state of things in the church during its earliest period." We may
then maintain without fear of contradiction that there must have
been from the commencement presidents of congregations, and that
it is capable of proof that there actually were such, as we have seen
above. Even although the Epistles to the Komans, the Corinthians,
and the Galatians were silent on the subject, this would be no proof
of their not having existed. And we now find what Baur says (p.
89) to be quite intelligible " that the Pastoral Epistles represent
the constitution of the church rather as already established than as
being first introduced." Our original problem for investigation now
recurs, viz., why is so little said in the other epistles respecting
such office-bearers, notwithstanding that there is no doubt of their
having existed, while in the Pastoral Epistles they are brought so
prominently into notice ?

We thus reduce the question to its true position ; and here,
therefore, we first encounter the real punctum saliens of the criti-
cism to which we are opposed. If hitherto that criticism has la-
boured, by setting aside all analogies, to render difficult a solution
of the question by which the authenticity of these epistles might be
established, and yet in the end has been necessitated to admit the
existence of church government by persons who presided over the
congregations ; its object now is to lay stress on the strong way in
which this ecclesiastical organization is brought forward in these
epistles, and chiefly to shew that it has a hierarchical tendency. It
is alleged to be improbable " that the apostle himself should have
made the introduction and consolidation of church government a
special object of his apostolical care." And further, the relation of
the KTTIOKOTTOI to the 7rpea(3vrepoi is said to discover already a mon-
archico-hierarchical tendency, which is also said to be reflected in
the rule laid down for the treatment of heretics. By an investiga-
tion into the relation between the npeoftvrepoi and l-niotcoTroi, Baur
(p. 80-86) attempts to prove " that both in their sphere were the
same with the later bishops." " Whatever, tkerefare t in the Pas-
toral Epistles is arranged or enjoined with respect to these for
founding and establishing the ecclesiastical organization, has for its
object only the furtherance of this monarchical constitution which
at a later period was by way of distinction connected with the name
of the K-niaKOTrot." " And is it probable that this monarchical con-
stitution of the church which is so entirely unknown to the genuine
epistles of the apostle at least so far (!) as that nowhere in these
is any significance attached to it should have become to the same
apostle (even at a later period) a matter of so much importance as
that the sanctioning of it should have been his principal aim, in
these so-called Pastoral Epistles ?" (p. 86 ) " It appears to me that



GENEKAL INTRODUCTION. 487

this points to a later period, when in the church at Rome the Pe-
trine Jewish-Christian element had gained the decided preponder-
ance over the Pauline Christian." And then are adduced several
proofs of the early manifestation of the hierarchical tendency in this
church. The letters of Ignatius are also, brought forward ; but in
these the connexion of all the members with the bishop is spoken
of in a manner quite different from that of the Pastoral Epis-
tles, which, we may be allowed to add, makes the very difference in
question.

We must give especial consideration to what is here said, for it
is the sinew of this discussion. The ETTIOKOTTOL and -rrpeo^vrepoi were
presidents over small individual congregations from the very com-
mencement, even in the period of the first formation of Christian
congregations (Baur on Episcopacy, p. 86). There were no colleges
of presbyters formed, but individuals put themselves at the head of
the congregations, and were like petty bishops in the later sense of
the word. Thus a " monarchical constitution is, according to Baur,
to be supposed as existing from the first," a " monarchical constitu-
tion" which was formed by " the natural course of things" wherever
congregations were formed. " Whatever, therefore" (this is the in-
ference drawn from the proofs adduced on the other side) " is ar-
ranged and enjoined in the Pastoral Epistles with respect to the
presbyters and bishops, for the settling and confirming of the eccle-
siastical organism, has nothing else for its object than this monarch-
ical constitution which was afterwards, by way of distinction, asso-
ciated with the name of the K-nionorroi. Is it then probable that this
monarchical constitution of the church, which is so entirely unknown
to the genuine epistles of the apostle at least in so far as that
nowhere in these is any kind of significance attached to it should
have become to the same apostle (be it at a later period) a matter
of so much importance/' etc. We ask here if in general these
Pastoral Epistles contain arrangements with respect to presbyters
and bishops what else can they have for their object than the mo-
narchical constitution, if this, according to Baur's representation,
was the original and the only constitution ? And how can it be in-
ferred from the fact of their insisting on a monarchical constitution,
that they display a 'hierarchical tendency, or that their object is to
give prominence to the Petrine Jewish-Christian element above the
Pauline-Christian ? The natural course of things is said to have
placed these bishops and deacons at the head of congregations from
the very first, and thus to have led to a monarchical constitution.
Why, then, must the Pastoral Epistles in particular, " because they
represent this constitution as already existing rather than as being
first introduced," be supposed to have in view the monarchical con-
stitution " which was afterwards specially connected with the name



