude becomes all the more marvellous, when we remember, not
only what slavery necessarily is wherever it exists, but what slavery
was both by custom and by law among the great slave-owners throughout
the Roman Empire. Slavery is at all times degrading to both the parties
in that unnatural relationship, however excellent may be the regulations
by which it is protected, and however noble may be the characters of
both master and slave. It is impossible for one human being to be
absolute owner of another's person without both possessor and possessed
being morally the worse for it. Violations of nature's laws are never
perpetrated with impunity; and when the laws violated are those which
are concerned, not with unconscious forces and atoms, but with human
souls and characters, the penalties of the violation are none the less
sure or severe. But these evils, which are the inevitable consequences
of the existence of slavery in any shape whatever, may be increased a
hundredfold, if the slavery exists under no regulations, or under bad
regulations, or again where both master and slave are, to start with,
base and brutalized in character. And all this was the case in the early
days of the Roman Empire. Slavery was to a great extent under no check
at all, and the laws which did exist for regulating the relationship
between owner and slave were for the most part of a character to
intensify the evil; while the conditions under which both master and
slave were educated were such as to render each of them ready to
increase the moral degradation of the other. We are accustomed to regard
with well-merited abhorrence and abomination the horrors of modern
slavery as practised until recently in America, and as still practised
in Egypt, Persia, Turkey, and Arabia. But it may be doubted whether all
the horrors of modern slavery are to be compared with the horrors of the
slavery of ancient Rome.

From a _political_ point of view it may be admitted that the institution
of slavery has in past ages played a useful part in the history of
mankind. It has mitigated the cruelties of barbaric warfare. It was more
merciful to enslave a prisoner than to sacrifice him to the gods, or to
torture him to death, or to eat him. And the enslaved prisoner and the
warrior who had captured him, at once became mutually useful to one
another. The warrior protected his slave from attack, and the slave by
his labour left the warrior free to protect him. Thus each did something
for the benefit of the other and of the society in which they lived.

But when we look at the institution from a _moral_ point of view, it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that its effects have been wholly
evil. (1) It has been fatal to one of the most wholesome of human
beliefs, _the belief in the dignity of labour_. Labour was irksome, and
therefore assigned to the slave, and consequently came to be regarded as
degrading. Thus the freeman lost the ennobling discipline of toil; and
to the slave toil was not ennobling, because every one treated it as a
degradation. (2) It has been disastrous to the personal character of the
master. The possession of absolute power is always dangerous to our
nature. Greek writers are never tired of insisting upon this in
connexion with the rule of despots over citizens. Strangely enough they
did not see that the principle remained the same whether the autocrat
was ruler of a state or of a household. In either case he almost
inevitably became a tyrant, incapable of self-control, and the constant
victim of flattery. And in some ways the domestic tyrant was the worse
of the two. There was no public opinion to keep him in check, and his
tyranny could exercise itself in every detail of daily life. (3) It has
been disastrous to the personal character of the slave. Accustomed to be
looked upon as an inferior and scarcely human being, always at the beck
and call of another, and that for the most menial services, the slave
lost all self-respect. His natural weapon was deceit; and his chief, if
not his only pleasure, was the gratification of his lowest appetites.
The household slave not unfrequently divided his time between pandering
to his master's passions and gratifying his own. (4) It has been ruinous
to family life. If it did not trouble the relation between husband and
wife, it poisoned the atmosphere in which they lived and in which their
children were reared. The younger generation inevitably suffered. Even
if they did not learn cruelty from their parents, and deceit and
sensuality from the slaves, they lost delicacy of feeling by seeing
human beings treated like brute beasts, and by being constantly in the
society of those whom they were taught to despise. Even Plato, in
recommending that slaves should be treated justly and with a view to
their moral improvement, says that they must always be punished for
their faults, and not reproved like freemen, which only makes them
conceited; and one should use no language to them but that of
command.[70]

These evils, which are inherent in the very nature of slavery, were
intensified a hundredfold by Roman legislation, and by the condition of
Roman society in the first century of the Christian era. Slavery, which
began by being a mitigation of the barbarities of warfare, ended in
becoming an augmentation of them. Although a single campaign would
sometimes bring in many thousands of captives who were sold into
slavery, yet war did not procure slaves fast enough for the demand, and
was supplemented by systematic manhunts. It has been estimated that in
the Roman world of St. Paul's day the proportion of slaves to freemen
was in the ratio of two, or even three, to one. It was the immense
number of the slaves which led to some of the cruel customs and laws
respecting them. In the country they often worked, and sometimes slept,
in chains. Even in Rome under Augustus the house-porter was sometimes
chained. And by a decree of the Senate, if the master was murdered by a
slave, all the slaves of the household were put to death. The four
hundred slaves of Pedanius Secundus were executed under this enactment
in A.D. 61, in which year St. Paul was probably in Rome. Public protest
was made; but the Senate decided that the law must take its course. The
rabble of slaves could only be kept in check by fear. Again, if the
master was accused of a crime, he could surrender his slaves to be
tortured in order to prove his innocence.[71]

But it would be a vile task to rehearse all the horrors and abominations
to which the cruelty and lust of wealthy Roman men and women subjected
their slaves. The bloody sports of the gladiatorial shows and the
indecent products of the Roman stage were partly the effect and partly
the cause of the frightful character of Roman slavery. The gladiators
and the actors were slaves especially trained for these debasing
exhibitions; and Roman nobles and Roman ladies, brutalized and polluted
by witnessing them, went home to give vent among the slaves of their own
households to the passions which the circus and the theatre had roused.

And this was the system which St. Paul left unattacked and undenounced.
He never in so many words expresses any authoritative condemnation or
personal abhorrence of it. This is all the more remarkable when we
remember St. Paul's enthusiastic and sympathetic temperament; and the
fact is one more proof of the Divine inspiration of Scripture. That
slavery, as he saw it, must often have excited the most intense
indignation and distress in his heart we cannot doubt; and yet he was
guided not to give his sanction to remedies which would certainly have
been violent and possibly ineffectual. To have preached that the
Christian master must let his slaves go free, would have been to preach
that slaves had a right to freedom; and the slave would understand that
to mean that, if freedom was not granted, he might take this right of
his by force. Of all wars, a servile war is perhaps the most frightful;
and we may be thankful that none of those who first preached the Gospel,
gave their sanction to any such movement. The sudden abolition of
slavery in the first century would have meant the shipwreck of society.
Neither master nor slave was fit for any such change. A long course of
education was needed before so radical a reform could be successfully
accomplished. It has been pointed out as one of the chief marks of the
Divine character of the Gospel, that it never appeals to the spirit of
political revolution. It does not denounce abuses; but it insists upon
principles which will necessarily lead to their abolition.

This was precisely what St. Paul did in dealing with the gigantic cancer
which was draining the forces, economical, political, and moral, of
Roman society. He did not tell the slave that he was oppressed and
outraged. He did not tell the master that to buy and sell human beings
was a violation of the rights of man. But he inspired both of them with
sentiments which rendered the permanence of the unrighteous relation
between them impossible. To many a Roman it would have seemed nothing
less than robbery and revolution to tell him "You have no right to own
these persons; you must free your slaves." St. Paul, without attacking
the rights of property or existing laws and customs, spoke a far higher
word, and one which sooner or later must carry the freedom with it, when
he said, "You must _love_ your slaves." All the moral abominations which
had clustered round slavery,--idleness, deceit, cruelty, and lust,--he
denounced unsparingly; but for their own sake, not because of their
connexion with this iniquitous institution. The social arrangements,
which allowed and encouraged slavery, he did not denounce. He left it to
the principles which he preached gradually to reform them. Slavery
cannot continue when the brotherhood of all mankind, and the equality of
all men in Christ, have been realized. And long before slavery is
abolished, it is made more humane, wherever Christian principles are
brought to bear upon it. Even before Christianity in the person of
Constantine ascended the imperial throne, it had influenced public
opinion in the right direction. Seneca and Plutarch are much more humane
in their views of slavery than earlier writers are; and under the
Antonines the power of life and death over slaves was transferred from
their masters to the magistrates. Constantine went much further, and
Justinian further still, in ameliorating the condition of slaves and
encouraging emancipation. Thus slowly, but surely, this monstrous evil
is being eradicated from society; and it is one of the many beauties of
the Gospel in comparison with Islam, that whereas Mahometanism has
consecrated slavery and given it a permanent religious sanction,
Christianity has steadfastly abolished it. It is among the chief glories
of the present century that it has seen the abolition of slavery in the
British empire, the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, and the
emancipation of the <DW64>s in the United States. And we may safely
assert that these tardy removals of a great social evil would never have
been accomplished but for the principles which St. Paul preached, at the
very time that he was allowing Christian masters to retain their slaves,
and bidding Christian slaves to honour and obey their heathen masters.

The Apostle's injunctions to slaves who have Christian masters is worthy
of special attention: it indicates one of the evils which would
certainly have become serious, had the Apostles set to work to preach
emancipation. The slaves being in almost all cases quite unfitted for a
life of freedom, wholesale emancipation would have flooded society with
crowds of persons quite unable to make a decent use of their newly
acquired liberty. The sudden change in their condition would have been
too great for their self-control. Indeed we gather from what St. Paul
says here, that the acceptance of the principles of Christianity in some
cases threw them off their balance. He charges Christian slaves who have
Christian masters _not to despise_ _them_. Evidently this was a
temptation which he foresaw, even if it was not a fault which he had
sometimes observed. To be told that he and his master were brethren, and
to find that _his master accepted this view of their relationship_, was
more than the poor slave in some instances could bear. He had been
educated to believe that he was an inferior order of being, having
scarcely anything in common, excepting a human form and passions, with
his master. And, whether he accepted this belief or not, he had found
himself systematically treated as if it were indisputable. When,
therefore, he was assured, as one of the first principles of his new
faith, that he was not only human, like his master, but in God's family
was his master's equal and brother; above all, when he had a Christian
master who not only shared this new faith, but acted upon it and treated
him as a brother, then his head was in danger of being turned. The
rebound from grovelling fear to terms of equality and affection was too
much for him; and the old attitude of cringing terror was exchanged not
for respectful loyalty, but for contempt. He began to despise the master
who had ceased to make himself terrible. All this shows how dangerous
sudden changes of social relationships are; and how warily we need to go
to work in order to bring about a reform of those which most plainly
need readjustment; and it adds greatly to our admiration of the wisdom
of the Apostle and our gratitude to Him Who inspired him with such
wisdom, to see that in dealing with this difficult problem he does not
allow his sympathies to outrun his judgment, and does not attempt to
cure a long-standing evil, which had entwined its roots round the very
foundations of society, by any rapid or violent process. All men are by
natural right free. Granted. All men are by creation children of God,
and by redemption brethren in Christ. Granted. But it is worse than
useless to give freedom suddenly to those who from their birth have been
deprived of it, and do not yet know what use to make of it; and to give
the position of children and brethren all at once to outcasts who cannot
understand what such privileges mean.

St. Paul tells the slave that freedom is a thing to be desired; but
still more that it is a thing to be deserved. "While you are still under
the yoke prove yourselves worthy of it and capable of bearing it. In
becoming Christians you have become Christ's freeman. Show that you can
enjoy that liberty without abusing it. If it leads you to treat a
heathen master with disdain, because he has it not, then you give him an
opportunity of blaspheming God and your holy religion; for he can say,
'What a vile creed this must be, which makes servants haughty and
disrespectful!' If it leads you to treat a Christian master with
contemptuous familiarity, because he recognizes you as a brother whom he
must love, then you are turning upside down the obligation which a
common faith imposes on you. That he is a fellow-Christian is a reason
why you should treat him with more reverence, not less." This is ever
the burden of his exhortation to slaves. He bids Timothy to insist upon
it. He tells Titus to do the same (ii. 9, 10). Slaves were in special
danger of misunderstanding what the liberty of the Gospel meant. It is
not for a moment to be supposed that it cancels any existing obligations
of a slave to his master. No hint is to be given them that they have a
right to demand emancipation, or would be justified in running away. Let
them learn to behave as the Lord's freeman. Let their masters learn to
behave as the Lord's bond-servants. When these principles have worked
themselves out, slavery will have ceased to be.

That day has not yet come, but the progress already made, especially
during the present century, leads us to hope that it may be near. But
the extinction of slavery will not deprive St. Paul's treatment of it of
its practical interest and value. His inspired wisdom in dealing with
this problem ought to be our guide in dealing with the scarcely less
momentous problems which confront us at the present day. We have social
difficulties to deal with, whose magnitude and character make them not
unlike that of slavery in the first ages of Christianity. There are the
relations between capital and labour, the prodigious inequalities in the
distribution of wealth, the degradation which is involved in the
crowding of population in the great centres of industry. In attempting
to remedy such things, let us, while we catch enthusiasm from St. Paul's
sympathetic zeal, not forget his patience and discretion. Monstrous
evils are not, like giants in the old romances, to be slain at a blow.
They are deeply rooted; and if we attempt to tear them up, we may pull
up the foundations of society along with them. We must be content to
work slowly and without violence. We have no right to preach revolution
and plunder to those who are suffering from undeserved poverty, any more
than St. Paul had to preach revolt to the slaves. Drastic remedies of
that kind will cause much enmity, and perhaps bloodshed, in the carrying
out, and will work no permanent cure in the end. It is incredible that
the well-being of mankind can be promoted by stirring up ill-will and
hatred between a suffering class and those who seem to have it in their
power to relieve them. Charity, we know, never faileth; but neither
Scripture nor experience has taught us that violence is a sure road to
success. We need more faith in the principles of Christianity and in
their power to promote happiness as well as godliness. What is required,
is not a sudden redistribution of wealth, or laws to prevent its
accumulation, but a proper appreciation of its value. Rich and poor
alike have yet to learn what is really worth having in this world. It is
not wealth, but happiness. And happiness is to be found neither in
gaining, nor in possessing, nor in spending money, but in being useful.
To serve others, to spend and be spent for them,--that is the ideal to
place before mankind; and just in proportion as it is reached, will the
frightful inequalities between class and class, and between man and man,
cease to be. It is a lesson that takes much teaching and much learning.
Meanwhile it seems a terrible thing to leave whole generations suffering
from destitution, just as it was a terrible thing to leave whole
generations groaning in slavery. But a general manumission would not
have helped matters then; and a general distribution to the indigent
would not help matters now. The remedy adopted then was a slow one, but
it has been efficacious. The master was not told to emancipate his
slave, and the slave was not told to run away from his master; but each
was charged to behave to the other, the master in commanding and the
slave in obeying, as Christian to Christian in the sight of God. Let us
not doubt that the same remedy now, if faithfully applied, will be not
less effectual. Do not tell the rich man that he must share his wealth
with those who have nothing. Do not tell the poor man that he has a
right to a share, and may seize it, if it is not given. But by precept
and example show to both alike that the one thing worth living for is to
promote the well-being of others. And let the experience of the past
convince us that any remedy which involves a violent reconstruction of
society is sure to be dangerous and may easily prove futile.

FOOTNOTES:

[70] _Laws_, 777 D.

[71] Tacitus, _Ann._ xiv. 42-45; iii. 14; comp. ii. 30 and iii. 67.




CHAPTER XVII.

_THE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS, AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE OF
GAIN._

    "Wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth,
    supposing that godliness is a way of gain. But godliness with
    contentment is great gain: for we brought nothing into the world,
    for neither can we carry anything out....

    "Charge them that are rich in this present world, that they be not
    high minded, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches,
    but on God, Who gives us richly all things to enjoy; that they do
    good, that they be rich in good works, that they be ready to
    distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for
    themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may
    lay hold on the life which is life indeed."--1 TIM. vi. 5-7, 17-19.


It is evident that the subject of avarice is much in the Apostle's mind
during the writing of the last portion of this Epistle. He comes upon it
here in connexion with the teachers of false doctrine, and speaks
strongly on the subject. Then he writes what appears to be a solemn
conclusion to the letter (vv. 11-16). And then, as if he was oppressed
by the danger of large possessions as promoting an avaricious spirit, he
charges Timothy to warn the wealthy against the folly and wickedness of
selfish hoarding. He, as it were, re-opens his letter in order to add
this charge, and then writes a second conclusion. He cannot feel happy
until he has driven home this lesson about the right way of making gain,
and the right way of laying up treasure. It is such a common heresy, and
such a fatal one, to believe that gold is wealth, and that wealth is
the chief good.

"Wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth." That is
how St. Paul describes the "dissidence of dissent," as it was known to
him by grievous experience. There were men who had once been in
possession of a sound mind, whereby to recognize and grasp the truth;
and they had grasped the truth, and for a time retained it. But they had
"given heed to seducing spirits," and had allowed themselves to be
robbed of both these treasures,--not only the truth, but the mental
power of appreciating the truth. And what had they in the place of what
they had lost? Incessant contentions among themselves. Having lost the
truth, they had no longer any centre of agreement. Error is manifold and
its paths are labyrinthine. When two minds desert the truth, there is no
reason why they should remain in harmony any more; and each has a right
to believe that his own substitute for the truth is the only one worth
considering. As proof that their soundness of mind is gone, and that
they are far away from the truth, St. Paul states the fact that they
"suppose that godliness is a way of gain."

It is well known that the scholars whose labours during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries produced at last the Authorized Version, were
not masters of the force of the Greek article. Its uses had not yet been
analysed in the thorough way in which they have been analysed in the
present century. Perhaps the text before us is the most remarkable among
the numerous errors which are the result of this imperfect knowledge. It
seems so strange that those who perpetrated it were not puzzled by their
own mistake, and that their perplexity did not put them right. What kind
of people could they have been who "supposed that gain was godliness"?
Did such an idea ever before enter into the head of any person? And if
it did, could he have retained it? People have devoted their whole souls
to gain, and have worshipped it as if it were Divine. But no man ever
yet believed, or acted as if he believed, that gain was godliness. To
make money-getting a substitute for religion, in allowing it to become
the one absorbing occupation of mind and body, is one thing: to believe
it to be religion is quite another.

But what St. Paul says of the opinions of these perverted men is exactly
the converse of this: not that they supposed "gain to be godliness," but
that they supposed "godliness to be a means of gain." They considered
godliness, or rather the "form of godliness" which was all that they
really possessed, to be a profitable investment. Christianity to them
was a "profession" in the mercantile sense, and a profession that paid:
and they embarked upon it, just as they would upon any other speculation
which offered equally good hopes of being remunerative.

The Apostle takes up this perverted and mean view of religion, and shows
that in a higher sense it is perfectly true. Just as Caiaphas, while
meaning to express a base and cold-blooded policy of expediency, had
given utterance to a profound truth about Christ, so these false
teachers had got hold of principles which could be formulated so as to
express a profound truth about Christ's religion. There is a very real
sense in which godliness (genuine godliness and not the mere externals
of it) is even in this world a fruitful source of gain. Honesty, so long
as it be not practised merely as a policy, is the best policy.
"Righteousness exalteth a nation": it invariably pays in the long run.
And so "Godliness with contentment is great gain." They _suppose_ that
godliness is a good investment:--in quite a different sense from that
which they have in their minds, it really _is_ so. And the reason of
this is manifest.

It has already been shown that "godliness is profitable for all things."
It makes a man a better master, a better servant, a better citizen, and
both in mind and body a healthier and therefore a stronger man. Above
all it makes him a happier man; for it gives him that which is the
foundation of all happiness in this life, and the foretaste of happiness
in the world to come,--a good conscience. A possession of such value as
this cannot be otherwise than great gain: especially if it be united, as
it probably will be united, with _contentment_. It is in the nature of
the godly man to be content with what God has given him. But godliness
and contentment are not identical; and therefore, in order to make his
meaning quite clear, the Apostle says not merely "godliness," but
"godliness with contentment." Either of these qualities far exceeds in
value the profitable investment which the false teachers saw in the
profession of godliness. They found that it _paid_; that it had a
tendency to advance their worldly interests. But after all even mere
worldly wealth does not consist in the abundance of the things which a
man possesses. That man is well off, who has as much as he wants; and
that man is rich, who has more than he wants. Wealth cannot be measured
by any absolute standard. We cannot name an income to rise above which
is riches, and to fall below which is poverty. Nor is it enough to take
into account the unavoidable calls which are made upon the man's purse,
in order to know whether he is well off or not: we must also know
something of his _desires_. When all legitimate claims have been
discharged, is he satisfied with what remains for his own use? Is he
_contented_? If he is, then he is indeed well-to-do. If he is not, then
the chief element of wealth is still lacking to him.

The Apostle goes on to enforce the truth of the statement that even in
this world godliness with contentment is a most valuable possession, far
superior to a large income; and to urge that, even from the point of
view of earthly prosperity and happiness, those people make a fatal
mistake who devote themselves to the accumulation of wealth, without
placing any check upon their growing and tormenting desires, and without
knowing how to make a good use of the wealth which they are
accumulating. With a view to enforce all this he repeats two well-known
and indisputable propositions: "We brought nothing into the world" and
"We can carry nothing out." As to the words which connect these two
propositions in the original Greek, there seems to be some primitive
error which we cannot now correct with any certainty. We are not sure
whether one proposition is given as a reason for accepting the other,
and, if so, which is premise and which is conclusion. But this is of no
moment. Each statement singly has been abundantly proved by the
experience of mankind, and no one would be likely to dispute either. One
of the earliest books in human literature has them as its opening moral.
"Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return
thither," are Job's words in the day of his utter ruin; and they have
been assented to by millions of hearts ever since.

"We brought nothing into the world." What right then have we to be
discontented with what has since been given to us? "We can take nothing
out." What folly, therefore, to spend all our time in amassing wealth,
which at the time of our departure we shall be obliged to leave behind
us! _There_ is the case against avarice in a nutshell. Never contented.
Never knowing what it is to rest and be thankful. Always nervously
anxious about the preservation of what has been gained, and laboriously
toiling in order to augment it. What a contrast to the godly man, who
has found true independence in a trustful dependence upon the God Whom
he serves! Godliness with contentment is indeed great gain.

There is perhaps no more striking example of the incorrigible perversity
of human nature than the fact that, in spite of all experience to the
contrary, generation after generation continues to look upon mere wealth
as the thing best worth striving after. Century after century we find
men telling us, often with much emphasis and bitterness, that great
possessions are an imposture, that they promise happiness and never give
it. And yet those very men continue to devote their whole energies to
the retention and increase of their possessions: or, if they do not,
they hardly ever succeed in convincing others that happiness is not to
be found in such things. If they could succeed, there would be far more
contented, and therefore far more happy people in the world than can be
found at present. It is chiefly the desire for greater temporal
advantages than we have at present that makes us discontented. We should
be a long way on the road to contentment, if we could thoroughly
convince ourselves that what are commonly called temporal
advantages--such as large possessions, rank, power, honours, and the
like--are on the whole _not_ advantages; that they more often detract
from this world's joys than augment them, while they are always a
serious danger, and sometimes a grievous impediment, in reference to the
joys of the world to come.

What man of wealth and position does not feel day by day the worries and
anxieties and obligations, which his riches and rank impose upon him.
Does he not often wish that he could retire to some cottage and there
live quietly on a few hundreds a year, and sometimes even seriously
think of doing it? But at other times he fancies that his unrest and
disquiet is owing to his not having enough. If he could only have some
thousands a year added to his present income, then he would cease to be
anxious about the future; he could afford to lose some and still have
sufficient. If he could only attain to a higher position in society,
then he would feel secure from detraction or serious downfall; he would
be able to treat with unconcerned neglect the criticisms which are now
such a source of annoyance to him. And in most cases this latter view
prevails. What determines his conduct is not the well-grounded suspicion
that he already has more than is good for him; that it is his abundance
which is destroying his peace of mind; but the baseless conviction that
an increase of the gifts of this world will win for him the happiness
that he has failed to secure. The experience of the past rarely destroys
this fallacy. He knows that his enjoyment of life has not increased with
his fortune. Perhaps he can see clearly that he was a happier man when
he possessed much less. But, nevertheless, he still cherishes the belief
that with a few things more he would be contented, and for those few
things more he continues to slave. There is no man in this world that
has not found out over and over again that success, even the most
complete success, in the attainment of any worldly desire, however
innocent or laudable, does not bring the permanent satisfaction which
was anticipated. Sooner or later the feeling of satiety, and therefore
of disappointment, must set in. And of all the countless thousands who
have had this experience, how few there are that have been able to draw
the right conclusion, and to act upon it!

And when we take into account the difficulties and dangers which a large
increase in the things of this world places in the way of our advance
towards moral and spiritual perfection, we have a still stronger case
against the fallacy that increase of wealth brings an increase in
well-being. The care of the things which we possess takes up thought and
time, which could be far more happily employed on nobler objects; and it
leads us gradually into the practical conviction that these nobler
objects, which have so continually to be neglected in order to make room
for other cares, are really of less importance. It is impossible to go
on ignoring the claims which intellectual and spiritual exercises have
upon our attention without becoming less alive to those claims. We
become, not contented, but self-sufficient in the worst sense. We
acquiesce in the low and narrow aims which a devotion to worldly
advancement has imposed upon us. We habitually act as if there were no
other life but this one; and consequently we cease to take much interest
in the other life beyond the grave; while even as regards the things of
this world our interests become confined to those objects which can
gratify our absorbing desire for financial prosperity.

Nor does the mischief done to our best moral and spiritual interests
end here; especially if we are what the world calls successful. The man
who steadily devotes himself to the advancement of his worldly position,
and who succeeds in a very marked way in raising himself, is likely to
acquire in the process a kind of brutal self-confidence, very
detrimental to his character. He started with nothing, and he now has a
fortune. He was once a shop-boy, and he is now a country gentleman. And
he has done it all by his own shrewdness, energy, and perseverance. The
result is that he makes no account of Providence, and very little of the
far greater merits of less conspicuously successful men. A contempt for
men and things that would have given him a higher view of this life, and
some idea of a better life, is the penalty which he pays for his
disastrous prosperity.

But his case is one of the most hopeless, whose desire for worldly
advantages has settled down into a mere love of money. The worldly man,
whose leading ambition is to rise to a more prominent place in society,
to outshine his neighbours in the appointments of his house and in the
splendour of his entertainments, to be of importance on all public
occasions, and the like, is morally in a far less desperate condition
than the miser. There is no vice more deadening to every noble and
tender feeling than avarice. It is capable of extinguishing all mercy,
all pity, all natural affection. It can make the claims of the suffering
and sorrowful, even when they are combined with those of an old friend,
or a wife, or a child, fall on deaf ears. It can banish from the heart
not only all love, but all shame and self-respect. What does the miser
care for the execrations of outraged society, so long as he can keep his
gold? There is no heartless or mean act, and very often no deed of
fraud or violence, from which he will shrink in order to augment or
preserve his hoards. Assuredly the Apostle is right when he calls the
love of money a "root of all kinds of evil." There is no iniquity to
which it does not form one of the nearest roads. Every criminal who
wants an accomplice can have the avaricious man as his helper, if he
only bids high enough.

And note that, unlike almost every other vice, it never loses its hold:
its deadly grip is never for an instant relaxed. The selfish man can at
a crisis become self-sacrificing, at any rate for a time. The sensualist
has his moments when his nobler nature gets the better of his passions,
and he spares those whom he thought to make his victims. The drunkard
can sometimes be lured by affection or innocent enjoyments to forego the
gratification of his craving. And there are times when even pride, that
watchful and subtle foe, sleeps at its post and suffers humble thoughts
to enter. But the demon avarice never slumbers, and is never off its
guard. When it has once taken full possession of a man's heart, neither
love, nor pity, nor shame, can ever surprise it into an act of
generosity. We all of us have our impulses; and, however little we may
act upon them, we are conscious that some of our impulses are generous.
Some of the worst of us could lay claim to as much as that. But the
miser's nature is poisoned at its very source. Even his impulses are
tainted. Sights and sounds which make other hardened sinners at least
wish to help, if only to relieve their own distress at such pitiful
things, make him instinctively tighten his purse-strings. Gold is his
god; and there is no god who exacts from his worshippers such undivided
and unceasing devotion. Family, friends, country, comfort, health, and
honour must all be sacrificed at its shrine. Certainly the lust for
gold is one of those "foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in
destruction and perdition."

In wealthy Ephesus, with its abundant commerce, the desire to be rich
was a common passion; and St. Paul feared--perhaps he knew--that in the
Church in Ephesus the mischief was present and increasing. Hence this
earnest reiteration of strong warnings against it. Hence the reopening
of the letter in order to tell Timothy to charge the rich not to be
self-confident and arrogant, not to trust in the wealth which may fail
them, but in the God Who cannot do so; and to remind them that the only
way to make riches secure is to give them to God and to His work. The
wealthy heathen in Ephesus were accustomed to deposit their treasures
with "the great goddess Diana," whose temple was both a sanctuary and a
bank. Let Christian merchants deposit theirs with God by being "rich in
good works;" so that, when He called them to Himself, they might receive
their own with usury, and "lay hold on the life which is life indeed."




_THE EPISTLE TO TITUS._




CHAPTER XVIII.

_THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.--HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER._

    "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ ... to
    Titus, my true child after a common faith: Grace and peace from God
    the Father, and Christ Jesus our Saviour"--TITUS i. 1, 4.


The title "Pastoral Epistle" is as appropriate to the Epistle to Titus
as to the First Epistle to Timothy. Although there is a good deal in the
letter that is personal rather than pastoral, yet the pastoral element
is the main one. The bulk of the letter is taken up with questions of
Church doctrine and government, the treatment of the faithful members of
the congregation and of the unruly and erring. The letter is addressed
to Titus, not as a private individual, but as the delegate of the
Apostle holding office in Crete. Hence, as in the First Epistle to
Timothy, St. Paul styles himself an Apostle: and the official character
of this letter is still further marked by the long and solemn
superscription. It is evidently intended to be read by other persons
besides the minister to whom it is addressed.

The question of the authenticity of the Epistle to Titus, has already
been in a great measure discussed in the first of these expositions. It
was pointed out there that the external evidence for the genuineness in
all three cases is very strong, beginning almost certainly with Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, becoming clear and certain in Irenaeus,
and being abundant in Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Of the very
few people who rejected them, Tatian seems to have been almost alone in
making a distinction between them. He accepted the Epistle to Titus,
while rejecting the two to Timothy. We may rejoice that Tatian, Marcion,
and others raised the question. It cannot be said that the Churches
accepted this Epistle without consideration. Those who possessed
evidence now no longer extant were convinced, in spite of the objections
urged, that in this letter and its two companions we have genuine
writings of St. Paul.

With regard to modern objections, it may be freely admitted that there
is no room in St. Paul's life, as given in the Acts, for the journey to
Crete, and the winter at Nicopolis required by the Epistle to Titus. But
there is plenty of room for both of these _outside_ the Acts, viz.,
between the first and second imprisonment of the Apostle. And, as we
have already seen good reason for believing in the case of 1 Timothy,
the condition of the Church indicated in this letter is such as was
already in existence in St. Paul's time; and the language used in
treating of it resembles that of the Apostle in a way which helps us to
believe that we are reading his own words and not those of a skilful
imitator. For this imitator must have been a strange person; very
skilful in some things, very eccentric in others. Why does he give St.
Paul and Titus a work in Crete of which there is no mention in the Acts?
Why does he make the Apostle ask Titus to meet him in Nicopolis, a place
never named in connexion with St. Paul? Why bracket a well-known person,
like Apollos, with an utterly unknown person, such as Zenas? It is not
easy to believe in this imitator.

Yet another point of resemblance should be noted. Here, as in 1 Timothy,
there is no careful arrangement of the material. The subjects are not
put together in a studied order, as in a treatise with a distinct
theological or controversial purpose. They follow one another in a
natural manner, just as they occur to the writer. Persons with their
hearts and heads full of things which they wish to say to a friend, do
not sit down with an analysis before them to secure an orderly
arrangement of what they wish to write. They start with one of the main
topics, and then the treatment of this suggests something else: and they
are not distressed if they repeat themselves, or if they have to return
to a subject which has been touched upon before and then dropped. This
is just the kind of writing which meets us once more in the letter to
Titus. It is thoroughly natural. It is not easy to believe that a forger
in the second century could have thrown himself with such simplicity
into the attitude which the letter pre-supposes.

It is not possible to determine whether this letter was written before
or after the First to Timothy. But it was certainly written before the
Second to Timothy. Therefore, while one has no sufficient reason for
taking it before the one, one has excellent reason for taking it before
the other. The precise year and the precise place in which it was
written, we must be content to leave unsettled. It may be doubted
whether either the one or the other would throw much light on the
contents of the letter. These are determined by what the Apostle
remembers and expects concerning affairs in Crete, and not by his own
surroundings. It is the official position of Titus in Crete which is
chiefly before his mind.

Titus, as we learn from the opening words of the letter, was, like
Timothy, converted to Christianity by St. Paul. The Apostle calls him
"his true child after a common faith." As regards his antecedents he was
a marked contrast to Timothy. Whereas Timothy had been brought up as a
Jew under the care of his Jewish mother Eunice, and had been circumcised
by St. Paul's desire, Titus was wholly a Gentile, and "was not compelled
to be circumcised," as St. Paul states in the passage in which he tells
the Galatians (ii. 1--3) that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the
occasion when he and Barnabas went thither seventeen years after St.
Paul's conversion. Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem on that
occasion to protect Gentile converts from the Judaizers, who wanted to
make all such converts submit to circumcision. Titus and others went
with them as representatives of the Gentile converts, and in their
persons a formal protest was made against this imposition. It is quite
possible that Titus was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Galatians;
and if so this mention of him becomes all the more natural. We may fancy
the Apostle saying to Titus, as he wrote the letter, "I shall remind
them of your case, which is very much to the point." Whether Titus was
personally known to the Galatian Church is not certain; but he is spoken
of as one of whom they have at any rate heard.

Titus was almost certainly one of those who carried the First Epistle to
the Corinthian Church, _i.e._, the first of the two that have come down
to us; and St. Paul awaited his report of the reception which the letter
had met with at Corinth with the utmost anxiety. And he was quite
certainly one of those who were entrusted with the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians. St. Paul wrote the first letter at Ephesus about Easter,
probably in the year 57. He left Ephesus about Pentecost, and went to
Troas, where he hoped to meet Titus with news from Corinth. After
waiting in vain he went on to Macedonia in grievous anxiety; and there
Titus met him. He at once began the second letter, which apparently was
written piece-meal during the journey; and when it was completed he sent
Titus back to Corinth with it.

That Titus should twice have been sent as the messenger and
representative of St. Paul to a Church in which difficulties of the
gravest kind had arisen, gives us a clear indication of the Apostle's
estimate of his character. He must have been a person of firmness,
discretion, and tact. There was the monstrous case of incest, the
disputes between the rival factions, contentions in public worship and
even at the Eucharist, litigation before the heathen, and wild ideas
about the resurrection, not to mention other matters which were
difficult enough, although of a less burning character. And in all these
questions it was the vain, fitful, vivacious, and sensitive Corinthians
who had to be managed and induced to take the Apostle's words (which
sometimes were very sharp and severe) patiently. Nor was this all.
Besides the difficulties in the Church of Corinth there was the
collection for the poor Christians in Judaea, about which St. Paul was
deeply interested, and which had not been progressing in Corinth as he
wished. St. Paul was doubly anxious that it should be a success; first,
because it proved to the Jewish converts that his interest in them was
substantial, in spite of his opposition to some of their views;
secondly, because it served to counteract the tendency to part asunder,
which was manifesting itself between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.
And in carrying out St. Paul's instructions about these matters Titus
evidently had to suffer a good deal of opposition; and hence the Apostle
writes a strong commendation of him, coupling him with himself in his
mission and zeal. "Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and
my fellow-worker to you-ward." "Thanks be to God, which putteth the same
earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For indeed he accepted our
exhortation; but being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of
his own accord." With great delicacy the Apostle takes care that, in
making it clear to the Corinthians that Titus has his full authority for
what he does, no slight is cast upon Titus's own zeal and interest in
the Corinthians. "He is my representative; but he comes of his own free
will out of love to you. His visit to you is his own doing; but he has
my entire sanction. He is neither a mechanical delegate, nor an
unauthorized volunteer."

A curtain falls on the career of this valued help-mate of the great
Apostle, from the time when he carried the second letter to Corinth to
the time when the letter to himself was written. The interval was
probably some eight or ten years, about which we know only one thing,
that during it, and probably in the second half of it, the Apostle and
Titus had been together in Crete, and Titus had been left behind to
consolidate the Church there. The Acts tell us nothing. Probably Titus
is not mentioned in the book at all. The reading "Titus Justus" in
xviii. 7, is possibly correct, but it is far from certain: and even if
it were certain, we should still remain in doubt whether Titus and Titus
Justus are the same person. And the attempts which have been made to
identify Titus with other persons in the Acts, such as Silvanus or
Timothy, are scarcely worth considering. Nor has the conjecture that
Titus is the author of the Acts (as Krenkel, Jacobsen, and recently
Hooykaas in the _Bible for Young People_ have suggested) very much to
recommend it. The hypothesis has two facts to support it: (1) the
silence of the Acts respecting Titus, and (2) the fact that the writer
must have been a companion of St. Paul. But these two facts are equally
favourable to the tradition that St. Luke was the author, a tradition
for which the evidence is both very early and very abundant. Why should
such a tradition yield to a mere conjecture?

One thing, however, we may accept as certain:--that the time when St.
Paul was being carried a prisoner to Rome in an Alexandrian corn-ship
which touched at Crete, was _not_ the time when the Church in Crete was
founded. What opportunity would a prisoner have of doing any such work
during so short a stay? Cretans were among those who heard the Apostles
at Pentecost preaching in their own tongue the wonderful works of God.
Some of these may have returned home and formed the first beginnings of
a Christian congregation: and among imperfect converts of this kind we
might expect to find the errors of which St. Paul treats in this
Epistle. But we can hardly suppose that there was much of Christian
organization until St. Paul and Titus came to the island after the
Apostle's first Roman imprisonment. And the necessity of having some one
with a calm head and a firm hand on the spot, forced the Apostle to
leave his companion behind him. The man who had been so successful in
aiding him respecting the difficulties at Corinth was just the man to
be entrusted with a somewhat similar but rather more permanent post in
Crete. The Cretans were less civilized, but in their own way scarcely
less immoral, than the Corinthians; and in both cases the national
failings caused serious trouble in the Church. In both cases
ecclesiastical authority has to be firmly upheld against those who
question and oppose it. In both cases social turbulence has to be kept
in check. In both cases there is a tendency to wild theological and
philosophical speculations, and (on the part of some) to a bigoted
maintenance of Jewish ordinances and superstitions. Against all these
Titus will have to contend with decision, and if need be with severity.

The letter, in which directions are given for the carrying out of all
this, is evidence of the great confidence which the Apostle reposed in
him. One of those who had worked also in Corinth, is either already with
him in Crete, or may soon be expected,--Apollos, and with him Zenas. So
that the Corinthian experience is doubly represented. Other helpers are
coming, viz., Artemas and Tychicus; and, when they arrive, Titus will be
free to rejoin the Apostle, and is to lose no time in doing so at
Nicopolis.

One commission Titus has in Crete which very naturally was not given to
him at Corinth. He is to perfect the organization of the Christian
Church in the island by appointing elders in every city. And it is this
charge among others which connects this letter so closely with the first
to Timothy, which very likely was written about the same time.

Whether Titus was set free from his heavy charge in Crete in time to
join St. Paul at Nicopolis, we have no means of knowing. At the time
when the second letter to Timothy was written, Titus had gone to
Dalmatia; but we are left in doubt as to whether he had gone thither by
St. Paul's desire, or (like Demas in going to Thessalonica) against it.
Nor does it appear whether Titus had gone to Dalmatia from Nicopolis,
which is not far distant, or had followed the Apostle from Nicopolis to
Rome, and thence gone to Illyria. With the journey to Dalmatia our
knowledge of him ends. Tradition takes him back to Crete as permanent
bishop; and in the Middle Ages the Cretans seem to have regarded him as
their patron saint.

The impression left upon our mind by the Acts is that St. Luke knew
Timothy and did not know Titus: and hence frequently mentions the one
and says nothing about the other. The impression left upon our mind by
the mention of both in Paul's Epistles, and by the letters addressed to
each, is that Titus, though less tenderly beloved by the Apostle, was
the stronger man of the two. St. Paul seems to be less anxious about the
conduct of Titus and about the way in which others will treat him. The
directions as to his personal behaviour are much slighter than in the
case of Timothy. He seems to credit him with less sensitiveness and more
decision and tact; perhaps also with less liability to be carried away
by fanatical views and practices than the other.

Titus shares with Timothy the glory of having given up everything in
order to throw in his lot with St. Paul, and of being one of his most
trusted and efficient helpers. What that meant the Epistles of St. Paul
tell us:--ceaseless toil and anxiety, much shame and reproach, and not a
little peril to life itself. He also shares with Timothy the glory of
being willing, when the cause required such sacrifice, to separate from
the master to whom he had surrendered himself, and to work on by
himself in isolation and difficulty. The latter was possibly the more
trying sacrifice of the two. To give up all his earthly prospects and
all the sweetness of home life, in order to work for the spread of the
Gospel side by side with St. Paul, was no doubt a sacrifice that must
have cost those who made it a great deal. But it had its attractive
side. Quite independently of the beauty and majesty of the cause itself,
there was the delight of being associated with a leader so able, so
sagacious, so invigorating, and so affectionate as the Apostle who
"became all things to all men that he might by all means save some."
Hard work became light, and difficulties became smooth, under the
inspiriting sympathy of such a colleague. But it was quite another thing
to have given up everything for the sake of such companionship and
support, or at least in the full expectation of enjoying it, and then to
have to undergo the hard work and confront the difficulties without it.
The new dispensation in this respect repeats the old. Elisha leaves his
home and his inheritance to follow Elijah, and then Elijah is taken from
him. Timothy and Titus leave their homes and possessions to follow St.
Paul, and then St. Paul sends them away from him. And to this
arrangement they consented, Timothy (as we know) with tears, Titus (we
may be sure) with much regret. And what it cost the loving Apostle thus
to part with them and to pain them we see from the tone of affectionate
longing which pervades these letters.

