sionally by αἰών, αἰώνιος, κ. T. A., in the LXX. (cf. for the first word katoɩk@v TòV alova, Isaiah lvii. 15; for the second ews alvos, Psalm xlix. 20 [xlviii. 18]; for the third, Psalm liv. [lv.] 19 [20]; for the fourth, passim frequently of the Absolute Eternity of God, Ps. lxxvii. [lxxvi.] 5; xc. [lxxxix.] 2). One of the Hebrew words translated by aiov, alários (y) is, indeed, occasionally used of temporary duration -yet even in this modification prospectively of an unbroken continuity, co-extensive with the existence of that of which it is spoken. So alvos is predicated of a 'covenant' or 'statute' conterminous with the existence of the dispensation to which it belonged, of a servitude final so far as the earthly life of the slave is concerned. (Gen. xvii. 7, 13; Exod. xii. 14, 17; Levit. xvi. 29. Dr. Pusey, 'Everlasting Punishment,' p. 22.)

From the Hebrew and the LXX. we turn to the N. T. The word αἰώνιος occurs seventy-two times. The passages may be thus divided:

It has been well said lately that the word conian "no more denotes age-long, i.e., 'lasting for an age, and then ending with the end of the age,' than æternus means ending with the atas; but means ages-long, i. e., going on during the æternitas à parte post-that is, from the moment (within the period since Time began) at which that to which the epithet is applied commenced, and onward without end." ('Church Quarterly Review,' Oct.,

1880, p. 216.)

Thus the etymology of the word; the Hebrew term as rendered by the LXX.; and the subject to which it is applied admittedly in forty-four passages of the N. T.'-render it in the highest degree probable that the phrase "eternal ruin" or 66 destruction" means a "destruction" prospectively final-everlasting in the sense in which its subjects are everlasting.

1 Reading aμapThμaros in St. Mark iii. 29. 2 Twice of God's præ-æonian design (p Xpóvwv alwvíwv, 2 Tim. i. 9; Titus i. 2 eternal time before') in the eternity à parte ante. "The paraphrase 'before the world began,' although inadequate, is so far correct-before eternal times.'" (Dr. Pusey, 'What is of Faith as to everlasting Punishment?' p. 43.) The third passage (μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγηévov) is in Rom. xvi. 25. It is very noteworthy that the next verse (ver. 26) contains the only passage in the N. T. in which God is styled aivos.

המקדם

dered by αἰών, αἰώνιος, δι' αἰῶνος, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, oi ai@ves, except in some passages where we have αένναοs and διαπαντός. It occurs, in differ ent forms, 424 times in the Old Test. See Fuerst. Concord.,' pp. 830-832.

If the reference be to the well-known Jewish distinction between the two great æons-the ὁ νῦν αἰών· ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (πιπ ) and the aiwv ¿ μéλλov, ékeîvos, ò èpxóμevos (Nan Dhiy) —αἰώνιος would mean lasting during the future æon, which has no end.

"Eternal life."

THE

HE two Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy with the Epistle to Titus form a clearly distinct group in the Apostolic writings. They have been designated The Pastoral Epistles; and though the expression, like that of The Synoptic Gospels, has the disadvantage of attributing to them in too great a degree a general design, and of thus diverting attention from their individual peculiarities, it marks with correctness the most important element which they have in common. The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are, indeed, mainly concerned with instructions and exhortations to those disciples of the Apostle respecting their duties as overseers of the two Churches committed to their charge, and with advice and warning in view of the special dangers they would have to meet. But the Second Epistle to Timothy starts from more personal considerations, and is in a far greater degree occupied by them. The Apostle writes it while under imprisonment at Rome, and in expectation of imminent martyrdom. "I am now," he says, "ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith" (2 Tim. iv. 6, 7). In a tone of deep emotion, natural in such circumstances, St. Paul writes to Timothy, entreating him, if possible, to come to him soon; and occasion is taken to address to him some earnest exhortations that he should be stedfast in the faith, and fulfil his course like the Apostle himself.