488 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

of the l-rriffKorroi" and to betray the predominance of the Petrine
Jewish-Christian element ? " In the same light we are to regard
the Trpeofivrepot of the church at Jerusalem, frequently mentioned in
the Acts of the Apostles/' p. 85, that is, as denoting the same mo-
narchical constitution which afterwards took its name from the ema-
no-noq. And if it be true that the apostle Paul appointed presbyters,
he too has had in view the same monarchical constitution at the
head of which the K-X'IOKO-XW; was afterwards placed. How, then,
can it be asked " Is it probable that this monarchical constitution
of the church, of which we find nothing in the genuine epistles of
the apostle, should afterwards have appeared to him so important a
matter ?" The only question is, whether church government in
general has ever seemed to him of so much importance as that he
should deem it necessary to give to his assistants, whom he charged
with the order and government of the congregations, such directions
as we read in these epistles. If he gave any such, they must have
tende 1 towards the formation of a monarchical constitution, to which,
according to Baur, " the natural course of things" had given birth.
There can no proof, therefore, of a hierarchical tendency in the
Pastoral Epistles be drawn from the fact that the arrangements
which they enjoin with respect to bishops and deacons accord
with the monarchical form of government. And if the monarchical
constitution in these epistles gives no proof of a hierarchical ten-
dency, neither also does " the earnest manner in which they speak
of ecclesiastical regulations and persons," for the question recurs, Is
that which is earnestly enjoined of a hierarchical nature ? Can it
be ascertained, even -partially, by what particular marks the hier-
archical tendency displayed itself in the second century ? Baur
only proves that in Rome, at an early period, such a tendency had
developed itself, but not that the traces of this development are to
be seen in the injunctions and regulations of these epistles. He
adduces the epistles of Ignatius from the second century as an evi-
dence of the rising Romish hierarchy. But on comparing these with
what we find in the Pastoral Epistles on the subject of church gov-
ernment, we first become really aware how remote these epistles are
from the tendency ascribed to them, and how truly all that they
contain on that subject bears the stamp of primitiveness. Baur ob-
serves with reference to this, that the principal ecclesiastical office-
bearers mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles are the same with those
in the Ignatian letters. But very little weight can be attached to
this, when we find that the trriaicoTTos and irptt0&npOf are quite a
different thing in the Ignatian epistles ; the moit(mos is there sepa-
rated from the npe(j(3vTepo$, and the latter has become the member
of a college of presbyters. We have there the very reverse of the
constitution which, according to Baur, is to be regarded as the orig-



GENEBAL INTRODUCTION. 489

inal one, and as still to be recognized in the Pastoral Epistles. For
while, according to Dr. Baur, the Trpsa(3vTepo^ (= emanonoc;) was
originally in his own sphere a small bishop in the later sense of the
word (although along with this it must of necessity be supposed,
that in certain cases, when the individual congregations, say for ex-
ample in Corinth, formed a whole, there was a common government
which could issue only from the college formed by the single petty
bishops, so that we have here a collegial element besides and above
the monarchical maintained by Baur) the reverse was the case in
the second century when the ImaicoTTog (that is, the monarchical ele-
ment) was placed at the head, and under him the college of presby-
ters. It is at this period, in my opinion, that we can first speak
with any propriety of a monarchical constitution ; while, previous
to this, even granting the origin of the -npea^vrKpog and the sphere
of operation to have been such as Dr. Baur represents it, a collegial
action must of necessity be supposed as having been the culminating
point of the constitution chiefly in larger congregations, such as that
in Jerusalem ; unless it be maintained that such a congregation did
not properly form a whole, but an aggregate made up of several
particular congregations, with their petty bishops, each of whom
might act as he pleased. When we look at the accounts given in
the Acts of the Apostles respecting the church in Jerusalem, we find
that a collegial action on the part of the presbyters there, can as
little be questioned as that the congregation there formed a whole,
the various particular congregations (if there were such) disappear-
ing under this unity.