The example set by both master and disciples is one which Christians,
and especially Christian ministers, must from time to time need. Christ
sent forth both the Twelve and the Seventy "two and two"; and what is
true of mankind generally is true also of the ministry--"It is not good
for man to be alone." But cases often arise in which not more than one
man can be spared for each post; and then those who have been all in all
to one another, in sympathy and counsel and co-operation, have to part.
And it is one of the greatest sacrifices that can be required of them.
Paul and Timothy and Titus were willing to make this sacrifice; and it
is one which Christ's servants throughout all ages are called upon at
times to make. Many men are willing to face, especially in a good cause,
what is repulsive to them, if they have the company of others in the
trial, especially if they have the presence and support of those whose
presence is in itself a refreshment, and their support a redoubling of
strength. But to enter upon a long and trying task with the full
expectation of such advantages, and then to be called upon to surrender
them,--this is, indeed, a trial which might well make the weak-hearted
turn back. But their devotion to their Lord's work, and their confidence
in His sustaining power, enabled the Apostle and his two chief disciples
to make the venture; and the marvellous success of the Church in the age
which immediately succeeded them, shows how their sacrifice was blessed.
And we may be sure that even in this world they had their reward.
"Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or
brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for
My sake, and for the Gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold
now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, _with persecutions_; and in the world to come
_eternal life_."




CHAPTER XIX.

_THE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S DIRECTIONS FOR
APPOINTING ELDERS._

    "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in
    order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every
    city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is blameless, the husband of
    one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot
    or unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as God's
    steward."--TITUS i. 5-7.


This passage tells us a great deal about the circumstances which led to
the writing of the letter. They have been touched upon in the previous
chapter, but may be treated more comprehensively here.

It is quite evident: (1) that the Gospel had been established in Crete
for a considerable time when St. Paul wrote this to his delegate, Titus;
(2) that during the Apostle's stay in the island he had been unable to
complete the work which he had in view with regard to the full
establishment of the Church there; and (3) that one of the chief things
which remained undone, and which St. Paul had been compelled to leave to
Titus to accomplish, was a properly organized ministry. There was a
large and scattered flock; but for the most part it was without
shepherds.

It is quite possible that the Gospel of Christ was at least known, if
not by any one believed, in Crete before St. Paul visited the islands.
Cretans were among those who heard the miraculous preaching of the
Apostles on the day of Pentecost; and some of these may have returned to
their country, if not converts to Christianity, at any rate full of what
they had seen and heard of "the mighty works of God," as shown forth in
the words spoken on that day, and in their consequences. Certainly there
were many Jews in the island; and these, though often the bitterest
opponents of the Gospel, were nevertheless the readiest and best
converts, when they did not oppose; for they already knew and worshipped
the true God, and they were acquainted with the prophecies respecting
the Messiah. We may therefore conclude that the way was already prepared
for the preaching of Christ, even if He as yet had no worshippers in
Crete, before St. Paul began to teach there.

There are three things which tend to show that Christianity had been
spreading in Crete for at least some years when the Apostle wrote this
letter to Titus. First, the latter is charged to "appoint elders _in
every city_," or "city by city," as we might render the original
expression (=kata polin=). This implies that among the multitude of
cities, for which Crete even in Homer's day had been famous, not a few
had a Christian congregation in need of supervision; and it is not
improbable that the congregation in some cases was a large one. For the
interpretation is certainly an untenable one which forces into the
Apostle's words a restriction which they do not contain, that each city
is to have just one presbyter and no more. St. Paul tells Titus to take
care that no city is left without a presbyter. Each Christian community
is to have its proper ministry; it is not to be left to its own
guidance. But how many elders each congregation is to have, is a point
to be decided by Titus according to the principles laid down for him by
St. Paul. For we must not limit the "as I gave thee charge" to the mere
fact of appointing elders. The Apostle had told him, not merely that
elders must be appointed, but that they must be appointed in a
particular way, and according to a prescribed system. The passage,
therefore, tells us that there were a good many cities in which there
were Christian congregations, and leaves us quite free to believe that
some of these congregations were large enough to require several elders
to minister to them and govern them. Secondly, the kind of person to be
selected as overseer seems to imply that Christianity has been
established for a considerable time among the Cretans. The "elder" or
"bishop" (for in this passage, at any rate, the two names indicate one
and the same officer) is to be the father of a family, with children who
are believers and orderly persons.

The injunction implies that there are cases in which the father is a
good Christian, but he has not succeeded in making his children good
Christians. Either they have not become believers at all; or, although
nominal Christians, they do not conduct themselves as such. They are
profligate, riotous, and disobedient. This implies that the children are
old enough to think for themselves and reject the Gospel in spite of
their parent's conversion; or that they are old enough to rebel against
its authority. And one does not use such strong words as "profligacy" or
"riotous living" of quite young children. The prodigal son, of whom the
same expression is used, was no mere child. Cases of this kind,
therefore, in which the father had been converted to Christianity, but
had been unable to make the influences of Christianity tell upon his own
children, were common enough to make it worth St. Paul's while to give
injunctions about them. And this implies a condition of things in which
Christianity was no newly planted religion. The injunctions are
intelligible enough. Such fathers are not to be selected by Titus as
elders. A man who has so conspicuously failed in bringing his own
household into harmony with the Gospel, is not the man to be promoted to
rule the household of the Church. Even if his failure is his misfortune
rather than his fault, the condition of his own family cannot fail to be
a grave impediment to his usefulness as an overseer of the
congregation.[72] Thirdly, there is the fact that heresies already exist
among the Cretan Christians. Titus, like Timothy, has to contend with
teaching of a seriously erroneous kind. From this also we infer that the
faith has long since been introduced into the island. The misbeliefs of
the newly converted would be spoken of in far gentler terms. They are
errors of ignorance, which will disappear as fuller instruction in the
truth is received. They are not erroneous doctrines held and propagated
in opposition to the truth. These latter require time for their
development. From all these considerations, therefore, we conclude that
St. Paul is writing to Titus as his delegate in a country in which the
Gospel is no new thing. We are not to suppose that the Apostle left
Titus in charge of Christians who had been converted a very short time
before to the faith.

The incompleteness of the Apostle's own work in the island is spoken of
in plain terms. Even in Churches in which he was able to remain for two
or three years, he was obliged to leave very much unfinished; and we
need not be surprised that such was the case in Crete, where he can
hardly have stayed so long. It was this incompleteness in all his work,
a defect quite unavoidable in work of such magnitude, that weighed so
heavily upon the Apostle's mind. It was "that which pressed upon him
daily,--anxiety for all the Churches." There was so much that had never
been done at all; so much that required to be secured and established;
so much that already needed correction. And while he was attending to
the wants of one Church, another not less important, not less dear to
him, was equally in need of his help and guidance. And here was the
comfort of having such disciples as, Timothy and Titus, who, like true
friends, could be indeed a "second self" to him. They could be carrying
on his work in places where he himself could not be. And thus there was
no small consolation for the sorrow of parting from them and the loss of
their helpful presence. They could be still more helpful elsewhere. "For
this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the
things that were wanting."

There were many things that were wanting in Crete; but one of the chief
things which pressed upon the Apostle's mind was the lack of a properly
organized ministry, without which everything must soon fall into
confusion and decay. Hence, as soon as he has concluded his salutation,
the fulness and solemnity of which is one of the many evidences of the
genuineness of the letter, he at once repeats to Titus the charge which
he had previously given to him by word of mouth respecting this pressing
need. A due supply of elders or overseers is of the first importance
for "setting in order" those things which at present are in so
unsatisfactory a state.

There are several points of interest in connexion with St. Paul's
directions to Titus respecting this need and the best way of meeting it.

First. It is Titus himself who is to appoint these elders throughout the
cities in which congregations exist. It is not the congregations that
are to elect the overseers, subject to the approval of the Apostle's
delegate; still less that he is to ordain any one whom they may elect.
The full responsibility of each appointment rests with him. Anything
like popular election of the ministers is not only not suggested, it is
by implication entirely excluded. But, secondly, in making each
appointment Titus is to consider the congregation. He is to look
carefully to the reputation which the man of his choice bears among his
fellow-Christians:--"if any man is _blameless_ ... having children who
are not _accused_ of riot.... For the bishop must be _blameless_." A man
in whom the congregation have no confidence, because of the bad repute
which attaches to himself or his family, is not to be appointed. In this
way the congregation have an indirect veto; for the man to whom they
cannot give a good character may not be taken to be set over them.
Thirdly, the appointment of Church officers is regarded as imperative:
it is on no account to be omitted. And it is not merely an arrangement
that is as a rule desirable: it is to be universal. Titus is to "appoint
elders in every city." He is to go through the congregations "city by
city," and take care that each has its elder or body of elders.
Fourthly, as the name itself indicates, these elders are to be taken
from the older men among the believers. As a rule they are to be heads
of families, who have had experience of life in its manifold relations,
and especially who have had experience of ruling a Christian household.
That will be some guarantee for their capacity for ruling a Christian
congregation. Lastly, it must be remembered that they are not merely
delegates, either of Titus, or of the congregation. The essence of their
authority is not that they are the representatives of the body of
Christian men and women over whom they are placed. It has a far higher
origin. They are "God's stewards." It is His household that they direct
and administer, and it is from Him that their powers are derived. They
are His ministers, solemnly appointed to act in His Name. It is on His
behalf that they have to speak, as His agents and ambassadors, labouring
to advance the interests of His kingdom. They are "stewards of His
mysteries," bringing out of what is committed to them "things new and
old." As God's agents they have a work to do among their fellow-men,
through themselves, for Him. As God's ambassadors they have a message to
deliver, good tidings to proclaim, ever the same, and yet ever new. As
"God's stewards" they have treasures to guard with reverent care,
treasures to augment by diligent cultivation, treasures to distribute
with prudent liberality. There is the flock, sorely needing, but it may
be not greatly craving, God's spiritual gifts. The longing has to be
awakened: the longing, when awakened, has to be cherished and directed:
the gifts which will satisfy it have to be dispensed. There is a demand;
and there is a supply; a human demand and a Divine supply. It is the
business of God's stewards to see that the one meets the other.

"God's steward" is the key to all that follows respecting the qualities
to be looked for in an elder or overseer of the Church: and, as the
order of the words in the Greek shows, the emphasis is on "God's" rather
than on "steward." The point accentuated is, not that in the Church as
in his own home he has a household to administer, but that the household
to which he has to minister is God's. That being so, he "as God's
steward" must prove himself worthy of the Commission which he holds:
"not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of
filthy lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober-minded,
just, holy, temperate; holding to the faithful word which is according
to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound
doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers."

Such men, wherever he can find them,--and "_if_ any man is blameless" is
not meant to hint that among Cretans it may be impossible to find
such,--Titus is to "_appoint_" as elders in every city. In the A.V. the
phrase runs "_ordain_ elders in every city." As we have seen already
(Chap. V.), there are several passages in which the Revisers have
changed "ordain" into "appoint." Thus in Mark iii. 14, "He ordained
twelve" becomes "He appointed twelve." In John xv. 16, "I have chosen
you and ordained you" becomes, "I chose you and appointed you." In 1
Tim. ii. 7, "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle" becomes
"whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle." In Heb. v. 1, and
viii. 3, "Every high priest is ordained" becomes "every high priest is
appointed." In these passages three different Greek words (=poieo=,
=tithemi=, =kathistemi=) are used in the original; but not one of them has
the special ecclesiastical meaning which we so frequently associate
with the word "ordain"; not one of them implies, as "ordain" in such
context almost of necessity implies, a _rite_ of ordination, a special
ceremonial, such as the laying on of hands. When in English we say, "He
ordained twelve," "I am ordained an apostle," "Every high priest is
ordained," the mind almost inevitably thinks of ordination in the common
sense of the word; and this is foisting upon the language of the New
Testament a meaning which the words there used do not rightly bear. They
all three of them refer to the _appointment_ to the office, and not to
rite or ceremony by which the person appointed is admitted to the
office. The Revisers, therefore, have done wisely in banishing from all
such texts a word which to English readers cannot fail to suggest ideas
which are not contained at all in the original Greek. If we ask in what
way Titus admitted the men whom he selected to serve as presbyters to
their office, the answer is scarcely a doubtful one. Almost certainly he
would admit them, as Timothy himself was admitted, and as he is
instructed to admit others, by the laying on of hands. But this is
neither expressed nor implied in the injunction to "_appoint_ elders in
every city." The appointment is one thing, the ordination another; and
even in cases in which we are sure that the appointment involved
ordination, we are not justified in saying "ordain" where the Greek says
"appoint." The Greek words used in the passages quoted might equally
well be used of the appointment of a magistrate or a steward. And as we
should avoid speaking of _ordaining_ a magistrate or a steward, we ought
to avoid using "ordain" to translate words which would be thoroughly in
place in such a connexion. The Greek words for "ordain" and
"ordination," in the sense of imposition of hands in order to admit to
an ecclesiastical office (=cheirothetei=, =cheirothesia=), do not occur in
the New Testament at all.

It is worthy of note that there is not a trace here, any more than there
is in the similar passage in 1 Timothy, of the parallel between the
threefold ministry in the Old Testament and a threefold ministry in the
Christian Church, high-priest, priests, and Levites being compared with
bishop, presbyters, and deacons. This parallel was a favourite one and
it was made early. The fact therefore that we do not find it in any of
these Epistles, nor even any material out of which it could be
constructed, confirms us in the belief that these letters belong to the
first century and not to the second.

In giving this injunction to Titus, St. Paul assumes that his disciple
and delegate is as free as he himself is from all feelings of jealousy,
or envy. "Art thou jealous for my sake? would God that all the Lord's
people were prophets," is the spirit in which these instructions are
given, and no doubt were accepted. There is no grasping after power in
the great Apostle of the Gentiles; no desire to keep everything in his
own hands, that he might have the credit of all that was done. So long
as Christ is rightly preached, so long as the Lord's work is faithfully
done, he cares not who wins the glory. He is more than willing that
Timothy and Titus should share in his work and its reward; and he
without hesitation applies to them to admit others in like manner to
share with them in their work and its reward. This generous willingness
to admit others to co-operate is not always found, especially in men of
strong character and great energy and decision. They will admit
subordinates as a necessary evil to work out details, because they
cannot themselves afford time for all these. But they object to anything
like colleagues. Whatever of any serious importance is done must be in
their own hands and must be recognized as their work. There is nothing
of this spirit in St. Paul. He could rejoice when some "preached Christ
even of envy and strife," "not sincerely, thinking to raise up
affliction for him in his bonds." He rejoiced, not because of their evil
temper, but because that at any rate Christ was preached. How much more,
therefore, did he rejoice when Christ was preached "of good will" by
disciples devoted to himself and his Master. They all had the same end
in view; not their own glory, but the glory of God.

And this is the end which all Christian ministers have to keep in view,
and which they too often exchange for ends that are far lower, and far
removed (it may be) from the cause with which we choose to identify
them. And as time goes on, and we look less and less with a single eye
at the will of God, and have less and less of the single purpose of
seeking His glory, our aims become narrower and our ends more selfish.
At first it is the triumph of a system, then it is the advancement of a
party. Then it becomes the propagation of our own views, and the
extension of our own influence. Until at last we find ourselves working,
no longer for God's glory, but simply for our own. While professing to
work in His Name and for His honour, we have steadily substituted our
own wills for His.

But it is only by forgetting ourselves that we find ourselves; only by
losing our life that we find it. "God's steward" must be ready to sink
every personal interest in the interests of the great Employer. He has
nothing of his own. He deals with his Master's goods, and must deal with
them in his Master's way. He who labours in this spirit will one day be
rewarded by the Divine voice of welcome: "Well done, good and faithful
servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will set thee over
many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

FOOTNOTES:

[72] It is worth while here to repeat the caution that the Apostle's
language by no means implies that the "elder" or "bishop" _must_ be a
married man with children. But it implies that he will generally be
such; and in appointing him, the character of his family must be
carefully considered.




CHAPTER XX.

_CHRISTIANITY AND UNCHRISTIAN LITERATURE._

    "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always
    liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which
    cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the
    faith."--TITUS i. 12, 13.


The hexameter verse which St. Paul here cites from the Cretan poet
Epimenides is one of three quotations from profane literature which are
made by St. Paul. Of the other two, one occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 33, "Evil
communications corrupt good manners"; and the other in the Apostle's
speech on the Areopagus at Athens, as recorded in the Acts (xvii. 28):
"For we are also his offspring." They cannot be relied upon as
sufficient to prove that St. Paul was well read in classical literature,
any more than the quoting of a hackneyed line from Shakespeare, from
Byron, and from Tennyson, would prove that an English writer was well
acquainted with English literature. It may have been the case that St.
Paul knew a great deal of Greek classical literature, but these three
quotations, from Epimenides, from some Greek tragedian, and from
Cleanthes or Aratus, do not at all prove the point. In all three cases
the source of the quotation is not certain. In the one before us the
Apostle no doubt tells us that he is quoting a Cretan "prophet," and
therefore quotes the line as coming from Epimenides. But a man may know
that "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" is Shakespeare,
without having read a single play. And we are quite uncertain whether
St. Paul had even seen the poem of Epimenides on Oracles in which the
line which he here quotes occurs. The iambic which he quotes in the
letter to the Corinthians, although originally in some Greek play
(perhaps of Euripides or Menander), had passed into a proverb, and
proves even less than the line from Epimenides that St. Paul knew the
work in which it occurred. The half-line which is given in his speech at
Athens, stating the Divine parentage of mankind, may have come from a
variety of sources: but it is not improbable that the Apostle had read
it in the _Phaenomena_ of Aratus, in which it occurs in the form in which
it is reproduced in the Acts. This astronomical poem was popular in St.
Paul's day, and he was the more likely to have come across it, as Aratus
is said to have been a native of Tarsus, or at any rate of Cilicia. But
even when we have admitted that the Apostle had read the _Phaenomena_ of
Aratus or Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, we have not made much way towards
proving that he was well read in Greek literature. Indeed the contrary
has been argued from the fact that, according to the reading of the best
authorities, the iambic line in the Corinthians is quoted in such a way
as to spoil the scanning; which would seem to show that St. Paul was not
familiar with the iambic metre.[73] If that was the case, he can
scarcely have read even a single Greek play.

But the question is not one of great importance, although doubtless of
some interest. We do not need this evidence to prove that the Apostle
was a person, not only of great energy and ability, but of culture.
There are passages in his writings, such as chapters xiii. and xv. in 1
Corinthians, which are equal for beauty and eloquence to anything in
literature. Even among inspired writers few have known better than St.
Paul how to clothe lofty thoughts in noble language. And of his general
acquaintance with the moral philosophy of his age, especially of the
Stoic school, which was very influential in the neighbourhood of Tarsus,
there can be no doubt. Just as St. John laid the thoughts and language
of Alexandrian philosophy under contribution, and gave them fuller force
and meaning to express the dogmatic truths of the Gospel, so St. Paul
laid the thoughts and language of Stoicism under contribution, and
transfigured them to express the moral teaching of the Gospel. Cleanthes
or Aratus, from one or both of whom one of the three quotations comes
(and St. Paul seems to know both sources, for he says "as _certain_ even
of your own _poets_ have said"), were both of them Stoics: and the
speech in which the quotation occurs, short as it is in the Acts,
abounds in parallels to the teaching of St. Paul's Stoic contemporary
Seneca. If St. Paul tells us that "the God that made the world and all
things therein ... dwelleth not in temples made with hands," Seneca
teaches that "temples must not be built to God of stones piled on high:
He must be consecrated in the heart of man." While St. Paul reminds us
that God "is not far from each one of us," Seneca says "God is near
thee: He is with thee; He is within." Again, St. Paul warns his hearers
that "we ought not to think that the God-head is like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man"; and Seneca declares
"Thou shalt not form Him of silver and gold: a true likeness of God
cannot be moulded of this material."[74]

But the quotations are of other interest than their bearing upon the
question as to the Greek elements in the education and teaching of St.
Paul. They have a bearing also on the question of Christian use of
profane authors, and on the duty of self-culture in general.

The leading teachers of the early Church differed widely in their
estimate of the value of heathen literature, and especially of heathen
philosophy. On the whole, with some considerable exceptions, the Greek
Fathers valued it highly, as containing precious elements of truth,
which were partly the result of direct inspiration, partly echoes of the
Old Testament. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, for the most part
treated all pagan teaching with suspicion and contempt. It was in no
sense useful. It was utterly false, and simply stood in the way of the
truth. It was rubbish, which must be swept on one side in order to make
room for the Gospel. Tertullian thinks that heathen philosophers are
"blockheads when they knock at the doors of truth," and that "they have
contributed nothing whatever that a Christian can accept." Arnobius and
Lactantius write in a similar strain of contemptuous disapproval.
Tertullian thinks it out of the question that a right-minded Christian
should teach in pagan schools. But even he shrinks from telling
Christian parents that they must allow their children to remain
uneducated rather than send them to such schools. The policy of
permitting Christian children to attend heathen schools, while
forbidding Christian adults from teaching in them, appears singularly
unreasonable. Every Christian teacher in a school rendered that school
less objectionable for Christian children. But Tertullian urges that one
who teaches pagan literature seems to give his sanction to it: one who
merely learns it does nothing of the kind. The young must be educated:
adults need not become school-masters. One can plead necessity in the
one case; not in the other (_De Idol._, x). But the necessity of sending
a child to a pagan school, because otherwise it could not be properly
educated, did not settle the question whether it was prudent, or even
right, for a Christian in afterlife to study pagan literature; and it
required the thought and experience of several centuries to arrive at
anything like a consensus of opinion and practice on the subject. But
during the first four or five centuries the more liberal view, even in
the West, on the whole prevailed. From Irenaeus, Tatian, and Hermias,
among Greek writers, and from various Latin Fathers, disapproving
opinions proceeded. But the influence of Clement of Alexandria and
Origen in the East, and of Augustine and Jerome in the West, was too
strong for such opinions. Clement puts it on the broad ground that all
wisdom is a Divine gift; and maintains that the philosophy of the
Greeks, limited and particular as it is, contains the rudiments of that
really perfect knowledge, which is beyond this world." Origen, in
rebutting the reproach of Celsus, that the Gospel repelled the educated
and gave a welcome only to the ignorant, quotes the Epistle to Titus,
pointing out that "Paul, in describing what kind of man the bishop ought
to be, lays down as a qualification that he must be a teacher, saying
that he ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom
which is in him he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and
deceivers." The Gospel gives a welcome to the learned and unlearned
alike: to the learned, that they may become teachers; to the unlearned,
not because it prefers such, but because it wishes to instruct them. And
he points out that in enumerating the gifts of the Spirit St. Paul
places wisdom and knowledge before faith, gifts of healing, and miracles
(1 Cor. xii. 8-10). But Origen does not point out that St. Paul himself
makes use of heathen literature; although immediately before dealing
with the accusation of Celsus, that Christians hate culture and promote
ignorance, he quotes from Callimachus half of the saying of Epimenides,
"Cretans are alway liars" (_Con. Cels._, III. xliii). What Origen's own
practice was we learn from the _Panegyric_ of his enthusiastic pupil,
Gregory Thaumaturgus (xiii.).

With the exception of atheistic philosophy, which was not worth the
risk, Origen encouraged his scholars to study everything; and he gave
them a regular course of dialectics, physics, and moral philosophy, as a
preparation for theology. Augustine, who ascribes his first conversion
from a vicious life to the _Hortensius_ of Cicero (_Conf., III._ iv. I),
was not likely to take an extreme line in condemning classical
literature, from which he himself frequently quotes. Of Cicero's
_Hortensius_ he says, "This book in truth changed my affections, and
turned my prayers to Thyself, O Lord, and made me have other hopes and
desires." He quotes, among other classical authors, not only Virgil,
Livy, Lucan, Sallust, Horace, Pliny and Quintillian, but Terence,
Persius, and Juvenal, and of the last from those Satires which are
sometimes omitted by editors on account of their grossness. In his
treatise _On Christian Doctrine_ (_II._ xl.), he contends that we must
not shrink from making use of all that is good and true in heathen
writings and institutions. We must "spoil the Egyptians." The writings
of his instructor Ambrose show that he also was well acquainted with the
best Latin classics. In Jerome we have what may be called an essay on
the subject. Ruffinus had suggested to Magnus, a Roman rhetorician, that
he should ask Jerome why he filled his writings with so many allusions
and quotations taken from pagan literature, and Jerome in reply, after
quoting the opening verses of the Book of Proverbs, refers him to the
example of St. Paul in the Epistles to Titus and the Corinthians, and in
the speech in the Acts. Then he points to Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, and
Apollinaris: "read them, and you will find that in comparison with them
we have little skill (in quotation)." Besides these he appeals to the
examples, among Greek writers, of Quadratus, Justin Martyr, Dionysius,
Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, etc.; and among Latins,
Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Hilary, and Juvencus. And he
points out that quotations from profane authors occur in nearly all the
works of these writers, and not merely in those which are addressed to
heathen. But while Jerome defends the study of classical authors as a
necessary part of education, he severely condemns those clergy who
amused themselves with such writers as Plautus (of whom he himself had
been very fond), Terence, and Catullus, when they ought to have been
studying the Scriptures. Later in life his views appear to have become
more rigid; and we find him rejoicing that the works of Plato and
Aristotle are becoming neglected.

It was the short reign of Julian, commonly called "the Apostate" (A.D.
361-363), which had brought the question very much to the front. His
policy and legislation probably influenced Augustine and Jerome in
taking a more liberal line in the matter, in spite of Latin dislike of
Greek philosophy and their own ascetic tendencies. Julian, jealous of
the growing influence of Christian teachers, tried to prevent them from
lecturing on classical authors. From this he hoped to gain two
advantages. (1) Secular education would to a large extent be taken out
of Christian hands. (2) The Christian teachers themselves would become
less well educated, and less able to contend with heathen
controversialists. He sarcastically pointed out the inconvenience of a
teacher expounding Homer and denouncing Homer's gods: Christians had
better confine themselves to "expounding Matthew and Luke in the
Churches of the Galileans," and leave the interpretation of the
masterpieces of antiquity to others. And he seems not to have contented
himself with cynical advice, but to have passed a law that no Christian
was to teach in the public schools. This law was at once cancelled by
his successor Valentinian; but it provoked a strong feeling of
resentment, and stirred up Christians to recognize and hold fast the
advantages of a classical education.

But while the influence of the first three of the four great Latin
Fathers was in favour of a wise use of the products of pagan genius, the
influence of the last of the four was disastrously in the opposite
direction.

In the period between Jerome and Gregory the Great two facts had had a
calamitous effect upon the cause of liberal education. (1) The inroads
of the barbarians almost destroyed the imperial schools in Gaul and
Italy. (2) The miserable controversies about Origen produced an uneasy
suspicion that secular study was prejudical to orthodoxy. It is perhaps
to this latter influence that we may attribute two ecclesiastical canons
of unknown date and origin. In the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (I. vi.)
we read, "Abstain from all heathen books. For what hast thou to do with
such foreign discourses, or laws, or false prophets, which subvert the
faith of the unstable? For what defect dost thou find in the law of God,
that thou shouldest have recourse to those heathenish fables?" etc.,
etc. Again in a collection of canons, which is sometimes assigned to a
synod at Carthage A.D. 398, the 16th canon in the collection runs thus:
"A bishop shall read no heathen books, and heretical books only when
necessary." The Carthaginian synod of 398 is a fiction, and some of the
canons in the collection deal with controversies of a much later date:
but we need not doubt that all the canons were enacted in some Church or
other in the course of the first six centuries. The spirit of this one
is very much in harmony with the known tendencies of the sixth century;
and we find Gregory the Great (A.D. 544-604) making precisely the same
regulation. He forbad bishops to study heathen literature, and in one of
his letters (_Epp._, ix. 48) he rebukes Desiderius, Bishop of Vienne,
for giving his clergy instruction in grammar, which involved the reading
of the heathen poets. "The praises of Christ do not admit of being
joined in the same mouth with the praises of Jupiter; and it is a grave
and execrable thing for bishops to sing what even for a religious layman
is unbecoming." The story that he purposely burnt the Palatine library
is not traced earlier than the twelfth century, and is probably untrue;
but it indicates the traditional belief respecting his attitude towards
classical literature. And it is certainly true that he was twice in
Constantinople, and on the second occasion remained there three years
(A.D. 579-582), and yet never learnt Greek. In his time, as we learn
both from himself and his contemporary, Gregory of Tours, the belief was
very prevalent that the end of the world was at hand; and it was argued
that mankind had more serious things to attend to than the study of
pagan literature--or indeed any literature that was not connected with
the Scriptures or the Church. Henceforward, in the words of Gregory of
Tours, "the study of literature perished": and, although there were some
bright spots at Jarrow and elsewhere, yet on the whole the chief
services which Christianity rendered to classical learning during the
next few centuries, were the preservation of classical authors in the
libraries of monasteries and the preservation of the classical languages
in the liturgies of the Church.

The question will perhaps never cease to be argued, although it is
hardly probable that so extreme a view as that of Gregory the Great will
ever again become prevalent. Let us take a statement of the question
from the utterances of one who will not be suspected of want of capacity
or of experience in the matter, or of want of sympathy with stern and
serious views respecting education and life.

"Some one will say to me perhaps," wrote John Henry Newman in 1859, "our
youth shall not be corrupted. We will dispense with all general or
national literature whatever, if it be so exceptional; we will have a
Christian Literature of our own, as pure, as true as the Jewish." "You
cannot have it.... From the nature of the case, if Literature is to be
made a study of human nature, you cannot have a Christian Literature. It
is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless Literature of sinful
man. You may gather together something very great and high, something
higher than any literature ever was; and when you have done so, you will
find that it is not Literature at all. You will simply have left the
delineation of man, as such, and have substituted for it, as far as you
have had anything to substitute, that of man, as he is or might be,
under certain special advantages. Give up the study of man, as such, if
so it must be; but say you do so. Do not say you are studying him, his
history, his mind and his heart, when you are studying something else.
Man is a being of genius, passion, intellect, conscience, power. He
exercises his great gifts in various ways, in great deeds, in great
thoughts, in heroic acts, in hateful crimes.... Literature records them
all to the life....

"We should be shrinking from a plain duty, did we leave out Literature
from Education. For why do we educate except to prepare for the world?
Why do we cultivate the intellect of the many beyond the first elements
of knowledge, except ... to fit men of the world for the world? We
cannot possibly keep them from plunging into the world, with all its
ways and principles and maxims, when their time comes; but we can
prepare them against what is inevitable; and it is not the way to learn
to swim in troubled waters, never to have gone into them. Proscribe (I
do not say particular authors, particular works, particular passages)
but Secular Literature as such: cut out from your class books all broad
manifestations of the natural man; and those manifestations are waiting,
for your pupil's benefit, at the very doors of your lecture room in
living and breathing substance. They will meet him there in all the
charm of novelty, and all the fascination of genius or of amiableness.
To-day a pupil, to-morrow a member of the great world: to-day confined
to the Lives of the Saints, to-morrow thrown upon Babel;--thrown on
Babel, without the honest indulgence of wit and humour and imagination
ever permitted to him, without any fastidiousness of taste wrought into
him, without any rule given him for discriminating 'the precious from
the vile,' beauty from sin, the truth from the sophistry of nature, what
is innocent from what is poison."[75]

Many Christians are apt to forget that all truth is of God; and that
every one who in an earnest spirit endeavours to ascertain and to teach
what is true in any department of human knowledge, is doing God's work.
The Spirit, we are promised by Christ Himself, "shall lead you _into all
the Truth_," and "the Truth shall make you free." Our business is to see
that nothing claims the name of truth unlawfully. It is not our business
to prohibit anything that can make good its claim to be accounted true.

Those who enjoy large opportunities of study, and especially those who
have the responsibility not only of learning but of teaching, must
beware of setting their own narrow limits to the domain of what is
useful and true. It has a far wider range than the wants which we feel
in ourselves or which we can trace in others. Even the whole experience
of mankind would not suffice to give the measure of it. We dishonour
rather than reverence the Bible, when we attempt to confine ourselves
and others to the study of it. Much of its secret and inexhaustible
store of treasure will remain undiscovered by us, until our hearts are
warmed, our intellects quickened, and our experience enlarged, by the
masterpieces of human genius. "To the pure all things are pure." In the
first century, in which the perils of heathenism to Christianity were
tenfold what they are at present, St. Paul in plain terms told his
converts that if they liked to accept the invitations of their heathen
friends and acquaintances, they need not scruple to do so (1 Cor. x.
27); and by his own example, he shows them that they may enjoy and use
what is beautiful and true in heathen literature. Let us beware of
narrowing the liberty wisely allowed by him. Each one of us can readily
find out what is dangerous for _himself_. There is plenty that is not
dangerous: let him freely enjoy that. But the limits that are wise for
ourselves are not to bind others. Their liberty is not to be
circumscribed by our conscience. "The earth is the Lord's and the
fulness thereof."

FOOTNOTES:

[73] =chresta homiliai= instead of =chresth' homiliai=.

[74] Lightfoot on "Seneca and St. Paul," in _Philippians_, pp. 288, 300.

[75] J. H. Newman, _The Scope and Nature of University Education_, pp.
336-342. The whole discourse, "The Church and Liberal Education," is an
eloquent and noble vindication of the claims of literature.




CHAPTER XXI.

_THE MEANING AND VALUE OF SOBERMINDEDNESS.--THE USE AND ABUSE OF
RELIGIOUS EMOTION._

    "But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine: that aged
    men be temperate, grave, soberminded, sound in faith, in love, in
    patience, that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanour, not
    slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is
    good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to
    love their children, to be soberminded, chaste, workers at home,
    kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of
    God be not blasphemed: the younger men likewise exhort to be
    soberminded."--TITUS ii. 1-6.


In marked contrast to the seducing teachers who are described in the
concluding verses of the first chapter, Titus is charged to teach that
which is right. "But speak _thou_ the things which befit the sound
doctrine." What _they_ taught was to the last degree unwholesome, full
of senseless frivolities and baseless distinctions respecting meats and
drinks, times and seasons. Such things were fatal alike to sound and
robust faith and to all moral earnestness. Belief was frittered away in
a credulous attention to "Jewish fables," and character was depraved by
a weak punctiliousness about fanciful details. As in the Pharisees, whom
Jesus Christ denounced, scrupulosity about trifles led to neglect of
"the weightier matters of the law." But in these "vain talkers and
deceivers," whom Titus had to oppose, the trifles by which they
distracted their hearers from matters of the highest importance were not
even the minor duties enjoined by the Law or the Gospel: they were mere
"commandments of men." In opposition to calamitous teaching of this
kind, Titus is to insist upon what is healthy and sound.

All classes are to be attended to, and the exhortations specially needed
are to be given to each: to the older men and older women, the younger
women and the younger men, to whom Titus is to show himself an example:
and finally to slaves, for salvation is offered to all men, and is for
no privileged class.

It will be observed that the sound teaching which Titus is charged to
give to the different sections of his flock relates almost exclusively
to _conduct_. There is scarcely a hint in the whole of this chapter that
can be supposed to have reference to errors of _doctrine_. In quite a
general way the old men are to be exhorted to be "sound in _faith_" as
well as in love and patience: but otherwise all the instruction to be
given to old and young, male and female, bond and free, relates to
conduct in thought, word, and deed.[76]

Nor is there any hint that the "vain talkers and deceivers" contradicted
(otherwise than by an unholy life) the moral precepts which the Apostle
here tells his delegate to communicate abundantly to his flock. We are
not to suppose that these mischievous teachers taught people that there
was no harm in intemperance, or slander, or unchastity, or theft. The
mischief which they did consisted in their telling people to devote
their attention to things that were morally unprofitable, while no care
was taken to secure attention to those things, the observance of which
was vital. On the contrary, the emphasis laid upon silly superstitions
led people to suppose that, when these had been attended to, all duties
had been fulfilled; and a careless, godless life was the result. Thus
whole households were subverted by men who made religion a trade. This
disastrous state of things is to be remedied by pointing out and
insisting upon the observances which are of real importance for the
spiritual life. The fatal lowering of moral tone, which the morbid and
fanciful teaching of these seducers produced, is to be counteracted by
the bracing effects of wholesome moral teaching.

No one can read through the indications which the Apostle gives of what
he means by "wholesome teaching," without perceiving the key-note which
rings through it all;--_sobriety_ or _sobermindedness_. The aged men are
to be taught to be "temperate, grave, _soberminded_." The aged women to
be "reverent in demeanour," "that they may _school_ the young women ...
to be _soberminded_." The younger men are to be "exhorted to be
_soberminded_." And in giving the reason for all this he points out
God's purpose in His revelation to mankind; "to the intent that, denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live _soberly_."

Now, what is the precise meaning of this sobriety or sobermindedness, on
which St. Paul insists so strongly as a duty to be impressed upon men
and women both old and young?

The words used in the original Greek (=sophron=, =sophronizein=,
=sophronein=) signify, according to their derivation,[77] "of _sound_
mind," "to make of sound mind," and "to be of sound mind;" and the
quality which they indicate is that _mens sana_ or healthiness of mental
constitution which shows itself in discreet and prudent conduct, and
especially in _self-control_. This latter meaning is specially
predominant in Attic writers.

Thus Plato defines it as "a kind of order and a controlling of certain
pleasures and desires, as is shown by the saying that a man is 'master
of himself' ... an expression which seems to mean that in the man's soul
there are two elements, a better and a worse, and when the better
controls the worse, then he is said to be master of himself" (_Rep._,
IV. p. 431). Similarly, Aristotle tells us that the lowest bodily
pleasures are the sphere in which this virtue of self-control is
specially displayed; that is, those bodily pleasures which the other
animals share with man, and which are consequently shown to be slavish
and bestial, viz., the pleasures of touch and taste (_Eth. N._, III. x.
4, 9; _Rhet._, I. ix. 9). And throughout the best Attic writers the
vices to which self-control is opposed are those which imply immoderate
indulgence in sensual pleasures. It is a virtue which has a very
prominent place in heathen moral philosophy. It is one of the most
obvious of virtues. It is manifest that in order to be a virtuous man at
all one must at least have control over one's lowest appetites. And to
a heathen it is one of the most impressive of virtues. All of us have
experience of the difficulty of regulating our passions; and to those
who know nothing of Christian teaching or of the grace of God the
difficulty is increased tenfold. Hence to the savage the ascetic seems
to be almost superhuman; and even in the cultivated pagan abstinence
from bodily pleasure and steadfast resistance of sensual temptation
excite wonder and admiration. The beautiful panegyric of Socrates put
into the mouth of Alcibiades in the _Symposium_ of Plato illustrates
this feeling: and Euripides styles such virtue as the "noblest gift of
the gods."

But when this virtue becomes illuminated by the Gospel its meaning is
intensified. The "sobermindedness" or "sobriety" of the New Testament is
something more than the "self-control" or "temperance" of Plato and
Aristotle. Its sphere is not confined to the lowest sensual enjoyments.
Self-mastery with regard to such things is still included; but other
things are included also. It is that power over ourselves which keeps
under control, not only bodily impulses, but spiritual impulses also.
There is a spiritual frenzy analogous to physical madness, and there are
spiritual self-indulgences analogous to bodily intemperance. For these
things also self-mastery is needed.

St. Paul in writing to the Corinthians sums up his own life under the
two conditions of being out of his mind and in his right mind. His
opponents at Corinth, like Festus (Acts xxvi. 24), accused him of being
mad. He is quite ready to admit that at times he has been in a condition
which, if they like, they may call madness. But that is no affair of
theirs. Of his sanity and sobriety at other times there can be no
question; and his conduct during these times of sobriety is of
importance to them. "For whether we went out of our mind" (=exestemen=),
"it was for God, or are in our right mind" (=sophronoumen=, "are of
sober mind," R.V.), "it is for you" (2 Cor. v. 13). The Apostle "went
out of his mind," as his enemies chose to say, at his conversion on the
road to Damascus, when a special revelation of Jesus Christ was granted
to him: and to this phase of his existence belonged his visions (Acts
xvi. 9; xxvii. 23), ecstasies and revelations (2 Cor. xii. 1-7), and his
"speaking with tongues" (1 Cor. xiv. 18). And he was "in his right mind"
in all the great tact, and sagacity, and self-denial, which he exhibited
for the well-being of his converts.

It was absolutely necessary that the latter condition of mind should be
the predominant one, and should control the other; that the ecstasy
should be exceptional and the sobermindedness habitual, and that the
sobermindedness should not be turned into self-exaltation by the
remembrance of the ecstasy. There was so much danger of this evil in St.
Paul's case, owing to "the exceeding greatness of the revelations"
granted to him, that the special discipline of the "stake for the flesh"
was given to him to counteract the temptation; for it was in the flesh,
that is the sinful principle of his nature, that the tendency to pride
himself on his extraordinary spiritual experiences was found.

