Josephus to the Essenes, viz., their modesty, piety, love of justice, benevolence, &c., as contrasted with the affected humility and empty pride of these false teachers. But the hypothesis is too narrow. There is no good ground for confining the individuals to the Essenes alone. Other Jews, besides the Essenes, manifested the mental bias delineated by the apostle, although it is quite probable that this sect furnished the majority of the errorists. They led a contemplative life, which agrees well with the general statements of our epistle; but they were not the only persons of that age, to whom the description applies. The true view, as it appears to us, has been given by Boehmer, Neander, Mayerhoff, and Olshausen.

The hypothesis of Scheckenburger and Feilmoser may perhaps require a separate notice. It is a modification of Eichhorn's. According to Eichhorn's opinion, the false teachers must have rejected Christ absolutely; but, according to this qualified aspect of it, they placed him among the mediating spirits whom they regarded with superstitious reverence as subordinate guides to the Supreme Deity. Thus the Saviour was lost, as it were, to view, amid a host of angels; and the question of his messiahship was naturally put aside by the errorists. Hence, their main object was to metamorphose into Jews such as had embraced christianity.* Their chief design was to bring over the christian church at Colosse into the territory of Judaism, rather than to connect their former theosophic views, by which they had spiritualized their Jewish creed, with the simplicity of the gospel. Thus, they are regarded as Jews rather than Judaizing christians. They ascribed to Christ a subordinate position, viewing him as the prophet of the heathen world; and to his religion, as intended for the heathen, a subordinate value. It is difficult, however, to see, how the apostle's reasoning is suited to the particular case of such persons. Doubtless his arguments refute these sentiments; but the question is, do they primarily and directly apply to them. It must be assumed that the apostle knew the exact nature of the errors disseminated. Whether he had received an account of them from Epaphras, or whether he had become acquainted with them from a supernatural source; in either case, ignorance of their precise form cannot be attributed to him. The more insidious the methods taken to seduce the Colossians, and the more artful the snares laid to corrupt them, the more imperative became the duty of tearing away the mask, and unfolding with the greatest plainness the real belief entertained by the heretics. But the apostle has οὐ κρατῶν τήν κεφαλήν, not ἔχων τήν κεφαλήν; and in the eighth verse of the second chapter, the words, and not accord• See Schneckenburger's Beiträge, p. 147 and p. 88.

ing to Christ, as subjoined to the preceding, would be irrelevant, not to say trifling, on the ground of these teachers being merely Jews. Besides, the writings of Paul show, that Judaising christians were far more frequent than mere Jews, that the latter gradually lost their proselytizing spirit as christianity prevailed, and that, when they adopted the new religion in any mode, however imperfectly, they sought to amalgamate it with their former creed, giving a preponderance to the peculiarities of the one or the other as their mental temperament, or previous habits, or degree of faith disposed them. The milder aspect of Judaism towards christianity, which Schneckenburger so ingeniously urges, would lead them all the more readily to incorporate the old religion with the new; or rather to embrace christianity as promising superior wisdom; and afterwards, upon partial disappointment, to bring it into the bosom of their former Jewish creed, instead of absolutely rejecting what they had once adopted. In proportion to the leniency with which they regarded christianity, would be the disinclination to proselytize to mere Judaism; and the consequent desire to go over, at least nominally, to the new religion. The truth of these observations will probably be more apparent when it is recollected, that the Ebionites are always regarded as a sect within the enclosure of visible christianity, though holding very few of its tenets, and but slightly differing, as Origen affirms,* from mere Jews. It is possible that the Ebionites may have been originally nothing but Jews; although we believe that they were always Jewish christians who denied the divinity of Jesus, asserting that he was only a man. A comparison of the pastoral epistles will also serve to prove, that the false teachers were Judaising Christians; since individuals holding the same tenets farther developed had elsewhere appeared,-Jewish gnosticising christians, as Paul's polemic observations in those epistles plainly teach. If there be any weight in these remarks, they will apply to every hypothesis which assumes that the heretical teachers were Jews alone, and must be carried back to the view already stated and commonly received, viz. that they were simply Essenes. One thing is certain, that the individuals in question are alluded to in such a manner as shows that they still stood by themselves, without the enclosure of the church.

It may be also observed, that no definite line of separation is drawn between the members who had imbibed erroneous notions, and those who steadfastly adhered to the simple faith of the gospel. The collected body of believers is addressed as forming one community. The wavering and the faithful are still joined in the fellowship of the church. This is implied in * Commentar. in Matthæum, tom. xi. p. 249, vol. i. (Ed. Huet., 1679).

the 20th verse of the second chapter: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances,' &c., &c.; for it is quite improbable that these words refer exclusively to such as had been shaken in faith by the heretics. The admonitions, instructions, and warnings of the entire epistle are addressed to the church; not merely to one section of it, or to certain individuals. In no case is one person singled out or appealed to; neither are several individuals addressed in contradistinction to the remaining believers. It has been well observed by Olshausen, that such a mode of writing is perfectly adapted to the first stages of the christian life. The first traces of heretical doctrine were exhibited at Colosse. The apostle hastened to crush them in the bud, and to bring back the straying to the right path. He had no ground for tracing these errors to wicked intention. He saw their origin in inexperience and weakness: hence he does not immediately apply strict rules; neither does he proceed forthwith to exclude them from church communion; but he advances with forbearance, considering and treating the erring as still members of the church, and seeking to bring them back to truth by a mild exhibition of their wanderings. Some years later the matter would have been far differently represented, when Paul, towards the close of his life, wrote the pastoral letters. The evil intention of the heretics had then openly appeared, and Paul dared not any longer make use of unreasonable mildness. The diseased members must be removed, in order to preserve the entire organization in a healthy state.'