We see, then, how small the resemblance that obtains between
the ecclesiastical constitution of the first period, and the monarcho-
episcopal of the second century, according to Baur's own represen-
tation. But it is now time to examine more closely this representation
itself, according to which the first npeopvTepoi were petty bishops,
and upon which our respected opponent founds his assertion of a
monarchical constitution having existed from the first. What evi-
dence have we for this view ? It is not proved as Baur himself
admits by passages such as Acts xiv. 23 ; Tit. i. 5, which speak
of the ordination of presbyters (in the plural) in each city. " The
natural course of things," according to which the first converts, and
those in whose houses the congregations assembled, became presby-
ters eo ipso, is in reality the only proof to which we are referred.
Now we will not deny that the fact of belonging to the " first-fruits/'
perhaps also the other circumstance, gave a kind of claim to the
oversight, if only these early converts and house-owners were other-
wise able and qualified persons ; which is certainly not implied in
one's having been amongst the first who were converted, or in his
having opened his house for Christian assemblies. That, however,



490 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

is all to which the view under consideration allows any weight. We
are not thereby relieved of the main question, whether the thing
took this course of itself, or whether such first-fruits and house-
owners, if they were otherwise qualified persons, were appointed to
the office of presbyters. The very name Trpeaftv-epog seems to oppose
the view that presbyters became such merely in the natural course
of things ; for it points to another element as the ground of the
office, namely, age ; and this is explained neither by their charac-
ters as " first-fruits," nor as house-owners. Age, then, must have
been the first thing looked at in the origin of presbyters, or in their
designation, and this pre-supposes a principle generally acted upon
in the Christian congregations which placed the eldest, supposing
them qualified, at the head. And those passages to which the op-
posite view appeals, as in the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,
declare expressly that the bishops and deacons did not enter on their
offices of themselves, but were chosen. And as the name Trpeoftv-
Tcpos, so also does all historical tradition oppose the view under con-
sideration. Not only with respect to deacons, have we, in Acts, ch.
vi., an account of their appointment, and with this an analogy for
the appointment of presbyters ; but Acts xiv. 23, declares in the
most distinct terms the same thing with respect to the presbyters,
viz., that they were ordained ; and the other view can be maintained
only by the arbitrary rejection of this passage. With this, however,
we have at the same time a new argument against the monarchical
constitution of the first Christian church. For if, in each of the
smaller spheres of the united congregation the presbyter or bishop
did not of himself assume the lead, how are we to suppose that the
apostle gave its own presbyter to each of such small individual con-
gregations ? Add to this, as has already been made out, that, if
such a collective congregation consisting of smaller ones really formed
a whole, as Baur also acknowledges, we assuredly may not dispense
with the supposition of a collegial co-operation of the individual
presbyters. And if such was the constitution of the larger congre-
gations, as of the church at Jerusalem, the smaller ones were doubt-
less organized after its model, as soon as the competent number of
members was made up. Thus we are shut up to the ordinary view
of the first management of the congregations by a plurality of pres-
byters, and must totally deny a monarcho-episcopal constitution.
Cornp. Neander, Ap. Zeitalter I., pp. 253, 254, 262, 264.