St. Paul's case was, no doubt, highly exceptional; but in degree, rather
than in kind. Very many of his converts had similar, although less
sublime, and perhaps less frequent, experiences. Spiritual gifts of a
supernatural kind had been bestowed in great abundance upon many of the
members of the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. xii. 7-10), and were the
occasion of some of the grievous disorders which were found there,
because they were not always accompanied by sobriety, but were allowed
to become incitements to licence and spiritual pride. Few things show
more plainly the necessity for self-control and sobermindedness, when
men are under the influence of strong religious emotion, than the state
of things existing among the Corinthian converts, as indicated in St.
Paul's two letters to them. They had been guilty of two errors. First,
they had formed an exaggerated estimate of some of the gifts bestowed
upon them, especially of the mysterious power of speaking with tongues.
And, secondly, they had supposed that persons so highly gifted as
themselves were above, not only ordinary precautions, but ordinary
principles. Instead of seeing that such special privileges required them
to be specially on their guard, they considered that they stood in no
need of vigilance, and might safely disregard custom, and common
decency, and even principles of morality. Previous to their conversion
they had been idolaters, and therefore had had no experience of
spiritual gifts and manifestations. Consequently, when the experience
came, they were thrown off their balance, and knew neither how to
estimate these gifts, nor how to prevent "what should have been to their
wealth, becoming to them an occasion of falling."

It might be thought that the conditions of the Christian life of St.
Paul and of his converts were too unlike our own to yield any clear
lesson in this respect. We have not been converted to Christianity from
either Judaism or paganism; and we have received no special revelations
or extraordinary spiritual gifts. But this is not so. Our religious
life, like theirs, has its two different phases; its times of
excitement, and its times of freedom from excitement. We no longer work
miracles, or speak with tongues; but we have our exceptional moments of
impassioned feelings, and high-strung aspirations, and sublime thoughts;
and we are just as liable as the Corinthians were to plume ourselves
upon them, to rest in them, and to think that, because we have them, all
must necessarily be well with us. We cannot too often remind ourselves
that such things are not religion, and are not even the material out of
which religion is made. They are the scaffolding and appliances, rather
than the formed edifice or the unformed stones and timber. They supply
helps and motive power. They are intended to carry us over difficulties
and drudgery; and hence are more common in the earlier stages of a
Christian's career than in the time of maturity, and at crises when the
career has been interrupted, than when it is progressing with steadfast
regularity. Conversion to Christianity in the case of a pagan, and the
realization of what Christianity really means in the case of a nominal
Christian, involve pain and depression: and the attempt to turn again
and repent after grievous sin involves pain and depression. Strong
religious emotion helps us to get the better of these, and may, if we
use it aright, give us an impetus in the right direction. But, from the
very nature of things, it cannot continue, and it is not desirable that
it should. It will soon run its course, and we shall be left to go on
our way with our ordinary resources. And our duty then is
twofold;--first, not to repine at its withdrawal; "the Lord gave, and
the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the Name of the Lord": and,
secondly, to take care that it does not evaporate in empty
self-complacency, but is translated into action. Impassioned feeling,
that leads on to conduct, strengthens character; impassioned feeling,
that ends with itself, weakens it. If religious excitement is not to do
us more harm than good, by leaving us more insensible to spiritual
influences than we were before, it must be accompanied by the sobriety
which refuses to be exalted by such an experience, and which, in making
use of it, controls it. And, moreover, these warm feelings and
enthusiastic aspirations after what is good must lead on to calm and
steadfast performance of what is good. One act of real self-denial, one
genuine sacrifice of pleasure to duty, is worth hours of religious
emotion and thousands of pious thoughts.

But sobermindedness will not only keep us from being pleased with
ourselves for our impassioned feelings about spiritual things, and help
us to turn them to good account; it will also preserve us from what is
even worse than allowing them to pass away without result, viz., talking
about them. To feel warmly and to do nothing is to _waste_ motive power:
it leads to hardening of the heart against good influences in the
future. To feel warmly and talk about it is to _abuse_ motive power: it
leads to puffing up of the heart in spiritual pride and to blinding the
inward eye with self-complacency. And this is the fatal mistake which is
made by some religious teachers at the present day. Strong feelings are
excited in those whom they wish to lead from a life of sin to a life of
holiness. Sorrow for the past and a desire for better things are
aroused, and the sinner is thrown into a condition of violent distress
and expectation. And then, instead of being gently led on to work out
his salvation in fear and trembling, the penitent is encouraged to seek
excitement again and again, and to attempt to produce it in others, by
constant rehearsing of his own religious experiences. What should have
been a secret between himself and his Saviour, or at most shared only
with some wise adviser, is thrown out publicly to the whole world, to
the degradation both of what is told and of the character of him who
tells it.

The error of mistaking religious feeling for holiness, and good thoughts
for good conduct, is a very common one; and it is confined to neither
sex, and to no period of life. Men as well as women, and the old as well
as the young, need to be on their guard against it. And therefore the
Apostle urges Titus to exhort all alike to be soberminded. There are
times when to be agitated about religion, and have warm feelings either
of sorrow or joy, is natural and right. When one is first roused to
desire a life of holiness; when one is conscience-stricken at having
fallen into some grievous sin; when one is bowed down under the weight
of some great private or public calamity, or elated by the vivid
appreciation of some great private or public blessing. At all such
seasons it is reasonable and proper that we should experience strong
religious emotion. Not to do so would be a sign of insensibility and
deadness of heart. But do not let us suppose that the presence of such
feelings mark us out as specially religious or spiritually gifted
people. They do nothing of the kind. They merely prove that we are not
utterly dead to spiritual influences. Whether we are the better or the
worse for such feelings, depends upon the use that we make of them. And
do not let us expect that these emotions will be permanent, which will
certainly not be the case, or that they will frequently return, which
will probably not be the case. Above all, let us not be discouraged if
they become more and more rare, as time goes on. They _ought_ to become
more rare; for they are sure to become less frequent as we advance in
holiness. In the steady growth and natural development of the spiritual
life there is not much need of them or room for them. They have done
their work when they have carried us over the breakers, which troubled
our early efforts, into the less excited waters of consistent obedience.
And to be able to progress without them is a surer token of God's grace
than to have them. To continue steadfast in our obedience, without the
luxury of warm feelings and impassioned devotion, is more pleasing in
His sight than all the intense longings to be freed from sin, and all
the passionate supplications for increased holiness that we have ever
felt and offered. The test of fellowship with God is not warmth of
devotion but holiness of life. "Hereby know we that we know Him, if we
_keep His commandments_."

FOOTNOTES:

[76] This makes one again inclined to regret that the Revisers here and
elsewhere have left "doctrine" as the translation of =didaskalia=, while
they have in most cases substituted "teaching" for "doctrine" as the
translation of =didache=. It would hardly be possible to confine either
English word to either Greek word as its invariable rendering: but where
both English words are admissible, it seems better to keep "teaching"
(which is close to "teacher") for =didaskalia= (which is close to
=didaskalos=) and reserve "doctrine" for =didache= (see p. 47).

[77] From =sos=, "safe and sound," and =phren=, "mind." The associations
of the word are seen in Aristotle's erroneous derivation (_Eth. N._, VI.
v. 5); =Enthen kai ten sophrosynen touto prosagoreuomen to onomati, hos
sozousan ten phronesin=.




CHAPTER XXII.

_THE MORAL CONDITION OF SLAVES.--THEIR ADORNMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF
GOD._

    "Exhort servants to be in subjection to their own masters, and to be
    well-pleasing to them in all things; not gainsaying; not purloining,
    but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of
    God our Saviour in all things."--TITUS ii. 9, 10.


Something has already been said in a previous discourse (on 1 Tim. vi.
1, 2) respecting the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire in the
first age of Christianity. It was not only unchristian but inhuman; and
it was so widespread that the slaves outnumbered the freemen.
Nevertheless the Apostles and their successors taught neither to the
slaves that they ought to resist a dominion which was immoral both in
effect and in origin, nor to the masters that as Christians they were
bound to set their servants free.[78] Christianity did indeed labour for
the abolition of slavery, but by quite other methods. It taught masters
and slaves alike that all men have a common Divine parentage and a
common Divine redemption, and consequently are equally bound to show
brotherly love and equally endowed with spiritual freedom. It showed
that the slave and his master are alike children of God, and as such
free; and alike servants of Jesus Christ, and as such bondmen,--bondmen
in that service which is the only true freedom. And thus very slowly,
but surely, Christianity disintegrated and dispersed those unwholesome
conditions and false ideas, which made slavery to be everywhere
possible, and to seem to most men to be necessary. And wherever these
conditions and ideas were swept away, slavery gradually died out or was
formally abolished.[79]

As the number of slaves in the first century was so enormous, it was
only in accordance with human probability that many of the first
converts to Christianity belonged to this class; all the more so, as
Christianity, like most great movements, began with the lower orders and
thence spread upwards. Among the better class of slaves, that is those
who were not so degraded as to be insensible of their own degradation,
the Gospel spread freely. It offered them just what they needed, and the
lack of which had turned their life into one great despair. It gave them
something to hope for and something to live for. Their condition in the
world was both socially and morally deplorable. Socially they had no
rights beyond what their lord chose to allow them. They were ranked with
the brutes, and were in a worse condition than any brutes, for they were
capable of wrongs and sufferings of which the brutes are incapable or
insensible. And St. Chrysostom in commenting on this passage points out
how inevitable it was that the moral character of slaves should as a
rule be bad. They have no motive for trying to be good, and very little
opportunity of learning what is right. Every one, slaves included,
admits that as a race they are passionate, intractable, and indisposed
to virtue, not because God has made them so, but from bad education and
the neglect of their masters. The masters care nothing about their
slaves' morals, except so far as their vices are likely to interfere
with their masters' pleasures or interests. Hence the slaves, having no
one to care for them, naturally sink into an abyss of wickedness. Their
chief aim is to avoid, not crime, but being found out. For if free men,
able to select their own society, and with many other advantages of
education and home life, find it difficult to avoid the contact and
contaminating influence of the vicious, what can one expect from those
who have none of these advantages, and have no possibility of escape
from degrading surroundings? They are never taught to respect
themselves; they have no experience of persons who do respect
themselves; and they never receive any respect from either their
superiors or their fellows. How can virtue or self-respect be learnt in
such a school? "For all these reasons it is a difficult and surprising
thing that there should ever be a good slave." And yet this is the class
which St. Paul singles out as being able in a peculiar way to "_adorn_
the doctrine of God our Saviour in _all_ things."

"To _adorn_ the doctrine of God." How is the doctrine of God to be
adorned? And how are slaves capable of adorning it?

"The doctrine of God" is that which He teaches, which He has revealed
for our instruction. It is His revelation of Himself. He is the author
of it, the giver of it, and the subject of it. He is also its end or
purpose. It is granted in order that men may know Him, and love Him, and
be brought home to Him. All these facts are a guarantee to us of its
importance and its security. It comes from One Who is infinitely great
and infinitely true. And yet it is capable of being adorned by those to
whom it is given.

There is nothing paradoxical in this. It is precisely those things which
in themselves are good and beautiful that we consider capable of
adornment and worthy of it. To add ornament to an object that is
intrinsically vile or hideous, does but augment the existing bad
qualities by adding to them a glaring incongruity. Baseness, which might
otherwise have escaped notice, becomes conspicuous and grotesque. No
person of good taste and good sense would waste and degrade ornament by
bestowing it upon an unworthy object. The very fact, therefore, that
adornment is attempted proves that those who make the attempt consider
the object to be adorned an object worthy of honour and capable of
receiving it. Thus adornment is a form of homage: it is the tribute
which the discerning pay to beauty.

But adornment has its relations not only to those who bestow, but to
those also who receive it. It is a reflexion of the mind of the giver;
but it has also an influence on the recipient. And, first, it makes that
which is adorned more conspicuous and better known. A picture in a frame
is more likely to be looked at than one that is unframed. An ornamented
building attracts more attention than a plain one. A king in his royal
robes is more easily recognized as such than one in ordinary clothing.
Adornment, therefore, is an advertisement of merit: it makes the adorned
object more readily perceived and more widely appreciated. And,
secondly, if it is well chosen and well bestowed, it augments the merit
of that which it adorns. That which was fair before is made still fairer
by suitable ornament. The beautiful painting is still more beautiful in
a worthy frame. Noble ornament increases the dignity of a noble
structure. And a person of royal presence becomes still more regal when
royally arrayed. Adornment, therefore, is not only an advertisement of
beauty, it is also a real enhancement of it.

All these particulars hold good with regard to the adornment of the
doctrine of God. By trying to adorn it and make it more beautiful and
more attractive, we show our respect for it; we pay our tribute of
homage and admiration. We show to all the world that we think it
estimable, and worthy of attention and honour. And by so doing we make
the doctrine of God better known: we bring it under the notice of others
who might otherwise have overlooked it: we force it upon their
attention. Thus, without consciously intending to be anything of the
kind, we become evangelists: we proclaim to those among whom we live
that we have received a Gospel that satisfies us. Moreover, the doctrine
which we thus adorn becomes really more beautiful in consequence.
Teaching which nobody admires, which nobody accepts--teaching which
teaches nobody, is a poor thing. It may be true, it may have great
capabilities; but for the present it is as useless as a book in the
hands of an illiterate savage, and as valueless as treasures lying at
the bottom of the sea. Our acceptance of the doctrine of God, and our
efforts to adorn it, bring out its inherent life and develop its natural
value, and every additional person who joins us in doing this is an
augmentation of its powers. It is within our power not only to honour
and make better known, but also to enhance, the beauty of the doctrine
of God.

But slaves,--and such slaves as were found throughout the Roman Empire
in St. Paul's day,--what have they to do with the adornment of the
doctrine of God? Why is this duty of making the Gospel more beautiful
specially mentioned in connexion with them? That the aristocracy of the
Empire, its magistrates, its senators, its commanders,--supposing that
any of them could be induced to embrace the faith of Jesus
Christ,--should be charged to adorn the doctrines which they had
accepted, would be intelligible. Their acceptance of it would be a
tribute to its dignity. Their loyalty to it would be a proclamation of
its merits. Their accession to its ranks would be a real augmentation of
its powers of attraction. But almost the reverse of all this would seem
to be the truth in the case of slaves. Their tastes were so low, their
moral judgment so debased, that for a religion to have found a welcome
among slaves would hardly be a recommendation of it to respectable
people. And what opportunities had slaves, regarded as they were as the
very outcasts of society, of making the Gospel better known or more
attractive?

So many a person, and especially many a slave, might have argued in St.
Paul's hearing; and not altogether without reason and support from
experience. The fact that Christianity was a religion acceptable to
slaves and the associates of slaves was from very early times one of the
objections made against it by the heathen, and one of the circumstances
which prejudiced men of culture and refinement against it. It was one of
the many bitter reproaches that Celsus brought against Christianity,
that it laid itself out to catch slaves, women, and children, in short
the immoral, the unintellectual, and the ignorant classes. And we need
not suppose that this was merely a spiteful taunt: it represented a
deep-seated and not altogether unreasonable prejudice. Seeing how many
religions there were at that time which owed much of their success to
the fact that they pandered to the vices, while they presumed upon the
folly and ignorance of mankind, it was not an unjustifiable presumption
that a new faith which won many adherents in the most degraded and
vicious class of society, was itself a degrading and corrupting
superstition.

Yet St. Paul knew what he was about when he urged Titus to commit the
"adorning of the doctrine of God" in a special manner to slaves: and
experience has proved the soundness of his judgment. If the mere fact
that many slaves accepted the faith could not do a great deal to
recommend the power and beauty of the Gospel, the Christian lives, which
they thence-forward led, could. It was a strong argument _a fortiori_.
The worse the unconverted sinner, the more marvellous his thorough
conversion. There must be something in a religion which out of such
unpromising material as slaves could make obedient, gentle, honest,
sober, and chaste men and women. As Chrysostom puts it, when it was seen
that Christianity, by giving a settled principle of sufficient power to
counterbalance the pleasures of sin, was able to impose a restraint upon
a class so self-willed, and render them singularly well-behaved, then
their masters, however unreasonable they might be, were likely to form a
high opinion of the doctrines which accomplished this. So that it is
neither by chance, nor without reason, that the Apostle singles out this
class of men: since, the more wicked they are, the more admirable is
the power of that preaching which reforms them. And St. Chrysostom goes
on to point out that the way in which slaves are to endeavour to adorn
the doctrine of God is by cultivating precisely those virtues which
contribute most to their masters' comfort and interest,--submissiveness,
gentleness, meekness, honesty, truthfulness, and a faithful discharge of
all duties. What a testimony conduct of this kind would be to the power
and beauty of the Gospel; and a testimony all the more powerful in the
eyes of those masters who became conscious that these despised Christian
slaves were living better lives than their owners! The passionate man,
who found his slave always gentle and submissive; the inhuman and
ferocious man, who found his slave always meek and respectful; the
fraudulent man of business, who noticed that his slave never pilfered or
told lies; the sensualist, who observed that his slave was never
intemperate and always shocked at immodesty;--all these, even if they
were not induced to become converts to the new faith, or even to take
much trouble to understand it, would at least at times feel something of
respect, if not of awe and reverence, for a creed which produced such
results. Where did their slaves learn these lofty principles? Whence did
they derive the power to live up to them?

The cases in which masters and mistresses were converted through the
conduct of their own slaves were probably by no means rare. It was by
the gradual influence of numerous Christian lives, rather than by
organized missionary effort, that the Gospel spread during the first
ages of the Church; and nowhere would this gradual influence make itself
more strongly and permanently felt than in the family and household.
Some slaves then, like some domestic servants now, stood in very close
relations with their masters and mistresses; and the opportunities of
"adorning the doctrine of God" would in such cases be frequent and
great. Origen implies that it was no uncommon thing for families to be
converted through the instrumentality of the slaves (Migne, _Series
Graeca_, xi. 476, 483). One of the grievous moral defects of that most
immoral age was the low view taken of the position of women in society.
Even married women were treated with but scant respect. And as the
marriage-tie was very commonly regarded as an irksome restraint, the
condition of most women, even among the free-born, was degraded in the
extreme. They were scarcely ever looked upon as the social equals and
the necessary complement of the other sex; and, when not required to
minister to the comforts and pleasures of the men, were often left to
the society of slaves. Untold evil was the natural result; but, as
Christianity spread, much good came out of the evil. Christian slaves
sometimes made use of this state of things to interest their mistresses
in the teaching of the Gospel; and when the mistress was converted,
other conversions in the household became much more probable. Another
grievous blot on the domestic life of the time was the want of parental
affection. Fathers had scarcely any sense of responsibility towards
their children, especially as regards their moral training. Their
education generally was left almost entirely to slaves, from whom they
learnt some accomplishments and many vices. They too often became adepts
in wickedness before they had ceased to be children. But here again
through the instrumentality of the Gospel good was brought out of this
evil also. When the slaves, who had the care and the training of the
children, were Christians, the morals of the children were carefully
guarded; and in many cases the children, when they came to years of
discretion, embraced Christianity.

Nor were these the only ways in which the most degraded and despised
class in the society of that age were able to "adorn the doctrine of
God." Slaves were not only an ornament to the faith by their lives; they
adorned it also by their deaths. Not a few slaves won the martyr's
crown. Those who have read that most precious relic of early Christian
literature, the letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the
Churches of Asia Minor and Phrygia, will not need to be reminded of the
martyrdom of the slave Blandina with her mistress in the terrible
persecution in Gaul under Marcus Aurelius in the year 177. Eusebius has
preserved the greater portion of the letter at the beginning of the
fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. Let all who can do so read it,
if not in the original Greek, at least in a translation. It is an
authentic and priceless account of Christian fortitude.

What slaves could do then we all of us can do now. We can prove to all
for whom and with whom we work that we really do believe and endeavour
to live up to the faith that we profess. By the lives we lead we can
show to all who know anything of us that we are loyal to Christ. By
avoiding offence in word or in deed, and by welcoming opportunities of
doing good to others, we can make His principles better known. And by
doing all this brightly and cheerfully, without ostentation or
affectation or moroseness, we can make His principles attractive. Thus
we also can "adorn the doctrine of God in all things."

"In all things." That all-embracing addition to the Apostolic
injunction must not be lost sight of. There is no duty so humble, no
occupation so trifling, that it cannot be made into an opportunity for
adorning our religion. "Whether ye eat, or drink, or _whatsoever ye do_,
do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. x. 31).

FOOTNOTES:

[78] The stories told in Bollandus of Roman converts under Trajan and
Diocletian, who at their baptism manumitted their slaves, are not very
credible. Such things, if they happened at all, were very exceptional.

[79] Pagan inscriptions carefully distinguish between freemen and
slaves; Christian inscriptions seldom or never. There seems to be no
well-ascertained instance in the Roman catacombs. _Dict. of Christ
Ant._, Vol. ii. p. 1904.




CHAPTER XXIII.

_HOPE AS A MOTIVE POWER.--THE PRESENT HOPES OF CHRISTIANS._

    "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
    instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly
    lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this
    present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the
    glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave Himself
    for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
    Himself a people for His own possession, zealous of good works.
    These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no
    man despise thee."--TITUS ii. 11-15.


There are not many passages in the Pastoral Epistles which treat so
plainly as this does of doctrine. As a rule St. Paul assumes that his
delegates, Timothy and Titus, are well instructed (as he knew they were)
in the details of the Christian faith, and he does not stay even to
remind them of what he had frequently taught to them and to others in
their presence. The purpose of the Epistles is to give practical rather
than doctrinal instruction; to teach Timothy and Titus how to shape
their own conduct, and what kind of conduct they are chiefly to insist
upon in the different classes of Christians committed to their charge.
Here, however, and in the next chapter, we have marked exceptions to
this method. Yet even here the exception is more apparent than real; for
the doctrinal statements are introduced, not as truths to be recognized
and believed (it is taken for granted that they _are_ recognized and
believed), but as the basis of the practical exhortations which have
just been given. It is because these great truths have been revealed,
because life is so real and so important, and because eternity is so
certain, that Titus is to exert all his influence to produce the best
kind of conduct in his flock, whether men or women, old or young, bond
or free.

The passage before us might almost serve as a summary of St. Paul's
teaching. In it he once more insists upon the inseparable connexion
between creed and character, doctrine and life, and intimates the close
relations between the past, the present, and the future, in the
Christian scheme of salvation. There are certain facts in the past,
which must be believed; and there is a kind of life in the present,
which must be lived; and there are things in store for us in the future,
which must be looked for. Thus the three great virtues of faith,
charity, and hope are inculcated. Two Epiphanies or appearances of Jesus
Christ in this world are stated as the two great limits of the Christian
dispensation. There is the Epiphany of grace, when the Christ appeared
in humility, bringing salvation and instruction to all men; and there is
the Epiphany of glory, when He will appear again in power, that He may
claim as His own possession the people whom He has redeemed. And between
these two there is the Christian life with its "blessed hope," the hope
of the Lord's return in glory to complete the kingdom which His first
Advent began.

Most of us make far too little of this "blessed hope." It is of
incalculable value; first, as a test of our own sincerity and reality;
and secondly, as a source of strength to carry us over the difficulties
and disappointments which beset our daily course.

There is perhaps no more certain test of a Christian's earnestness than
the question whether he does, or does not, look forward with hope and
longing for Christ's return. Some men have seriously persuaded
themselves that there is no such thing either to hope for or to dread.
Others prefer not to think about it; they know that doubts have been
entertained on the subject, and as the topic is not a pleasant one to
them, they dismiss it as much as possible from their minds, with the
wish that the doubts about there being any return of Christ to judgment
may be well-founded; for their own lives are such that they have every
reason to desire that there may be no judgment. Others again, who on the
whole are trying to lead Christian lives, nevertheless so far share the
feelings of the godless, in that the thought of Christ's return (of the
certainty of which they are fully persuaded) inspires them with fear
rather than with joy. This is especially the case with those who are
kept in the right way much more by the fear of hell than by the love of
God, or even the hope of heaven. They believe and tremble. They believe
in God's truth and justice much more than in His love and mercy. He is
to them a Master and Lord to be obeyed and feared, much more than a God
and Father to be adored and loved. Consequently their work is
half-hearted, and their life servile, as must always be the case with
those whose chief motive is fear of punishment. Hence they share the
terrors of the wicked, while they lose their share of the joys of the
righteous. They are too much afraid to find any real pleasure either in
sin or in good works. To have sinned fills them with terror at the
thought of inevitable punishment; and to have done what is right fills
them with no joy, because they have so little love and so little hope.

Those who find from experience that the thought of Christ's return in
glory is one on which they seldom dwell, even if it be not positively
unwelcome, may be sure that there is something defective in their life.
Either they are conscious of shortcomings which they make little or no
attempt to correct, the recollection of which becomes intolerable when
confronted with the thought of the day of judgment (and this shows that
there is a great lack of earnestness in their religious life); or they
are being content with low motives for avoiding iniquity and striving
after righteousness, and thus are losing a real source of strength to
help them in their efforts. No doubt there are persons over whom high
motives have little influence, and can have but little influence,
because they are as yet unable to appreciate them. But no one in
watching over either his own soul or the souls of others can afford to
be content with such a state of things. Childish things must be put
away, when they cease to be appropriate. As the character develops under
the influence of lower motives, higher motives begin at times to make
themselves felt; and these must gradually be substituted for the others.
And when they do make themselves felt, high motives are much more
powerful than low ones; which is a further reason for appealing to them
rather than to the others. Not only is a man, who is capable of being
moved both by the fear of hell and by the love of God, more influenced
by the love than by the fear; but love has more power over his will than
fear has over the will of one who cannot be influenced by love.

All this tends to show how much is lost by those who make no effort to
cultivate in their minds a feeling of joy at the thought of "the
appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." They
lose a great source of strength by neglecting to cultivate what would be
a powerful motive to help them on the right way. Nor does the loss end
here. With it they lose much of the interest which they would otherwise
take in all that helps to "accomplish the number of God's elect and to
hasten His kingdom." Christians pray daily, and perhaps many times
daily, "Thy kingdom come." But how few realize what they are praying
for! How few really long that their prayer may be speedily granted! How
few take a keen and untiring interest in all that promotes the coming of
the kingdom! And thus again motive power is lost; for if we had but the
eyes to see, and the heart to appreciate, all that is going on round
about us, we should feel that we live, as compared with our forefathers,
in very encouraging times.

We are often enough told that Christianity in general, and the Church of
England in particular, is at the present time passing through a great
crisis; that this is an age of peculiar dangers and difficulties; that
we live in times of unblushing vice and uncompromising scepticism; and
that the immensity of our social, commercial, and political corruption
is only the natural outcome of the immensity of our irreligion and
unbelief. These things may be true; and there is no earnest Christian
who has not at times been perplexed and saddened by them. But, thank
God, there are other things which are equally true, and which ought to
be equally recognized and remembered. If the present is an age of
peculiar dangers and boundless irreligion, it is also an age of
peculiar encouragements and boundless hope.

There are Christians who love to look back to some period in the history
of the Church, which they have come to regard as a sort of golden age;
an age in which communities of saintly men and women were ministered to
by a still more saintly clergy, and in which the Church went beautifully
on its way, not altogether free from persecutions, which were perhaps
necessary for its perfection, but untroubled by doubts, or dissensions,
or heresies, and unstained by worldliness, apostasy, or sloth. So far as
the experience of the present writer has carried him, no such golden age
can be found in the actual history of the Church.

It is not to be found in the New Testament, either before or after
Pentecost.

We do not find it, where we might have expected to find it, in the
period when Christ was still present in the flesh as the Ruler and
Instructor of His Church. That period is marked by the ignorance and
unbelief of the Apostles, by their quarrels, their ambition for the
first places in an earthly kingdom, their intolerant spirit, by the
flight of all of them in the hour of Christ's danger, by the denials of
St. Peter, by the treachery and suicide of Judas. Nor do we find it,
where again we might have expected to find it, in the age immediately
succeeding the completion of Christ's work, when the Apostles, newly
anointed with the Spirit, were still alive to direct and foster the
Church which He had founded. That period also is marred by many
disfiguring marks. Apostles can still be timeserving, can still quarrel
among themselves; and they also experience what it is to be forsaken and
opposed by their own disciples. Their converts, as soon as the Apostle
who established them in the faith is withdrawn, and sometimes even
while he is still with them, become guilty of the gravest errors in
conduct and belief. Witness the monstrous disorders in the Church of
Corinth, the fickleness of the Galatian converts, the unchristian
asceticism of the Colossian heretics, the studied immorality of those of
Ephesus. The Church which was presided over by St. Timothy was the
Church of Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus, who removed the very
corner-stone of the faith by denying the Resurrection; and the Churches
which were presided over by St. John contained the Nicolaitans,
condemned as hateful by Jesus Christ, and Diotrephes, who repudiated the
Apostle and excommunicated those who received the Apostle's messengers.
And there is much more of the same sort, as the Pastoral Epistles show
us, proving that what comes to us at first as a sad surprise is of still
sadder frequency, and that the Apostolic age had defects and stains at
at least as serious as those which deface our own.

The failure to find any golden age in either of these two divisions of
the period covered by the New Testament ought to put us on our guard
against expecting to find it in any subsequent period. And it would not
be difficult to take each of the epochs in the history of the Church
which have been selected as specially bright and perfect, and show that
in every case, directly we pass through the hazy glow, which the
imagination of later writers has thrown around such periods, and get
down to solid facts, then, either the brightness and perfection are
found to be illusory, or they are counter-balanced by many dark spots
and disorders. The age of the martyrs is the age of the lapsed; the ages
of faith are the ages of fraud; and the ages of great success are the
ages of great corruption. In the first centuries increase of numbers
was marked by increase of heresies and schisms; in the middle ages,
increase of power by increase of pride. A fair comparison of the period
in which our own lot has been cast with any previous period in the
history of the Church will never lead to any just feeling of
discouragement. Indeed it may reasonably be contended that at no era
since Christianity was first founded have its prospects been so bright
as at the present time.

Let us look at the contest between the Gospel and heathenism,--that
great contest which has been going on since "the grace of God appeared
bringing salvation to all men," and which is to continue until "the
appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour." Was there ever a
time when missions were more numerous or better organized, and when
missionaries were as a rule better instructed, better equipped, or more
devoted? And although it is impossible to form a correct estimate on
such a subject, because some of the most important data are beyond our
reach, yet it may be doubted whether there ever was a time when missions
achieved more solid success. The enormous growth of the colonial and
missionary episcopate during the last hundred years is at any rate one
great fact which represents and guarantees a great deal. Until 1787
there was not a single episcopal see of the Anglican communion in any of
the colonies or settlements of the British Empire; still less was there
a single missionary bishop. And now, as the Lambeth Conferences remind
us, these colonial and missionary bishops are not far short of a
hundred, and are always increasing.[80]

Or let us look at the relations between the great Churches into which
Christendom is unhappily divided. Was there ever a period at which there
was less bitterness, or more earnest and wide-spread desire for the
restoration of unity? And the increased desire for reunion comes hand in
hand with an increase of the conditions which would render reunion
possible. Two things are absolutely indispensable for a successful
attempt in this direction. First, a large measure of culture and
learning, especially among the clergy of the divided Churches; and
secondly, intelligent religious zeal. Ignorant controversialists cannot
distinguish between important and unimportant differences, and thus
aggravate rather than smooth difficulties. And without religious
earnestness the attempt to heal differences ends in indifferentism. Both
these indispensable elements are increasing, at any rate in the Anglican
and in the Eastern Churches: and thus reunion, which "must be possible,
because it is a duty," is becoming not only a desire but a hope.

Let us look again at our own Church; at its abundant machinery for every
kind of beneficent object; at the beautiful work which is being done in
a quiet and simple way by numbers of Christian men and women in
thousands of parishes; at the increase in services, in confirmations, in
communions; at the princely offerings of many of the wealthy laity; at
the humble offerings--equally princely in God's sight--of many of the
poor. Can we point to a time when party feeling (bad as it still is) was
less rancorous, when parishes were better worked, when the clergy were
better educated or more self-sacrificing, when the people were more
responsive to what is being done for them?

The very possibility of seriously raising such questions as these is in
itself a reason for taking courage, even if we cannot answer all of them
in the way that would please us most. There are at any rate good grounds
for hoping that much is being done for the advancement of Christ's
dominion, and that the prayer "Thy kingdom come" is being answered day
by day. If we could but convince ourselves more thoroughly of the truth
of all this, we should work more hopefully and more earnestly. More
hopefully, because we should be working with a consciousness of being
successful and making progress, with a conviction that we are on the
winning side. And more earnestly, not merely because hope makes work
more earnest and thorough, but also because we should have an increased
sense of responsibility: we should fear lest through any sloth or
negligence on our part such bright prospects should be marred. The
expectation of defeat makes some men strive all the more heroically; but
most men it paralyses. In our Christian warfare we certainly need hope
to carry us onward to victory.

"The appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
Among the foolish charges which have been brought against the Revisers
is that of favouring Arian tendencies by blurring those texts which
teach the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The present passage would be a
sufficient answer to such a charge. In the A.V. we have "the glorious
appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ," where both
the wording and the comma make it clear that "the great God" means the
Father and not our Saviour. The Revisers, by omitting the comma, for
which there is no authority in the original, and by placing the "our"
before both substantives, have given their authority to the view that
St. Paul means both "great God" and "Saviour" to apply to Jesus Christ.
It is not any Epiphany of the Father which is in his mind, but the
"Epiphany of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The wording of the Greek is such that absolute certainty is not
attainable; but the context, the collocation of the words, the use of
the word "Epiphany," and the omission of the article before "Saviour"
(=epiphaneian tes doxes tou megalou Theou kai soteros hemon I. Ch.=),
all seem to favour the Revisers' rendering. And, if it be adopted, we
have here one of the plainest and most direct statements of the Divinity
of Christ to be found in Scripture. As such it was employed in the Arian
controversy, although Ambrose seems to have understood the passage as
referring to the Father and Christ, and not to Christ alone. The force
of what follows is enhanced, if the Revisers' rendering, which is the
_strictly grammatical_ rendering, is maintained. It is as being "our
great God" that He gave Himself for us, that He might "redeem us from
all iniquity;" and it was because He was God as well as man, that what
was uttered as a bitter taunt was really a glorious truth;--"He saved
others; Himself He _cannot_ save." It was morally impossible that the
Divine Son should turn back from making us "a people for His own
possession." Let us strengthen ourselves in the hope that our efforts to
fulfil this gracious purpose are never thrown away.

FOOTNOTES:

[80] Including the English and American bishops, invitations to two
hundred and nine prelates were issued for the Lambeth Conference in
1888.




CHAPTER XXIV.

_THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY, WITH ITS LIMITS; THE DUTY OF
COURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS._

    "Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to
    be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, to speak evil of no
    man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness
    toward all men. For we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient,
    deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and
    envy, hateful, hating one another"--TITUS iii. 1-3.


St. Paul, having in the previous chapter sketched the special duties
which Titus is to inculcate upon different classes of Christians,--aged
men and aged women, young women, young men, and slaves,--now passes on
to point out what must be impressed upon all Christians alike,
especially as regards their conduct towards those who are in authority
and who are not Christians.

Here he is on delicate ground. The Cretans are said to have been a
turbulent race, or rather a group of turbulent races; neither peaceable
among themselves, nor very patient of foreign dominion: and the Roman
rule had been established there for less than a century and a half.
Previous to their conquest by Metellus in B.C. 67, they had been
accustomed to democratic forms of government, and therefore would be
likely to feel the change to the Roman yoke all the more acutely. As
our own experiences in a neighbouring island have taught us, people who
have been allowed to misgovern themselves, and to fight among
themselves, for many generations, do not readily give a welcome to a
power which deprives them of these liberties, even when it offers in
exchange for them the solid but prosaic advantages of peace and
security. Besides this, there was in Crete a strong mixture of Jews,
whose rebellious propensities seemed to be unquenchable. Nor was this
all. Within the Church itself the spirit of anarchy had displayed
itself: partly because, as in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, the
characteristic faults of the people still continued to show themselves
after the acceptance of Christianity; partly because, as everywhere in
the Churches of that age, the contests between Jewish and Gentile
converts were always producing disorder. This appears in the first
chapter of our Epistle, in which the Apostle states that "there are many
unruly men, ... specially they of the circumcision," and in which he
finds it necessary to make it a qualification for the office of bishop
or overseer, that the persons appointed should be such as "are not
accused of riot or are unruly." Besides which, as we learn from numerous
sources in the New Testament, there was in various quarters a tendency
to gross misconceptions respecting Christian liberty. Through Gnostic
and other antinomian influences there was a disposition in many minds to
translate liberty into license, and to suppose that the Christian was
above the distinctions of the moral law, which for him had no meaning.
Lastly, there were probably some earnest Christians, who, without going
to any of these disastrous extremes, or sympathizing with the factious
and seditious spirit of their fellow-countrymen, nevertheless had
serious doubts as to whether Christians were under any obligation to
obey a pagan magistrate, and perhaps were inclined to believe that it
was their duty to disobey him.

For all these reasons St. Paul must have known that he was charging
Titus to give instructions, which would be very unwelcome to a large
number of Cretan converts, when he told him to "put them in mind to be
in subjection to rulers and authorities, and to be obedient." But it was
the very fact that the instructions would be unwelcome to many, that
made it so necessary that they should be given. Both for the internal
well-being of the Church, and for the maintenance of right relations
with the State, it was imperative that the principle of obedience to
authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, should be upheld. There must
be peace, and there must be liberty: but there could be neither the one
nor the other without a respect for law and for those who have to
administer it.

The Apostle does not here argue the case. He lays down certain positions
as indisputable. The loyal Christian must submit himself to those who
are placed over him; he must render obedience to existing authorities.
There is one obvious limit to this which he indicates by a single word
to be noticed hereafter, but with that one qualification the duty of
obedience is imperative and absolute. Jew and Gentile Christian alike
must obey the laws, not only of the Church, as administered by its
overseers, but also of the State, as administered by the magistrates,
even though the State be a heathen power and the magistrate an idolater.
The reason why St. Paul does not argue the matter is obvious. He is not
writing to those who are likely to dispute or disobey these
injunctions, but to one who has to see that they are obeyed. His object
is not to prove the excellence of the rules which he lays down, but to
advise Titus as to what rules are to be most insisted upon. Titus was
well aware of the principles upon which these rules were based and of
the arguments by which the Apostle was accustomed to defend them. He
does not need information on that point. What the Apostle thinks may be
necessary for his guidance is a clear intimation of those practical
lessons of which the Cretans needed most to be reminded. It was quite
possible that Titus might have taken the view that the question about
obedience to existing authorities was a burning one, and that it would
be better for the present to say as little about it as possible. To
object, therefore, that these directions in the second and third
chapters of this Epistle are unworthy of St. Paul, and consequently not
written by him, because they contain nothing which might serve as a
sufficient refutation of the adversaries, is to beat the air without
effect. They contain nothing calculated to serve as a refutation of the
adversaries, because the Apostle writes with no intention of refuting
opponents, but in order to give practical instructions to his delegate.

But although the Apostle does not here argue the case, we are not left
in ignorance as to the principles upon which he based the rules here
laid down so emphatically. The thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans is quite clear on that point. "There is no power but of God; and
the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the
power, withstandeth the ordinance of God." That is the kernel of the
whole matter. The fact that a few rule over the many is not to be
traced to a world-wide usurpation of the rights of the simple and the
weak by the selfishness of the crafty and the strong. That theory may
explain the terrorism of a bully, or of a band of brigands, or of a
secret society; it is no explanation of the universal relations between
governors and the governed. Nor is it the result of a primeval "social
compact," in which the weak voluntarily surrendered some of their rights
in order to have the advantage of the protection of the strong: that
theory is pure fiction, and finds no support either in the facts of
man's nature, or in the relics of primitive society, or in the records
of the past. The one explanation which is at once both adequate and
true, is, that all authority is of Divine origin. This was the
declaration of the Forerunner, when his disciples complained to him of
the influence which Jesus exercised over those who came in contact with
His teaching: "A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him
from heaven" (John iii. 27). This was the declaration of the Christ,
when the Roman Procurator pointed out to Him that he had power of life
and death over Him: "Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it
were given thee from above" (John xix. 11). The power of the Redeemer
over the minds of men and the power of a heathen governor over the
bodies of men have one and the same source,--Almighty God. Christ
declared His innocence and asserted His claims; but He made no protest
against being tried by a pagan official, who represented the power that
had deprived the Jewish nation of its liberties, because he also
represented the principle of law and order, and as such was the
representative of God Himself.