Had the errorists in question been mere Jews, it is not easy to account for the mild polemics of the apostle, nor the full significance of his earnest and serious warnings against them. How is it possible that they should not have been openly condemned as anti-christians? If, as Schneckenburger affirms, the tolerance of these Jews towards christianity was merely an accommodation on their part, in order the more effectually to accomplish their object-an object that aimed at nothing less than the seducing of the Colossians away from the pale of christianity should the apostle have been less direct or severe on this account in his condemnation of their designs? Would he not all the more plainly have warned the believers against their insidious arts? Every view of the subject that can be taken tends to the conclusion, that the errorists were not merely Jews, but Judaizing christians, with a strong mysticascetic bias.

II. It is a matter of great difficulty to ascertain whether Paul

had visited Colosse, and founded the church at that place, before writing the present Epistle. Some attribute the origin of it to Epaphras, or to one of Paul's immediate disciples; while others contend that it was planted by himself. The data upon which any hypothesis can be supposed to rest, are not so definite or satisfactory as the inquirer could wish. We shall briefly allude to the arguments advanced on both sides of the question.

Dr. Lardner has fully stated all the considerations that may be drawn from the epistle itself as well as that to Philemon, in order to support the hypothesis that the church was planted by Paul himself. No less than sixteen arguments are adduced with this view. A reviewer of De Wette's Introduction in the 'Hallische Literatur-Zeitung' for 1828, advocated the same sentiments; which were also defended by Schulz in the 'Studien und Kritiken' for 1829; by Schott, in his Introduction; and by Bishop Tomline. Wiggers has recently endeavoured to support them by new arguments, in the 'Studien und Kritiken.' In early times, Theodoret had taken the same view. The great majority, however, of continental critics maintain the opposite opinion, such as Michaelis, Hug, De Wette, Boehmer, Steiger, Credner, Neander, Olshausen, and Guerike.

The following arguments have been adduced by Lardner and others :

1. It appears from the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul travelled twice through Phrygia; and it is probable that in one or other journey he visited the principal cities, such as Colosse and Laodicea (Acts xvi. 6; xviii. 23). Was it possible that he should go through the country without planting churches in cities and towns so important as these?

2. The epistle exhibits proofs of the intimacy and affection subsisting between the apostle and the Colossian believers. Paul seems to have a correct knowledge of their state; is confident that they had been grounded and well instructed in the faith of the gospel; speaks of their love to him, and gives them such exhortations as imply a personal acquaintance, and induce the belief that they were first instructed by him. (See i. 6, 8, 23; ii. 5, 6, 7, 20-23; iv.7-9; iv. 3, 4.) The salutations, too, in iv. 10, 11, 14, suppose the Colossians to have been well acquainted with Paul's fellow-travellers and fellow-labourers; while those in the 15th and 17th verses of the same chapter prove that the apostle knew the state of the churches in Colosse and Laodicea.

3. Epaphras was sent to Rome by the Colossians to inquire of Paul's welfare (iv. 7, 8), a token of respect on their part which presupposes a personal acquaintance. And it is allowed that Epaphras had brought to St. Paul a particular account of

the state of affairs in this church. Which is another argument that they were his converts.'*

4. The Colossians were endowed with spiritual gifts (iii, 16), which they could not have received from any other than an apostle.

5. St. Paul does in effect, or even expressly, say that himself had dispensed the gospel to these Colossians, ch. i. 21-25. I shall recite here a large part of that context, ver. 23-25: 'If ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, . . . . whereof I Paul am made a minister. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil,' or fully to preach, the word of God.' And what follows to ver. 29.'*

6. It is written in chapter ii. 1, 2, For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love,' &c. Here the change of persons implies that the Colossians, to whom he is writing, had seen his face, else the writer would have said your, not their.

7. The Epistle to Philemon affords evidence that Paul had been among the Colossians. The 19th verse implies that Philemon had been converted to christianity by the apostle, probably at the home of the former. He also salutes by name Apphia, the wife of Philemon, and Archippus, probably pastor at Colosse; he desires Philemon to prepare him a lodging; Philemon is styled his fellow-labourer, and Archippus his fellow-soldier; all implying personal acquaintance and mutual co-operation in the gospel in one place, perhaps Colosse.

Those who think that Epaphras, or some other person, founded the church at Colosse, are wont to appeal to chapter ii. 1, believing that the clause, and as many have not seen my face in the flesh, includes the Colossians and Laodiceans preceding. Theodoret and Lardner, as we have already seen, object to this interpretation on account of the sudden change of person; affirming that the apostle should then have written, 'that your hearts, &c., instead of their hearts, &c.' They also refer to chapter i. 7, 'as ye have also learned of Epaphras, &c.,' words supposed to imply, that although the Colossians had been taught by Epaphras, he was not their first instructor; and to the expression, Epaphras who is one of you,' (iv. 12), which the apostle would not have applied to him had Epaphras founded the church; for

* Lardner.