All the more considerable does the difference thus appear, be-
tween the form of church government as traced in these epistles,
and the monarchical of the second century. They bear a perfect
impression of what has just been described as the constitution of the
apostolical church. How far removed are they, according to Baur's
own words, from the manner in which the epistles of Ignatius speak



GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 491

of the dignity and importance of the heads of the church, and the
connexion of all the members of the congregation with them, and es-
pecially with the bishop, as the indispensable condition of salvation !
There is here as yet no difference observable between the -n-peaftvrspog
and the liriaicorrog, just as at Acts xx. 17, 28 ; Phil. i. 1. And not only
can no such difference be observed in the name (as still later, even
in Clemens Komanus, and Polycarp) ; but also, the office of the
emoicoiroc and the -npea^vrepog is essentially the same (Baur, die, s. g.
Past., p. 81). Indeed so much do the Pastoral Epistles look to the
ground and origin of these official relations, " that the one point of
view (that, namely, of age in the expression Trpeaftvrepog') is always
passing over into the other" (Ursprung, etc., p. 86). And is all this
to be explained thus the author, mindful of the difference of
times, designs only to characterize the first elements of the later
church government as apostolical institutions ? Strange indeed !
The ZmoKcmog had already raised himself above the presbyters with a
claim to superior authority precisely in this does the hierarchical
tendency of the second century concentrate itself and this pretended
apostle who writes in furtherance of the Ptomish hierarchical ten-
dency nullifies this distinction, and again places the imoKOTrog and
irpeofivrepog on exactly the same level. What more directly at
variance with that hierarchical tendency, than to make the K-niano-
Trof originally entirely the same with the 7Tpeof3vTpog ? And what
does the writer say calculated to advance the hierarchical aim ?
" Does he represent the monarchical principle as originally involved
in the idea of the 7rpeaf3vTepot ?" he yet thereby in no way furthers the
peculiar interests of the hierarchy of his time, unless we suppose that
in his time it was still held in doubt whether there had been from
the commencement appointed presbyters and bishops ; which Baur
will not maintain, as he himself says, that "at a later period no
Christian congregation could be conceived of without a president
regularly appointed from its commencement." (Past., p. 86.) And
that later period is just the one of which we speak (Ap. Paul, p. 12).

Finally, Baur's discovery of a hierarchical procedure in the pre-
scribed mode of treating a man that is an heretic, Tit. iii. 10, is suf-
ficiently explained by what has been said above on the opposition
of orthodoxy and heterodoxy ; especially as in regard to this pas-
sage it is acknowledged, " that one might only wonder why the
author does not pronounce upon him the formal ecclesiastical sen-
tence." The dvdOefia KOTU of the Apostle Paul is of course hierarchi-
cal. Comp. Neander, ap. Zeitalter I,, p. 546.

The result of this investigation, then, shews that the ecclesias-
tical arrangements in the Pastoral Epistles with respect to the
EmoKonoi (and didtcovoi), present nothing which does not correspond
to the apostolical time, and nothing which refers to the second cen-



492 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

tuiy. See also on this, Bottger, pp. 35-64, and Daumgarten, pp.
84-90.

The second main point adduced to prove that these epistles be-
long, in their ecclesiastical arrangements, to the second century, is
the widow's institution. Now we grant (comp. Baur, p. 49) that
" the writers of the second century distinguish widows in this way,
and place them beside the higher ecclesiastical functionaries ;" and
that we find in the New Testament no farther trace of an enrol-
ment, or of any such distinctions of widows. Still we learn from
Acts vi. 1, seq., that the widows were from the very beginning an
object of special care to the congregations, and it is natural to be-
liove from the principle on which presbyters were chosen as implied
in the expression Trpeaftvrepo^ that the npeoftv-ides were also distin-
guished with especial honour, if they were worthy of it. The latter
point in particular seems to me to explain the fact, that in the
earliest period the widows not under threescore years old were placed
along with the presbyters as church functionaries. But it is not
merely this institution in itself (the historic impossibility of which in
the apostolic time cannot be maintained a priori) which, according
to Baur, declares against the genuineness of these epistles, but
chiefly the circumstance that by the " vewrepaf ^pag } " ver. 11, and
the vew-pa, ver. 14 ; are to be understood virgins ; which decidedly
points to the second century. His assertion, however, is exegetically
altogether untenable ; in proof of which, for the sake of brevity, we
refer to the commentary, where the difficulties with which he at-
tempts to surround the common interpretation find their solution.
Here we only observe, that it cannot be shewn that even in the
second century it was customary to receive virgins into the number
of the church widows, and that accordingly under the name wipai
we are also to understand virgins, as is said to be the case in the
passage under consideration. Baur t jo says only " that this may
with great probability be supposed." But the passage from Ter-
tullian de velandis virginibus, c. 9, bears directly against his view,
as Tertullian there characterizes it as " miraculum, ne dixerim
monstrum," that such a tiling should once take place. The other
passage to which we are referred, that, namely, in Ignatius to the
Smyma^ans, c. 13, dand^ofiai rovf OIKOV$ r&v ddeXtytiv /uov ovv yvvait-l
teal -envois KOI rof TrapOzvovs raf Aeyo/itVaf ^}jpa^ } appears certainly to
have the meaning that is attached to it. But though this moaning
be critically unobjectionable, still, as it involves what is so altogether
singular, it is natural to remember that the term napdevoi also fre-
quently denoted such as were widows indeed ; and that it may
here, with Bottger, be understood in that sense according to the
principle : $ xnP a &<* ow^poavvrjg avdi^ napdevof. The clause rd^
x j lP a ^ 1S then a more special explanation of napdwovg, and