St Paul, therefore, is doing no more than restating what the Lord had
already taught both by word and example. Christians must show submission
to rulers and constituted authorities, and must yield ready obedience to
magistrates, even when they are heathen. As heathen they were no doubt
rebels against God, however little they might be aware of the fact. But
as magistrates they were His delegates, however little they were aware
of the fact. The Christian is aware of both facts; and he must not
suppose that the one cancels the other. The magistrate still remains
God's delegate, however inconsistent his own life may be with such a
position. Therefore it is not only allowable for Christians to obey him;
they must make it a matter of conscience to do so: and the history of
the Church throughout the eras of persecution shows how greatly such
teaching was needed. Whatever may have been the case when St. Paul wrote
the Epistle to the Romans, we may safely maintain that persecution had
already taken place when he wrote these instructions to Titus. Not that
he seems to have a persecuting power in his mind, when he enjoins simple
obedience to existing authority; but he writes with full knowledge of
the extreme cases that might occur. A moralist who could insist upon the
duty of submission to rulers, when a Nero had been on the throne for
twelve or fourteen years, was certainly not one who could be ignorant of
what his principles involved. Nor could it be said that the evils of
Nero's insolent despotism were counteracted by the excellence of his
subordinates. The infamous Tigellinus was Praetorian Prefect and the
Emperor's chief adviser. Helius, who acted as governor of Italy during
the Emperor's absence in Greece, was in character a second Nero. And
Gessius Florus, one of Pilate's successors as Procurator of Judaea, was
so shameless in his enormities, that the Jews regretted the departure of
his predecessor Albinus, although he also had mercilessly oppressed
them. But all these facts, together with many more of the same kind, and
some also of an opposite character, were beside the question. Christians
were not to concern themselves with discussing whether rulers governed
well or ill, or whether their private lives were good or bad. The one
fact which concerned them was that the rulers were there to administer
the law, and as such must be respected and obeyed. The conscience of
Christians and the experiences of politicians, whether rulers or ruled,
throughout all the subsequent ages have ratified the wisdom of St.
Paul's injunctions; and not only their wisdom but their profound
morality. Renan says with truth, but with a great deal less than the
whole truth, that "Paul had too much tact to be a preacher of sedition:
he wished that the name of Christian should stand well, and that a
Christian should be a man of order, on good terms with the police, and
of good repute in the eyes of the pagans" (_St. Paul_, p. 477). The
criticism which resolves a profound moral principle into a mere question
of tact is worthy of the critic who makes it. Certainly St. Paul was
far-sighted enough to see that frequent collisions between Christians
and the recognized administrators of the law would be no good thing for
Christianity: but it was not because he believed obedience to be the
best policy that he charged Titus to insist upon it.

It is of the very essence of a ruler that he is "not a terror to the
good work, but to the evil: ... for he is a minister of God to thee for
good, ... an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil." It is quite
possible that the law which he administers is unjust, or that he
administers it in such a way as to make it work injustice, so that good
deeds are punished and evil deeds are rewarded. But nowhere is good
punished _as_ good, or evil rewarded _as_ evil. When Naboth was
judicially murdered to gratify Jezebel, it was on the assumption that he
was a blasphemer and a rebel; and when Jesus of Nazareth was condemned
to death by the Sanhedrin and by the Procurator, it was on the
assumption that he was guilty of similar crimes. So also with all the
monstrous and iniquitous laws which have been made against Christianity
and Christians. The persecuting edict "cast out their name as _evil_."

It was because men believed, or professed to believe, that Christians
were grievous offenders or dangerous citizens, that they brought them
before the magistrates. And the same holds good of the religious
persecutions of which Christians have been guilty against other
Christians. Nowhere can we point to a case in which a person has been
condemned for having been virtuous, or for having failed to commit a
crime. Many have been condemned for what was really meritorious, or for
refusing to do what was really wicked; but in all such cases the
meritorious conduct and the wicked conduct were held to be of exactly
the opposite character by the representatives of the law. Legally
constituted authority, therefore, is always by profession, and generally
in fact also, a terror to the evil and a supporter of the good. It is
charged with the all-important duty of upholding right and punishing
wrong in human conduct, _a duty which it never disowns_. For even when
through blindness or perversity it upholds what is wrong or punishes
what is right, it professes to be doing the opposite. Therefore to rebel
against it is to rebel against the principle of moral government; it is
a revolt against that principle which reflects and represents, and that
by His ordinance, the moral government of Almighty God.

St. Paul assumes that rulers aim at what is just and right. The
Christian is "to be ready unto every good work": and, although the words
are no doubt intended to have a general meaning as well, yet the context
suggests that their primary meaning in this place is that Christians are
always, not only to be obedient to rulers and magistrates, but to be
ready to support and assist them in any good work: the presumption being
that what the authorities direct is good. But, without perhaps having
this object in view, the Apostle here indirectly intimates the limits to
a Christian's obedience and support. They are to be given to further
"every _good_ work": they cannot of course be given to further what is
evil. What then must a Christian do when lawful authority requires him
to do what he knows to be wrong? Is he to rebel? to stir up a revolt
against those who make this demand? No, he is still "to be in subjection
to rulers": that is, he must disobey and _quietly take the
consequences_. He owes it to his conscience to refuse to do what it
condemns: but he also owes it to the representative of Divine law and
order to abstain from shaking its authority. It has the power to give
commands and the right to punish disobedience, and he has no right to
refuse both obedience and punishment. To disobey and submissively take
the consequences of disobedience is his plain duty in so painful a case.
In this way, and in this way _only_, will loyalty to conscience and
loyalty to authority both alike be preserved. In this way, and in this
way _best_ (as history has again and again shown), is the reformation
of unjust laws effected. The moral sense of society is far more
impressed by the man who disobeys for conscience' sake and unresistingly
goes to prison or mounts the scaffold for his disobedience, than by him
who violently resists all attempts to punish him and stirs up rebellion
against the authority which he cannot conscientiously obey. Rebellion
may succeed in redressing injustice, but at a cost which is likely to be
more grievous than the injustice which it redresses. Conscientious
disobedience, accompanied by loyal submission to the penalty of
disobedience, is sure to succeed in reforming unjust laws, and that
without any cost to counterbalance the good thus gained.

Having thus trenchantly determined the duty of believers towards rulers
and magistrates, St. Paul passes on to sketch their proper attitude
towards other members of society. And just as in speaking of conduct
towards authorities he evidently has in his mind the fact that most
authorities are unbelievers, so in speaking of conduct in society he
evidently is thinking of a state of society in which many of its members
are unbelievers. What kind of conduct will Titus have to insist upon as
befitting a Christian? "To speak evil of no man, not to be contentious,
to be gentle, showing all meekness towards all men."

It would be difficult to point to a precept which is more habitually
violated by Christians at the present day, and therefore more worthy of
being constantly brought to the front and urged upon their
consideration. There are plenty of precepts both of the Old and of the
New Testament, which are habitually violated by the godless and
irreligious, by those who, while bearing the name of Christian, scarcely
make even a pretence of endeavouring to live Christian lives. But here
we have a group of precepts, which a large number, not only of those
who profess to live soberly and righteously, but of those who do indeed
in other respects live as Christians should, consent to forget or
ignore. "To speak evil of no man; not to be contentious; to be gentle,
showing all meekness towards all men." Let us consider calmly what such
words as these really mean; and then let us consider what we constantly
meet with in the controversial writing, and still more in the
controversial speaking, of the present day. Consider the tone of our
party newspapers, and especially of our religious newspapers, on the
burning questions of the hour and on the men who take a leading part in
them. Read what a High Church paper says of a Low Church Bishop, or what
a Low Church paper says of a High Church Bishop, and measure it by the
injunction "to speak evil of no man." Or again, read what some of the
organs of Dissent allow themselves to say respecting the clergy of the
Established Church, or what some Church Defence orators have allowed
themselves to say respecting Liberationists, and measure it by the
injunctions "not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness
towards all men." It is sometimes necessary to speak out and call
attention to real or suspected evils; although not nearly so frequently
as we like to think. But it is never necessary to throw mud and deal in
personal abuse.

Moreover, it is very unbecoming to do so. It is doubly unbecoming, as
St. Paul reminds us. First, such conduct is utterly un-Christian.
Secondly, it is very much out of place in those who before now have been
guilty of quite as grave faults as those for which we now abuse others.
We are just the persons who ought to remember, because we know from
personal experience, how much the grace of God can effect. If we have
by His mercy been brought out of the sins which we now condemn in other
people, what may we not hope for in their case, provided we do not
disgust them with virtue by our acrimonious and uncharitable
fault-finding? Abuse is the wrong weapon to use against unrighteous
conduct, just as rebellion is the wrong weapon to use against
unrighteous laws.




CHAPTER XXV.

_THE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW BIRTH.--THE
LAVER OF REGENERATION._

    "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and His love toward man,
    appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did
    ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the
    washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He
    poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that,
    being justified by His grace, we might be made heirs according to
    the hope of eternal life."--TITUS iii. 4-7.


For the second time in this short letter we have one of those statements
of doctrine which are not common among the practical instructions which
form the main portion of the Pastoral Epistles. The other doctrinal
statement was noticed in a previous discourse on chap. ii. 11-14. It is
worth while to compare the two. Though similar, they are not identical
in import, and they are introduced for quite different purposes. In the
earlier passage, in order to show why different classes of Christians
should be taught to exhibit the virtues which specially befit them, the
Apostle states the purpose of Christ's work of redemption, a purpose
which all Christians are bound to help in realizing, stimulated by what
has been done for them in the past and by the hope which lies before
them in the future. In the passage which we have now to consider, St.
Paul contrasts with the manifold wickedness of unbelievers the
undeserved mercies of God towards them, in order to show what gratitude
those who have been brought out of their unbelief ought to feel for this
unearned blessing, a gratitude which they ought to exhibit in gentle
forbearance and goodwill towards those who are still in the darkness of
unbelief as well as to others.

The passage before us forms the main part of the Second Lesson for the
evening of Christmas Day in both the old and the new lectionaries. Its
appropriateness in setting forth so explicitly the Divine bounty in the
work of regeneration is manifest. But it would have been equally
appropriate as a lesson for Trinity Sunday, for the part which each
Person of the Blessed Trinity takes in the work of regeneration is
plainly indicated. The passage is in this respect strikingly parallel to
what St. Peter had written in the opening of his Epistle: "According to
the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit,
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. i.
2). The goodness and love of God the Father towards mankind is the
source of man's redemption. From all eternity He saw man's fall; and
from all eternity He devised the means of man's recovery. He appointed
His Son to be our representative; and He accepted Him on our behalf. In
this way the Father is "our Saviour," by giving and accepting One Who
could save us. The Father "saved us ... through Jesus Christ our
Saviour." Thus the Father and the Son co-operate to effect man's
salvation, and each in a very real and proper sense is called "our
Saviour." But it is not in man's own power to accept the salvation thus
wrought for him and offered to him. For power to do this he needs Divine
assistance; which, however, is abundantly granted to him. By means of
the outward laver of baptism the inward regeneration and renewal by the
Spirit is granted to him through the merits of Christ; and then the work
of his salvation on the Divine side is complete. Through the infinite
mercy of the Blessed Trinity, and not through his own merits, the
baptized Christian is in a state of salvation, and is become an heir of
eternal life. It remains to be seen whether the Christian, thus richly
endowed, will continue in this blessed state, and go on, by the daily
renewal of the Holy Spirit, from grace to grace; or will through his own
weakness and wilfulness, fall away. But, so far as God's share in the
transaction is concerned, his salvation is secured; so that, as the
Church of England affirms in the note added to the service for the
Public Baptism of Infants: "It is certain by God's Word, that children
which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly
saved." And the several parts which the Persons of the Blessed Trinity
take in the work of salvation are clearly indicated in one of the
prayers before the baptismal act, as in the present passage by St. Paul.
Prayer is offered to the "heavenly Father," that He will "give His Holy
Spirit to this Infant, that he may be born again, and be made an heir of
everlasting salvation; through our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus, as at the
baptism of the Christ, so also at that of every Christian, the presence
and co-operation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is indicated.

It is the Apostle's object in this condensed doctrinal statement to
emphasize the fact that it was "not by works in righteousness which _we
ourselves_ did," but by the work of the Blessed Trinity, that we were
placed in a state of salvation. He does not stop to make the
qualifications, which, however true and necessary, do not alter this
fact. In the case of adults, who are converted to Christianity,--and it
is of such that he is thinking,--it is necessary that they should be
duly prepared for baptism by repentance and faith. And in the case of
all (whether adults, or infants, who live to become responsible for
their actions), it is necessary that they should appropriate and use the
graces bestowed upon them; in other words, that they should grow in
holiness. All this is true; but it does not affect the position. For
although man's co-operation is indispensable--for God saves no man
against his will--yet without God's assistance man cannot either repent
or believe before baptism, nor can he continue in holiness after
baptism. This passage expressly denies that we effect our own salvation,
or that God effected it in return for our merits. But it gives no
encouragement to the belief that we have nothing to do with "working out
our own salvation," but have merely to sit still and accept what has
been done for us.

That "the washing of regeneration," or (as the margin of the R.V. more
exactly has it) "the _laver_ of regeneration,"[81] signifies the
Christian rite of baptism, ought to be regarded as beyond dispute. This
is certainly one of those cases to which Hooker's famous canon of
interpretation most thoroughly applies, that "where a literal
construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the
worst" (_Eccl. Pol._, v. lix. 2). This Hooker holds to be "a most
infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture"; and although some
persons may think that assertion somewhat too strong, of the soundness
of the rule no reasonable student of Scripture can doubt. And it is
worth our while to notice that it is in connexion with this very subject
of baptismal regeneration that Hooker lays down this rule. He is
answering those who perversely interpreted our Lord's words to
Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit" (John iii. 5),
as meaning no more than "Except a man be born of the Spirit," "water"
being (as they imagined) only a metaphor, of which "the Spirit" is the
interpretation. On which Hooker remarks: "When the letter of the law
hath two things plainly and expressly specified, Water, and the Spirit;
Water as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit as a gift which God
bestoweth; there is danger in presuming so to interpret it, as if the
clause which concerneth ourselves were more than needeth. We may by such
rare expositions attain perhaps in the end to be thought witty, but with
ill advice." All which may be fitly applied to the passage before us, in
which it is quite arbitrary and against all probability to contend that
"the bath of regeneration" is a mere metaphor for regeneration without
any bath, or for the Holy Spirit, or for the unmeasured bounty with
which the Holy Spirit is poured upon the believer.

This might be tenable, if there had been no such rite as baptism by
water enjoined by Christ and practised by the Apostles as the necessary
and universal method of admission to the Christian Church. In Eph. v. 26
(the only other passage in the New Testament in which the word for
"laver" or "bath" or "washing" occurs) the reference to baptism by water
is indisputable, for the water is expressly mentioned. "Christ also
loved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify
it, having _cleansed it by the washing of water_ with the word." And in
the passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians which, like the one
before us, contrasts the appalling wickedness of unbelievers with the
spiritual condition of Christians, the reference to baptism is scarcely
less clear. "And such were some of you: but _ye were washed_ (lit. 'ye
washed away'[82] your sins), but ye were sanctified, but ye were
justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our
God" (1 Cor. vi. 11). In which passage, as here, the three Persons of
the Trinity are named in connexion with the baptismal act.

And in speaking to the Jews at Jerusalem of his own admission to the
Church, St. Paul uses the same forms of the same word as he uses to the
Corinthians of their admission. The exhortation of Ananias to him, as he
lay at Damascus, was "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and _be
baptized_, and _wash away thy sins_" (=apolousai tas hamartias sou=),
"calling on His Name" (Acts xxii. 16): words which are very parallel to
the exhortation of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost: "Repent ye, and
_be baptized, every one of you_ in the Name of Jesus Christ _unto the
remission of your sins_; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost" (Acts ii. 38; comp. Heb. x. 23). In these passages we have a
sacred rite described in which the human and the Divine elements are
clearly marked. On man's side there is the washing with water; and on
God's side there is the washing away of sin and pouring out of the
Spirit. The body is purified, the soul is purified, and the soul is
hallowed. The man is washed, is justified, is sanctified. He is
regenerated: he is "a new creature." "The old things," his old
principles, motives, and aims, then and there "passed away" (aorist
tense, =parelthen=): "behold, they are become new" (2 Cor. v. 17). Can
any one, with these passages before him, reasonably doubt, that, when
the Apostle speaks of "the washing of regeneration" he means the
Christian rite of baptism, in which, and by means of which, the
regeneration takes place?

We are fully justified by his language here in asserting that it is _by
means of_ the baptismal washing that the regeneration takes place; for
he asserts that God "saved us _through_ the washing of regeneration."
The laver or bath of regeneration is the instrument or means by which
God saved us. Such is the natural, and almost the necessary meaning of
the Greek construction (=dia= with the genitive). Nor is this an
audacious erection of a comprehensive and momentous doctrine upon the
narrow basis of a single preposition. Even if this passage stood alone,
it would still be our duty to find a reasonable meaning for the
Apostle's Greek: and it may be seriously doubted whether any more
reasonable meaning than that which is here put forward can be found. But
the passage does not stand alone, as has just been shown. And there are
numerous analogies which throw light upon the question, proving to us
that there is nothing exceptional in God (Who of course does not need
any means or instruments) being willing to use them, doubtless because
it is better for us that He should use them.

In illustration of the Greek construction we may compare that used by
St. Peter of the event which he takes (and the Church of England in her
baptismal service has followed him) as a type of Christian baptism.
"When the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the
ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved
_through water_: which also after a true likeness doth now save you,
even baptism." St. Peter says that Noah and his family "were saved _by
means of water_" (=di' hydatos=), just as St. Paul says that God "saved
us _by means of the laver_ of regeneration" (=dia loutrou
palingenesias=). In each case the water is the _instrument_ of
salvation. And the analogy does not end with the identity of the
instrument; that is the mere external resemblance between the flood and
baptism. The main part of the likeness lies in this, that in both cases
one of the same instrument both destroys and saves. The Flood destroyed
the disobedient by drowning them, and saved Noah and his family by
floating them into a new home. Baptism destroys the old corrupt element
in man's nature by washing it away, and saves the regenerated soul by
bringing it into a new life. And the other event which from the earliest
days has been taken as a figure of baptism is of the same kind. At the
crossing of the Red Sea, the water which destroyed the Egyptians saved
the Israelites. In all these cases God was not tied to use water, or any
other instrument. He could have saved Noah and the Israelites, and
destroyed the disobedient and the Egyptians, just as He could have
healed Naaman and the man born blind, without employing any means
whatever. But for our edification He condescends to employ means, such
as we can perceive and understand.

In what way is the employment of perceptible means a help to us? In two
at least. It serves the double purpose of being both a _test_ of faith
and an _aid_ to faith.

1. The acceptance of Divinely appointed means is necessarily a test of
faith. Human intellect is apt to assume that Omnipotence is above using
instruments. "Is it likely," we ask, "that the Almighty would employ
these means? Are they not altogether beneath the dignity of the Divine
Nature? Man needs tools and materials: but God needs neither. It is not
credible that He has ordained these things as conditions of His own
operation." All which is the old cry of the captain of the host of
Syria. "Behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand and
call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place,
and recover the leper." That is, why need he enjoin any instrument at
all? But if he must, he might have enjoined something more suitable.
"Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean?" In precisely
the same spirit we ask still, "How can water wash away sin? How can
bread and wine be Christ's body and blood? How can the laying on of a
man's hand confer the gift of the Holy Spirit? Do not all such
assumptions savour of magic rather than of Divine Providence?" Therefore
humbly to accept the means which God has revealed as the appointed
channels of His spiritual blessings is a real test of the recipient's
faith. He is thus enabled to perceive for himself whether he does
sincerely believe or not; whether he has the indispensable qualification
for receiving the promised blessing.

2. The employment of visible means is a real aid to faith. It is easier
to believe that an effect will be produced, when one can perceive
something which might contribute to produce the effect. It is easier to
believe when one sees means than when none are visible; and it is still
easier to believe when the means seem to be appropriate. The man who was
born blind would more readily believe that Christ would give him sight,
when he perceived that Christ was using spittle and clay for the
purpose; for at that time these things were supposed to be good for the
eyes. And what element in nature is more frequently the instrument both
of life and of death than water? What could more aptly signify
purification from defilement? What act could more simply express a death
to sin and a rising again to righteousness than a plunge beneath the
surface of the water and a re-issuing from it? As St. Paul says in the
Epistle to the Romans: "We were buried therefore with Him through
baptism" (=dia tou baptismatos=) "into death; that like as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might
walk in newness of life" (vi. 4). And again to the Colossians: "Having
been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him
through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead" (ii.
12). Faith in the inward gift, promised by God to those who believe and
are baptized, becomes more easy, when the outward means of conferring
the gift, not only are readily perceived, but are recognized as
suitable. In this way our faith is aided by God's employment of means.

Is the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" the same thing as the "washing of
regeneration"? In this passage the two expressions refer to the same
fact, but in their respective meanings they are not co-extensive. The
Greek construction is ambiguous like the English; and we cannot be sure
whether St. Paul means that God saved us by means of the washing and by
means of the renewing, or that God saved us by means of a laver, which
is both a laver of regeneration and a laver of renewal. The latter is
more probable: but in either case the reference is to one and the same
event in the Christian's life. The laver and the renewing refer to
baptism; and the regeneration and the renewing refer to baptism; viz.,
to the new birth which is then effected. But, nevertheless, the two
expressions are not co-extensive in meaning. The laver and the
regeneration refer to one fact, and to one fact only; a fact which takes
place once for all and can never be repeated. A man cannot have the new
birth a second time, any more than he can be born a second time: and
hence no one may be baptized twice. But the renewing of the Holy Spirit
may take place daily. It precedes baptism in the case of adults; for it
is only through a renewal which is the work of the Spirit that they can
prepare themselves by repentance and faith for baptism. It takes place
at baptism, as the Apostle clearly indicates here. And it continues
after baptism; for it is by repeated quickening of the inward life
through the action of the Spirit that the Christian grows in grace day
by day. In the case of the adult, who unworthily receives baptism
without repentance and faith, there is no spiritual renewal. Not that
the sacred rite remains without effect: but the renewing of the Spirit
is suspended until the baptized person repents and believes. Meanwhile
the mysterious gift bestowed in baptism becomes a curse rather than a
blessing; or at least a curse as well as a blessing. It may perhaps
increase the possibilities of repentance: it certainly intensifies the
guilt of all his sins. Such a person has thrust himself into a society
without being qualified for membership. He has incurred the
responsibilities of membership: if he desires the privileges, he must
obtain the qualifications.[83]

It is God's gracious purpose that all should have the privileges in
full. In baptism He washed us from our sins, He gave us a new birth, He
poured out His Holy Spirit upon us richly, through Jesus Christ; "_in
order that_, being justified by His grace, we might be made heirs
according to hope of eternal life."

FOOTNOTES:

[81] =loutron palingenesias=. Comp. Eph. v. 26.

[82] Middle Voice, =apelousasthe=, on which see Professor Evans in the
_Speaker's Commentary_ iii., p. 282. And it is worth noticing that in
both passages the principal verbs are in the tense which in Greek
commonly indicates some one particular occasion, "Ye were washed, were
sanctified, were justified," are all in the aorist. So also here: "He
saved us," and "He poured out upon us" are both in the aorist. And in
both cases the natural reference is to the particular occasion of
baptism in which we "were washed, sanctified, and justified," because
God "saved us by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit which He poured out upon us richly."

[83] See Waterland, _Regeneration Stated and Explained_: Works, Vol. vi.
pp. 359--362. The whole tract may be commended for clearness and
moderation.




CHAPTER XXVI.

_THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE TREATMENT OF HERETICAL PERSONS._

    "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse;
    knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being
    self-condemned"--TITUS iii. 10, 11.


It is in connexion with this instruction respecting the treatment of
heretical persons that we have some of the earliest testimonies to the
genuineness of the Epistle to Titus. Thus Irenaeus about A.D. 180 writes:
"But as many as _fall away from_" (=aphistantai=, 1 Tim. iv. 1) "the
Church and give heed to these _old wives' fables_" (=graodesi mythois=, 1
Tim. iv. 7), "are truly _self-condemned_" (=autokatakritoi=, Tit. iii.
1): "whom Paul charges us _after a first and second admonition to
refuse_" (_Adv. Haer._, I. xvi. 3). It will be observed that in this
passage Irenaeus makes an obvious allusion to the First Epistle to
Timothy, and then quotes the very words of our text, attributing them
expressly to St. Paul. And about ten or twelve years later, Tertullian,
after commenting on St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, "For there must
be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you" (1 Cor. xi. 19), continues as follows: "But no more
about that, seeing that it is the same Paul who elsewhere also in
writing to the Galatians reckons heresies among sins of the flesh (Gal.
v. 20), and who intimates to Titus that a _man who is heretical must
after a first[84] admonition be refused, because he that is such is
perverted and sinneth as being self-condemned_. But in almost every
Epistle, when insisting on the duty of avoiding false doctrines, he
censures heresies of which the practical results are false doctrines,
called in Greek _heresies_, with reference to the _choice_ which a man
exercises, whether in instituting or in adopting them. For this reason
he says that the heretical person is also self-condemned, because he has
chosen for himself that in which he is condemned. We, however, may not
allow ourselves anything after our own will; nor yet choose what any one
has introduced of his own will. The Apostles of the Lord are our
authorities: and even they did not choose to introduce anything of their
own will, but faithfully consigned to the nations the instruction which
they received from Christ. And so, even if an angel from heaven were to
preach any other gospel, he would be called accursed by us" (_De Praes.
Haer._, vi). In this passage, which contains a valuable comment on the
meaning of the word "heresy," it will be noticed that Tertullian not
only quotes the text before us as coming from the Epistle to Titus, but,
like Irenaeus, his earlier contemporary, says expressly that the words
are those of St. Paul. Thus, from both sides of the Mediterranean, men
who had very large opportunities of knowing what books were accepted as
Apostolic and what not, attribute our Epistle without hesitation to St.
Paul. And in both cases this is done in treatises directed against
heretics, who might be expected to reply with very telling effect, if it
could be shown that what was quoted against them as the writing of an
Apostle was of quite doubtful origin and authority.

But the testimony which these passages bear to the authenticity of this
Epistle is not the main reason for their being quoted here. Their
interest for us now consists in the light which they throw upon the
history of the word "heresy," and upon the attitude of the primitive
Church towards heretics.

"Heresy," as Tertullian points out, is a word of Greek origin, and the
idea which lies at the root of it is _choice_.[85] Choosing for oneself
what pleases oneself, independently of other considerations;--that is
the fundamental notion on which later meanings of the term are based.
Thus in the Septuagint it is used of a _free-will_ offering, as distinct
from what a man is bound to offer (Lev. xxii. 18; comp. 1 Macc. viii.
30). Then comes the notion of choice in reference to matters of opinion,
without, however, necessarily implying that the chosen opinion is a bad
one. And in this sense it is used quite as often for the party or school
of thought which holds the particular opinion as for the body of opinion
which is held. In this sense it is several times used in the Acts of the
Apostles; as "the _sect_ of the Sadducees" (v. 17), "the _sect_ of the
Pharisees" (xv. 5; xxvi. 5): and in this way Christianity itself was
spoken of as a "heresy" or "sect"; that is, a party with chosen opinions
(xxiv. 5, 14; xxviii. 22). And in profane literature we find Diogenes
Laertius in the second or third century speaking of ten "heresies" or
schools in moral philosophy (i. 19). But it will be seen from the
passages in the Acts that the word is already acquiring somewhat of a
bad meaning; and indeed this was almost inevitable, unless the original
signification was entirely abandoned. In all spheres of thought and
action, and especially in matters of belief, a tendency to choose for
oneself, and to pursue one's own way independently, almost of necessity
leads to separation from others, to divisions and factions. And factions
in the Church readily widen into schisms and harden into heresies.

Outside the Acts of the Apostles the word heresy is found in the New
Testament only in three passages: 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; and 2 Pet.
ii. 1. In the last of these it is used of the erroneous opinions
themselves; in the other two the parties who hold them may be indicated.
But in all cases the word is used of divisions inside the Church, not of
separations from it or of positions antagonistic to it. Thus in 2 Pet.
ii. 1 we have the prophecy that "there shall be false teachers, who
shall privily _bring in_ destructive _heresies_, denying even the Master
that bought them." Here the false teachers are evidently inside the
Church, corrupting its members; not outside, inducing its members to
leave it. For the prophecy continues: "And many shall follow their
lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil
spoken of." They could not cause "the way of the truth to be evil spoken
of," if they were complete outsiders, professing to have no connexion
with it. In Gal. v. 20 "heresies" are among "the works of the flesh"
against which St. Paul warns his fickle converts, and "heresies" are
there coupled with "factions" and "divisions." In 1 Cor. xi. 19 the
Apostle gives as a reason for believing the report that there are
divisions in the Church of Corinth the fact that (man's tendency to
differ being what it is) divisions are inevitable, and have their use,
for in this way those which are approved among Christians are made
manifest. It is possible in both these passages to understand St. Paul
as meaning the "self-chosen views," as in the passage in 2 Pet., rather
than the schools or parties which have adopted the views. But this is
not of much moment. The important thing to notice is, that in all three
cases the "heresies" have caused or are tending to cause splits inside
the Church: they do not indicate hostile positions outside it. This use
of the word is analogous to that in the Acts of the Apostles, where it
represents the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the Christian Church
itself, as parties or schools inside Judaism, not as revolts against it.
We shall be seriously misled, if we allow the later meaning of "heresy,"
with all its medieval associations, to colour our interpretation of the
term as we find it in the New Testament.

Another important thing to remember in reference to the strong language
which St. Paul and other writers in the New Testament use with regard to
"heresies" and erroneous doctrine, and the still stronger language used
by early Christian writers in commenting on these texts, is the
downright wickedness of a good many of the "self-chosen views" which had
begun to appear in the Church in the first century, and which became
rampant during the second. The peril, not only to faith, but to morals,
was immense, and it extended to the very foundations of both. When
Christians were told that there were two Creators, of whom one was good
and one was evil; that the Incarnation was an impossibility; that man's
body was so vile that it was a duty to abuse it; that his spirit was so
pure that it was impossible to defile it; that to acquire knowledge
through crime was estimable, for knowledge was good, and crime was of no
moral significance to the enlightened;--then it was necessary to speak
out, and tell men in plain terms what the persons who were inculcating
such views were really doing, and what strong measures would be
necessary, if they persisted in such teaching.

Unless we keep a firm grasp upon these two facts;--(1) the difference
between the meaning of the word "heresy" as we find it in the New
Testament and its usual meaning at the present time; and (2) the
monstrous character of some of the views which many persons in the first
century, and many more in the second, claimed to hold as part and parcel
of the Christian religion;--we shall be liable to go grievously astray
in drawing conclusions as to our own practice from what is said on the
subject in Scripture.

"Woe unto the world," said our blessed Lord, "because of occasions of
stumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that
man through whom the occasion cometh" (Matt. xviii. 7). Human nature
being what it is, it is morally impossible that no one should ever lead
another into sin. But that fact does not destroy the responsibility of
the individual who leads his fellows into sin. St. Paul takes up the
principle thus laid down by Christ and applies it in a particular
sphere. He tells his Corinthian converts that "there must be heresies"
among them, and that they serve the good purpose of sifting the chaff
from the wheat. Wherever the light comes, it provokes opposition; there
is at once antagonism between light and darkness. This is as true in the
sphere of faith and morals as in that of the material world. Sooner or
later, and generally sooner rather than later, truth and innocence are
met and opposed by falsehood and sin; and it is falsehood, wilfully
maintained in opposition to revealed and generally held truth, that
constitutes the essence of heresy. There are many false opinions outside
what God has revealed to mankind, outside the scope of the Gospel.
However serious these may be, they are not heresies. A man may be
fatally at fault in matters of belief; but, unless in some sense he
accepts Christianity as true, he is no heretic. As Tertullian says, "In
all cases truth precedes its copy; after the reality the likeness
follows" (_De Praes. Haer._, xxix). That is, heresy, which is the
caricature of Christian truth, must be subsequent to it. It is a
distortion of the original truth, which some one has arrogantly chosen
as preferable to that of which it is the distortion. Error which has not
yet come in contact with revelation, and which has had no opportunity of
either submitting to it or rebelling against it, is not heretical. The
heretical spirit is seen in that cold critical temper, that
self-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects
opinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles
which are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church. But it
cannot accept or reject what has never been presented to it; nor, until
the Christian faith has to some extent been accepted, can the rejection
of the remainder of it be accounted heresy. Heresy is "a disease of
Christian knowledge." The disease may have come from without, or may
have developed entirely from within; and in the former case the source
of the malady may be far older than Christianity itself. But until the
noxious elements have entered the Christian organism and claimed a home
within the system, it is a misuse of language to term them heretical.

We have not exhausted the teaching of the Apostles respecting this
plague of self-assertion and independent teaching, which even in their
time began to afflict the infant Church, when we have considered all the
passages in which the words "heresy" and "heretical" occur. There are
other passages, in which the thing is plainly mentioned, although this
name for it is not used. It has been said that "the Apostles, though
they claimed disciplinary authority, had evidently no thought of
claiming infallibility for any utterances of theirs."[86] But they
certainly treated opposition to their teaching, or deviations from it,
as a very serious matter. St. Paul speaks of those who opposed him in
the Church of Corinth as "false apostles, deceitful workers" and
"ministers of Satan" (2 Cor. xi. 13-15). He speaks of the Galatians as
"bewitched" by those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ, and
pronounces an anathema on those who should "preach any gospel other than
that which he preached" (Gal. i. 7, 8; iii. 1). Of the same class of
teachers at Philippi he writes: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil
workers, beware of the concision" (iii. 2). He warns the Colossians
against any one who may "make spoil of them through his philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ" (ii. 8); just as he warned the elders of
the Church at Ephesus that after his departure "grievous wolves would
enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and that from among
themselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
disciples after them" (Acts xx. 29, 30). And in the Pastoral Epistles we
have several utterances of the same kind, including the one before us (1
Tim. i. 3-7, 19, 20; iv. 1-3; vi. 3, 4, 20, 21; Tit. i. 10-16; iii.
8-11; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18; iii. 8, 13).

Nor is St. Paul the only writer in the New Testament who feels bound to
write in this strain. The same kind of language fills no inconsiderable
portion of the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (2 Pet.
ii.; Jude 8-16). More remarkable still, we find even the Apostle of Love
speaking in tones not less severe. The Epistles to the Seven Churches of
Asia abound in such things (Rev. ii.; iii). In his General Epistle he
asks, "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son" (1
John ii. 22: comp. ii. 26; iv. 1, 3). In his letter to "the elect lady
and her children" he speaks of the "many deceivers" who "confess not
that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh." And, in a passage not unlike the
direction to Titus which we are now considering, he says: "If any one
cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into
your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting
partaketh in his evil works."

The impression which these passages produce on our minds is at least
this;--that, whether or no the Apostles were conscious of being
protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching anything that was
doctrinally false, they were at any rate very stern in their
condemnation of those Christians who deliberately contravened what an
Apostle had taught. And this sternness is not confined to those who
resisted the instructions of Apostles in matters of discipline. It is
quite as clearly manifested against those who contradicted Apostolic
teaching in matters of faith. The context of the passage before us shows
that by "a man that is heretical" is meant one who wilfully takes his
own line and thereby causes divisions in doctrine quite as much as one
who does so as regards the order and discipline of the Church.

What, then, does St. Paul mean when he directs Titus to "refuse" such a
person after once or twice admonishing him? Certainly not that he is to
excommunicate him; the passage has nothing to do with formal
excommunication. It is possible to maintain that the direction here
given may _imply_ excommunication; but it is also possible to maintain
that it need not imply anything of the kind; and therefore that such an
interpretation substitutes an uncertain inference for what is certainly
expressed. The word translated in the R.V. "refuse," and in the A.V.
"reject," is the same as that which is used in 1 Tim. v. 11 in the text,
"Younger widows _refuse_" (=paraitou=). It means, "avoid, shun, excuse
yourself from having anything to do with" (comp. Heb. xii. 25). It is
also used of things as well as of persons, and in much the same sense:
"_Refuse_ profane and old wives' fables" (1 Tim. iv. 7), and "Foolish
and ignorant questions _refuse_" (2 Tim. ii. 23). The meaning, then,
here seems to be that, after a few attempts to induce the heretical
person to desist from his perverse and self-willed conduct, Titus is to
waste no more time on him, because now he knows that his efforts will
be useless. At first he did not know this; but after having failed once
or twice, he will see that it is vain to repeat what produces no effect.
The man's self-will is incorrigible; and not only that, but inexcusable;
for he stands self-condemned. He deliberately chose what was opposed to
the received teaching; and he deliberately persists in it after its
erroneous character has been pointed out to him. He "is perverted, and
sinneth": that is, he not only has sinned, but goes on sinning: he
continues in his sin, in spite of entreaty, exhortation, and reproof.

In what way are the directions here given to Titus to be used for our
own guidance at the present time? Certain limitations as to their
application have been already pointed out. They do not apply to persons
who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves, outside
the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their
self-chosen views are part and parcel of the Gospel, and who claim to
hold and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church.
Secondly, they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to
first principles; not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail.
And in determining this second point much caution will be needed;
especially when inferences are drawn from a man's teaching. We should be
on our guard with regard to assertions that a particular teacher
_virtually_ denies the Divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the
personality of God. But when both these points are quite clear, that the
person contradicts some of the primary truths of the Gospel, and that he
claims to do so as a Christian, what is a minister to do to such a
member of his flock? He is to make one or two efforts to reclaim him,
and then to have as little to do with him as possible.

In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be considered:--the
heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the Church at
large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with him will
be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most
beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the
guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to
one person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more
harm than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is
not only consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without
such hatred. What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will
friendliness confirm him in his error? Would he be more impressed by
severity? Is intercourse with him likely to lead to our being led
astray? Will it increase his influence and his opportunities of doing
harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy in other people, first for
him, and then for his teaching? It is impossible to lay down a hard and
fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we remember the stern
instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St. John to the "elect
lady," let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ treated publicans
and sinners.

In our own day there is danger of mistaking lazy or weak indifferentism
for Christian charity. It is a convenient doctrine that the beliefs of
our fellow-Christians are no concern of ours, even when they try to
propagate what contradicts the creed. And, while emphasis is laid upon
the responsibility of accepting articles of faith, it is assumed that
there is little or no responsibility in refusing to accept, or in
teaching others to refuse also. To plead for tenderness, where severity
is needed, is not charity, but Laodicean lukewarmness; and mistaken
tenderness may easily end in making us "partakers in evil works." To be
severe, when severity is imperatively called for, is not only charity to
the offenders, it "is also charity towards all men besides. It is
charity towards the _ignorant_ as carrying instruction along with it;
charity towards the _unwary_, as giving them warning to stand off from
infection; charity towards the _confirmed_ Christians, as encouraging
them still more, and preserving them from insults; charity towards the
_whole Church_, as supporting both their unity and purity; charity
towards _all mankind_, towards them that are _without_, as it is
recommending pure religion to them in the most advantageous light,
obviating their most plausible calumnies, and giving them less occasion
to blaspheme."[87]

FOOTNOTES:

[84] It is worth noting that Tertullian, with several other Latin
writers, omits the second admonition: _hominem haereticum post primam
correptionem recusandum_. Similarly Cyprian: _haereticum hominem post
unam correptionem devita_ (_Test._, III. 78).

[85] =hairesis=, from =hairein=, =haireisthai=, "to choose": not from
_haerere_, "to stick fast," as has been ignorantly asserted.

[86] T. Ll. Davies in a remarkable paper on "The Higher Life," in the
_Fortnightly Review_, January, 1888.

[87] Waterland, _The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity_ IV.
ii. 2; Works, vol. v. p. 96. Oxford, 1823.




THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.




CHAPTER XXVII.

_THE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL.--THE
NEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS._

    "For the which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the
    gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands. For
    God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and
    discipline."--2 TIM. i. 6, 7.


In the Second Epistle to Timothy we have the last known words of St.
Paul. It is his last will and testament; his last instructions to his
favourite disciple and through him to the Church. It is written with
full consciousness that the end is at hand. His course in this world is
all but over; and it will be closed by a violent, it may be by a cruel
death. The letter is, therefore, a striking but thoroughly natural
mixture of gloom and brightness. On the one hand, death throws its dark
shadow across the page. On the other, there is the joyous thought that
the realization of his brightest hopes is close at hand. Death will come
with its pain and ignominy, to cut short the Apostle's still unfinished
work, to take him away from the Churches which he has founded and which
still sorely need his guidance, and from the friends whom he loves, and
who still need his counsel and support. But death, while it takes him
away from much to which he clings and which clings to him, will free
him from toil, and anxiety, and neglect, and will take him to be with
Christ until that day when he shall receive the crown of righteousness
which is laid up for him.

If the shadow of impending death were the only source of gloom, the
letter would be far more joyous than it is. It would be far more
continuously a strain of thanksgiving and triumph. But the prospect of
ending his life under the hand of the public executioner is not the
thought which dominates the more sorrowful portion of the Epistle. There
is the fact that he is almost alone; not because his friends are
prevented from coming to him, but because they have forsaken him; some,
it may be, for pressing work elsewhere; others because the attractions
of the world were too strong for them; but the majority of them, because
they were afraid to stand by him when he was placed at the bar before
Nero. The Apostle is heavy-hearted about this desertion of him, not
merely because of the wound which it inflicts on his own affectionate
spirit, but because of the responsibility which those who are guilty of
it have thereby incurred. He prays that it "may not be laid to their
account."