But

the duties which Timothy has to discharge in this course are. those of a chief pastor; the Apostle is thus led to direct his advice in great measure these special duties; and so far the Epistle resembles the other two.

to

It should, indeed, be borne in mind, since the fact has considerable weight in estimating some of the peculiarities of these Epistles, that they are personal as well as pastoral, differing in this respect from all the other Epistles of St. Paul except the brief one addressed to Philemon on a special occasion. But so far as they are concerned with the general interests of the Church, it is with the duties of pastors that they deal; and it is impossible to overrate their importance in this respect. The second Epistle to Timothy, indeed, must be regarded, as we shall see, as the last known writing of St. Paul before his martyrdom, and in that regard alone possesses an intense and unique interest. But for the general guidance of the Church there is something still more precious in instructions prompted by the matured wisdom of the Apostle, and addressed to his most trusted followers, respecting the manner in which they should "behave themselves," as pastors, "in the house of God" (1 Tim. iii. 15). It would, indeed, have been strange and unfortunate if we had been left without some such guidance. The other Epistles afford us all needful instruction respecting the great dogmatic truths of Christianity, and the chief points of Christian morals. But respecting the practical organisation and govern

ment of the Church, they furnish only incidental hints. The deficiency is supplied by these three Epistles. They were written, as will be shown, near the close of the Apostle's career, when it was becoming necessary for him to provide for the due government, after he should have passed away, of the Churches he had founded. Brief as they are, they afford a clear insight into the principles by which he was guided, and they give advice which in all ages of the Church has been accepted as the Apostolic standard of pastoral duty.

The point which claims our first attention is the general and unhesitating acceptance of these Epistles by the Church, from the age of the Apostolic Fathers. In the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, there are several expressions which it is natural to regard as at least allusions to the language of these Epistles, if not as actual quotations from them. Thus in Ch. 2 St. Clement says, "ye repented not of any well doing, but were ready unto every good work -an expression which occurs in Tit. iii. 1. In Ch. 7 of St. Clement, the words "let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is acceptable in the sight of him that made us" recall 1 Tim. v. 4. So the expression (Ch. xxix. 1), "Let us therefore approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto him," recalls 1 Tim. ii. 8. A similar allusion perhaps is in the phrase "King of the ages" (Ch. lxi.), of which the only instance in the New Testament (a various reading in Rev. xv. 3 excepted), is in 1 Tim. i. 17, though it also occurs in the LXX. (Tobit xiii. 6, 10.) It is observed by M. Renan' that St. Clement's use of the word ȧváλvois in the sense of death seems to be an allusion to 2 Tim. iv. 6. He thinks the Epistles forged, but quotes this phrase in support of a suggestion that the forger had in his hands some authentic letters of St. Paul. He admits that there are other resemblances of expression between the Epistle of St. Clement and our three, but he accounts for them on the supposition that the two authors borrowed from the same source--the favourite language of the Church of Rome. L'Eglise chrétienne, note, pp. 95-96, ed. 1879.

These allusions deserve the more attention because St. Clement as a rule makes no formal quotation from the Books of the New Testament, and also on account of the personal character of the Epistles. It would be only natural that letters addressed, with a special and personal object, to two disciples of St. Paul should retain their more private character for some time, and should at any rate be longer in assuming the generally authoritative position of more public documents. It is striking, indeed, that one of the earliest and most distinct references we have to them is in the letter of an Apostolic Father, St. Polycarp, who was a Bishop of a Church contiguous to that of Ephesus, over which Timothy presided. In St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians the allusions, certain or probable, to the Pastoral Epistles are more numerous than to any other Pauline writings, and there is one so unmistakable as to be acknowledged by even the most sceptical critics.1 In the 4th chapter of that Epistle he says, "But the love of money is the beginning of all evils. Knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the world, and that neither can we carry anything out, let us arm ourselves with the arms of righteousness"—a distinct echo of 1 Tim. vi. 10, 7. The objections raised against the authenticity of St. Polycarp's letter are justly dismissed by Zahn2 as too unreasonable to be discussed, in the face of the testimony borne to it by St. Polycarp's own disciple, St. Irenæus. It is, moreover, observed by a hostile critic that the Epistle of Ignatius to St. Polycarp has the most striking points of connexion with the Second Epistle to Timothy. Passing to the writers immediately subsequent to the Apostolic age, we find further allusions. Such is Eusebius's quotation from Justin Martyr (Hist. Eccl. iii. 26) of the phrase, "the great mystery of godliness." The phrase, moreover, "knowledge falsely so called (1 Tim. vi. 20) occurs in an abstract given by Eusebius, iii. 32, of a passage 1 Cf. Davidson, Introd. to N. T. vol. ii. 15960. Patr. Apostolic.' Fascic. ii. Proleg. p. xlvi. 3 Pfleiderer, in Protestanten-Bibel, p. 836, ed. 1872.