GENERAL INTBODUCTION. 493

this is purposely selected, because the idea of bereavement and sor-
row lies in the x i lP a - Still, however that may be, our opponent
must, at all events, first prove that in 1 Tim. v. 11, %ijpa signifies a
Trapdtvog in the proper sense. Baur objects to our view on the
ground that, according to it, what is said ver. 11-14 must apply to
all widows under sixty years. But is it better applied to all virgins
under sixty years ? Comp-also here Baumgarten, p. 67 ; Bdttger,
p. 65. How little its injunction to marry contained in this passage,
in the circumstances supposed at ver. 11-13, is at variance with the
opinion of the apostle as expressed in 1 Cor. vii. we have already hinted
above ; we need therefore as little suppose, in order to its explana-
tion, that it is directed against the celibacy of the Marcionites, as
that it presents a pseudo-Clementine view of marriage. In like
manner, I see no necessity of supposing in the words ii. 11, / do
not suffer a woman to teach, an allusion to the improprieties of the
Maicionites ; as the apostle might have the same inducement to
mention here that it did not become a woman to make a public ap-
pearance, as in regard to the church at Corinth (1 Cor. xi. 5, seq.,
xiv. 34), or at Ephesus. Those only who on other grounds question
their apostolical origin, can be led to seek such allusions in the
words. With regard to 1 Tim. ii. 13-15, at which also Baur takes
offence, and which he thinks is allied to the pseudo-Clementine
view, we refer to the commentary ; where also will be considered
the particular points enumerated above as brought forward by Baur.
There too we shall have the most fitting opportunity of dealing with
the remaining particular objections, such as the mention of Timothy's
mother and grandmother (2 Tim. i.), the military comparison (2
Tim. ii. 3, seq.), my gospel (ii. 8), etc.

III. " A further point in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles,
is the impossibility of finding a single passage in the known history
of the apostle which favours their having been written by him ;" or
in the words of De Wette, " their historical unaccountableness." I
fully admit this impossibility and historical unaccountableness, if it
be necessary to find a place for them among the events and circum-
stances of that period of the apostle's life with which we are made
acquainted in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the rest of the
epistles ; and the latest attempts by Bottger and Matthies to find
a passage that will correspond, within this period, are in my view
"new proofs of this assertion." I fully admit the justice of what
De Wette affirms, that their internal affinity in form and sub-
stance " shuts up the advocate for their genuineness to the supposi-
tion that they were all writen about the same time," and have no
hesitation 'following Usher, Mill, Pearson, Clericus, Paley, who
are followed by most of the later advocates for their genuineness, as
Heydenreich, Bohl, Gruerike, Neander, Bothe, etc. (comp. Bauin-



494 PASTOEAL EPISTLES.

garten, p. 196) in maintaining, that the first Epistle to Timothy
and the Epistle to Titus were written during the period between tho
first and a second imprisonment at Rome, and the second Epistle to
Timothy during this second imprisonment. And that not merely
because I cannot suppose that the second Epistle to Timothy was
written about the same time with the Epistle to the Ephesians, and
the other epistles of the first imprisonment at Rome, but also be-
cause the circumstances of time and place given in the epistles