Yet the thought which specially oppresses him is "anxiety about all the
Churches"--and about Timothy himself. Dark days are coming. False
doctrine will be openly preached and will not lack hearers; and utterly
un-Christian conduct and conversation will become grievously prevalent.
And, while the godly are persecuted, evil men will wax worse and worse.
This sad state of things has already begun; and the Apostle seems to
fear that his beloved disciple is not altogether unaffected by it.
Separation from St. Paul and the difficulties of his position may have
told on his over-sensitive temperament, and have caused him to be
remiss in his work, through indulgence in futile despondency. The words
of the text strike the dominant chord of the Epistle and reveal to us
the motive that prompts it. The Apostle puts Timothy in remembrance
"that he stir up the gift of God which is in him." Again and again he
insists on this and similar counsels. "Be not ashamed of the testimony
of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner; but suffer hardships." "That good
thing which was committed to thee guard through the Holy Ghost" (vv. 8,
13). "Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." "Give
diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed" (ii. 3, 15). "But abide thou in the things which thou
hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned
them" (iii. 14). And then, as the letter draws to a close, he speaks in
still more solemn tones of warning: "I charge thee in the sight of God,
and of Christ Jesus, Who shall judge the quick and the dead, and by His
appearing and His kingdom: be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." "Be thou sober in
all things, suffer hardships, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy
ministry" (iv. 1, 2, 5). Evidently the Apostle is anxious lest even the
rich gifts with which Timothy is endowed should be allowed to rust
through want of use. Timidity and weakness may prove fatal to him and
his work, in spite of the spiritual advantages which he has enjoyed. The
Apostle's anxiety about the future of the Churches is interwoven with
anxiety about the present and future conduct of his beloved delegate and
successor.

The Second Epistle to Timothy is more personal than either of the other
Pastoral Epistles. It is less official in tone and contents, and is
addressed more directly to the recipient himself, than through him to
others. Three main subjects are treated in the letter; and first and
foremost of these is the conduct of Timothy himself. This subject
occupies about a third of the Epistle. The next and longest section
treats of the present and future prospects of the Church (ii. 14-iv. 5).
And lastly the Apostle speaks of himself.

It is not difficult to understand how even those who condemn the
Pastoral Epistles as the product of a later writer, feel almost obliged
to admit that at least some of this touching letter must be genuine.
Whoever wrote it must have had some genuine letters of St. Paul to use
as material. It may be doubted whether any of the writings of that age
which have come down to us are more thoroughly characteristic of the
person whose name they bear, or are more full of touches which a
fabricator would never have thought of introducing. The person who
forged the Second Epistle to Timothy in the name of St. Paul must indeed
have been a genius. Nothing that has come down to us of the literature
of the second century leads us to suppose that any such literary power
existed. Whether we regard the writer, or the circumstances in which he
is placed, or the person to whom he writes, all is thoroughly
characteristic, harmonious, and in keeping. We have St. Paul with his
exquisite sympathy, sensitiveness, and affection, his intense anxiety,
his unflinching courage. We have the solemnity and importunity of one
who knows that his days are numbered. And we have the urgency and
tenderness of one who writes to a friend who has his faults and
weaknesses, but who is trusted and loved in spite of them.

In encouraging Timothy to stir up the gift that is in him, and not
suffer himself to be ashamed of the ignominy, or afraid of the
hardships, which the service of Christ entails, the Apostle puts before
him five considerations. There are the beautiful traditions of his
family, which are now in his keeping. There is the sublime character of
the Gospel which has been entrusted to him. There is the teaching of St.
Paul himself, who has so often given him a "pattern of sound words" and
a pattern of steadfast endurance. There is the example of Onesiphorus
with his courageous devotion. And there is the sure hope of "the
salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Any one of these
things might suffice to influence him: Timothy cannot be proof against
them all. St. Paul is persuaded that he is preserving the heritage of
undissembled faith which his mother and his grandmother possessed before
him. When he considers the character of the Gospel, of which he has
become a minister, and the gifts of which he has thereby become a
recipient, he cannot now become ashamed of bearing testimony for it. And
has the teaching of his old master, separation from whom used once to
make him weep, lost its hold upon him? Of the other disciples and
friends of the master, some have turned away from him, showing coldness
or dislike instead of sympathy and self-sacrifice; while others, at
great personal inconvenience, and (it may be also) great personal
danger, sought him out all the more diligently on account of his
imprisonment, and ministered to him. Will Timothy take his stand with
Phygelus and Hermogenes, or with Onesiphorus? And over and above all
these considerations, which are connected with this world, there are the
thoughts of the world to come. This is no mere question of expediency
and opportuneness, or of personal loyalty and affection to a human
teacher and friend. There is the whole of eternity at stake. To have
shared Christ's martyr-death is to share His endless life. To share His
endurance and service is to share His royalty. But to reject Him, is to
ensure being rejected by Him. Were He to receive faithless followers
among the faithful, He would be faithless to His promises and to
Himself.

For all these reasons, therefore, the Apostle charges his disciple to
"stir up the gift of God which is in him through the laying on of the
Apostle's hands." And the fact that he uses so much argument and
entreaty is evidence that he had grave anxiety about Timothy. Timothy's
natural sensitiveness and tenderness of heart made him specially liable
to despondency and timidity, especially when separated from friends and
confronted by sturdy opposition.

"That thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee." Literally "that
thou kindle up and fan into a flame." It does not _necessarily_ imply
that there has once been a bright flame, which has been allowed to die
down, leaving only smouldering embers. But this is the natural meaning
of the figure, and is possibly what St. Paul implies here. He does not
explain what precise gift of God it is that Timothy is to kindle into a
warmer glow; but, as it is one of those which were conferred upon him by
the laying on of hands at the time of his ordination, we may reasonably
suppose that it is the authority and power to be a minister of Christ.
In the First Epistle St. Paul had given Timothy a similar charge (iv.
14); and by combining that passage with this we learn that both the
Apostle and the elders laid their hands on the young evangelist:
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy,
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."[88] This talent
committed to his charge for use in God's service must not be allowed to
lie idle; it must be used with vigour, and trust, and courage. The very
character of the gift bestowed proves that it is to be used, and used
freely. "For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and
love and discipline." St. Paul includes himself in the statement. He,
like his disciple, has received this gift from God, and he knows from
long experience what its nature is. It is no "spirit of fearfulness;" no
"spirit of bondage leading to fear" (Rom. viii. 15). It was never meant
to produce in us a slavish fear of God, or a cowardly fear of men. To
feel awe and reverence when dealing with God,--to feel responsibility
when dealing with men,--is one thing. To abstain from action for fear of
offending either, is quite another. It is sometimes possible to avoid
criticism by refusing to commit oneself to anything; but such refusal
may be a sinful neglect of opportunities: and no error of judgment in
using the gifts committed to us can be worse than that of not using them
at all. Those are not necessarily the most useful servants who make the
fewest conspicuous mistakes.

The spirit with which we are endowed is a spirit of _power_, whereas a
spirit of fearfulness is weak. Faintheartedness cannot be strong. The
fainthearted mistrust themselves and others; and they discourage
themselves and others. They anticipate dangers and difficulties, and
thereby sometimes create them; and they anticipate failure, and thereby
often bring it about. It is only by acting, and by acting vigorously and
courageously, that we find out the full power of the spirit with which
we have been blessed.

Again, the gift which God has bestowed upon us is a spirit of _love_:
and more than anything else perfect love casts out the spirit of fear.
Fear is the child of bondage; love is the child of freedom. If we love
God, we shall not live in terror of His judgments: and if we love men,
we shall not live in terror of their criticisms. Moreover, the spirit of
love teaches us the nature of the gift of power. It is not force or
violence; not an imposing of our own will on others. It is an
affectionate striving to win others over to obedience to the will of
God. It is the spirit of self-sacrifice; not of self-assertion.

Lastly, the spirit with which we are endowed by God is a spirit of
_discipline_. By discipline that cowardly indolence, which the spirit of
fearfulness engenders, can be kept down and expelled. If it be asked,
whether the discipline be that which Timothy is to enforce in ruling
others, or that which he is to practise in schooling himself, we may
answer, "Both." The termination of the word which is here used
(=sophronismos=) seems to require the transitive meaning; and slackness
in correcting others may easily have been one of the ways in which the
despondency of Timothy showed itself. On the other hand the whole
context here speaks of Timothy's treatment of himself. To take a more
lively interest in the conduct of others would be discipline for himself
and for them also. There may be as much pride as humility in indulging
the thought that the lives of other people are so utterly bad, that it
is quite out of the power of such persons as ourselves to effect a
reformation. This is a subtle way of shirking responsibility. Strong in
the spirit of power, glowing with the spirit of love, we can turn the
faults of others, together with all the troubles which may befall us in
this life, into instruments of discipline.

The words of the Apostle, though primarily addressed to ministers, in
reference to the spiritual gifts bestowed on them at their ordination,
must not be confined to them. They apply to the gifts bestowed by God
upon every Christian, and indeed upon every human being. There is a
terrible penalty attached to the neglect of the higher faculties,
whether intellectual or moral; a penalty which works surely and
unerringly by a natural law. We all of us have imagination, intellect,
will. These wonderful powers must have an object, must have employment.
If we do not give them their true object, viz., the glory of God, they
will find an object for themselves. Instead of soaring upwards on the
wings supplied by the glories of creation and the mercies of redemption,
they will sink downwards into the mire. They will fasten upon the flesh;
and in an atmosphere poisoned by debasing associations they will become
debased also. Instead of raising the man who possesses them into that
higher life, which is a foretaste of heaven, they will hurry him
downwards with the accumulated pressure of an undisciplined intellect, a
polluted imagination, and a lawless will. That which should have been
for wealth, becomes an occasion of falling. Angels of light become
angels of darkness. And powers which ought to be as priests,
consecrating the whole of our nature to God, become as demons, shameless
and ruthless in devoting us to the evil one. Not only every minister of
Christ, but every thinking man, has need from time to time "to stir up
the gift of God that is in him," to kindle it into a flame, and see that
it is directed to holy ends and exercised in noble service. God's royal
gifts of intellect and will cannot be flung away, cannot be left unused,
cannot be extinguished. For good or for evil they are ours; and they are
deathless. But, though they cannot be destroyed they can be neglected.
They can be buried in the earth, till they breed worms and stink. They
can be allowed to run riot, until they become as wild beasts, and turn
again and rend us. Or in the spirit of power, or love, and of
discipline, they may be chastened by lofty exercise and sanctified to
heavenly uses, till they become more and more fit to be the equipment of
one, who is for ever to stand "before the throne of God, and praise Him
day and night in His temple."

FOOTNOTES:

[88] The assertion that this laying on of hands is a mark of an age
subsequent to the Apostles, ignores the plain statements in Acts vi. 6
xiii. 3; comp. viii. 17; ix. 17; xix. 6; and Heb. vi. 2.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

_THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION OF
ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD._

    "This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me;
    of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. The Lord grant mercy unto the
    house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed
    of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently and
    found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that
    day); and in how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest
    very well."--2 TIM. i. 15-18.


We have here one of the arguments which St. Paul makes use of in urging
his beloved disciple to stir up the gift of God that is in him through
the laying on of hands, and not allow himself to be afraid of the
ignominy and the sufferings, which the service of Jesus Christ involves.
After reminding him of the holy traditions of his family, of the
glorious character of the Gospel which has been committed to him, and of
the character of the Apostle's own teaching, St. Paul now goes on to
point out, as a warning, the conduct of those in Asia who had deserted
him in his hour of need; and, as an example, in marked contrast to them,
the affectionate courage and persistent devotion of Onesiphorus. Timothy
is not likely to follow those in Asia in their cowardly desertion of the
Apostle. He will surely bestir himself to follow an example, the
details of which are so well known to him and so very much to the point.
Timothy's special knowledge of both cases, so far as the conduct
referred to lay not in Rome but in Asia, is emphatically insisted upon
by St. Paul. He begins by saying, "This thou _knowest_, that all that
are in Asia turned away from me:" and he concludes with the remark, "In
how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou _knowest_ very well;" or,
as the Greek comparative probably means, "thou knowest _better_ than I
do." And it is worth noticing that St. Paul uses a different word for
"know" in the two cases. Of his desertion by those in Asia he uses a
word of general meaning (=oidas=), which implies knowledge _about_ the
things or persons in question, but need not imply more than hearsay
knowledge of what is notorious. Of the devoted service of Onesiphorus at
Ephesus he uses a word (=ginoskeis=), which implies _progressive
personal experience_. Timothy had of course heard all about the refusal
of Phygelus and Hermogenes and others to recognize the claim which St.
Paul had upon their services; what he saw and experienced continually
gave him intimate acquaintance with the conduct of Onesiphorus in the
Church of which Timothy had the chief care.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the meaning of St.
Paul's statements respecting these two contrasted cases, Phygelus and
those like him on the one side, and Onesiphorus on the other: and with
regard to both of them a variety of suggestions have been made, which
are scarcely compatible with the language used, and which do not after
all make the situation more intelligible. It must be admitted that the
brevity of the statements does leave room for a certain amount of
conjecture; but, nevertheless, they are clear enough to enable us to
conjecture with a fair amount of certainty.

And first with regard to the case of those in Asia. They are in Asia at
the time when this letter is being written. It is quite inadmissible to
twist this plain language and force it to mean "those _from_ Asia who
are now in Rome." =Hoi en te Asia= cannot be equivalent to =hoi ek tes
Asias=. If St. Paul meant the latter, why did he not write it? Secondly,
it is the proconsular province of Asia that is meant, that is the
western portion of Asia Minor, and not the continent of Asia. Thirdly,
the "turning away" of these Christians in Asia Minor does not mean their
apostasy from the faith, of which there is no hint either in the word or
in the context. St. Paul would hardly have spoken of their abandonment
of Christianity as turning away from _him_. It means that they turned
their faces away from him, and refused to have anything to say to him.
When he sought their sympathy and assistance, they renounced his
acquaintance, or at any rate refused to admit his claim upon them. It is
the very expression used by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount; "From him
that would borrow of thee, _turn not thou away_" (Matt. v. 42). This was
exactly what these Asiatic disciples had done: the Apostle had asked
them to lend him their help and support; and they had "turned away from"
him. But what is the meaning of the "all"? He says that "_all_ that are
in Asia turned away from" him. Obviously there is some qualification to
be understood. He cannot mean that Timothy is well aware that every
believer in Asia Minor had repudiated St. Paul. Some have supposed that
the necessary qualification is to be found in what follows; viz., "of
whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes." The meaning would then be that the
whole of the party to which Phygelus and Hermogenes belong rejected the
Apostle. But the arrangement of the sentence is quite against this
supposition; and there is nothing either said or implied about these two
men being the leaders or representatives of a party. The expression
respecting them is exactly parallel to that in the First Epistle
respecting those who "made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is
Hymenaeus and Alexander" (i. 19, 20). In each case, out of a class of
persons who are spoken of in general terms, two are mentioned by name.
What then is the qualification of the "all," which common sense
requires? It means simply, "all whom I asked, all to whom I made an
appeal for assistance."[89] At the time when this letter was written,
there were several Christians in Asia Minor,--some of them known to
Timothy,--to whom St. Paul had applied for help in his imprisonment;
and, as Timothy was very well aware, they every one of them refused to
give it. And this refusal took place in Asia Minor, not in Rome. Some
have supposed that, although these unfriendly Christians were in Asia
when St. Paul wrote about them, yet it was in Rome that they "turned
away from" him. They had been in Rome, and instead of remaining there to
comfort the prisoner, they had gone away to Asia Minor. On this
supposition a difficulty has been raised, and it has been pressed as if
it told against the genuineness of the Epistle. How, it is asked, could
Timothy, who was in Ephesus, be supposed to be well aware of what took
place in Rome? And to meet this objection it has been conjectured, that
shortly before this letter was written some one had gone with news from
Rome to Ephesus. But this is to meet an imaginary difficulty with an
imaginary fact. Let us imagine nothing, and then all runs smoothly.
Every one in Asia Minor, to whom application was made on behalf of St.
Paul, "turned away from" him and refused to do what was asked. Of such a
fact as this the overseer of the Church of Ephesus could not fail to
have knowledge; and, distressing as it was, it ought not to make him
sink down into indolent despondency, but stir him up to redoubled
exertion. What the precise request was that Phygelus and Hermogenes and
the rest had refused, we do not know; but very possibly it was to go to
Rome and exert themselves on the Apostle's behalf. Of the two persons
named nothing further is known. They are mentioned as being known to
Timothy, and very possibly as being residents in Ephesus.

Now let us turn to the case of Onesiphorus, whose conduct is such a
marked contrast to these others. In the most natural way St. Paul first
of all tells Timothy what he experienced from Onesiphorus in Rome; and
then appeals to Timothy's own experience of him in Ephesus. In between
these two passages there is a sentence, inserted parenthetically, which
has been the subject of a good deal of controversy. "The Lord grant unto
him to find mercy of the Lord in that day." On the one side it is argued
that the context shows that Onesiphorus is dead, and that therefore we
have Scriptural authority for prayers for the dead: on the other that it
is by no means certain that Onesiphorus was dead at the time when St.
Paul wrote; and that, even if he was, this parenthesis is more of the
nature of a pious wish, or expression of hope, than a prayer. It need
scarcely be said that on the whole the latter is the view taken by
Protestant commentators, although by no means universally; while the
former is the interpretation which finds favour with Roman Catholics.
Scripture elsewhere is almost entirely silent on the subject; and hence
this passage is regarded as of special importance. But it ought to be
possible to approach the discussion of it without heat or prejudice.

Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view
that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. There
is not only the fact that he here speaks of "the _house_ of Onesiphorus"
in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in
connexion with the past: there is also the still more marked fact that
in the final salutations, while greetings are sent to Prisca and Aquila,
and from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, yet it is once more "the
_house_ of Onesiphorus" and not Onesiphorus himself who is saluted. This
language is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus was no longer alive,
but had a wife and children who were still living at Ephesus; but it is
not easy to explain this reference in two places to the _household_ of
Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the
individual and not the household is mentioned. Nor is this twofold
reference to his family rather than to himself the only fact which
points in this direction. There is also the character of the Apostle's
prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of
Onesiphorus' kindness to the day of judgment? Why does he not also pray
that he may be requited in this life? that he "may prosper and be in
health, even as his soul prospereth," as St. John prays for Gaius (3
John 2)? This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is
already dead. It is much less intelligible if he is still alive. It
seems, therefore, to be scarcely too much to say that there is no
serious reason for questioning the now widely accepted view that at the
time when St. Paul wrote these words Onesiphorus was among the departed.

With regard to the second point there seems to be equal absence of
serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a
prayer. It is difficult to find a term which better describes them than
the word "prayer:" and in discussing them one would have to be specially
careful in order to avoid the words "pray" and "prayer" in connexion
with them. It does not much matter what meaning we give to "the Lord" in
each case; whether both refer to Christ, or both to the Father, or one
to Christ and the other to the Father. In any case we have a prayer that
the Judge at the last day will remember those good deeds of Onesiphorus,
which the Apostle has been unable to repay, and will place them to his
account. Paul cannot requite them, but he prays that God will do so by
showing mercy upon him at the last day.[90]

Having thus concluded that, according to the more probable and
reasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by
the Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his
sanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar
prayers ourselves. But what is a similar prayer? There are many kinds of
intercessions which may be made on behalf of those who have gone before
us into the other world: and it does not follow that, because one kind
of intercession has Scriptural authority, therefore any kind of
intercession is allowable. This passage may be quoted as reasonable
evidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our
duty to pray for him: but it ought not to be quoted as authority for
such prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from
the one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of
intercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this
passage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead
are allowable, viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at
the day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others during
their life upon earth.

But is the right, which is also the duty, of praying for the departed
limited by the amount of sanction which it is possible to obtain from
this solitary passage of Scripture? Assuredly not. Two other authorities
have to be consulted,--reason and tradition.

I. This pious practice, so full of comfort to affectionate souls, is
_reasonable in itself_. Scripture, which is mercifully reticent
respecting a subject so liable to provoke unhealthy curiosity and
excitement, nevertheless does tell us plainly some facts respecting the
unseen world. (2) Those whom we call the dead are still alive. God is
still the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob: and He is not the God
of the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 32). Those who believe that
death is annihilation, and that there can be no resurrection, "do
greatly err" (Mark xii. 27). And (2) the living souls of the departed
are still conscious: their bodies are asleep in this world, but their
spirits are awake in the other. For this truth we are not dependent upon
the disputable meaning of the parable of Dives and Lazarus; although we
can hardly suppose that that parable would ever have been spoken,
unless the continued consciousness of the dead and their interest in the
living were a fact. Christ's parables are never mere fables, in which
nature is distorted in order to point a moral: His lessons are ever
drawn from God's universe as it is. But besides the parable (Luke xvi.
19-31), there is His declaration that Abraham not only "exulted" in
anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, but "he saw" that coming "and
was glad" thereat (John viii. 56). And there is His promise to the
penitent thief: "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise" (Luke xxiii. 43). Can we believe that this promise, given at
so awful a moment with such solemn assurance ("Verily I say unto thee"),
would have been made, if the robber's soul, when in Paradise, would be
unconscious of Christ's companionship? Could Christ then have "preached
unto the spirits in prison" (1 Pet iii. 19), if the spirits of those who
had died in the Flood were deprived of consciousness? And what can be
the meaning of "the souls of them that had been slain for the word of
God" crying "How long, O Master the holy and true, dost Thou not judge
and avenge our blood?" (Rev. vi. 10), if the souls of the slain slumber
in the unseen world?

It is not necessary to quote Scripture to prove that the departed are
not yet perfect. Their final consummation will not be reached until the
coming of Christ at the last great day (Heb. xi. 40).

If, then, the dead are conscious, and are not yet perfected, they are
capable of progress. They may increase in happiness, and possibly in
holiness. May we not go farther and say, that they _must_ be growing,
_must_ be progressing towards a better state; for, so far as we have
experience, there is no such thing as conscious life in a state of
stagnation? Conscious life is always either growing or decaying: and
decay is incipient death. For conscious creatures, who are incapable of
decay and death, growth seems to be a necessary attribute. We conclude,
therefore, on grounds partly of Scripture and partly of reason, that the
faithful departed are consciously progressing towards a condition of
higher perfection.

But this conclusion must necessarily carry us still farther. These
consciously developing souls are God's children and our brethren; they
are, like ourselves, members of Christ and joint-heirs with us of His
kingdom; they are inseparably united with us in "the Communion of
Saints." May we not pray for them to aid them in their progress? And if,
with St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus before us, we are convinced that
we may pray for them, does it not become our bounden duty to do so? On
what grounds can we accept the obligation of praying for the spiritual
advancement of those who are with us in the flesh, and yet refuse to
help by our prayers the spiritual advancement of those who have joined
that "great cloud of witnesses" in the unseen world, by which we are
perpetually encompassed (Heb. xii. 1)? The very fact that they witness
our prayers for them may be to them an increase of strength and joy.

II. _Tradition_ amply confirms us in the belief that this pious practice
is lawful, and binding upon all who recognize its lawfulness. The
remarkable narrative in 2 Maccabees xii. shows that this belief in a
very extreme form was common among the Jews, and publicly acted upon,
before the coming of Christ. It is highly improbable that prayers for
the dead were omitted from the public worship of the synagogue, in
which Jesus Christ so frequently took part. It is quite certain that
such prayers are found in every early Christian liturgy, and to this day
form part of the liturgies in use throughout the greater portion of
Christendom. And, although the medieval abuses connected with such
prayers induced the reformers of our own liturgy almost, if not quite,
entirely to omit them, yet the Church of England has never set any
bounds to the liberty of its members in this respect. Each one of us is
free in this matter, and therefore has the responsibility of using or
neglecting what the whole of the primitive Church, and the large
majority of Christians throughout all these centuries, have believed to
be a means of advancing the peace and glory of Christ's kingdom. About
the practice of the primitive Church there can be no question. Doubt has
been thrown upon the liturgies, because it has been said that some
portions are certainly of much later origin than the rest, and therefore
these prayers may be later insertions and corruptions. But that cannot
be so; for liturgies do not stand alone. In this matter they have the
support of a chain of Christian writers beginning with Tertullian in the
second century, and also of early inscriptions in the catacombs. About
the meagre allusions to the departed in our own liturgy there is more
room for doubt: but perhaps the most that can safely be asserted is
this;--that here and there sentences have been worded in such a way that
it is possible for those, who wish to do so, to include the faithful
departed in the prayer as well as the living. Bishop Cosin has given his
authority to this interpretation of the prayer that "we and all Thy
whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of
His passion." By this, he says, "is to be understood, as well those
that have been here before, and those that shall be hereafter, as those
that are now members of it:" and as one of the revisers his authority is
great. And the prayer in the Burial Service, "that we, with all those
that are departed in the true faith of Thy holy name, may have our
perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul," is equally
patient of this meaning, even if it does not fairly demand it. For we do
not pray that we may have our consummation and bliss with the departed;
which might imply that they are enjoying these things now, and that we
desire to join them; but we pray that we with the departed may have our
consummation and bliss; which includes them in the prayer. And the
petition in the Litany, "remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the
offences of our forefathers," may, or may not, be a prayer for our
forefathers, according to the way in which we understand it.

All this seems to show that neither Scripture nor the English Church
forbids prayer for the departed; that, on the contrary, both of them
appear to give a certain amount of sanction to it: and that what they
allow, reason commends, and tradition recommends most strongly. It is
for each one of us to decide for himself whether or no he will take part
in the charitable work thus placed before him.[91]

FOOTNOTES:

[89] See below on "All forsook me," in No. XXXVII, p. 420.

[90] With the double use of Lord here, compare Exod. xxxiv. 9, where
Moses prays, "O Lord, let the Lord, I pray Thee, go in the midst of us."
Comp. also Gen. xix. 24.

[91] Sec J. M. Neale, _Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement,
St. Chrysostom_, etc., 1859, pp. 216-224; C. E. Hammond, _Liturgies
Eastern and Western_, 1878, pp. 45, 75, 113, 156, 183, 217, etc.; E.
Burbridge, _Liturgies and Offices of the Church_, 1885, pp. 34, 222,
249; M. Plummer, _Observations on the Book of Common Prayer_, 1847, pp.
125-127; _Church Quarterly Review_, April 1880, pp. 1-25; H. M. Luckock,
_After Death_, 1879: also various articles in the _Dict. of Christ.
Antiquities_, 1875, 1880.




CHAPTER XXIX.

_THE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE
FAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH._

    "Thou therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace that is in
    Christ Jesus. And the things which thou hast heard from me among
    many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be
    able to teach others also"--2 TIM. ii. 1, 2.


In this tenderly affectionate address we have a very early indication of
the beginnings of Christian _tradition_ and Christian _schools_, two
subjects intimately connected with one another. St. Paul having pointed
out as a warning to his "child" Timothy the cold or cowardly behaviour
of those in Asia who had turned away from him, and as an example the
affectionate courage of Onesiphorus, returns to the charge of which this
letter is so full, that Timothy is "not to be ashamed of the testimony
of our Lord," but be willing to "suffer hardship with the gospel
according to the power of God" (i. 8). "_Thou therefore_, my child,"
with these instances in mind on the one hand and on the other, "be
inwardly strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus." In his own
strength he will be able to do nothing; but in the grace which Christ
freely bestows on all believers who ask it of Him, Timothy will be able
to find all that he needs for the strengthening of his own character and
for the instruction of others. And here St. Paul, in a way thoroughly
natural in one who is writing a letter which is personal rather than
official, diverges for a moment to give utterance to the idea which
passes through his mind of securing permanence in the instruction of the
faithful. Possibly it was in reference to this duty that he feared the
natural despondency and sensitiveness of Timothy. Timothy would be
likely to shrink from such work, or to do it in a half-hearted way. Or
again the thought that this letter is to summon Timothy to come to him
is in his mind (iv. 9, 21), and he forthwith exhorts him to make proper
provision for continuity of sound teaching in the Church committed to
his care. "The things which thou hast heard from me among many
witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also." In other words, before leaving his flock in order to
visit his spiritual father and friend, he is to secure the establishment
of apostolic tradition. And in order to do this he is to establish a
school,--a school of picked scholars, intelligent enough to appreciate,
and trustworthy enough to preserve, all that has been handed down from
Christ and His Apostles respecting the essentials of the Christian
faith. There is only one Gospel,--that which the Apostles have preached
ever since the Ascension. It is so well known, so well authenticated
both by intrinsic sublimity and external testimony, that no one would be
justified in accepting a different Gospel, even upon the authority of an
angel from heaven. A second Gospel is an impossibility. That which is
not identical with the Gospel which St. Paul and the other Apostles have
preached would be no Gospel at all (Gal. i. 6-9). And this Divine and
Apostolic Gospel is the Gospel which has been committed to Timothy's
charge. Let him take all reasonable care for its preservation.

For in the first place, such care was commanded from the outset. Christ
has promised that His truth shall continue and shall prevail. But He has
not exempted Christians from the duty of preserving and propagating it.
He, Who is the Truth, has declared that He is ever with His Church, even
unto the end of the world (Matt. xxviii. 20); and in fulfilment of this
promise He has bestowed the Spirit of truth upon it. But He has nowhere
hinted that His Church is to leave the cause of His Gospel to take care
of itself. On the contrary, at the very time that He promised to be
alway with His disciples, He prefaced this promise with the command, "Go
ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, ... teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you;" as if His promise
were contingent upon their fulfilment of this charge. At the very moment
when the Church received the truth, it was told that it had the
responsibility of safeguarding it and making it known.

And, secondly, experience has proved how entirely necessary such care
is. The Gospel cannot be superseded by any announcement possessing a
larger measure of truth and authority. So far as the present
dispensation goes, its claims are absolute and final. But it may be
seriously misunderstood; it may be corrupted by large admixture of
error; it may be partially or even totally forgotten; it may be
supplanted by some meretricious counterfeit. There were Thessalonians
who had supposed that the Gospel exempted them from the obligation of
working to earn their bread. There were Christians at Corinth and
Ephesus who had confounded the liberty of the Gospel with antinomian
license. There was the Church of Sardis which had so completely
forgotten what it had received, that no works of its doing were found
fulfilled before God, and the remnant of truth and life which survived
was ready to perish. And the Churches of Galatia had been in danger of
casting on one side the glories of the Gospel and returning to the
bondage of the Law. Through ignorance, through neglect, through wilful
misrepresentation or interested opposition, the truth might be obscured,
or depraved, or defeated; and there were few places where such
disastrous results were more possible than at Ephesus. Its restless
activity in commerce and speculation; its worldliness; the seductiveness
of its forms of paganism;--all these constituted an atmosphere in which
Christian truth, unless carefully protected, would be likely to become
tainted or be ignored. Even without taking into account the proposal
that Timothy should leave Ephesus for awhile and visit the Apostle in
his imprisonment at Rome, it was no more than necessary precaution that
he should endeavour to secure the establishment of a permanent centre
for preserving and handing on in its integrity the faith once for all
committed to the saints.

"The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses." The
last three words are remarkable; and they are still more remarkable in
the original Greek. St. Paul does not say simply "_in the presence of_
many witnesses" (=enopion= or =paronton pollon martyron=) but "_by means
of_ many witnesses" (=dia pollon martyron=). In the First Epistle (vi.
12) he had appealed to the good confession which Timothy had made "in
the sight of many witnesses." As regards Timothy's confession these were
witnesses and no more. They were able for ever afterwards to testify
that he had made it; but they did not help him to make it. The
confession was his, not theirs, although no doubt they assented to it
and approved it; and their presence in no way affected its goodness. But
here those who were present were something more than mere witnesses of
what the Apostle said to Timothy; they were an integral part of the
proceeding. Their presence was an element without which the Apostle's
teaching would have assumed a different character. They were not a mere
audience, able to testify as to what was said; they were guarantees of
the instruction which was given. The sentiments and opinions which St
Paul might express in private to his disciple, and the authoritative
teaching which he delivered to him in public under the sanction of many
witnesses, were two different things and stood on different grounds.
Timothy had often heard from his friend his personal views on a variety
of subjects; and he had often heard from the Apostle his official
testimony, delivered solemnly in the congregation, as to the truths of
the Gospel. It is this latter body of instruction, thus amply
guaranteed, of which Timothy is to take such care. He is to treat it as
a treasure committed to his charge, a precious legacy which he holds in
trust. And in his turn he is to commit it to the keeping of trustworthy
persons, who will know its value, and be capable of preserving it intact
and of handing it on to others as trustworthy as themselves.

Some expositors interpret the passage as referring, not to the Apostle's
public teaching as a whole, but to the instructions which he gave to
Timothy at his ordination respecting the proper discharge of his office;
and the aorist tense =ekousas= favours the view that some definite
occasion is intended (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6). In that case
the Apostle is here showing anxiety for the establishment of a sound
tradition respecting the duties of ministers,--a very important portion,
but by no means the main portion of the teaching which he had imparted.
But the aorist does not compel us to confine the allusion to some one
event, such as Timothy's ordination or baptism; and it seems more
reasonable to understand the charge here given as a continuation of that
which occurs towards the close of the first chapter. There he says,
"Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard" (=ekousas=)
"from me;" and here he charges Timothy not merely to hold this pattern
of sound words fast himself, but to take care that it does not perish
with him.

This, then, may be considered as the earliest trace of the formation of
_a theological school_,--a school which has for its object not merely
the instruction of the ignorant, but the protection and maintenance of a
definite body of doctrine: That which the Apostle, when he was in
Ephesus, publicly taught, under the sanction of a multitude of
witnesses, is to be preserved and handed on without compromise or
corruption as a pattern of wholesome doctrine. There are unhealthy and
even deadly distortions of the truth in the air, and unless care is
taken to preserve the truth, it may easily become possible to confuse
weak and ignorant minds as to what are the essentials of the Christian
faith.

The question as to the earliest methods of Christian instruction and the
precautions taken for the preservation of Apostolic tradition is one of
the many particulars in which our knowledge of the primitive Church is
so tantalizingly meagre. A small amount of information is given us in
the New Testament, for the most part quite incidentally, as here; and
then the history runs underground, and does not reappear for a century
or more. The first few generations of Christians did not contain a large
number of persons who were capable of producing anything very
considerable in the way of literature. Of those who had the ability, not
many had the leisure or the inclination to write. It was more important
to teach by word of mouth than with the pen; and where was the use of
leaving records of what was being done, when (as was generally believed)
Christ would almost immediately appear to put an end to the existing
dispensation? Out of what was written much, as we know, has perished,
including even documents of Apostolic origin (Luke i. 1, 2; 1 Cor. v. 9;
3 John 9). Therefore, much as we lament the scantiness of the evidence
that has come down to us, there is nothing surprising about it. The
marvel is, not that so little contemporary history has reached us, but
that so much has done so. And what it behoves us to do is to make a
sober use of such testimony as we possess.

We shall be doing no more than drawing a reasonable conclusion from the
passage before us if we infer, that what St. Paul enjoins Timothy to do
at Ephesus was done in many other Churches also, partly in consequence
of this Apostolic injunction, and partly because what he enjoins would
be suggested in many cases by necessity and common sense. This inference
is confirmed by the fact that it is precisely to the continuity of
doctrine secured by a regular succession of authorized and official
teachers in the different Churches that appeal is continually made by
some of the earliest Christian writers whose works have come down to us.
Thus Hegesippus (c. A.D. 170) gives as the result of careful personal
investigations at Corinth, Rome, and elsewhere, "But in every succession
(of bishops) and in every city there prevails just what the Law and the
Prophets and the Lord proclaim" (Eus., H.E., IV. xxii. 3). Irenaeus, in
his great work against heresies, which was completed about A.D. 185,
says, "We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles
themselves in the different Churches, and their successors down to our
own day; and they neither taught nor acknowledged any such stuff as is
raved by these men.... But since it would be a long business in a work
of this kind to enumerate the successions in all the Churches," he
selects as a primary example that of "the very great and ancient Church,
well known to all men, founded and established by the two most glorious
Apostles Peter and Paul." After giving the succession of Roman bishops
from Linus to Eleutherus, he glances at Smyrna, presided over by St.
John's disciple, Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippian Church shows
what he believed, and at Ephesus, founded as a Church by St. Paul and
presided over by St. John, until the times of Trajan (III. iii. 1-3).
Again he says, that, although there may be different opinions respecting
single passages of Scripture, yet there can be none as to the sum total
of its contents, viz. "that which the Apostles have deposited in the
Church as the fulness of truth, and which has been preserved in the
Church by the succession of bishops." And again, still more definitely,
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world even to the
ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples
the belief in one God, Father Almighty, etc.... Having received this
preaching and this belief, the Church, as we said before, although
dispersed about the whole world, carefully guards it, as if dwelling in
one house; and she believes these things, as if she had but one soul and
one and the same heart, and with perfect concord she preaches them and
teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For
although the languages up and down the world are different, yet the
import of the tradition is one and the same. For neither the Churches
which are established in Germany believe anything different or hand down
anything different, nor in Spain, nor in Gaul, nor throughout the East,
nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those established about the central
regions of the earth.... And neither will he who is very mighty in word
among those who preside in the Churches utter different [doctrines] from
these (for no one is above the Master), nor will he who is weak in
speaking lessen the tradition" (I. x. 1, 2). Clement of Alexandria (c.
A.D. 200) tells us that he had studied in Greece, Italy, and the East,
under teachers from Ionia, Coelesyria, Assyria, and Palestine; and he
writes of his teachers thus: "These men, preserving the true tradition
of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, from John and
Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father (but few are they
who are like their fathers), came by God's providence even to us, to
deposit among us those seeds which are ancestral and apostolic"
(_Strom._, I. p. 322, ed. Potter). Tertullian in like manner appeals to
the unbroken tradition, reaching back to the Apostles, in a variety of
Churches: "Run over the Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs of
the Apostles still preside in their places, in which their own authentic
writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each
of them;" and he mentions in particular Corinth, Philippi,
Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome. "Is it likely that Churches of such
number and weight should have _strayed_ into one and the same faith?"
(_De Praes. Haer._, xxviii., xxxvi.).

This evidence is quite sufficient to prove that what St. Paul charged
Timothy to do at Ephesus was done not only there but at all the chief
centres of the Christian Church: viz., that everywhere great care was
taken to provide continuity of authoritative teaching respecting the
articles of the faith. It indicates also that as a rule the bishop in
each place was regarded as the custodian of the deposit, who was to be
chiefly responsible for its preservation. But the precise method or
methods (for there was probably different machinery in different places)
by which this was accomplished, cannot now be ascertained. It is not
until near the end of the second century that we begin to get anything
like precise information as to the way in which Christian instruction
was given, whether to believers or heathen, in one or two of the
principal centres of Christendom; _e.g._, Alexandria, Caesarea, and
Jerusalem.

St Paul himself had ruled that a bishop must be "apt to teach" (1 Tim.
iii. 2; comp. Tit. i. 9); and although we have no reason to suppose that
as a rule the bishop was the only or even the chief instructor, yet he
probably selected the teachers, as Timothy is directed to do here. In
the great Catechetical School of Alexandria the appointment of what we
should now call the Rector or senior professor was in the hands of the
bishop. And, as we might expect, bishops selected clergy for this most
important office. It forms one of the many contrasts between primitive
Christianity and heathenism, that Christians did, and pagans did not,
regard it as one of the functions of the priesthood to give instruction
in the traditional faith. The heathen clergy, if consulted, would give
information respecting the due performance of rites and ceremonies, and
the import of omens and dreams; but of their giving systematic teaching
as to what was to be believed respecting the gods, there is no trace.

It is more than probable that a great deal of the instruction both to
candidates for baptism and candidates for the ministry was from very
early times reduced to something like a formula; even before the dangers
of corruption arising from Gnosticism rendered this necessary, we may
believe that it took place. We know that the Gospel history was in the
first instance taught orally; and the oral instruction very soon fell
into something that approached to a stereotyped form. This would
probably be the case with regard to statements of the essentials of the
Christian faith. In Ignatius (_Philad._, viii.), Justin Martyr (_Apol._,
I. 61, 66), and in Irenaeus (_Haer._, I. x. 1) we can trace what may well
have been formulas in common use. But it is not until the middle of the
fourth century that we get a complete example of the systematic
instruction given by a Christian teacher, in the Catechetical Lectures
of St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, delivered, however, before his
episcopate.

But what is _certain_ respecting the earliest ages of the Church is
this; that in every Church regular instruction in the faith was given by
persons in authority specially selected for this work, and that frequent
intercourse between the Churches showed that the substance of the
instruction given was in all cases the same, whether the form of words
was identical or not. These facts, which do not by any means stand
alone, are conclusive against the hypothesis, that between the
Crucifixion and the middle of the second century, a complete revolution
in the creed was effected; and that the traditional belief of Christians
is not that which Jesus of Nazareth taught, but a perversion of it which
owes its origin mainly to the overwhelming influence of His professed
follower, but virtual supplanter, Saul of Tarsus.




CHAPTER XXX.

_THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC CONTEST; AS
HUSBANDRY._

    "Suffer hardships with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No
    soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life;
    that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier. And if also a
    man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have
    contended lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be the first
    to partake of the fruits. Consider what I say; for the Lord shall
    give thee understanding in all things."--2 TIM. ii. 3-7.


St. Paul represents the Christian life and the Christian ministry under
a variety of figures. Sometimes as _husbandry_; as when he tells the
Galatians that "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap;" and
that "in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Gal. vi. 7, 9); or
when he reminds the Corinthians that "he that ploweth ought to plow in
hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking" (1 Cor. ix.
10). Sometimes as an _athletic contest_; as when he tells the
Corinthians that "every man who striveth in the games is temperate in
all things" (1 Cor ix. 25); or the Ephesians that "our wrestling is not
against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the
powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual
hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. vi. 12). Sometimes,
and most frequently, as _military service_; as when he charges the
Thessalonians to "put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a
helmet the hope of salvation" (1 Thess. v. 8); or when he writes to the
Philippians of Epaphroditus as his "fellow-soldier" (Phil. ii. 25).

