N. T. iii. Prolegg. sec. 29, ff.) 3. lt is objected that the writer of these epistles utters sentiments in favour of the law which are not Pauline, and teaches the efficacy of good works in such a way as to be incompatible with St. Paul's doctrine of salvation by grace. This as sertion we may safely meet with a pointed denial. The doctrine of this epistle concerning the law is, that it is good if it be used popti,aws, as a law, for the purposes which a moral law is designed to serve ; and what is this but the doctrine of the epistles to the Romans and Galatians, where the apostle maintains that in itself and for its own ends the divine law is holy, just, and good, and becomes evil only when put out of its proper I place, and used for purposes it was never designed to serve ? (Rom. vii. 7-r 2 ; Gal. iii. 2I, etc.) What the writer here teaches concerning good works is also in full harmony with the apostle Paul's teaching in his acknowledged epistles (comp. Rom. xii., Eph. v. and vi., etc.) ; and if in this epistle there is no formal exposition of the gospel scheme, but rather a dwelling upon practical duties, the reason may easily be found in the peculiar character of this as a pastoral epistle—an epistle of official counsels and exhortations to a minister of Christianity.
4. It is objected that in these epistles certain heretical opinions are denounced which belong to a later age than that of the apostle Paul. Baur does not hesitate to pronounce the opinions in question to be those of Marcionite Gnosticism. But a careful examination of the passages adduced (I Ep. i. 3, 4, 6, 7, 19 ; iv. 1-7 ; vi. 3 ff., 20 ; 2 Ep. 16-23 ; 6-9, 13 ; iv. 4) will suffice to refute this assertion. From these passages it is evident that the heretics in question had embraced Judaistic notions (comp. Tit. i. ro, 14), and those of a kind to which Gnosticism always was more or less antagonistic, and that of Marcion strongly. On the other hand, the character of the Judaising here condemned is not exactly the same as that which we find censured in the earlier Pauline epistles ; it is more antinomian (r Tim. i. 7) and more dis tinctly immoral (I Tim. i. ; iv. 2 ; Vi. 5, comp.
Tit. i. ; 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; iii. 6, etc., comp. Tit.
i. 15, 16). We probably see in it the more ad vanced form of the earlier tendency, according to that natural progress by which wicked men and seducers wax worse and worse' (z Tim. iii. 13). Such an advance may well have taken place within the life-time of the apostle.
5. It is alleged that in these epistles and in that to Titus, the hierarchical system appears more complete, and the hierarchical spirit more manifest, than it was in the days of the apostle Paul. This is founded on the recognition in these epistles of 71-pc013irrepoc, and i3cckovoL. This, how
ever, of itself obviously proves nothing, for these official names occur in earlier epistles and in the Acts, and must have been contemporary with the church institute itself. To make the objection of any weight it would require to be shown that the three orders of the ministry are presented in these epistles in that relation to cach other which we find at a later age, and which alone can be pro perly called the hierarchical system. That bishops cm presbyters, and deacons, have been from the first officers in the church, and that it is a duty of the members to revere and respect them, are points on which all are agreed ; and there does not ap pear to be anything said of or to such in these epistles which might not have been uttered in the earliest of Paul's writings.
Besides these objections, which apply to both e,)istles alike, there are some which affect each epistle separately.
To the first epistle it is objected : r. That it presents Timothy in a light in which it is incon sistent with other notices of him in Paul's epistles to regard him. Here lie appears as little better than a novice, needing instruction as to the simplest affairs of ecclesiastical order ; whereas, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, written earlier than this.
we find him (iv. 17) described by Paul as My be• loved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church ;' and in Thess. 1-3, we are told that the apostle had sent him to Thessalonica to establish the be lievers there, and to comfort them concerning their faith. If Timothy was so well able to regulate the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica, how, it is asked, can it be supposed that a short \vhile after wards he should require such minute instructions for his conduct as this epistle contains ? To this it may be replied, (r) that in visiting Corinth and Thessalonica Timothy acted as the apostle's dele gate, and had, doubtless, received from him minute instructions as to how he should proceed among those to whom he was sent ; so that the alleged difference in the circumstances of Timothy when sent to Corinth, and when left in Ephesus, disap pears ; (2) that it does not necessarily follow, from the injunctions given to Timothy in this epistle, that the writer regarded him as a. novice ; for they rather respect the application of general principles to peculiar local circumstances, than set forth in structions such as a novice would require ; and (3) it is not to be forgotten that the apostle designed through Tiinothy to present to the church at large a body of instruction which should be useful to it in all ages of its existence.