3

of Hegesippus. Many writers, including Baur, are of opinion that Eusebius found this phrase in Hegesippus ; and Eusebius certainly writes as if, without formal quotation, he desired to reproduce the words of Hegesippus. But the point, though interesting, admits of dispute, and need not be pressed. There is a clear quotation by Theophilus of Antioch (ad. Autol. iii. 14), where he says that the divine word (ò eos Aoyos) bids us pray for rulers and authorities, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life. But the next authority to be quoted may well be deemed, on this, as on so many other of the cardinal questions of early church history, to be decisive. St. Irenæus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, quotes the three Epistles as the undisputed works of St. Paul. He says in one place that Linus is mentioned by Paul "in the letters to Timothy". thus attesting both Epistles to Timothy (adv. Hær. III. 3, § 3); and he quotes from the Epistle to Titus, "Paul said: A man that is an heretic . . . . reject ” (ib. § 4). Here again we have the testimony of a man who was brought up under Polycarp, in the neighbourhood of the church to whose bishop these letters were addressed; and his testimony must be regarded as unanswerable evidence that they were accepted as St. Paul's in the very communities, and by the very men, whose knowledge of the circumstances to which they relate would be the most trustworthy. After this, the testimony of Ecclesiastical writers to them is frequent and unanimous. All three Epistles are included in the Muratorian Canon, and they are enumerated by Eusebius among the undisputed portions of the New Testament.

There is only one certain exception to this general acceptance. None of the three Epistles are admitted into Marcion's Canon, and it is doubtful whether the Epistles to Timothy were recognized by Tatian. St. Jerome says that although Tatian rejected some of St. Paul's Epistles, he considered the Epistle to Titus "vel maxime apostoli pronunciandam, parvi pendens Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt, assertionem."1

1 Hieron., Comm. in Ep. ad Tit., prolog. opp. t. vii. p. 687, Vallarsi.

That among the Epistles thus rejected by Tatian were the two to Timothy, is probable enough; but his acceptance of the Epistle to Titus is the most certain, and the most important, point in his testimony. As Tatian died about 170 A.D., the fact of the Epistles being thus criticized by him would seem of itself evidence of their having acquired general authority before the middle of the second century. But these and other heretics, by whom, as Clement of Alexandria says, (Strom. ii. ch. 11) our Epistles were rejected in the second century, represented errors of the very same nature as those against which St. Paul's exhortations are directed, and their refusal to admit them stands on the same ground as their repudiation of the doctrine and authority of the Church. Marcion was restrained by no scruples from mutilating the Scriptures to bring them into accordance with his system. It was at one time imagined that there was some basis for the supposition of his having possessed an original gospel. Now, however, critics of all schools acknowledge that Marcion worked on St. Luke's Gospel, cutting out from it everything that discredited his system. We cannot suppose that so arbitrary a critic could have been debarred by any scruples from dealing in the same way with St. Paul's Epistles. There are passages in the Pastoral Epistles which, on his principles, he could not but cut out, and therefore his excisions prove nothing but his own views. If his silence could be taken as any indication that the Epistles were not known in his time, it might afford evidence which would deserve consideration. But in the face of the testimonies we have adduced, and of the fact that the Epistles were criticized by Tatian as authorities with which he had to deal, it is impossible to account in this way for Marcion's omission of them. It must therefore be ascribed to his peculiar views, and to the arbitrariness with which he cut and carved the Scriptures to his purpose. It ceases, at all events, to be impartial testimony.

The result is that we have a con

1 Cf. Tertullian, De Carne Christi, cc. ii. iii.