In the passage before us he makes use of all three figures: but the one
of which he seems to have been most fond is the one which he places
first,--that of military service. "Suffer hardships with me," or "take
thy share in suffering," as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier
on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may
please him who enrolled him as a soldier." He had used the same kind of
language in the First Epistle, urging Timothy to "war the good warfare"
and to "fight the good fight of faith" (i. 18; vi. 12). Every Christian,
and especially every Christian minister, may be regarded as a soldier,
as an athlete, as a husbandman; but of the three similitudes the one
which fits him best is that of a soldier.

Even if this were not so, St. Paul's fondness for the metaphor would be
very intelligible.

1. Military service was very familiar to him, especially in his
imprisonments. He had been arrested by soldiers at Jerusalem, escorted
by troops to Caesarea, sent under the charge of a centurion and a band of
soldiers to Rome, and had been kept there under military surveillance
for many months in the first Roman imprisonment, and for we know not how
long in the second. And we may assume it as almost certain that the
place of his imprisonment was near the praetorian camp. This would
probably be so ordered for the convenience of the soldiers who had
charge of him. He therefore had very large opportunities of observing
very closely all the details of ordinary military life. He must
frequently have seen soldiers under drill, on parade, on guard, on the
march; must have watched them cleaning, mending, and sharpening their
weapons; putting their armour on, putting it off. Often during hours of
enforced inactivity he must have compared these details with the details
of the Christian life, and noticed how admirably they corresponded with
one another.

2. Military service was not only very familiar to himself; it was also
quite sufficiently familiar to those whom he addressed. Roman troops
were everywhere to be seen throughout the length and breadth of the
Empire, and nearly every member of society knew something of the kind of
life which a soldier of the Empire had to lead.

3. The Roman army was the one great organization of which it was still
possible, in that age of boundless social corruption, to think and speak
with right-minded admiration and respect. No doubt it was often the
instrument of wholesale cruelties as it pushed forward its conquests, or
strengthened its hold, over resisting or rebelling nations. But it
promoted discipline and _esprit de corps_. Even during active warfare it
checked individual license; and when the conquest was over it was the
representative and mainstay of order and justice against high-handed
anarchy and wrong. Its officers several times appear in the narrative
portions of the New Testament, and they make a favourable impression
upon us. If they are fair specimens of the military men in the Roman
Empire at that period, then the Roman army must have been indeed a fine
service. There is the centurion whose faith excited even Christ's
admiration; the centurion who confessed Christ's righteousness and
Divine origin at the crucifixion; Cornelius, of the Italian cohort, to
whom St. Peter was sent; C. Lysias, the chief captain or tribune who
rescued St. Paul, first from the mob, and then from the conspiracy to
assassinate him; and Julius, who out of consideration for St. Paul
prevented the soldiers from killing the prisoners in the shipwreck.

But the reasons for the Apostle's preference for this similitude go
deeper than all this.

4. Military service involves self-sacrifice, endurance, discipline,
vigilance, obedience, ready co-operation with others, sympathy,
enthusiasm, loyalty. Tertullian in his _Address to Martyrs_ draws with
characteristic incisiveness the stern parallel between the severity of
the soldier's life and that of the Christian. "Be it so, that even to
Christians a prison is distasteful. We were called to active service
under the Living God from the very moment of our response to the
baptismal formula. No soldier comes to the war surrounded by luxuries,
nor goes into action from a comfortable bed-room, but from the
make-shift and narrow tent, where every kind of hardness and severity
and unpleasantness is to be found. Even in peace soldiers learn betimes
to suffer warfare by toil and discomforts, by marching in arms, running
over the drill-ground, working at trench-making, constructing the
tortoise, till the sweat runs again. In the sweat of the brow all things
are done, lest body and mind should shrink at changes from shade to
sunshine, and from sunshine to frost, from the dress of ease to the coat
of mail, from stillness to shouting, from quiet to the din of war. In
like manner do ye, O blessed ones, account whatever is hard in this your
lot as discipline of the powers of your mind and body. Ye are about to
enter for the good fight, in which the Living God gives the prizes, and
the Holy Spirit prepares the combatants, and the crown is the eternal
prize of an angel's nature, citizenship in heaven, glory for ever and
ever. Therefore your trainer, Jesus Christ, Who has anointed you with
the Spirit and led you forth to this arena, has seen good to separate
you from a state of freedom for rougher treatment, that power may be
made strong in you. For the athletes also are set apart for stricter
discipline, that they may have time to build up their strength. They are
kept from luxury, from daintier meats, from too pleasant drink; they are
driven, tormented, distressed. The harder their labours in training, the
greater their hopes of victory. And they do it, says the Apostle, that
they may obtain a corruptible crown. We, with an eternal crown to
obtain, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that we may be led
to the arena of the judgment-seat well disciplined by every kind of
discomfort: because virtue is built up by hardness, but by softness is
overthrown" (_Ad Mart._, iii). It will be observed that Tertullian
passes by an easy transition from training for military service to
training for athletic contests. The whole passage is little more than a
graphic amplification of what St. Paul writes to Timothy.

5. But military service implies, what athletic contests do not,
vigilant, unwearying, and organized opposition to a vigilant,
unwearying, and organized foe. In many athletic contests one's opponent
is a rival rather than an enemy. He may defeat us; but he inflicts no
injury. He may win the prizes; but he takes nothing of ours. And even in
the more deadly conflicts of the amphitheatre the enemy is very
different from an enemy in war. The combat is between individuals, not
armies; it is the exception and not the rule; it is strictly limited in
time and place, not for all times and all places; it is a duel and not a
campaign,--still less a prolonged war. Military service is either
perpetual warfare or perpetual preparation for it. And just such is the
Christian life: it is either a conflict, or a preparation for one. The
soldier, so long as he remains in the service, can never say, "I may lay
aside my arms and my drill: all enemies are conquered: there will never
be another war." And the Christian, so long as he remains in this world,
can never think that he may cease to watch and to pray, because the
victory is won, and he will never be tempted any more. It is for this
reason that he cannot allow himself to be "entangled in the affairs of
this life." The soldier on service avoids this error: he knows that it
would interfere with his promotion. The Christian must avoid it at least
as carefully; for he is always on service, and the loss of promotion is
the loss of eternal life.

Observe that St. Paul does not suggest that Christians should keep aloof
from the affairs of this life, which would be a flat contradiction of
what he teaches elsewhere. The Christian is to "do his own business, and
to work with his hands, that he may walk honestly toward them that are
without, and may have need of nothing" (1 Thess. iv. 11, 12). He has a
duty to perform "in the affairs of this life," but in doing it he is not
to be _entangled_ in them. They are means, not ends; and must be made to
help him on, not suffered to keep him back. If they become entanglements
instead of opportunities, he will soon lose that state of constant
preparation and alertness, which is the indispensable condition of
success.

The same thought is brought out in the second metaphor by the word
"lawfully." The athlete who competes in the games does not receive a
crown, unless he has contended _lawfully_, _i.e._, according to rule
(=nomimos, nomos=). Even if he seems to be victorious, he nevertheless
is not crowned, because he has violated the well-known conditions. And
what is the rule, what are the conditions of the Christian's contest?
"If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow Me." If we wish to share Christ's victory, we must be
ready to share His suffering. No cross, no crown. To try to withdraw
oneself from all hardship and annoyance, to attempt to avoid all that is
painful or disagreeable, is a violation of the rules of the arena. This,
it would appear, Timothy was in some respects tempted to do: and
timidity and despondency must not be allowed to get the upper hand. Not
that what is painful, or distasteful, or unpopular, is necessarily
right; but it is certainly not necessarily wrong: and to try to avoid
everything that one dislikes is to ensure being fatally wrong. So that,
as Chrysostom says, "it behoves thee not to complain, if thou endurest
hardness; but to complain, if thou dost not endure hardness."

Chrysostom and some modern commentators make the striving lawfully
include not only the observance of the rules of the contest, but the
previous training and preparation. "What is meant by _lawfully_? It is
not enough that he is anointed, and even engages, unless he complies
with all the regulations of training with respect to diet, temperance,
and sobriety, and all the rules of the wrestling-school. Unless, in
short, he go through all that is befitting a wrestler, he is not
crowned." This makes good sense, if "is not crowned" be interpreted to
mean "is not likely to be first," rather than "does not receive the
crown, even if he is first." A victorious athlete is rightly deprived
of the reward, if he has violated the conditions of the contest: but no
one ever yet heard of a victor being refused the prize because he had
not trained properly. Moreover, there are enough examples to show that
"lawfully" (=nomimos=) does sometimes include the training as well as
the contest.

But this does not seem to be St Paul's meaning. In the first similitude
he takes no account of the time which precedes the soldier's service,
during which he may be supposed to be preparing himself for it. The
Christian's life and the soldier's service are regarded as co-extensive,
and there is no thought of any previous period. So also in the second
similitude. The Christian's life and the athlete's contest are regarded
as co-extensive, and no account is taken of anything that may have
preceded. Baptism is entering the lists, not entering the
training-school; and the only rules under consideration are the rules of
the arena.

No doubt there are analogies between the training-school and Christian
discipline, and St. Paul sometimes makes use of them (1 Cor. ix. 25,
27); but they do not seem to be included in the present metaphor.

But it is about the third similitude that there has been most
discussion. "The husbandman that laboureth must be the first to partake
of the fruits:" not, as the A. V., "must be first partaker of the
fruits;" which seems to imply that he must partake of the fruits before
he labours. What is the meaning of "first"? Some commentators resort to
the rather desperate hypothesis that this word is misplaced, as it
sometimes is in careless writing and conversation: and they suppose that
what St. Paul means is, that "the husbandman, who labours first, must
then partake of the fruits," or, more clearly, "the husbandman, who
wishes to partake of the fruits, must first of all labour." The margin
of the A. V. suggests a similar translation. But this is to credit the
Apostle with great clumsiness of expression. And even if this
transposition of the "first" could be accepted as probable, there still
remains the fact that we have the present and not the aorist participle
(=kopionta= and not =kopiasanta=). Had St. Paul meant what is supposed, he
would have said "The husbandman who _has_ first _laboured_," not "who
_labours_ first." But there is no transposition of the "first." The
order of the Greek shows that the emphatic word is "labours." "It is the
_labouring_ husbandman who must be the first to partake of the fruits."
It is the man who works hard and with a will, and not the one who works
listlessly or looks despondently on, who, according to all moral fitness
and the nature of things, ought to have the first share in the fruits.
This interpretation does justice to the Greek as it stands, without
resorting to any manipulation of the Apostle's language. Moreover, it
brings the saying into perfect harmony with the context.

It is quite evident that the three metaphors are parallel to one another
and are intended to teach the same lesson. In each of them we have two
things placed side by side,--a prize and the method to be observed in
obtaining it. Do you, as a Christian soldier on service, wish for the
approbation of Him who has enrolled you? Then you must avoid the
entanglements which would interfere with your service. Do you, as a
Christian athlete, wish for the crown of victory? Then you must not
evade the rules of the contest. Do you, as a Christian husbandman, wish
to be among the first to enjoy the harvest? Then you must be foremost
in toil. And the Apostle draws attention to the importance of the lesson
of self-devotion and endurance, inculcated under these three impressive
figures, by adding, "Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee
understanding in all things." That is, He has confidence that His
disciple will be enabled to draw the right conclusion from these
metaphors; and having done so, will have grace to apply it to his own
case.

Timothy is not the only Christian, or the only minister, who is in
danger of being disgusted, and disheartened, and dismayed, by the
coldness and apathy of professing friends, and by the hostility and
contempt of secret or open enemies. We all of us need at times to be
reminded that here we have no abiding city, but that our citizenship is
in heaven. And we all of us are at times inclined to murmur, because the
rest for which we so often yearn, is not given us here;--a rest from
toil, a rest from temptation, and a rest from sin. Such a sabbath-rest
is the prize in store for us; but we cannot have it here. And if we
desire to have it hereafter, we must keep the rules of the arena; and
the rules are _self-control_, _self-sacrifice_, _and work_.




CHAPTER XXXI.

_THE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE INCARNATION.--THE
GOSPEL OF ST. PAUL._

    "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David,
    according to my gospel: wherein I suffer hardship unto bonds, as a
    malefactor; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all
    things for the elects' sake, that they also may obtain the salvation
    which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."--2 TIM. ii. 8-10.


These words are a continuation of the same subject. They are additional
thoughts supplied to the Apostle's beloved disciple to induce him to
take courage and to bear willingly and thankfully whatever difficulties
and sufferings the preaching of the gospel in all its fulness may
involve. In the three metaphors just preceding, St. Paul has indicated
that there is nothing amazing, nothing that ought to cause perplexity or
despondency, in the fact that ministers of the word have to encounter
much opposition and danger. On the contrary, such things are the very
conditions of the situation; they are the very rules of the course. One
would have to suspect that there was something seriously amiss, if they
did not occur; and without them there would be no chance of reward. Here
he goes on to point out that this hardship and suffering is very far
from being mere hardship and suffering; it has its bright side and its
compensations, even in this life.

Throughout this section it is well worth while to notice the very
considerable improvements which the Revisers have made in it. One or two
of these have been already noticed; but for convenience some of the
principal instances are here collected together.

"Suffer hardship with me," or "Take thy part in suffering hardship," is
better than "Thou therefore endure hardship," which while inserting a
spurious "therefore," omits the important intimation that the hardship
to which Timothy is invited is one which others are enduring, and which
he is called upon, not to bear alone, but to share. "No soldier on
service" is better than "No man that warreth," and "if also a man
contend in the games" is more definite than the vague "if a man also
strive for masteries." The ambiguity of "must be first partaker of the
fruits" is avoided in "must be the first to partake of the fruits." But
perhaps none of these corrections are so important as those in the
passage now before us. "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David,
was raised from the dead, according to my gospel," gives quite a wrong
turn to St. Paul's language. It puts the clauses in the wrong order, and
gives an erroneous impression as to what is to be remembered. Timothy is
charged to "remember Jesus Christ;" and in remembering Him he is to
think of Him as one Who is "risen from the dead," and Who is also "of
the seed of David." These are central facts of the Gospel which St. Paul
has always preached; they have been his support in all his sufferings;
and they will be the same support to the disciple as they have been to
the master.

"Remember Jesus Christ." Every Christian, who has to endure what seem to
him to be hardships, will sooner or later fall back upon this
remembrance. He is not the first, and not the chief sufferer in the
world. There is One Who has undergone hardships, compared with which
those of other men sink into nothingness; and Who has expressly told
those Who wish to be His disciples, that they must follow Him along the
path of suffering. It is specially in this respect that the servant is
not above his Lord. And just in proportion as we are true servants will
the remembrance of Jesus Christ help us to welcome what He lays upon us
as proof that He recognizes and accepts our service.

But merely to remember Jesus Christ as a Master Who has suffered, and
Who has made suffering a condition of service, will not be a permanently
sustaining or comforting thought, if it ends there. Therefore St. Paul
says to his perplexed and desponding delegate, "Remember Jesus Christ as
one _risen from the dead_." Jesus Christ has not only endured every kind
of suffering, including its extreme form, death, but He has conquered it
all by rising again. He is not only the sinless Sufferer, but also the
triumphant Victor over death and hell. He has set us an example of
heroic endurance in obedience to the will of God; but He has also
secured for us that our endurance in imitation of Him shall be crowned
with victory. Had Christ's mission ended on Calvary, He would but have
given to the world a purified form of Stoicism, a refined "philosophy of
suffering;" and His teaching would have failed, as Stoicism failed,
because a mere philosophy of suffering is quickly proved by experience
to be a "philosophy of despair." Renan remarks with truth, that the
gospel of Marcus Aurelius fortifies, but does not console: and all
teaching is doomed from the outset, which comes to a groaning and
travailing humanity without any consolations to bestow. What is the
thought which through long centuries has wrung, and is still wringing
millions of human hearts with anguish? It is the thought of the
existence and not only the existence but the apparent _predominance_, of
evil. Everywhere experience seems to teach us that evil of every kind,
physical, intellectual, and moral, holds the field and appears likely to
hold it. To allow oneself to be mastered by this thought is to be on the
road to doubting God's moral government of the world. What is the
antidote to it? "Remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead." When
has evil ever been so completely triumphant over good as when it
succeeded in getting the Prophet of Nazareth nailed to the tree, like
some vile and noxious animal? That was the hour of success for the
malignant Jewish hierarchy and for the spiritual powers of darkness. But
it was an hour to which very strict limits were placed. Very soon He Who
had been dismissed to the grave by a cruel and shameful death, defeated
and disgraced, rose again from it triumphant, not only over Jewish
priests and Roman soldiers, but over death and the cause of death; that
is, over every kind of evil--pain, and ignorance, and sin. It was for
that very purpose that He laid down His life, that He might take it
again: and it was for that reason that His Father loved Him, because He
had received the commandment to lay it down and take it again from His
Father (John x. 17, 18).

But "to remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead" does more than
this. It not only shows us that the evil against which we have such a
weary struggle in this life, both in others and in ourselves, is not (in
spite of depressing appearances) permanently triumphant; it also assures
us that there is another and a better life in which the good cause will
be supreme, and supreme without the possibility of disaster, of even of
contest. We talk in a conventional way of death as the country "from
whose bourne no traveller returns:" but we are wrong. We do not mean it
so; yet this saying, if pressed, would carry with it a denial of a fact,
which is better attested than any fact in ancient history. One Traveller
_has_ returned; and His return is no extraordinary accident or
exceptional and solitary success. It is a representative return and a
typical success. What the Son of Man has done, other sons of men can do,
and will do. The solidarity between the human race and the Second Adam,
between the Church and its Head, is such, that the victory of the Leader
carries with it the victory of the whole band. The breach made in the
gates of death is one through which the whole army of Christ's followers
may pass out into eternal life, free from death's power for evermore.
This thought is full of comfort and encouragement to those who feel
themselves almost overwhelmed by the perplexities, and contradictions,
and sorrows of this life. However grievous this life may be, it has this
merciful condition attached to it, that it lasts only for a short time;
and then the risen Christ leads us into a life which is free from all
trouble, and which knows no end. The miseries of this life are lessened
by the knowledge that they cannot last long. The blessedness of the life
to come is perfected by the fact that it is eternal.

Once more, to "remember Jesus Christ as one risen from the dead," is to
remember One Who claimed to be the promised Saviour of the world, and
Who _proved His claim_. By its countless needs, by many centuries of
yearning, by its consciousness of failure and of guilt, the whole human
race had been led to look forward to the coming of some great Deliverer,
Who would rescue mankind from its hopeless descent down the path of sin
and retribution, as a _possibility_. By the express promise of Almighty
God, made to the first generation of mankind, and renewed again and
again to patriarchs and prophets, the chosen people had been taught to
look forward to the coming of a Saviour as a _certainty_. And Jesus of
Nazareth had claimed to be this longed for and expected Deliverer, the
Desire of all nations and the Saviour of the world. "I that speak unto
thee am He" (John iv. 26). By His mighty works, and still more by His
life-giving words, He had shown that He had Divine credentials in
support of His claim: but not until He rose again from the dead was His
claim absolutely proved. It was the proof which He Himself volunteered.
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (John ii.
19). "There shall no sign be given but the sign of Jonah the prophet:
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth" (Matt. xii. 39, 40), and then return again to the light of
day as Jonah did. He had raised others from the dead; but so had Elijah
and Elisha done. That proved no more than that He was a prophet as
mighty as they. But no one before Jesus had ever raised Himself. If His
Messiahship was doubtful before, all doubt vanished on Easter morning.

And this leads St. Paul on to the second point which his downcast
disciple is to remember in connexion with Jesus Christ. He is to
remember Him as "of the seed of David." He is not only truly God, but
truly man. He was risen from the dead, and yet He was born of flesh and
blood, and born of that royal line of which Timothy, who "from a babe
had known the sacred writings," had many times heard and read. The
Resurrection and the Incarnation;--those are the two facts on which a
faltering minister of the Gospel is to hold fast, in order to comfort
his heart and strengthen his steps.

It is worth noting that St. Paul places the Resurrection before the
Incarnation, a fact which is quite lost in the transposed order of the
A. V. St. Paul's order, which at first sight seems to be illogical, was
the usual order of the Apostles' preaching. They began, not with the
miraculous birth of Christ, but with His resurrection. They proved by
abundant testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead, and thence argued
that He must have been more than man. They did not preach His birth of a
virgin, and thence argue that He was Divine. How was His miraculous
birth to be proved, to those who were unwilling to accept His mother's
word for it? But thousands of people had seen Him dead upon the Cross,
and hundreds had seen Him alive again afterwards. No matter of fact was
more securely established for all those who cared to investigate the
evidence. With the Resurrection proved, the foundations of the faith
were laid. The Incarnation followed easily after this, especially when
combined with the descent from David, a fact which helped to prove His
Messiahship. Let Timothy boldly and patiently preach these great truths
in all their grand simplicity, and they will bring comfort and strength
to him in his distress and difficulty, as they have done to the Apostle.

This is the meaning of "according to my gospel." These are the truths
which St. Paul has habitually preached, and of the value of which he
can speak from full experience. He knows what he is talking about, when
he affirms, that these things are worth remembering when one is in
trouble. The Resurrection and the Incarnation are facts on which he has
ceaselessly insisted, because in the wear and tear of life he has found
out their worth.

There is no emphasis on the "my," as the Greek shows. An enclitic cannot
be emphatic. The Apostle is not contrasting his Gospel with that of
other preachers, as if he would say, "Others may teach what they please,
but this is the substance of _my_ Gospel." And Jerome is certainly
mistaken, if what is quoted as a remark of his is rightly assigned to
him by Fabricius, to the effect that whenever St. Paul says "according
to my Gospel" he means the written Gospel of his companion St. Luke, who
had caught much of his spirit and something of his language. It would be
much nearer the truth to say that St. Paul never refers to a written
Gospel. In every one of the passages in which the phrase occurs the
context is quite against any such interpretation (Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25;
cf Tim. 1. i. 11). In this place the words which follow are conclusive:
"Wherein I suffer hardship unto bonds, as a malefactor." How could he be
said to suffer hardship unto bonds in the Gospel of St. Luke?

A word of protest may be added against the strange and impossible theory
that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by St.
Paul himself. If there is one thing which is certain with regard to the
authorship of the Books of the New Testament, it is that the Acts was
written by a companion of St. Paul. Even destructive critics who spare
little else, admit this of portions of the Acts; and the Book must be
accepted or rejected as a whole. Moreover, it is admitted by both
defenders and assailants that the writer of the Acts did not know the
Epistle to the Galatians; and it is highly probable that when he wrote
he had not seen the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians.[92]
How then can he have been St. Paul? And why should the Apostle write
sometimes in the third person of what _Paul_ said and did, and sometimes
in the first person of what _we_ did? All this is quite natural, if the
writer is a companion of the Apostle, who was sometimes with him and
sometimes not; it is most extraordinary if the Apostle himself is the
writer. And of course if the Acts is not by St. Paul, the third Gospel
cannot be; for it is impossible to assign them to different writers.
Moreover, not to mention other difficulties, it may be doubted whether,
more than two years (Acts xxviii. 30) before the death of St. Paul,
there would have been time for "_many_" to "have taken in hand to draw
up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among
us" (Luke i. 1), and then for him to have collected material for the
third Gospel and to have written it, and then, after an interval, for
him to have written the Acts. All the arguments in favour of the Pauline
authorship of the third Gospel and of the Acts are satisfied by the
almost universally accepted view, that these two works were written by
a companion of the Apostle, who was thoroughly familiar with his modes
of thought and expression.

The preaching of this Gospel of the Resurrection and the Incarnation had
caused the Apostle (as he here tells us) to suffer much evil, as if he
had done much evil, even to the extent of a grievous imprisonment. He is
bound as a malefactor; but his Gospel "is not bound," because it is "the
word of God." He perhaps changes the expression from "my Gospel" to "the
word of God" in order to indicate why it is that, although the preacher
is in prison, yet his Gospel is free;--because the word which he
preaches is not his own, but God's.

"The word of God is not bound." The Apostle is imprisoned; but his
tongue and his companion's pen are free. He can still teach those who
come to him; can still dictate letters for others to Luke and the
faithful few who visit him. He can still, as in his first Roman
imprisonment, see that what has befallen him may "have fallen out rather
unto the progress of the gospel; so that his bonds became manifest in
Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest"
(Phil. i. 12, 13). He has been able to influence those whom, but for his
imprisonment, he would never have had an opportunity of reaching,--Roman
soldiers, and warders, and officials, and all who have to take
cognisance of his trial before the imperial tribunal.

"The word of God is not bound." While he is in prison, Timothy, and
Titus, and scores of other evangelists and preachers, are free. Their
action is not hampered because a colleague is shut up. The loss of him
might have a depressing and discouraging effect on some; but this ought
not to be so, and he hopes will not be so. Those who are left at large
ought to labour all the more energetically and enthusiastically, in
order to supply whatever is lost by the Apostle's want of freedom, and
in order to convince the world that this is no contest with a human
organization or with human opinion, but with a Divine word and a Divine
Person.

"The word of God is not bound," because His word is the truth, and it is
the truth that makes men free. How can that of which the very essence is
freedom, and of which the attribute is that it confers freedom, be
itself kept in bondage? Truth is freer than air and more incompressible
than water. And just as men must have air and must have water, and you
cannot keep them long from either; so you cannot long keep them from the
truth or the truth from them. You may dilute it, or obscure it, or
<DW44> it, but you cannot bury it or shut it up. Laws which are of
Divine origin will surely and irresistibly assert themselves, and truth
and the mind of man will meet.

FOOTNOTES:

[92] It is not credible that a writer who was very familiar with the
incidents and persons mentioned and alluded to in Gal. i. 17; ii. 1-5,
11-14; Rom. xv. 19, 28; xvi. 1-3, 23; 1 Cor. i. 11-16; v. 1; xi. 30;
xvi. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 12; vii. 5; xi. 24; xii. 3, 7, 18, should make no
mention of them or reference to them. The silence respecting Titus would
be most extraordinary if the Apostle himself were the author of the
Acts. See Bishop Lightfoot's article on the Acts in the new edition of
the _Dict. of the Bible_.




CHAPTER XXXII.

_THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT, OF
DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS
UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH._

    "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them in the sight
    of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the
    subverting of them that hear. Give diligence to present thyself
    approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
    handling aright the word of truth. But shun profane babblings: for
    they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as
    doth a gangrene; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who
    concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
    passed already, and overthrow the faith of some."--2 TIM. ii. 14-18.


We here enter upon a new section of the Epistle, which continues down to
the end of the chapter. It consists in the main of directions as to
Timothy's own behaviour in the responsible post in which he has been
placed. And these are both positive and negative; he is told what to aim
at, and what to avoid.

As to the meaning of "these things," of which he is to put his flock in
remembrance, it seems most natural to refer the expression to the
"faithful saying" with which the previous section closes. He is to
remind others (and thereby strengthen his own courage and faith), that
to die for Christ is to live with Him, and to suffer for Christ is to
reign with Him, while to deny Him is to involve His denying us; for,
however faithless we may be, He must abide by what He has promised both
of rewards and punishments. The fact that the Apostle uses the
expression "put them in remembrance," implying that they already know
it, is some confirmation of the view that the "faithful saying" is a
formula that was often recited in the congregation; a view which the
rhythmical character of the passage renders somewhat probable.

Having reminded them of what they already know well, Timothy is to
"charge them in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about
words." This phrase "charge them in the sight of the Lord" is worthy of
notice. The Apostle twice uses it in addressing Timothy himself. "I
charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without prejudice" (1 Tim. v. 21); and "I
charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, Who shall judge
the quick and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom; preach the
word" (2 Tim. iv. 1). The word for "charge" (=diamartythesthai=)
indicates the interposition (=dia=) of two parties, and hence comes to
mean to "call heaven and earth to witness;" in other words, to "testify
solemnly" or "adjure;" and from this latter meaning it easily becomes
employed for a solemn charge or exhortation. In translating, it would be
quite legitimate to insert an adverb to express this: "_solemnly_
charging them in the sight of God." In dealing with these pestilent
disputes and perilous opinions Timothy, both for his own sake and for
that of his hearers, is to remember, and to remind them, in Whose
presence he is speaking. God's eye is upon both preacher and
congregation; and in pleading the cause of truth and sobriety the
preacher is in fact pleading before the Divine tribunal. This will make
the teacher wary in his words, and will lead his hearers to listen to
them in a spirit of sobriety.

It has been debated whether St. Paul has in his mind those "faithful
men" to whom Timothy is to commit the substance of the Apostle's
teaching (ver. 2), or whether he is not now taking a wider view and
including the whole of the disciple's flock. It is impossible to
determine this with certainty; and it is not a question of much moment.
One thing is clear; viz., that the whole section is applicable to
ministers throughout the Church in all ages; and the words under
consideration seem to be well worthy of attention at the present time,
when so many unworthy topics and so much unworthy language may be heard
from the pulpit. One is inclined to think that if ministers always
remembered that they were speaking "in the sight of God," they would
sometimes find other things to say, and other ways of saying them. We
talk glibly enough of another man's words and opinions, when he is not
present. We may be entirely free from the smallest wish to misrepresent
or exaggerate; but at the same time we speak with great freedom and
almost without restraint. What a change comes over us, if, in the midst
of our glib recital of his views and sayings, the man himself enters the
room! At once we begin to measure our words and to speak with more
caution. Our tone becomes less positive, and we have less confidence
that we are justified in making sweeping statements on the subject.
Ought not something of this circumspection and diffidence to be felt by
those who take the responsibility of telling others about the mind of
God? And if they remembered constantly that they speak "in the sight of
the Lord," this attitude of solemn circumspection would become habitual.

"That they strive not about words." The spirit of controversy is a bad
thing in itself; but the evil is intensified when the subject of
controversy is a question of words. Controversy is necessary; but it is
a necessary evil: and that man has need of searchings of heart who finds
that he enjoys it, and sometimes even provokes it, when it might easily
have been avoided. But a fondness for strife about words is one of the
lowest forms which the malady can take. Principles are things worth
striving about, when opposition to what we know to be right and true is
unavoidable. But disputatiousness about words is something like proof
that love of self has taken the place of love of truth. The
word-splitter wrangles, not for the sake of arriving at the truth, but
for the sake of a dialectical victory. He cares little as to what is
right or wrong, so long as he comes off triumphant in the argument.
Hence the Apostle said in the first Epistle, that the natural fruit of
these disputes about words is "envy, strife, and railings" (vi. 4). They
are an exhibition of dexterity in which the object of the disputants is
not to investigate, but to baffle; not to enlighten, but to perplex. And
here he says that they are worse than worthless. They tend "to no
profit:" on the contrary they tend "to the subverting of those who
listen to them." This subversion or overthrow (=katastrophe=) is the
exact opposite of what ought to be the result of Christian discussion,
viz., edification or building up (=oikodome=). The audience, instead of
being built up in faith and principle, find themselves bewildered and
lowered. They have a less firm grasp of truth and a less loyal affection
for it. It is as if some beautiful object, which they were learning to
understand and admire, had been scored all over with marks by those who
had been disputing as to the meaning and relation of the details. It has
been a favourite device of the heretics and sceptics of all ages to
endeavour to provoke a discussion on points about which they hope to
place an opponent in a difficulty. Their object is not to settle, but to
unsettle; not to clear up doubts but to create them: and hence we find
Bishop Butler in his Durham Charge recommending his clergy to avoid
religious discussions in general conversation, because the clever
propounder of difficulties will find ready hearers, while the patient
answerer of them will not do so. To dispute is to place truth at an
unnecessary disadvantage.

"Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed." In the previous section St. Paul exhorted
Timothy to be ready to suffer for Christ: here he charges him to work
for Him; and in the language which he uses he indicates that such work
is a serious matter;--"Give diligence." The word which he uses
(=spoudazein=) is one which scarcely occurs in the New Testament except
in the writings of St. Paul. And the corresponding substantive
(=spoude=) is also much more common in his Epistles than it is
elsewhere. It indicates that ceaseless, serious, earnest zeal, which was
one of his chief characteristics. And certainly if the proposed standard
is to be reached, or even seriously aimed at abundance of this zeal will
be required. For the end proposed is not the admiration or affection of
the congregation, or of one's superiors, nor yet success in influencing
and winning souls; but that of presenting oneself to God in such a way
as to secure His approval, without fear of incurring the reproach of
being a workman who has shirked or scamped his work. The Apostle's
charge is a most wholesome one: and if it is acted upon, it secures
diligence without fussiness, and enthusiasm without fanaticism. The
being "approved" (=dokimos=) implies being tried and proved as precious
metals are proved before they are _accepted_ (=dechomai=) as genuine. It
is the word used of the "_pure_ gold" with which Solomon overlaid his
ivory throne (2 Chron. ix. 17). In the New Testament it is always used
of persons, and with one exception (James i. 12) it is used by no one
but St. Paul. He uses it of being approved both of men (Rom. xiv. 18)
and of God (2 Cor. x. 18).

The single word which represents "that needeth not to be ashamed"
(=anepaischyntos=) is a rare formation, which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. Its precise meaning is not quite certain. The more simple
and frequent form (=anaischyntos=) means "shameless," _i.e._, one who
does not feel shame when he ought to do so. Such a meaning, if taken
literally, would be utterly unsuitable here. And we then have choice of
two interpretations, either (1) that which is adopted in both A. V. and
R. V., who _need_ not feel shame, because his work will bear
examination, or (2) who _does_ not feel shame, although his work is of a
kind which the world holds in contempt. The latter is the interpretation
which Chrysostom adopts, and there is much to be said in its favour.
Three times already in this letter has the Apostle spoken of not being
ashamed of the Gospel. He says "Be not ashamed of the testimony of our
Lord, nor of me His prisoner." Again, "I suffer these things; yet I am
not ashamed." And again of Onesiphorus, "He oft refreshed me, and was
not ashamed of my chain" (i. 8, 12, 16). Does he not, therefore, mean
here also, "Present thyself to God as a workman who is not ashamed of
being in His service and of doing whatever work may be assigned to him"?
This brings us very close to what would be the natural meaning of the
word, according to the analogy of the simpler form. "If you are to work
for God," says Paul, "you must be in a certain sense _shameless_. There
are some men who set public opinion at defiance, in order that they may
follow their own depraved desires. The Christian minister must be
prepared sometimes to set public opinion at defiance, in order that he
may follow the commands of God." The _vox populi_, even when taken in
its most comprehensive sense, is anything but an infallible guide.
Public opinion is nearly always against the worst forms of selfishness,
dishonesty, and sensuality; and to set it at defiance in such matters is
to be "shameless" in the worst sense. But sometimes public opinion is
very decidedly against some of the noblest types of holiness; and to be
"shameless" under such circumstances is a necessary qualification for
doing one's duty. It is by no means certain that this is not St. Paul's
meaning. If we translate, "A workman that feeleth no shame," we shall
have a phrase that would cover either interpretation.

"Handling aright the word of truth," or "Rightly dividing the word of
truth." There is some doubt here also as to the explanation of the word
rendered "handling aright" or "rightly dividing" (=orthotomein=). Once
more we have a word which occurs nowhere else in New Testament. Its
radical meaning is to "cut aright" or "cut straight," especially of
driving a straight road through a district, or a straight furrow across
a field. In the LXX. it is twice used of making straight or directing a
person's path. "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy
paths;" and "The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way"
(Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5). The idea of rightness seems to be the dominant
one; that of cutting quite secondary; so that the Revisers are quite
justified in following the example of the Vulgate (_recte tractantem_),
and translating simply "rightly handling." But this right handling may
be understood as consisting in seeing that the word of truth moves in
the right direction and progresses in the congregation by a legitimate
development. The word, therefore, excludes all fanciful and perilous
deviations and evasions, such as those in which the false teachers
indulged, and all those "strivings about words," which distract men's
minds and divert them from the substance of the Gospel. It may be
doubted whether the word contains any idea of _distribution_, as that
the word of truth is to be preached according to the capacity of the
hearers,--strong meat to the strong, and milk to those who are still but
babes in the faith. We may feel sure that the expression has nothing to
do with the cutting up of victims in sacrifices, or with cutting
straight to the heart of a thing, as if the word of truth had a kernel
which must be reached by cleaving it down the middle. Yet both these
explanations have been suggested. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius use
the substantive derived from St. Paul's verb (=orthotomia=) in the sense
of orthodoxy; which seems to imply that they understood the verb in the
sense of handling aright (_Strom._, VII. xvi.; _H. E._, IV. iii.).

Once more (1 Tim. vi. 20) the Apostle warns his disciple against
"profane babblings." He is (according to St. Paul's graphic word) to
make a circuit in order to avoid such things, to "give them a wide
berth" (=periistaso=; comp. Tit. iii. 9). These empty profanities, with
their philosophic pretentiousness, had done much harm already, and would
do still more; for the men who propagate them would certainly go still
greater lengths in impiety; and they must receive no encouragement.
Their teaching is of a kind that will spread rapidly, and it is deadly
in its effects. It "will eat as doth a gangrene."

The substitution of "gangrene" for "cancer" is an improvement, as giving
the exact word used in the original, which expresses the meaning more
forcibly than "cancer." Cancer is sometimes very slow in its ravages,
and may go on for years without causing serious harm. Gangrene poisons
the whole frame and quickly becomes fatal. The Apostle foresees that
doctrines, which really ate out the very heart of Christianity, were
likely to become very popular in Ephesus and would do incalculable
mischief. The nature of these doctrines we gather from what follows.
They are preached by the kind of people (=hoitines=) who miss their aim
as regards the truth. They profess to be aiming at the truth, but they
go very wide of the mark. For instance, some of them say that it is
quite a mistake to look forward to a resurrection of the body, or indeed
to any resurrection at all. The only real resurrection has taken place
already and cannot be repeated. It is that intellectual and spiritual
process which is involved in rising from degrading ignorance to a
recognition and acceptance of the truth. What is commonly called death,
viz., the separation of soul and body, is not really death at all. Death
in the true sense of the word means ignorance of God and of Divine
things; to be buried is to be buried in error. Consequently the true
resurrection is to be reanimated by the truth and to escape from the
sepulchre of spiritual darkness; and this process is accomplished once
for all in every enlightened soul. We learn from the writings of
Irenaeus (_Haer._, II. xxxi. 2) and of Tertullian (_De Res. Carn._, xix.)
that this form of error was in existence in their day: and Augustine in
a letter to Januarius (lv. iii. 4) shows how such false notions might
have grown out of St. Paul's own teaching. The Apostle insisted so
frequently upon the fact of our being dead with Christ and raised
together with Him, that some persons jumped to the conclusion that this
was the whole of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. The
resurrection of the body was a great stumbling-block to Greeks and
Orientals, with their low notions of the dignity of the human body; and
therefore any interpretation of the resurrection which got rid of the
difficulty of supposing that in the world to come also men would have
bodies, was welcome. It was calamity enough to be burdened with a body
in this life: it was appalling to think of such a condition being
continued in eternity. Hence the obnoxious doctrine was explained away
and resolved into allegory and metaphor.

Of Hymenaeus and Philetus nothing further is known. Hymenaeus is probably
the same person as is mentioned in the first Epistle with Alexander, as
having made shipwreck of the faith, and been delivered unto Satan by the
Apostle, to cure him of his blasphemies. We are told here that much
mischief had been done by such teaching: for a number of persons had
been seduced from the faith. "Some," in the English phrase "overthrow
the faith of _some_," conveys an impression, which is not contained in
the Greek (=tinon=), that the number of those who were led astray was
small. The Greek indicates neither a large nor a small number; but what
is told us leads to the conclusion that the number was not small. It is
probably to this kind of teaching that St. John alludes, when he writes
some twenty or more years later than this, and says, "Even now there
have arisen _many_ antichrists" (1 John ii. 18). Teaching of this kind
was only too likely to be popular in Ephesus.

It is by no means unknown among ourselves. At the present time also
there is a tendency to retain the old Christian terms and to deprive
them of all Christian meaning. Not only such words as "miracle,"
"Church," "catholic," and "sacrament" are evaporated and etherealized,
until they lose all definite meaning; but even such fundamental terms as
"atonement," "redemption," and "immortality." Nay it is quite possible
to find even the word "God" used to express a Being which is neither
personal nor conscious. And thus language, which has been consecrated to
the service of religion for a long series of centuries, is degraded to
the unworthy purpose of insinuating pantheism and agnosticism. This
perversion of well established phraseology is to be condemned on purely
literary grounds: and on moral grounds it may be stigmatized as
dishonest. If Hymenaeus and Philetus wish to deny the resurrection, let
them also surrender the word which expresses it. They have abundance of
words wherewith to express mental and moral enlightenment. Let them not
so handle a word of truth as to make it suggest a lie.




CHAPTER XXXIII.

_THE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND JAMBRES ON THE
QUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT IN EPHESUS._

    "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For
    men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty,
    railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.... And like as
    Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the
    truth; men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."--2
    TIM. iii. 1, 2, 8.


In the first chapter the Apostle looks back over the past; in the second
he gives directions about the present; in the third he looks forward
into the future. These divisions are not observed with rigidity
throughout, but they hold good to a very considerable extent. Thus in
the first division he remembers Timothy's affectionate grief at parting,
his faith and that of his family, and the spiritual gift conferred on
him at his ordination. And respecting himself he remembers his teaching
Timothy, his being deserted by those in Asia, his being ministered to by
Onesiphorus. In the second chapter he charges Timothy to be willing to
suffer hardships with him, and instructs him how to conduct himself in
the manifold difficulties of his present position. And now he goes on to
forewarn and forearm him against dangers and troubles which he foresees
in the future.

There are several prophecies in the New Testament similar to the one
before us. There is that of St. Paul to the Ephesian Church some ten
years before, just before his final departure for the bonds and
afflictions which awaited him at Jerusalem. "I know that after my
departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the
flock; and from your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts xx. 29, 30). The
Epistles to Timothy show that this prediction was already being
fulfilled during the Apostle's lifetime. There is, secondly, the
prophecy respecting the great falling away and the revealing of the man
of sin, which is somewhat parallel to the one before us (2 Thess. ii.
3-7). Thirdly, there is the similar prediction in the First Epistle to
Timothy (iv. 1-3). And besides these three by St. Paul, there are those
contained in 2 Peter ii. 1, 2 about the rise of false teachers, and in
the First Epistle of St. John (ii. 18 and iv. 3) about the coming of
antichrist. Those in 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter should be compared with
the one before us, as containing a mixture of present and future. This
mixture has been made the basis of a somewhat frivolous objection. It
has been urged that the shifting from future to present and back again
indicates the hand of a writer who is contemporary with the events which
he pretends to foretell. Sometimes he adopts the form of prophecy and
uses the future tense. But at other times the influence of facts is too
strong for him. He forgets his assumed part as a prophet, and writes in
the present tense of his own experiences. Such an objection credits the
feigned prophet with a very small amount of intelligence. Are we
seriously to suppose that any one would be so stupid as to be unable to
sustain his part for half a dozen verses, or less, without betraying
himself? But, in fact, the change of tense indicates nothing of the
kind. It is to be explained in some cases by the fact that the germs of
the evils predicted were already in existence, in others by the practice
(especially common in prophecy) of speaking of what is certain to happen
as if it were already a fact. The prophet is often a _seer_, who sees as
present what is distant or future; and hence he naturally uses the
present tense, even when he predicts.

The meaning of the "last days" is uncertain. The two most important
interpretations are: (1) the _whole_ time between Christ's first and
second coming, and (2) the portion _immediately_ before Christ's second
coming. Probability is greatly in favour of the latter; for the other
makes the expression rather meaningless. If these evils were to come at
all, they _must_ come between the two Advents; for there is no other
time: and in that case why speak of this period as the "last days"? It
might be reasonable to call them "_these_ last days," but not "last
days" without such specification. At the present time it would not be
natural to speak of an event as likely to happen in the last days, when
we meant that it would happen between our own time and the end of the
world. The expression used in 1 Tim. iv. 1 very probably does mean no
more than "in future times; hereafter" (=en hysterois kairois=). But
here and in 2 Pet. iii. 3 the meaning rather is "in the last days; when
the Lord is at hand." It is then that the enemy will be allowed to put
forth all his power, in order to be more completely overthrown. Then
indeed there will be perilous, critical, grievous times (=kairoi
chalepoi=). The Apostle treats it as possible, or even probable, that
Timothy will live to see the troubles which will mark the eve of
Christ's return. The Apostles shared, and contributed to produce, the
belief that the Lord would come again soon, within the lifetime of some
who were then alive. Even at the close of a long life we find the last
surviving Apostle pointing out to the Church that "it is the last hour"
(1 John ii. 18), obviously meaning by that expression, that it is the
time immediately preceding the return of Christ to judge the world. And
some twenty years later we find Ignatius writing to the Ephesians "These
are the last times (=eschatoi kairoi=). Henceforth let us be reverent;
let us fear the longsuffering of God, lest it turn into a judgment
against us. For either let us fear the wrath which is to come, or let us
love the grace which now is" (_Eph._ xi.). Only by the force of
experience was the mind of the Church cleared so as to see the Kingdom
of Christ in its true perspective. The warning which Jesus had given,
that "of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in
heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," seems to have been understood
as meaning no more than the declaration "in an hour that ye think not
the Son of man cometh." That is, it was understood as a warning against
being found unprepared, and not as a warning against forming conjectures
as to how near Christ's return was. Therefore we need not be at all
surprised at St. Paul writing to Timothy in a way which implies that
Timothy will probably live to see the evils which will immediately
precede Christ's return, and must be on his guard against being amazed
or overwhelmed by them. He is to "turn away from" the intense wickedness
which will then be manifested, and go on undismayed with his own work.

"Like as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand
the truth." The Apostle is obviously referring to the Egyptian magicians
mentioned in Exodus. But in the Pentateuch neither their number nor
their names are given; so that we must suppose that St. Paul is
referring to some Jewish tradition on the subject. The number two was
very possibly suggested by the number of their opponents:--Moses and
Aaron on one side, and two magicians on the other. And on each side it
is a pair of brothers; for the Targum of Jonathan represents the
magicians as sons of Balaam, formerly instructors of Moses, but
afterwards his enemies. The names vary in Jewish tradition. Jannes is
sometimes Johannes, and Jambres is sometimes either Mambres or
Ambrosius. The tradition respecting them was apparently widely spread.
It was known to Numenius, a Platonic philosopher of Apameia in Syria,
who is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, I. xxii.), and
quoted by Origen and Eusebius as giving an account of Jannes and Jambres
(_Con. Cels._, IV. li.; _Praep. Evang._, IX. viii.). In Africa we find
some knowledge of the tradition exhibited by Appuleius, the famous
author of the _Golden Ass_, who like Numenius flourished in the second
century. And in the previous century another Latin writer, Pliny the
Elder, shows a similar knowledge. Both of them mention Jannes as a
magician in connexion with Moses, who is also in their eyes a magician;
but Pliny appears to think that both Moses and Jannes were Jews.[93] It
is highly improbable that any of these writers derived their knowledge
of these names from the passage before us; in the case of Pliny this
would scarcely have been possible. His _Natural History_ was published
about A.D. 77, and at that time the Second Epistle to Timothy must have
been known to but few, even among Christians. The author of the
apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus very possibly did derive his knowledge of
the names from St. Paul; yet he may have had independent sources of
information. He represents Nicodemus as pleading before Pilate that
Jannes and Jambres worked miracles before Pharaoh; "but because they
were not from God, what they did was destroyed." Whereas "Jesus raised
up Lazarus, and he is alive" (chap. v.).

One of the ablest of English commentators on these Epistles remarks upon
this passage, "It is probable that the Apostle derived these names from
a current and (being quoted by him) _true_ tradition of the Jewish
Church." And in a similar spirit a writer in the _Dictionary of the
Bible_ thinks that it would be "inconsistent with the character of an
inspired record for a baseless or incorrect current tradition to be
cited."

Let us look at the phenomena of the case and see whether the number and
the names appear to be trustworthy or otherwise, and then consider the
question of inspiration. To drag in the latter question in order to
determine the former, is to begin at the wrong end.

That there should be a pair of brothers to oppose a pair of brothers,
has been pointed out already as a suspicious circumstance. The jingling
pairing of the names is also more like fiction than fact. Thirdly, the
names appear to be in formation, not Egyptian, but Hebrew; which would
naturally be the case if Jews invented them, but would be extraordinary
if they were genuine names of Egyptians. Lastly, Jannes might come from
a Hebrew root which means "to seduce," and Jambres from one which means
"to rebel." If Jews were to invent names for the Egyptian magicians,
what names would they be more likely to fasten on them than such as
would suggest seductive error and rebellious opposition? And is it
probable that a really trustworthy tradition, on such an unimportant
fact as the names of the enchanters who opposed Moses, would have
survived through so many centuries? Sober and unbiassed critics will for
the most part admit that the probabilities are very decidedly against
the supposition that these names are true names, preserved from oblivion
by some written or unwritten tradition outside Scripture.

But is it consistent with the character of an inspired writer to quote
an incorrect tradition? Only those who hold somewhat narrow and rigid
theories of inspiration will hesitate to answer this question in the
affirmative. No one believes that inspired persons are in possession of
all knowledge on all subjects. And if these names were commonly accepted
as authentic by the Jews of St. Paul's day, would his inspiration
necessarily keep him from sharing that belief? Even if he were well
aware that the tradition respecting the names was untrustworthy, there
would be nothing surprising in his speaking of the magicians under their
commonly accepted names, when addressing one to whom the tradition would
be well known. And if (as is more probable) he believed the names to be
genuine, there is still less to surprise us in his making use of them
to add vivacity to the comparison. Nothing in God's dealings with
mankind warrants us in believing that He would grant a special
revelation to an Apostle, in order to preserve him from so harmless a
proceeding as illustrating an argument by citing the incorrect details
which tradition had added to historical facts. And it is worth noting
that nothing is _based_ upon the names; they occur in what is mere
illustration. And even in the illustration it is not the names that have
point, but the persons, who are supposed to have borne them; and the
persons are real, although the names are probably fictitious. Still less
are we warranted in believing, as Chrysostom suggests, that St. Paul by
inspiration had supernatural knowledge of the names. As we have seen,
the names were known even to Gentiles who cannot well have derived their
knowledge from him; and why should he have received a revelation about a
trifle which in no way helps his argument? Such views of inspiration,
although the product of a reverential spirit, degrade rather than exalt
our conceptions of it. The main point of the comparison between the two
cases appears to be opposition to the truth. But there is perhaps more
in it than that. The magicians withstood Moses by professing to do the
same wonders that he did; and the heretics withstood Timothy by
professing to preach the same gospel as he did. This was frequently the
line taken by heretical teachers; to disclaim all intention of teaching
anything new, and to profess substantial, if not complete, agreement
with those whom they opposed. They affirmed that their teaching was only
the old truth looked at from another point of view. They used the same
phraseology as Apostles had used: they merely gave it a more
comprehensive (or, as would now be said, a more _catholic_) meaning. In
this way the unwary were more easily seduced, and the suspicions of the
simple were less easily aroused. But such persons betray themselves
before long. Their mind is found to be tainted; and when they are put to
the proof respecting the faith, they cannot stand the test (=adokimoi=).

There is nothing improbable in the supposition that St. Paul mentions
the magicians who withstood Moses as typical opponents of the truth,
because the false teachers at Ephesus used magic arts; and the word
which he uses for impostors (=goetes=) in ver. 13 fits in very well with
such a supposition, although it by no means makes it certain. Ephesus
was famous for its charms and incantations (=Ephesia grammata=), and
around the statue of its goddess Artemis were unintelligible
inscriptions, to which a strange efficacy was ascribed. The first body
of Christians in Ephesus had been tainted by senseless wickedness of
this kind. After accepting Christianity they had secretly retained their
magic. The sons of the Jew Sceva had tried to use the sacred name of
Jesus as a magical form of exorcism; and this brought about the crisis
in which numbers of costly books of incantations were publicly burned
(Acts xix. 13-20). The evil would be pretty sure to break out again,
especially among new converts; just as it does among <DW64> converts at
the present day. Moreover we know that in some cases there was a very
close connexion between some forms of heresy and magic: so that the
suggestion that St. Paul has pretensions to miraculous power in his
mind, when he compares the false teachers to the Egyptian magicians, is
by no means improbable.

The connexion between heresy and superstition is a very real and a very
close one. The rejection or surrender of religious truth is frequently
accompanied by the acceptance of irrational beliefs. People deny
miracles and believe in spiritualism; they cavil at the efficacy of
sacraments and accept as credible the amazing properties of an 'astral
body.' There is such a thing as the nemesis of unbelief. The arrogance
which rejects as repugnant to reason and morality truths which have
throughout long centuries satisfied the highest intellects and the
noblest hearts, is sometimes punished by being seduced into delusions
which satisfy nothing higher than a grovelling curiosity.

FOOTNOTES:

[93] Est et alia Magices factio a Moyse, et Janne, et Jotape Judaeis
pendens (Plin. _Hist. Nat._, XXX. ii.).

Si quamlibet emolumentum probaveritis, ego ille sim Carinondas, vel
Damigeron, vel is Moses, vel Jannes [_al. l._ Johannes], vel Apollonius,
vel ipse Dardanus, vel quieunque post Zoroastren et Hostanen inter Magos
celebratus est (Appul., _Apologia_, 544, p. 580 ed. Oudendorp).




CHAPTER XXXIV.

_THE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LIFELONG
CONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED WRITINGS._

    "But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been
    assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a
    babe thou hast known the sacred writings, which are able to make
    thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for
    reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:
    that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every
    good work."--2 TIM. iii. 14-17.


For the second time in this paragraph the Apostle puts his faithful
disciple in marked contrast to the heretical teachers. A few lines
before, after comparing the latter to the Egyptian magicians, he
continues, "But _thou_ (=sy de=) didst follow my teaching." And in the
passage before us, after saying that "evil men and impostors shall wax
worse and worse," he continues, "But abide _thou_ (=sy de mene=) in the
things which thou hast learned." Here there is a double contrast; first
between Timothy and the impostors, and secondly between his abiding in
the truth and their going away from it, and so from bad to worse, first
as deceivers and then as being deceived. They begin by being seducers
and end in being dupes, and the dupes (very often) of their own
deceptions; for deceit commonly leads to self-deceit. Such a result may
well act as a warning to Timothy and those committed to his charge of
the peril of trifling with the fundamentals of religious truth.

The articles of the Christian faith are not like the commodities in a
bazaar from which one can pick and choose at pleasure, and of which one
can take three or four without in any way affecting one's relation to
the remainder, or reject three or four, without in any way affecting the
security of one's hold upon those which one decides to take. With regard
to the truths of religion, our right to pick and choose has very strict
limits. When the system as a whole has presented its credentials to the
reason and the conscience, and these have decided that the bearer of
such credentials must be the representative of a Divine Being, then the
attempt to pick and choose among the details of the system becomes
perilous work. To reject this or that item, as being mere fringe and
setting rather than a constituent element, or as being at any rate
unessential, may be to endanger the whole structure. We may be leaving
an impregnable position for an exposed and untenable one, or be
exchanging a secure platform for an inclined plane, on which we shall
find no lasting resting place until the bottom is reached. And this was
what the men, against whom Timothy is warned, had done. They had left
the sure position, and were sometimes sliding, sometimes running,
further and further away from the truth.

In other words, there is a right and a wrong use of reason in matters of
faith. The wrong use is sometimes spoken of as "Rationalism," and
(adopting that term as convenient) the following clear statement,
borrowed from another writer, will show in a striking way where it was
that St. Paul wished Timothy to part company with the principles of his
opponents. "As regards Revealed Truth," wrote J. H. Newman in 1835, "it
is _not_ Rationalism to set about to ascertain, by the exercise of
reason, what things are attainable by reason, and what are not; nor, in
the absence of an express Revelation, to inquire into the truths of
Religion, as they come to us by nature; nor to determine what proofs are
necessary for the acceptance of a Revelation, if it be given; nor to
reject a Revelation on the plea of insufficient proof; nor, after
recognising it as Divine, to investigate the meaning of its
declarations, and to interpret its language; nor to use its doctrines,
as far as they can be fairly used, in inquiring into its divinity; nor
to compare and connect them with our previous knowledge, with a view of
making them parts of a whole; nor to bring them into dependence on each
other, to trace their mutual relations, and to pursue them to their
legitimate issues. This is not Rationalism. But it is Rationalism to
accept the Revelation, and then to _explain it away_; to speak of it as
the Word of God, and to treat it as the word of man; to refuse to let it
speak for itself; to claim to be told the _why_ and the _how_ of God's
dealings with us, as therein described, and to assign to Him a motive
and a scope of our own; to stumble at the partial knowledge which He may
give us of them; to put aside what is obscure, as if it had not been
said at all; to _accept one half of what has been told us, and not the
other half_; to assume that the contents of Revelation are also its
proof; to frame some gratuitous hypothesis about them, and then to
garble, gloss, and colour them, to trim, clip, pare away and twist them,
in order to bring them into conformity with the idea to which we have
subjected them."[94]

Timothy is to abide in those things which he has "learned and been
assured of." He has experienced the result which St. Luke wished to
produce in Theophilus when he wrote his Gospel: he has attained to "full
knowledge of the certainty concerning the things wherein he had been
instructed" (Luke i. 4). And he is not to allow the wild teaching of his
opponents, thoroughly discredited as it is and will be by equally wild
conduct, to shake his security. Not everything that is disputed is
disputable, nor everything that is doubted doubtful. And if the fruits
of the two kinds of teaching do not fully convince him of the necessity
of abiding by the old truths rather than by the suggestions of these
innovators, let him remember those from whom he first learnt the truths
of the Gospel,--his grandmother Lois, his mother Eunice, and the Apostle
himself. When it comes to a question of the authority of the teachers,
which group will he choose? Those who established him in the faith, or
those who are trying to seduce men away from it?

There is a little doubt about the word "of _whom_ thou hast learned
them." The "whom" is probably plural (=para tinon=); but a reading which
makes it singular (=para tinos=) is strongly supported. The plural must
include all Timothy's chief instructors in the faith, especially the
earliest, as is clear from the nature of the case and from what follows.
If the singular is adopted, we must refer it to St. Paul, in accordance
with "the things which thou hast heard from me ... the same commit thou
to faithful men" (ii. 2). It is possible that the words just quoted have
influenced the reading in the passage under consideration, and have
caused the substitution of the singular for the plural.

But there is a further consideration. There is not only the _character_
of the doctrine on each side, and the _fruits_ of the doctrine on each
side, and the _teachers_ of whom Timothy has had personal experience,
and about whose knowledge and trustworthiness he can judge; there is
also the fact that from his tenderest infancy he has had the blessing of
being in contact with the truth, first as it is revealed in the Old
Testament, and then as it is still further revealed in the Gospel. The
responsibilities of those who from their earliest days have been allowed
to grow in the knowledge of God and of His government of the world, are
far greater than the responsibilities of those who have had no
opportunity of acquiring this knowledge until late in life. Old habits
of thought and conduct are not extinguished by baptism; and the false
opinion and vicious behaviour of many of those who are vexing, or will
hereafter vex, the Church in Ephesus, may be traced to influences which
had become dominant in them long before they came into contact with
God's revealed law. No such allowance can be made for Timothy. He has
had the inestimable privilege of knowing the sacred writings from his
earliest childhood. It will be his own fault if they do not "make him
wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

The expression "sacred writings" (=hiera grammata=) occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament. The usual expression is "the scriptures" (=hai
graphai=); and once (Rom. i. 2) we have "holy scriptures" (=graphai
hagiai=). Here both substantive and adjective are unusual. The adjective
occurs in only one other passage in the New Testament, a passage which
throws light upon this one. "Know ye not that they who perform the
sacred rites, from the sacred place get their food?" (_Speaker's
Commentary_, on 1 Cor. ix. 13.) And just as in that passage "the sacred
rites" are the Jewish sacrifices, and "the sacred place" the Jewish
Temple, so here "the sacred writings" are the Jewish Scriptures. It is
utterly improbable that any Christian writings are included. How could
Timothy have known any of these from infancy? Even at the time when St.
Paul wrote this farewell letter, there was little Christian literature,
excepting his own Epistles; and he was not likely to speak of them as
"sacred writings," or to include them under one expression with the Old
Testament Scriptures. The suggestion that Christian writings are
included, or are mainly intended, seems to be made with the intention of
insinuating that this letter cannot have been written by the Apostle,
but by some one of a later age. But would even a writer of the second
century have made such a blunder as to represent Timothy as knowing
Christian literature from his childhood?

With the use of the substantive "writings" (=grammata=) in this passage,
should be compared the use of the same word in Christ's discourse at
Jerusalem after the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, where he shows the
Jews how hopeless their unbelief is, and how vain their appeal to Moses,
who is really their accuser. "But if ye believe not _his_ writings
(=grammata=), how shall ye believe _My_ words?" The Jews had had two
opportunities of knowing and accepting the truth; the writings of Moses,
and the words of Jesus. So also Timothy had had two sets of instructors;
the holy women who had brought him up, whose work had been completed by
the Apostle, and the sacred writings. If the authority of the former
should seem to be open to question, there could be no doubt of the
sufficiency of the latter. They "are able to make him wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

It must be observed that the Apostle uses the present tense and not the
past (=dynamena=) in expressing the power of the sacred writings in
communicating a saving wisdom to him who uses them aright. This power
was not exhausted when the young Timothy was brought to the ampler
truths of the Gospel. However far advanced he may be in sacred
knowledge, he will still find that they are able to make him increase in
the wisdom which enlightens and saves souls.

But Scripture confers this life-giving wisdom in no mechanical manner.
It is not a charm, which has a magical effect upon every one who reads
it. The most diligent study of the sacred writings will do nothing for
the salvation of a man who does not prosecute his researches in
something more than the mere spirit of curious enquiry. Therefore St.
Paul adds, "through faith which is in Christ Jesus." It is when this is
added to the soul of the enquirer that the sacred writings of the Old
Covenant have their illuminating power; without it, so far from leading
to the salvation won for us by Christ, they may keep those who study
them away from the truth, as in the case of the Jews to this day. The
pillar of fire becomes a pillar of cloud, and what should have been for
wealth becomes an occasion of falling.

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."
This is the Revisers' rendering. Besides one or two smaller changes,
they have made two important alterations of the A. V. (1) They have
substituted "every scripture" for "all scripture," without allowing the
old rendering even a place in the margin. (2) They have inserted the
"is" (which _must_ be supplied somewhere in the sentence) _after_
instead of _before_ "inspired by God;" thus making "inspired by God" an
epithet of Scripture and not something stated respecting it. "Every
scripture inspired by God _is also_ profitable," instead of "_is_
inspired of God _and_ profitable:" but they allow the latter rendering a
place in the margin.

This treatment of the passage appears to be very satisfactory, so far as
the second of these two points are concerned. Certainty is not
attainable in either. Yet, as regards the second, the probabilities are
greatly in favour of the Apostle's meaning that "inspired scripture is
also profitable," rather than "scripture is inspired and profitable."
But, with regard to the first point, it may be doubted whether the
balance is so decidedly against the translation "all scripture" as to
warrant its exclusion. No doubt the absence of the article in the Greek
(=pasa graphe=, and not =pasa he graphe=) is against the old rendering;
but it is by no means conclusive, as other instances both in the New
Testament and in classical Greek prove.[95] Nevertheless, there is the
further fact that in the New Testament "the scripture" generally means a
particular passage of Scripture (Mark xii. 10; Luke iv. 21; John xix.
24, 28, 36, 37; Acts viii. 32, 35). When Scripture as a whole is meant,
the word, is commonly used in the plural, "the scriptures" (Matt. xxi.
42; Mark xii. 24; John v. 39). In the passage before us the meaning is
not seriously affected by the change. It matters little whether we say
"the whole of scripture," or "every passage of scripture."

"Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for discipline (=paideia=) which is in
righteousness:" _i.e._, is of use both for doctrinal and for practical
purposes, for informing both faith and conduct. It is because it is
"inspired by God," because God's Spirit breathes through the whole of
it, making every passage of it to be a portion of a living whole, that
Scripture possesses this unique utility. And if the Apostle can say this
of the Old Testament, much more may we affirm it of the New Testament.
From the two together, everything that a Christian ought to believe,
everything that a Christian ought to do, may be learned.

But while this declaration of the Apostle assures us that there is no
passage in Holy Writ, which, when properly handled, does not yield
Divine instruction for the guidance of our minds, and hearts, and wills,
yet it gives no encouragement to hard and fast theories as to the
_manner_ in which the Spirit of God operated upon the authors of the
sacred writings. Inspiration is no mechanical process. It is altogether
misleading to speak of it as Divine _dictation_, which would reduce
inspired writers to mere machines. There are certain things which it
clearly does _not_ do.

1. While it governs the substance of what is written, it does not govern
the language word by word. We have no reasons for believing in _verbal_
inspiration, and have many reasons for not believing in it. For no one
believes that copyists and printers are miraculously preserved from
making verbal mistakes. Is it, then, reasonable to suppose that God
would work a miracle to produce what He takes no care to preserve. Of
the countless various readings, which are the words which are inspired?

2. Inspiration does not preserve the inspired writers from _every_ kind
of mistake. That it guards them from error in respect to matters of
faith and morality, we may well believe; but whether it does more than
this remains to be proved. On the other hand it can be proved that it
does not preserve them from mistakes in _grammar_; for there is plenty
of unquestionably bad grammar in the Bible. Look for instance at the
Greek of Mark vi. 8, 9; Acts xv. 22; xix. 34; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 16;
Rev. vii. 9; etc., etc. And it may be doubted whether inspiration
preserves the inspired writer from all possibility of error as regards
matters of fact, as to whether there were two men healed or only one; as
to whether the healing took place as Christ entered the city or as He
left it; as to whether the prophecy quoted comes from Jeremiah or
Zechariah, and the like. Can there be any reasonable doubt that St.
Matthew has made a slip in writing "Zechariah the son of Barachiah"
instead of "Zechariah the son of Jehoiada"? And is there any honest
method of bringing St. Stephen's speech into complete harmony with
statements in the Old Testament respecting all the facts mentioned? Must
we not suppose that there is error on one side or the other? If, as is
quite certain, inspiration does not make a man a grammatical scholar, or
give him a perfect literary style, ought we to conclude that it will
make him a faultless historian or chronologer? A Divine Revelation
through a series of inspired writers has been granted in order to save
our souls. We have no right to assume that it has been granted in order
to save us trouble. Those saving truths about God and our relations to
Him, which we could never have discovered without a revelation, we may
expect to find set forth without taint of error in the sacred writings.
But facts of geology, or history, or physiology, which our own
intelligence and industry can discover, we ought not to expect to find
accurately set forth for us in the Bible: and we ought to require very
full evidence before deciding that in such matters inspired writers may
be regarded as infallible. St. Luke tells us in the Preface to his
Gospel that he took great pains to obtain the best information. Need he
have done so, if inspiration protected him from all possibility of
mistake?

3. Inspiration does not override and overwhelm the inspired writer's
personal characteristics. There appears to be no such thing as an
inspired style. The style of St. John is as different from that of St.
Paul as the style of Bishop Butler is from that of Jeremy Taylor. Each
inspired writer uses the language, and the illustrations, and the
arguments that are natural and familiar to him. If he has an
argumentative mind, he argues his points; if he has not, he states them
without argument. If he has literary skill, he exhibits it; if he has
none, inspiration does not give it to him. "No inspiration theory can
stand for a moment which does not leave room for the personal agency and
individual peculiarities of the sacred authors and the exercise of their
natural faculties in writing" (Schaff, _Apostolic Christianity_, p.
608).

What inspiration has _not_ done in these various particulars is manifest
to every one who studies the sacred writings. What it _has_ done is
scarcely less manifest, and is certainly much more generally recognized.
It has produced writings which are absolutely without a parallel in the
literature of the world. Even as regards literary merits they have few
rivals. But it is not in their literary beauty that their unique
character consists. It lies rather in their lofty spirituality; their
inexhaustible capacities for instruction and consolation; their
boundless adaptability to all ages and circumstances; above all, in
their ceaseless power of satisfying the noblest cravings and aspirations
of the human heart. Other writings are profitable for knowledge, for
advancement, for amusement, for delight, for wealth. But these "make
wise unto salvation." They produce that discipline which has its sphere
in righteousness. They have power to instruct the ignorant, to convict
the guilty, to reclaim the fallen, to school all in holiness; that all
may be complete as men of God, "furnished completely unto every good
work."

FOOTNOTES:

[94] "Rationalism in Religion," in _Tracts for the Times_, republished
in _Essays Critical and Historical_, vol. i. p. 32.

[95] See the quotations given in Alford's note on =pasa oikodome= in
Eph. ii. 21, which might be increased, if necessary: _e.g._ =pan soma=,
in Arist., _Nic. Eth._, I. xiii. 7, which must = "the whole body."




CHAPTER XXXV.

_THE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT FAILURE AND
THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT TEST OF SINCERITY._

    "But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an
    evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. For I am already being offered, and
    the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I
    have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is
    laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
    righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me,
    but also to all them that have loved His appearing."--2 TIM. iv.
    5-8.


St. Chrysostom tells us that this passage was for a long time a source
of perplexity to him. "Often," he says, "when I have taken the Apostle
into my hands and have considered this passage, I have been at a loss to
understand why Paul here speaks so loftily: _I have fought the good
fight_. But now by the grace of God I seem to have found it out. For
what purpose then does he speak thus? He writes to console the
despondency of his disciple; and he therefore bids him be of good cheer,
since he was going to his crown, having finished all his work and
obtained a glorious end. Thou oughtest to rejoice, he says; not to
grieve. And why? Because _I have fought the good fight_. Just as a son,
who was sitting bewailing his orphan state, might be consoled by his
father saying to him, Weep not, my son. We have lived a good life; we
have reached old age; and now we are leaving thee. Our life has been
free from reproach; we are departing with glory; and thou mayest be held
in honour for what we have done.... And this he says not
boastfully;--God forbid;--but in order to raise up his dejected son, and
to encourage him by his praises to bear firmly what had come to pass, to
entertain good hopes, and not to think it a matter grievous to be
borne."

Chrysostom's explanation is no doubt part of the reason why the Apostle
here speaks in so exalted a key. This unusual strain _is_ partly the
result of a wish to cheer his beloved disciple and assure him that there
is no need to grieve for the death which now cannot be very far off.
When it comes, it will be a glorious death and a happy one. A glorious
death, for it will crown with the crown of victory struggles in a weary
contest which is now ending triumphantly. And a happy death; for Paul
has for years had the longing "to depart and be with Christ, which is
far better." The crown is one which will not wither; for it is not made
of olive, bay, or laurel. And it is not one of which the glory is
doubtful, or dependent upon the fickle opinions of a prejudiced crowd;
for it is not awarded by a human umpire, nor amid the applauses of human
spectators. The Giver is Christ, and the theatre is filled with angels.
In the contests of this world men labour many days and suffer hardships;
and for one hour they receive the crown. And forthwith all the pleasure
of it passes away. In the good fight which St. Paul fought a crown of
righteousness is won, which continues for ever in brightness and glory.

But besides wishing to console Timothy for the bereavement which was
impending, St. Paul also wished to encourage him, to stimulate him to
greater exertion and to a larger measure of courage. "Be _thou_ sober in
all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an Evangelist, fulfil thy
ministry. For _I_ am already being poured out as a drink-offering, and
the time of my departure is at hand." That is: _You_ must be more
vigorous, more enduring, more devoted; for _I_ am going away, and must
leave you to carry on to perfection that which I have begun. My fighting
is over; therefore do you fight more bravely. My course is finished;
therefore do you run more perseveringly. The faith entrusted to me has
been preserved thus far inviolate: see to it, that what has been
entrusted to you be kept safe. The crown which righteousness wins is
waiting now for me: so strive that such a crown may await you also. For
this is a contest in which all may have crowns, if only they will live
so as to feel a longing for the appearing of the righteous Judge who
gives them.

But there is more in this passage than the desire to comfort Timothy for
the approaching loss of his friend and instructor, and the desire to
spur him on to greater usefulness, not merely in spite of, but because
of, that loss. There is also the ecstatic joy of the great Apostle, as
with the eye of faith he looks back over the work which he has been
enabled to perform, and balances the cost of it against the great
reward.

As has been already pointed out in an earlier passage, there is nothing
in this touching letter which is more convincingly like St. Paul than
the way in which conflicting emotions succeed one another and come to
the surface in perfectly natural expression. Sometimes it is anxiety
that is uppermost; sometimes it is confidence. Here he is overflowing
with affection; there he is stern and indignant. One while he is deeply
depressed; and then again becomes triumphant and exulting. Like the
second Epistle to the Corinthians this last letter to the beloved
disciple is full of intense personal feelings, of a different and
apparently discordant character. The passage before us is charged with
such emotions, beginning with solemn warning and ending in lofty
exultation. But it is the warning, not of fear, but of affection; and it
is the exultation, not of sight, but of faith.

Looked at with human eyes the Apostle's life at that moment was a
failure,--a tragic and dismal failure. In his own simple but most
pregnant language, he had been "the _slave_ of Jesus Christ." No Roman
slave, driven by whip and goad, could have been made to work as Paul had
worked. He had taxed his fragile body and sensitive spirit to the
utmost, and had encountered lifelong opposition, derision, and
persecution, at the hands of those who ought to have been his friends,
and had been his friends until he entered the service of Jesus Christ.
He had preached and argued, had entreated and rebuked, and in doing so
had rung the changes on all the chief forms of human suffering. And what
had been the outcome of it all? The few Churches which he had founded
were but as handfuls in the cities in which he had established them; and
there were countless cities in which he had established nothing. Even
the few Churches which he had succeeded in founding had in most cases
soon fallen away from their first faith and enthusiasm. The
Thessalonians had become tainted with idleness and disorder, the
Corinthians with contentiousness and sensuality, the Galatians,
Colossians, and Ephesians with various forms of heresy; while the Roman
Church, in the midst of which he was suffering an imprisonment which
would almost certainly end in death, was treating him with coldness and
neglect. At his first defence no one took his part, but all forsook him;
and in his extremity he was almost deserted. As the results of a life of
intense energy and self-devotion, all these things had the appearance of
total failure.

And certainly if the work of his life seemed to have been a failure with
regard to others, it did not bear any resemblance to success as regards
himself. From the world's point of view he had given up much, and gained
little, beyond trouble and disgrace. He had given up a distinguished
position in the Jewish Church, in order to become the best hated man
among that people of passionate hatreds. While his efforts on behalf of
the Gentiles had ended for a third time in confinement in a Gentile
prison, from which, as he saw clearly, nothing but death was likely to
release him.

And yet, in spite of all this, St. Paul is exultingly triumphant. Not at
all because he does not perceive, or cannot feel, the difficulties and
sorrows of his position. Still less because he wishes to dissemble
either to himself or others the sufferings which he has to endure. He is
no Stoic, and makes no profession of being above human infirmities and
human emotions. He is keenly sensitive to all that affects his own
aspirations and affections and the well-being of those whom he loves. He
is well aware of the dangers both of body and soul which beset those who
are far dearer to him than life. And he gives strong expression to his
trouble and anxiety. But he measures the troubles of time by the glories
of eternity. With the eye of faith he looks across all this apparent
failure and neglect to the crown of righteousness which the righteous
Judge has in store for him, and for thousands upon thousands of others
also,--even for _all_ those who have learned to look forward with
longing to the time when their Lord shall appear again.

In all this we see in miniature the history of Christendom since the
Apostle's death. His career was a fore-shadowing of the career of the
Christian Church. In both cases there appears to be only a handful of
real disciples with a company of shallow and fickle followers, to set
against the stolid, unmoved mass of the unconverted world. In both
cases, even among the disciples themselves, there is the cowardice of
many, and the desertions of some. In both cases those who remain true to
the faith dispute among themselves which of them shall be accounted the
greatest. St. Paul was among the first to labour that Christ's ideal of
one holy catholic Church might be realized. Eighteen centuries have
passed away, and the life of the Church, like that of St. Paul, looks
like a failure. With more than half the human race still not even
nominally Christian; with long series of crimes committed not only in
defiance, but in the name, of religion; with each decade of years
producing its unwholesome crop of heresies and schisms;--what has become
of the Church's profession of being catholic, holy, and united?

The failure, as in St. Paul's case, is more apparent than real. And it
must be noted at the outset that our means of gauging success in
spiritual things are altogether uncertain and inadequate. Anything at
all like scientific accuracy is quite out of our reach, because the data
for a trustworthy conclusion cannot be obtained. But the case is far
stronger than this. It is impossible to determine even roughly where the
benefits conferred by the Gospel end; what the average holiness among
professing Christians really is; and to what extent Christendom, in
spite of its manifold divisions, is really one. It is more than possible
that the savage in central Africa is spiritually the better for the
Incarnation of which he knows nothing, and which his whole life seems to
contradict; for at least he is one of those for whom Christ was born and
died. It is probable that among quite ordinary Christians there are many
whom the world knows as sinners, but whom God knows as saints. And it is
certain that a belief in a Triune God and in a common Redeemer unites
millions far more closely than their differences about ministers and
sacraments keeps them apart. The Church's robe is tattered and
travel-stained; but she is still the Bride of Christ, and her children,
however much they may quarrel among themselves, are still one in Him.

And where the failure of St. Paul and of those who have followed him can
be shown to be unquestionably real, it can generally be shown to be
thoroughly intelligible. Although Divine in its origin, the Gospel has
from the first used human instruments with all the
weaknesses,--physical, intellectual, and moral,--which characterize
humanity. When we remember what this implies, and also remember the
forces against which Christianity has had to contend, the marvel rather
is that the Gospel has had so large a measure of success, than that its
success is not yet complete. It has had to fight against the passions
and prejudices of individuals and nations, debased by long centuries of
immorality and ignorance, and strengthened in their opposition to the
truth by all the powers of darkness. It has had to fight, moreover, with
other religions, many of which are attractive by their concessions to
human frailty, and others by the comparative purity of their rites and
doctrines. And against them all it has won, and continues to win, man's
approbation and affection, by its power of satisfying his highest
aspirations and his deepest needs. No other religion or philosophy has
had success so various or so far reaching. The Jew and the Mahometan,
after centuries of intercourse, remain almost without influence upon
European minds; while to Western civilization the creed of the Buddhist
remains not only without influence, but without meaning. But the nation
has not yet been found to which Christianity has been proved to be
unintelligible or unsuitable. To whatever quarter of the globe we look,
or to whatever period of history during the Christian era, the answer is
still the same. Multitudes of men, throughout eighteen centuries, under
the utmost variety of conditions, whether of personal equipment or of
external circumstance, have made trial of Christianity, and have found
it satisfying. They have testified as the result of their countless
experiences that it can stand the wear and tear of life; that it can not
only fortify but console; and that it can rob even death of its sting
and the grave of its victory by a sure and certain hope of the crown of
righteousness, which the righteous Judge prepares for all those who
love, and have long loved, His appearing.

"Who have loved and do love His appearing."[96] That is the full force
of the Greek perfect (=tois egapekosin=), which expresses the present
and permanent result of past action; and therein lies the test whereby
to try the temper of our Christianity. St. Paul, who had long yearned to
depart and be with Christ, could not easily have given a more simple or
sure method of finding out who those are who have a right to believe
that the Lord has a crown of righteousness in store for them. Are we
among the number? In order to answer this question we must ask ourselves
another. Are our lives such that we are longing for Christ's return? Or
are we dreading it, because we know that we are not fit to meet Him, and
are making no attempt to become so. Supposing that physicians were to
tell us, that we are smitten with a deadly disease, which must end
fatally, and that very soon,--what would be our feeling? When the first
shock was over, and we were able to take a calm view of the whole case,
could we welcome the news as the unexpected fulfilment of a long
cherished wish that Christ would deliver us out of the miseries of this
sinful world and take us to Himself? The Bible sets before us the crown
of righteousness which fadeth not away, and the worm which never dieth.
Leaning upon God's unfailing love let us learn to long for the coming of
the one; and then we shall have no need to dread, or even to ask the
meaning of, the other.

FOOTNOTES:

[96] The somewhat unusual word here used for Christ's second coming
(=epiphaneia=) has been condemned as un-Pauline; but it occurs 2 Thess.
ii. 8, and the cognate verb =phaneroun= is found Col. iii. 4. Cf. 2 Tim.
i. 10; iv. 1; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 14.




CHAPTER XXXVI.

_THE PERSONAL DETAILS A GUARANTEE OF GENUINENESS._

    "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas forsook me,
    having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens
    to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark,
    and bring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering. But
    Tychicus I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that I left at Troas with
    Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the
    parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord
    will render to him according to his works: of whom be thou ware
    also; for he greatly withstood our words."--2 TIM. iv. 9-15.

    "Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus. Erastus
    abode at Corinth: but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. Do thy
    diligence to come before winter. Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens,
    and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren." vv. 19-21.


It would scarcely be exceeding the limits of legitimate hyperbole to say
that these two passages prove the authenticity and genuineness of the
Pastoral Epistles; that they are sufficient to show that these letters
are an authentic account of the matters of which they treat, and that
they are genuine letters of the Apostle Paul.

In the first of these expositions it was pointed out how improbable it
is that a portion of one of these letters should be genuine, and not the
remainder of it; or that one of the three should be genuine, and not
the other two; and _a fortiori_, that two of the three should be
genuine, and not the remaining one.

The passages before us are among those of which it has been truly said
that they "cling so closely to Paul that it is only by tearing the
letter to pieces that any part can be dissociated from that
Apostle."[97] The internal evidence is here too strong even for those
critics who deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles as a
whole. Thus Renan and Weisse are disposed to admit that we have here
embedded in the work of a later writer portions of a genuine letter of
the Apostle; while Ewald, Hausrath, and Pfleiderer accept not only these
verses, but the earlier passage about Phygelus, Hermogenes, and
Onesiphorus as genuine also. Similar views are advocated by Hitzig,
Krenkel, and Immer, of whom the two first admit that the Epistle to
Titus also contains genuine fragments. And quite recently (1882) we have
Lemme contending that only the central portion of 2 Timothy (ii. 11 to
iv. 5) is an interpolation.

These concessions amount to a concession of the whole case. It is
impossible to stop there. Either much more must be conceded or much
less. For, (1) we cannot without very strong evidence indeed accept so
improbable a supposition as that a Christian long after the Apostle's
death was in possession of letters written by him, of which no one else
knew anything, that he worked bits of these into writings of his own,
which he wished to pass off as Apostolic, and that he then destroyed the
genuine letters, or disposed of them in such a way that no one knew
that they had ever existed. Such a story is not absolutely impossible,
but it is so unlikely to be true, that to accept it without clear
evidence would be most uncritical. And there is not only no clear
evidence; there is no evidence at all. The hypothesis is pure
imagination. (2) The portions of this letter which are allowed by
adverse critics to be genuine are precisely those in which a forger
would be pretty sure to be caught tripping. They are full of personal
details, some of which admit of being tested, and all of which can be
criticized, as to whether they are natural and consistent or not. Would
a forger be likely to risk detection by venturing on such dangerous
ground? He would put into the letter those doctrines for which he wished
to appear to have St. Paul's authority; and, if he added anything else,
he would take care not to go beyond vague generalities, too indefinite
to be caught in the meshes of criticism. But the writer of this letter
has done the reverse of all this. He has given an abundance of personal
detail, such as can be found in only one other place in the New
Testament, and that in the concluding portion of the Epistle to the
Romans, one of the indisputable writings of St. Paul.

And he has not been caught tripping. Hostile writers have subjected
these details to the most searching criticism; and the result, as we
have seen, is that many of them are constrained to admit that these
portions of the letter are genuine productions of the Apostle. That is,
those portions of the Epistle which can be subjected to a severe test,
are allowed to be by St. Paul, because they stand the test; while those
which do not admit of being thus tested are rejected, not because there
is any proof of their being spurious, but because critics think that
the style is not like the Apostle's. Would they not be the first to
deride others for such an opinion? Supposing that these details had
contained absurdities or contradictions, which _could_ not have been
written by St. Paul, would they not have maintained, and reasonably
maintained, that it was monstrous to surrender as spurious those
sections of the letter which had been tested and found wanting, and to
defend as genuine the other sections, which did not admit of being
tested?

Let us look at the details a little more closely. Besides St. Paul and
Timothy, twenty-three Christians of the Apostolic age are mentioned in
this short letter. A considerable number of these are persons of whom we
read in the Acts or in St. Paul's other letters; but the majority are
new names, and in most of these cases we know nothing about the bearers
of the names beyond what is told us here. Would a forger have given us
this mixture of known and unknown? If he ventured upon names at all,
would he not either have given us imaginary persons, whose names and
actions could not be checked by existing records, or else have kept
closely to the records, so that the checking might tell in his favour?
He has done neither. The new names do not look like those of imaginary
persons, and the mention of known persons is by no means a mere
reproduction of what is said of them elsewhere.

"Demas forsook me, having loved this present world.... Take Mark and
bring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering." A forger
with the Acts and the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon before him
would have made Mark forsake Paul, and Demas be commended as useful to
him; for in the Acts (xv. 38) Paul had to condemn Mark for slackness,
and in the Epistles to the Colossians (iv. 14) and to Philemon (24)
Demas with Luke is waiting on the Apostle in his imprisonment. And yet
how natural that the Apostle's condemnation should rouse Mark to greater
earnestness, and that the Apostle should recognize that earnestness in
this farewell letter? And how consistent with human frailty also that
Demas should have courage enough to stand by St. Paul during his first
Roman imprisonment, and yet should quail before the greater risks of the
second! That the Apostle's complaint respecting him means more than
this, is unlikely. Yet some have exaggerated it into a charge of heresy,
or even utter apostasy. We are simply to understand that Demas preferred
comfort and security away from Rome to the hardship and danger of a
Roman prison; and therefore went to Thessalonica. Why he selected that
town we are not told, but there being a Christian community there would
be one reason.

"Titus to Dalmatia." Why should a forger send Titus to Dalmatia? The
Pastoral Epistles, whether a forgery or not, are all by one hand, and
seem to have been written within a short time of one another. Would not
a forger have sent Titus either to Crete (Tit. i. 5), or to Nicopolis
(Tit. iii. 12)? But if Titus went to Nicopolis, and failed to find Paul
there, owing to his having been meanwhile arrested, what more probable
than that he should go on into Dalmatia? The forger, if he had thought
of this, would have called attention to it, to ensure that his ingenuity
was not overlooked.

"But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus." The meaning of the "but" is not quite
clear. Perhaps the most probable supposition is that it indicates the
reason why the Apostle needs a useful person like Mark. "I had such a
person in Tychicus; but he is gone on a mission for me to Ephesus." How
natural all this is! And what could induce a forger to put it in? We are
told in the Acts that Tychicus belonged to the Roman province of Asia
(xx. 4), and that he was with St. Paul at the close of his third
missionary journey about nine years before the writing of this letter to
Timothy. Three or four years later we find Tychicus once more with St.
Paul during the first Roman imprisonment; and he is sent with Onesimus
as the bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 7) and to the
Ephesians (vi. 21). And we learn from the sentence before us, as well as
from Titus iii. 12, that he still enjoys the confidence of the Apostle,
for he is sent on missions for him to Crete and to Ephesus. All these
separate notices of him hang together consistently representing him as
"the beloved brother," and also as a "faithful minister and
fellow-servant in the Lord," whom St. Paul was accustomed to entrust
with special commissions. If the mission to Ephesus mentioned here is a
mere copy of the other missions, would not a forger have taken some
pains to ensure that the similarity between his fiction and previous
facts should be observed?

"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and
the books, especially the parchments." Here the arguments against the
probability of forgery reach a climax; and this verse should be
remembered side by side with "Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a
little wine for thy stomach's sake" in the First Epistle (v. 23). What
writer of a fictitious letter would ever have dreamed of inserting
either passage? To an unbiassed mind they go a long way towards
producing the impression that we are dealing with real letters and not
with inventions. And this argument holds good equally well, whatever
meaning we give to the word (=phelone=) which is rendered "cloke." It
probably means a cloke, and is a Greek form of the Latin _penula_. It
appears to have been a circular garment without sleeves, but with a hole
in the middle for the head. Hence some persons have made the astounding
suggestion that it was a eucharistic vestment analogous to a chasuble,
and have supposed that the Apostle is here asking, not for warm clothing
"before winter," but for a sacerdotal dress for ritualistic purposes.
But since Chrysostom's day there has been a more credible suggestion
that the word means a bag or case for books. If so, would the Apostle
have mentioned both the book-bag and the books, and would he have put
the bag before the books? He might naturally have written, "Bring the
book-bag,"--of course with the books in it; or, "Bring the books and the
bag also." But it seems a strange way of putting the request to say,
"The book-bag that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest;
the books also, especially the parchments," as if the bag were the chief
thing that he thought about. It seems better to abide by the old
rendering "cloke;" and, if this is correct, then it fits in well with
"Do thy diligence to come _before winter_." Yet the writer in no way
draws our attention to the connexion between the need of the thick cloke
and the approach of winter: and the writer of a real letter would have
no need to do so. But would a forger have left the connexion to
chance?[98]

Whether Alexander the coppersmith is the person of that name who was put
forward by the Jews in the riot raised by Demetrius (Acts xix. 33), is
not more than a possibility. The name Alexander was exceedingly common;
and we are not told that the Jew in the riot at Ephesus was a smith, or
that Alexander the smith was a Jew. In what way the coppersmith "showed
much ill-treatment" to the Apostle, we are not told. As St. Paul goes on
immediately afterwards to speak of his "first defence," it seems
reasonable to conjecture that Alexander had seriously injured the
Apostle's cause in some way. But this is pure conjecture; and the
ill-treatment may refer to general persecution of St. Paul and
opposition to his teaching. On the whole the latter hypothesis appears
to be safer.

The reading, "The Lord _will_ render to him" (=apodosei=), is shown by
an overwhelming balance of evidence to be preferable to "The Lord reward
him (=apodoe=) according to his works." There is no malediction. Just as
in ver. 8 the Apostle expresses his conviction that the Lord will render
(=apodosei=) a crown of righteousness to all those who love His
appearing, so here he expresses a conviction that He will render a just
recompense to all those who oppose the work of His kingdom. What follows
in the next verse, "may it not be laid to their account," seems to show
that the Apostle is in no cursing mood. He writes in sorrow rather than
in anger. It is necessary to put Timothy on his guard against a
dangerous person; but he leaves the requital of the evil deeds to God.

"Salute Prisca and Aquila." A forger with the Apostle's indisputable
writings before him, would hardly have inserted this; for he would have
concluded from Rom. xvi. 3, 4, that these two well-known helpers of St.
Paul were in Rome at this very time. Aquila was a Jew of Pontus who had
migrated from Pontus to Rome, but had had to leave the capital again
when Claudius expelled the Jews from the city (Acts xviii. 2). He and
his wife Prisca or Priscilla then settled in Corinth, where St. Paul
took up his abode with them, because they were Jews and tent-makers,
like himself. And in their workshop the foundations of the Corinthian
Church were laid. Thenceforward they became his helpers in preaching the
Gospel, and went with him to Ephesus, where they helped forward the
conversion of the eloquent Alexandrian Jew Apollos. After much service
to the Church they returned once more to Rome, and were there when St.
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Either the persecution under Nero,
or possibly missionary enterprise, induced them once more to leave Rome
and return to Asia. The Apostle naturally puts such faithful friends,
"who for his life laid down their necks" (Rom. xvi. 3), in the very
first place in sending his personal greetings; and they are equally
naturally coupled with the household of Onesiphorus, who had done
similar service in courageously visiting St. Paul in his imprisonment
(ver. 16). The double mention of "the _household_ of Onesiphorus" (not
of Onesiphorus himself) has been commented upon in a former exposition
(see No. XXVIII.).

Of the statements, "Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus I left at
Miletus sick," no more need be said than to point out how lifelike and
natural they are in a real letter from one friend to another who knows
the persons mentioned; how unlikely they are to have occurred to a
writer who was inventing a letter in order to advocate his own doctrinal
views. That Trophimus is the same person as the Ephesian, who with
Tychicus accompanied St. Paul on his third missionary journey (Acts xx.
4; xxi. 29), may be safely assumed. Whether Erastus is identical with
the treasurer of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23), or with the Erastus who was
sent by Paul with Timothy to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), must remain
uncertain.

"Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia." With this
group of names our accumulation of arguments for the genuineness of this
portion of the letter, and therefore of the whole letter, and therefore
of all three Pastoral Epistles, comes to an end. The argument is a
cumulative one, and this last item of the internal evidence is by no
means the least important or least convincing. About Eubulus, Pudens,
and Claudia we know nothing beyond what this passage implies, viz., that
they were members of the Christian Church in Rome; for the very bare
possibility that Pudens and Claudia may be the persons of that name who
are mentioned by Martial, is not worth more than a passing reference.
But Linus is a person about whom something is known. It is unlikely that
in the Apostolic age there were two Christians of this name in the Roman
Church; and therefore we may safely conclude that the Linus who here
sends greeting is identical with the Linus, who, according to very early
testimony preserved by Irenaeus (_Haer._, III. iii. 3), was first among
the earliest bishops of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus himself expressly
identifies the first Bishop of Rome with the Linus mentioned in the
Epistles to Timothy, and that in a passage in which (thanks to Eusebius)
we have the original Greek of Irenaeus as well as the Latin translation.
From his time (c. A.D. 180) to the present day, Linus, Anencletus or
Anacletus or Cletus (all three forms of the name are used), and Clement
have been commemorated as the three first Bishops of Rome. They must all
of them have been contemporaries of the Apostle. Of these three far the
most famous was Clement; and a writer at the end of the first century,
or beginning of the second, inventing a letter for St. Paul, would be
much more likely to put Clement into it than Linus. Again, such a writer
would know that Linus, after the Apostle's death, became the presiding
presbyter of the Church of Rome, and would place him before Eubulus and
Pudens. But here Linus is placed after the other two. The obvious
inference is, that, at the time when this letter was written, Linus was
not yet in any position of authority. Like the other persons here named,
he was a leading member of the Church in Rome, otherwise he would hardly
have been mentioned at all; but he has not yet been promoted to the
chief place, otherwise he would at least have been mentioned first, and
probably with some epithet or title. Once more one asks, what writer of
fiction would have thought of these niceties? And what writer who
thought of them, and elaborated them thus skilfully, would have
abstained from all attempt to prevent their being overlooked and
unappreciated?

The result of this investigation is greatly to increase our confidence
in the genuineness of this letter and of all three Pastoral Epistles. We
began by treating them as veritable writings of the great Apostle, and a
closer acquaintance with them has justified this treatment. Doubts may
be raised about everything; but reasonable doubts have their limits. To
dispute the authenticity of the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans,
and Galatians is now considered to be a sure proof that the doubter
cannot estimate evidence; and we may look forward to the time when the
Second Epistle to Timothy will be ranked with those four great Epistles
as indisputable. Meanwhile let no student of this letter doubt that in
it he is reading the touching words in which the Apostle of the Gentiles
gave his last charge to his beloved disciple, and through him to the
Christian Church.

FOOTNOTES:

[97] Salmon's _Historical Introduction to the New Testament_, p. 426,
3rd ed., to which the writer of this exposition is under great
obligations. The book should be in the hands of every student of the N.
T.

[98] The striking parallel to this request afforded by that of William
Tyndale is pointed out in Farrar's _St. Paul_, ii. p. 571. Tyndale
writes from his prison in the Castle of Vilvorden to ask, "idque per
Dominum Jesum," for warmer clothing, and above all for his Hebrew Bible,
grammar, and dictionary.




CHAPTER XXXVII.

_THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE LORD.--THE MISSION
TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE, AND THE FINAL HYMN OF
PRAISE._

    "At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me: may it
    not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and
    strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully
    proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was
    delivered out of the mouth of the lion. The Lord will deliver me
    from evil work, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom: to whom
    be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."--2 TIM. iv. 16-18.


There is a general agreement at the present time that Eusebius is in
error, when, in a well-known passage in his Ecclesiastical History (II.
xxii. 2-7), he refers this "first defence" and the "deliverance out of
the lion's mouth" to the first Roman imprisonment and the release which
put an end to it, probably A.D. 63. The deliverance does not mean
release from prison following upon acquittal, but temporary rescue from
imminent danger. Eusebius makes a second mistake in this chapter which
is the result of the first error; but an avoidance of the second would
have preserved him from the first. He says that the Apostle shows in the
Second Epistle to Timothy that only Luke was with him when he wrote, but
at his former defence not even he. Now during the first Roman
imprisonment St. Paul was not alone, and one of the persons who was
with him was Timothy himself, as we see from the opening of the letter
to the Philippians. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the Apostle
would think it worth while to tell Timothy what took place at the trial
which ended the first imprisonment, seeing that Timothy was then in
Rome. And even if Timothy had left Rome before the trial came on, which
is not very likely, he would long since have heard what took place, both
from others and from the Apostle himself. It is obvious that in the
present passage St. Paul is giving his disciple information respecting
something which has recently taken place, of which Timothy is not likely
to have heard.

The value of the witness of Eusebius is not, however, seriously
diminished by this twofold mistake. It is clear that he was fully
convinced that there were two Roman imprisonments; one early in Nero's
reign, when the Emperor was more disposed to be merciful, and one later;
and that he was convinced of this on independent grounds, and not
because he considered that the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles
would be untenable without the hypothesis of a second imprisonment.

Another confirmation of the view of Eusebius is found in the statement
respecting Trophimus, that Paul had left him sick at Miletus. It is
impossible to place the Apostle at Miletus with Trophimus prior to the
first imprisonment. Consequently some who deny the second imprisonment,
and yet maintain the genuineness of this letter, resort to the desperate
method of making the verb to be third person plural instead of first
person singular (=apeleipon= or =apelipon=), and translating "Trophimus
_they_ left at Miletus sick."

"At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me." He had
no _patronus_, no _advocatus_, no _clientela_. Among all the Christians
in Rome there was not one who would stand at his side in court either to
speak on his behalf, or to advise him in the conduct of his case, or to
support him by a demonstration of sympathy. The expression for "no one
took my part" (=oudeis moi paregeneto=) literally means "no one came to
my side," or "became present on my behalf." The verb is specially
frequent in the writings of St. Luke. And the word which is rendered
"forsook" (=enkatelipon=) is still more graphic. It signifies "leaving a
person _in_ a position," and especially in a _bad_ position; leaving him
in straits. It is almost the exact counterpart of our colloquial phrase
"to leave in the lurch." St. Paul uses it elsewhere of those who with
him are "pursued, but not _forsaken_" (2 Cor. iv. 9). And both St. Mark
and St. Luke, following the LXX., use it in translating Christ's cry
upon the cross: "Why hast thou _forsaken_ Me?" Hence it signifies not
merely desertion (=kataleipein=), but desertion at a time when help and
support are needed.

What is the meaning of the "all"? "_All_ forsook me." Does it include
Luke, whom he has just mentioned as being the only person with him? And,
if so, is it meant as an indirect reproach? Some would have it that we
have here an indication of the spurious character of the letter. The
forger is unable consistently to maintain the part which he has assumed.
In writing "all forsook me" he has already forgotten what he has just
written about Luke: and he forgets both statements when a few lines
further on he represents Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and others as
sending greetings.

But, like so many of these objections, this criticism turns out, when
reasonably examined, to be an argument for the genuineness of the
letter. These apparent inconsistencies are just the things which a
forger could and would have avoided. Even a very blundering forger would
have avoided three glaring contradictions in about thirty lines: and
they _are_ glaring contradictions, if they are interpreted as they must
be interpreted for the purposes of this criticism. "Only Luke is with
me." "Every one has forsaken me." "All the brethren salute thee." Any
one of these statements, if forced to apply to the same set of
circumstances, contradicts the other two. But then this meaning is
forced upon them, and is not their natural meaning: and these are just
the apparent inconsistencies which the writer of a real letter takes no
pains to avoid, because there is not the smallest danger of his being
misunderstood.

"All forsook me" is exactly a parallel to "all that are in Asia turned
away from me" (see pp. 321, 322.) The "all" in both cases means "all who
might have been expected to help." It refers to those who could have
been of service, who in many cases had been asked to render service, by
being witnesses in Paul's favour and the like, and who abstained from
doing anything for him. The Apostle's "first defence" probably took
place some weeks, or even months, before the writing of this letter.
From our knowledge of the delays which often took place in Roman legal
proceedings, there would be nothing surprising if a whole year had
elapsed since the first opening of the case. It is quite possible,
therefore, that at the time when it began St. Luke was not yet in Rome,
and consequently had no opportunity of aiding his friend. And it is also
possible that he was not in a position to render any assistance,
however anxious he may have been to do so. There is no reason whatever
for supposing that the Apostle includes him among those for whom he
prays that God will forgive them their desertion of him, even as he
himself forgives it.

Nor is there any contradiction between "Only Luke is with me," and the
salutations sent by Eubulus and others. There were various members of
the Church in Rome who occasionally visited St. Paul in his
imprisonment, or at least kept up a certain amount of communication with
him. But Luke was the only _outsider_ who was with him, the only one who
had come to him from a distance and been both able and willing to
_remain_ with him. Others both in Rome and from other Churches had paid
visits to the prisoner; but they had been unable or unwilling to stay
with him. Luke was the only person who had done that. Therefore the fact
that various Roman Christians were ready to send greetings to Timothy is
in no way inconsistent with the special commendation bestowed upon St.
Luke for being his friend's sole companion in prison.

For the cowardly or unkind abstention of the rest the Apostle has no
stronger word of condemnation than "may it not be laid to their
account." No one knew better than himself how weak-hearted many of these
disciples were, and how great were the dangers of his own position and
of all those who ventured to associate themselves with him. It was
otherwise in his first imprisonment. Then Nero was not quite the monster
that he had since become. At that time the burning of Rome had not yet
taken place, nor had the cruel outcry against the Christians, of which
the conflagration was made the occasion, as yet been raised. It was
quite otherwise now. To be known as a Christian might be dangerous; and
to avow oneself as the associate of so notorious a leader as Paul could
not fail to be so. Therefore, "May it not be laid to their account" (=me
autois logistheie=). This is the very spirit which the Apostle himself
years before had declared to be a characteristic of Christian charity;
"it taketh not account of evil" (=ou logizetai to kakon=): and of God
Himself, Who in dealing with mankind, "lays not to their account their
trespasses" (=me logizomenos autois ta paraptomata auton=).[99]

"But," in contrast to these timid friends, "_the Lord_ stood by me and
strengthened me." Christ did not desert His faithful servant in the hour
of need, but gave him courage and strength to speak out bravely before
the court all that it was right that he should say. The contrast which
the Apostle here makes between the many who forsook him and the One who
stood by him reminds us of a similar contrast made by the Lord Himself.
"Behold, the hour cometh, yea is come, that ye shall be scattered, every
man to his own, and shall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone,
because the Father is with Me" (John xvi. 32). In this respect also the
saying remains true "A servant is not greater than his lord" (John xv.
20); and Apostles must expect no better treatment than their Master
received. If they are deserted by their disciples and friends in the
hour of danger, so also was He. But in each case those who are deserted
are not alone, because, although human help fails, Divine support is
always present.

"The Lord" in this passage, both here and a few lines further on, means
Christ rather than the Father. This is in accordance with St. Paul's
usage. "Lord" here has the article (=ho kyrios=): and when that is the
case it commonly means Jesus Christ (comp. ii. 7, 14, 22; iii. 11; iv.
14, 22; 1 Tim. i. 2, 12, 14; vi. 3, 14; 1 Cor. iv. 5; vi. 13; vii. 10,
12, 34; etc., etc. In Titus the word does not occur). Where "Lord" has
no article in the Greek (=kyrios=) St. Paul usually means God and not
Christ. Some would assert that, excepting where he quotes from the Old
Testament (_e.g._, 1 Cor. x. 26), this usage is invariable; but that is
probably too sweeping an assertion. Nevertheless, there is no reason for
doubting that in this passage "the Lord" means Jesus Christ. We may
compare our own usage, according to which "our Lord" almost invariably
means Christ, whereas "the Lord" more commonly means God the Father.

The word for "strengthen" (=endynamoun=) means literally "to infuse
power into" a person. It is one of which the Apostle is rather fond; and
outside his writings it occurs in the New Testament only in the Acts and
in Hebrews, once in each (Rom. iv. 20; Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iv. 13; 1 Tim.
i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1). It is worth while to compare the passage in which
he speaks to Timothy of Christ having given him power to turn to Him and
become His servant; and still more the passage in which, during his
first Roman imprisonment, he tells the Philippians "I can do all things
in Him that strengthened me." The same thing was true in the second
imprisonment.

The special purpose for which Christ stood by His Apostle and put
strength and power into him is stated. "That through me the message
might be fully proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear." Those
who follow Eusebius in the mistake of supposing that the "first defence"
refers to the trial which ended in St. Paul's release after the first
imprisonment, understand this proclamation of the message to the
Gentiles as referring to the missionary work which St. Paul was enabled
to do during the few years of interval (c. A.D. 63-66) before he was
again arrested. But if the proclamation of the message took place in
consequence of the Apostle's release, then it would have been placed
after, and not before, the mention of deliverance out of the mouth of
the lion. It is not said that he was _delivered_ in order that through
him the message might be proclaimed, but that he was _strengthened_ in
order that it might be proclaimed. And the special strengthening by
Christ took place in reference to the first hearing of the case in
court, when all human friends forsook him, while Christ stood by him. It
was in court, therefore, that the proclamation of the message was made,
and that through the instrumentality of the Apostle the preaching of the
Gospel reached its culmination (=to kerygma plerophorethe=). This was
the climax;--that in the metropolis of the world, in open court, before
the imperial tribunal, the Gospel proclamation should be made with all
solemnity and power. It is quite possible that this event, which the
Apostle of the Gentiles regards as the completing act of his own mission
and ministry, took place in the forum itself. Here Tiberius had caused a
tribunal to be erected for causes which he had to hear as Emperor. But
Claudius sometimes heard such cases elsewhere; and his successors
probably followed his example. So that in the reign of Nero we cannot be
certain that such a case as St. Paul's would be heard in the forum. But
at any rate it would be held in a court to which the public had access;
and the Roman public at this time was the most representative in the
world. The Apostle is fully justified, therefore, in the language which
he uses. This opportunity and power were granted "in order that through
me the message might be fully proclaimed, and _that all the Gentiles
might hear_." In that representative city and before that representative
audience he preached Christ; and through those who were present and
heard him the fact would be made known throughout the civilized world
that in the imperial city and before the imperial bench the Apostle of
Christ had proclaimed the coming of His Kingdom.

And the result of it was that he was "delivered out of the mouth of the
lion." This was a second consequence of the Lord's standing by him and
strengthening him. He was enabled to speak with such effect, that the
sentence of condemnation, which had been feared, was for the present
averted. He was neither acquitted nor convicted; but the court, being
unable to arrive at a satisfactory decision, granted an extension of
time (_ampliatio_); that is an adjournment. In technical phraseology the
_actio prima_ ended in a verdict of _non liquet_, and an _actio secunda_
became necessary; and as this second trial might have a similar result,
the amount of delay that was possible was almost boundless.

To ask who is meant by the lion is a futile question. Whom did the
Psalmist mean by the lion, when he prayed "Save me from the lion's
mouth"? (Ps. xxii. 21.) He meant no one by the lion; but by the lion's
mouth he meant some great and imminent danger. And that is what we must
understand here. All kinds of gratuitous conjectures have been made by
those who have insisted on identifying the lion;--the lion of the
amphitheatre, to whom the Apostle might have been thrown, had he been
condemned; the Emperor Nero, or, as he was possibly in Greece at this
time, his prefect and representative Helius; or, the chief accuser; or
again, Satan, whom St. Peter describes as "a roaring lion." All these
are answers to a question which does not arise out of the text. The
question is not, "Who is the lion?" but, "What is the meaning of the
lion's mouth?" And the answer to that is, "a terrible danger," and
especially "peril of death."

The goodness of the Lord does not end with this welcome, but temporary
deliverance. "The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will
save me unto His heavenly kingdom." Paul's enemies are not likely to be
idle during the extension of time granted by the court. They will do
their utmost to secure a sentence of condemnation at the second hearing
of the case, and thus get the man whom they detest removed from the
earth. Whether they will succeed in this or not, the Apostle does not
know. But one thing he knows;--that whatever is really evil in their
works against him will be powerless to harm him. The Lord will turn
their evil into good. They may succeed in compassing his death. But,
even if they do so, the Lord will make their work of death a work of
salvation; and by the severing of the thread which still binds Paul to
this life "will save him unto," that is, will translate him safe into,
"His heavenly kingdom."

It is utterly improbable that by "every evil work," St. Paul means any
weakness or sin into which he himself might be betrayed through want of
courage and steadfastness. Even if the lion's mouth could mean Satan,
this would not be probable; for it would be Satan's attacks from
without, by means of opposition and persecution, and not his attempts
from within by means of grievous temptations, that would be meant. What
is said above about Alexander the coppersmith shows what kind of "evil"
and what kind of "works" is intended in "every evil work." The
expression evidently refers to the machinations of Paul's enemies.

It is also highly improbable that "will save me unto His heavenly
kingdom" means "will keep me alive until He returns in glory." There was
a time when the Apostle expected, like most other Christians of that
day, to live to behold the second coming of Christ. But what we have
already seen in this Epistle shows that in St. Paul's mind that
expectation is extinct. He no longer thinks that he will be one of those
"that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord" (1 Thess.
iv. 15, 17); that he will be among the living, who "shall be changed,"
rather than among the dead, who "shall be raised" at the sounding of the
last trump (1 Cor. xv. 53). He does not repeat, what seems almost to
have been a familiar watchword among the Christians of that day,--"Maran
atha"; "the Lord is at hand" (1 Cor. xvi. 22; Phil. iv. 5). On the
contrary, it is his own hour that is at hand: "I am already being
offered, and the time of my departure is come." He is fully persuaded
now that he will not live to see Christ's return in glory; and he does
not expect that return to come speedily; for, as we have seen, one of
his chief anxieties is that there should be a permanently organized
ministry in the Churches, and that provision should be made for handing
on the faith intact from generation to generation (Tit. i, 5; 2 Tim. ii.
2). There can be little doubt, therefore, that when the Apostle
expresses a conviction that the Lord will save him unto His heavenly
kingdom, he is not expecting to reach that kingdom without first passing
through the gate of death. What he is sure of is this,--that the evil
works of his adversaries will never be allowed to prevent him from
reaching that blessed resting place. Christ's kingdom is twofold; He has
a kingdom on earth and a kingdom in heaven. The saints who are in the
kingdom on earth are still exposed to many kinds of evil works; and the
Apostle is persuaded that in his case such works will be overruled by
the Lord to further his progress from the earthly to the heavenly
kingdom.

"To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

If what was said above about "the Lord" is correct, then here we have a
doxology which manifestly is addressed to Christ. It is possible that in
Rom. ix. 5 and xvi. 27 we have other examples, as also in Heb. xiii. 21;
but in all these three cases the construction is open to question. Here,
however, there can be no doubt that "the glory for ever and ever" is
ascribed to the Lord Who stood by Paul at his trial and will deliver him
from all evil works hereafter; and the Lord is Jesus Christ. As
Chrysostom pointedly remarks without further comment: "Lo, here is a
doxology to the Son." And it is word for word the same as that which in
Gal. i. 5 is addressed to the Father.

With these words of praise on his lips we take our leave of the Apostle.
He is a wearied worker, a forlorn and all but deserted teacher, a
despised and all but condemned prisoner; but he knows that he has made
no mistake. The Master, Who seems to have requited His servant so ill,
is a royal Master, Who has royal gifts in store. He has never failed His
servant in this life, in which His presence, though but dimly reflected,
has always brightened suffering; and He will not fail in His promises
respecting the life which is to come. The Apostle has had to sustain
him, not merely Divine truth wherewith to enlighten his soul, and
Divine rules, wherewith to direct his conduct; he has had also a Divine
Person, wherewith to share his life. He has kept the faith in the Divine
truth; he has finished his course according to the Divine rules; yet
these things he has done, not in his own strength, but in Christ Who
lives in him. It is this gracious indwelling which made the victory that
has been won possible; and it is this which gives it its value. The
faith which has been kept is faith in Him Who is the Truth. The course
which has been finished is according to Him Who is the Way. And the life
which has been shared has been united with Him Who is the Life. That
union will never end. It began here; and it will be continued throughout
eternity in "the life which is life indeed." And therefore, with a heart
full of thankfulness to the Master Who has shared his sufferings and
will share his bliss, he leaves us as his last address to Christ, "To
Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

FOOTNOTES:

[99] 1 Cor. xiii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 19.




INDEX.


    Abecedarians, 70.

    Acts of the Apostles not written by Titus, 207, nor by St. Paul,
    360-362.

    Adornment, The nature of, 251, 252.

    Alexander, 75, 76, 373, 413.

    Ambrose, 230.

    Anacletus, 416.

    Ananias and Sapphira, 73, 75.

    Anarchy in the Church, 73, 271.

    Angels, 138.

    Antinomian doctrine, 44, 49, 298, 299.

    Apocalypse, 48, 68.

    Apollos, 203, 208, 414.

    Apostles, 69, 70.

    Apostolic Constitutions, 126, 156, 232.

    Appuleius, 379.

    Aquila, 413, 414.

    Aratus, 225.

    Aristotle, 240.

    Army, Roman, 345, 346.

    Artemis, Temple of, 84, 198.

    Article, The Greek, 89, 189, 392.

    Asceticism, 44, 142, 143.

    Athenagoras, 125.

    Athleticism, 144.

    Aurelius, M., 89, 257.

    Augustine, 229, 373.

    Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, 4-16, 33, 52, 55, 163, 169,
    294, 295, 312, 322, 404, 406-417, 421.

    Authority, Divine origin of, 273-275.

    Avarice, Dangers of, 196-198.


    Baptism, 284-293.

    Basilides, 8, 42.

    Bauer, 8, 10, 12, 33.

    Blandina, 257.

    Bodily exercise profitable, 143-145.

    Bretschneider, 125.

    Butler's Durham Charge, 368.


    Carpus, 11, 411.

    Cathari, 126.

    Celsus, 229, 253.

    Cellini, 50.

    Certainty, Nature of historical, 105.

    Children, Care of, 256.

    Chrysostom, 34, 56, 95, 101, 249, 349, 369, 382, 397, 429.

    Circumcision of Timothy, 22.

    Claudia, 415.

    Claudius, 414, 425.

    Cleanthes, 225.

    Clement of Alexandria, 6, 97, 100, 228, 339, 373.

    Clement of Rome, 5, 14, 97, 110, 416.

    Clergy and laity from the first distinct, 109.

    Cloke, 412.

    Collection for Jewish Christians, 205.

    Conscientious disobedience, 278.

    Contentment, 192-196.

    Continuity of doctrine, 336-340.

    Controversial spirit, 367.

    Controversial violence, 280.

    Corinth, Case of incest at, 73, 265.

    Corinth, Timothy at, 23, 24, 29.

    Corinth, Titus at, 204-206.

    Cosin, Bishop, 328.

    Credner, 8.

    Crete, The Church in, 212-215, 271.

    Cynicism, Evils of, 29-31.

    Cyril of Jerusalem, 341.


    Davies, T. Ll., 301.

    Deaconesses, 155, 158.

    Dead, Prayers for the, 325-330.

    Delivering to Satan, 74.

    Demas, 409, 410.

    Devil, Personality of the, 77-80.

    Diogenes Laertius, 296.

    Discipline necessary to the Church, 72, 73.

    Divinity of Christ, 268, 269, 283, 429.

    Divorce, 120.

    Doctrinal statements in the Pastoral Epistles, 259, 282.

    Doctrine, Continuity of, 336-340.

    Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, 69, 96, 108, 115.

    Doellinger, 8, 129.

    Doxology addressed to Christ, 249.

    Dress of women, 101.


    Ecstasy, 241.

    Elders or presbyters, 67, 112, 115, 118, 165, 213, 217.

    Elymas, 75.

    Emotion in religion, 244-247.

    Ephesus, Timothy at, 25, 84, 198, 265, 320, 323.

    Epimenides, 224, 225.

    Epiphanies of Christ, 260, 269.

    Episcopacy, 107, 112, 114, 221.

    Erastus, 414, 415.

    Evans, T. S., 287.

    Eunice, 21, 388.

    Eubulus, 415.

    Eusebius, 6, 14, 26, 37, 257, 371, 379, 415, 418, 419.

    Ewald, 9, 407.

    Excommunication, 74, 303.

    Extempore prayer, 96.


    Failure, Apparent, of the Gospel, 402.

    Faith, Test of, 290.

    Farrar, F. W., 412.

    Flood, The, a type of baptism, 289.

    Free will, 40, 41, 57.

    Freedom of the Gospel, 362, 363.

    Friendship of Paul and Timothy, 26-30.


    Genealogies, 34, 35.

    Genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, 4-16, 33, 52, 55, 163, 169,
    294, 295, 312, 322, 404, 406-417, 421.

    Gessius Florus, 276.

    Gladiatorial shows, 179, 347.

    Gnosticism, its rapid progress, 37; its problem, 38; its moral
    teaching, 44, 53, 151.

    Godet, 34.

    Goethe, 79.

    Golden ages of the Church, 264.

    Grammatical errors in Scripture, 394.

    Gregory the Great, 231, 232.

    Gregory of Tours, 233.


    Hadrian, 89.

    Handling aright, 370.

    Hands, Imposition of, 63, 64, 67, 166, 167, 315.

    Hands lifted in prayer, 97, 98.

    Hausrath, 9, 407.

    Hegesippus, 6, 337.

    Helius, 275, 427.

    Heresy, Meaning of in New Testament, 296-299.

    Heresy and magic, 383.

    Heretical teachers, 53, 382.

    Hermas, 108, 125.

    Hermogenes, 319-323.

    Hippolytus, 128.

    Hitzig, 9, 407.

    Hooker, 285, 286.

    Husband of one wife, 118.

    Huxley, 173.

    Hymenaeus, The punishment of, 74-76, 373.

    Hymns, Ancient Christian, 134.


    Ideal Church, 116.

    Ignatius, 5, 10, 33, 69, 113, 114, 378.

    Immer, 9, 407.

    Imposition of hands, 63, 64, 67, 166, 167, 315.

    Imprisonments of St. Paul, 13, 24, 28, 362, 401.

    Imprisonment of Timothy, 24.

    Incarnation, The, 44, 358, 359.

    Inspiration of Scripture, 381, 393-396.

    Intercession, 83, 86, 326.

    Irenaeus, 6, 112, 113, 294, 338, 373, 415.


    Jannes and Jambres, 379-383.

    Jerome, 230, 360.

    Jewish Gnosticism, 33, 34.

    Job, 76, 77, 192.

    Julian the Apostate, 230, 231.

    Justin Martyr, 6, 96, 119.


    Koelling, 8.

    Krenkel, 9, 207, 407.


    Lambeth Conferences, 266.

    Last days, 377.

    Latin Fathers and Pagan culture, 227, 230, 232.

    Laver of regeneration, 285-292.

    Lemme, 9, 407.

    Lightfoot, Bishop, 113, 227, 361.

    Linus, 113, 338, 415, 416.

    Lion's mouth, 426.

    Liturgical forms in New Testament, 83, 134.

    Lois, 21, 388.

    Lord, when used of Christ, 424.

    Luke, 23, 27, 207, 209, 421-423.

    Lystra, 21, 22, 24.


    Magic, 383.

    Mahometanism and slavery, 182.

    Maine, 159.

    Manumission of slaves, 181, 184, 248.

    Marcion's rejection of the Pastoral Epistles, 4, 5, 8, 10.

    Mark, 409, 410.

    Marriages, Second, 122, 125.

    Mill, J. S., 39.

    Milligan, 117.

    Missions, 266.

    Money, Love of, 193-198.

    Montanus, 70, 115.

    Mouth of the lion, 426.

    Muratorian Canon, 6, 14.

    Mystery, Meaning of in New Testament, 132, 135.


    Nero, 14, 89, 275, 414, 419, 422, 426.

    Newman, J. H., 39, 40, 233-235, 387.

    Nicodemus, Gospel of, 380.

    Numenius, 379.


    Obedience, Duty of, 272, 275.

    Onesimus, 411.

    Onesiphorus, 313, 319, 320, 323, 414.

    Ordination, 60, 63, 220, 314.

    Origen, 125, 228, 229, 379.

    Origin of the Christian ministry, 104-117.


    Pastoral Epistles, Character of, 3, 4, 15, 16, 201, 309, 312.

    Paul III., Pope, 50.

    Pedanius Secundus, 179.

    Persecution, 54, 275.

    Peshitto, 6.

    Pfleiderer, 8, 10, 11, 407.

    Philetus, 373.

    Phraseology of the Pastoral Epistles, 7, 26, 47, 52, 404, 424.

    Phygelus, 319, 323.

    Plato, 178, 240, 241.

    Pliny the Elder, 379, 380.

    Pliny the Younger, 83, 134.

    Polycarp, 5, 338.

    Polygamy, 119.

    Prayer, Forms of, 96.

    Prayers for the dead, 325-330.

    Presbyters or elders, 67, 112, 115, 118, 166, 214, 217, 221.

    Priesthood, The idea of, 117.

    Prisca, 413, 414.

    Prophecies on Timothy, 62-64.

    Prophet, Meanings of the term, 65.

    Prophets in New Testament, 66, 69; in the Primitive Church, 70, 96,
    115.

    Public worship, 95-102.

    Pudens, 415.

    Punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, 74-76.


    Rationalism, 387.

    Red Sea, Passage of the, a type of baptism, 289.

    Regeneration, Laver of, 285-292.

    Religious emotion, the use of, 244-247.

    Renan, 8, 11, 79, 276, 355, 407.

    Resurrection, Belief in the, 355-359, 372.

    Reunion of Christendom, 267.

    Reuss, 11.

    Revisers, Changes made by the, 32, 47, 59, 219, 268, 269, 285, 354,
    371, 391.

    Roman Church, Its neglect of St. Paul, 28, 400, 420, 421.


    Salmon, 8, 113, 407.

    Satan, Delivering unto, 74.

    Satan, Personality of, 77-80.

    Schaff, 395.

    Schleiermacher, 78.

    Second Advent, Nearness of the, 378, 428.

    Second Roman imprisonment of St. Paul, 13, 28, 362, 401.

    Second marriages, 122, 125.

    Shamelessness in serving God, 370.

    Slavery, 175-184, 248-250, 253-257.

    Sobriety in religion, 241, 245.

    Socialism, 185-187.

    Solidarity of Christendom, 86.

    Strauss, 79.

    Superstition and heresy, 384.


    Tatian's rejection of 1 and 2 Tim., 8, 202.

    Tertullian, 6, 10, 89, 90, 98, 101, 128, 166, 227, 294, 295, 300,
    339, 346.

    Thanksgivings for all men, 92.

    Theophilus of Antioch, 6.

    Threefold ministry, 221.

    Tiberius, 425.

    Tigellinus, 275.

    Timothy compared with St. John, 19-21.

    Timothy at Corinth, 23, 24, 29.

    Titus compared with Timothy, 209.

    Titus at Corinth, 204-206.

    Titus in Dalmatia, 410.

    Trinitarian doctrine, 283, 284.

    Trophimus, 414, 415, 419.

    Trullo, Council in, 155.

    Tychicus, 410, 411.

    Tyndale, 412, 413.


    Verbal inspiration, 393.

    Visible means an aid to faith, 291.


    Washing of regeneration, 285-292.

    Waterland, 293, 306.

    Weiss, 7, 15.

    Weisse, 9, 407.

    Widows, 153-155, 158, 163.

    Will, Freedom of the, 40, 41, 57.

    Women, Social position of, 256.

    Women's dress, 101, 102.

    Worship, Public, 95, 100.

    Wordsworth, Bishop C., 134.


    Zenas, 203, 208.

    Zwickau prophets, 70.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral
Epistles, by Alfred Plummer

*** 