to reach the heart of every man similarly situated; and yet they state this, not in the way of formal

exposition, but in the way of direct personal converse, written in place of spoken.

Some of those Christian letters are more diverse from the true letter than others; and Dr. Deissmann tries to

force them into his too narrow classification by calling some of them true letters and others literary epistles.

But none of the letters in the New Testament can be restricted within the narrow range of his definition of

the true letter: even the letter to Philemon, intima te and personal as it is, rebels in some parts against this

strictness, and rises into a far higher and broader region of thought: it is addressed not only to Philemon

and Apphia and Archippus, but also "to the Church in thy house."

Such letters show a certain analogy to the Imperial rescripts. The rescript was strictly a mere reply to a

request for guidance in some special case, addressed by an official to the Emperor; yet it came to be

regarded as one of the chief means of improving and developing Roman public law. A rescript arose out of

special circumstances and stated the Emperor's opinion on them in much the same way as if the official had

consulted him face to face; the rescript was written for the eye of one official, without any thought of

others; but it set forth the general principle of policy which applied to the special case. The rescripts show

how inadequate Dr. Deissmann's classification is. It would be a singularly incomplete account of them to

class them either as true letters or as literary epistles. They have many of the characteristics of the true

letter; in them the whole mind and spirit of the Imperial writer was expressed for the benefit of one single

reader; but they lack entirely the spontaneity and freshness of the true letter. As expressing general truths

and universal principles, they must have been the result of long experience and careful thought, though the

final expression was often hasty and roused by some special occasion. This more studied character

differentiates them from t he mere unstudied expression of personal affection and interest.

Similarly, those general letters of the Christians express and embody the growth in the law of the Church and

in its common life and constitution. They originated in the circumstances of the Church. The letter of the

Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23ff) arose out of a special occasion, and was the reply to a question

addressed from Syria to the central Church and its leaders; the reply was addressed to the Churches of the

province of Syria and Cilicia, and specially the Church of the capital of that province; but it was forthwith

treated as applicable equally to other Christians, and was communicated as authoritative by Paul and Silas

to the Churches of Galatia (Acts 16:4).

The peculiar relation of fatherhood and authority in which Paul stood to his own Churches developed still

further this category of letters. Mr. V. Bartlet has some good remarks on it in Dr. Hastings' Dictionary of the

Bible, i., p. 730, from which we may be allowed to quote two sentences. "Of a temper too ardent for the more

studied forms of writing, St. Paul could yet by letter, and so on the spur of occasion, concentrate all his

wealth of thought, feeling and maturing experience upon some particular religious situation, and sweep

away the difficulty or danger...The true cause of" all his letters "lay deep in the same spirit as breathes in

First Thessalonians, the essentially 'pastoral' instinct."

A still further development towards general philosophicolegal statement of religious dogma is apparent on

the one hand in Romans, addressed to a Church which he had not founded, and on the other hand in the

Pastoral Epistles. The latter have a double character, being addressed by Paul to friends and pupils of his

own, partly in their capacity of personal friends--such portions of the letters being of the most intimate,

incidental, and unstudied character--but far more in their official capacity as heads and overseers of a group

of Churches --such parts of the letters being really intended more for the guidance of the congregations than

of the nominal addressees, and being, undoubtedly, to a considerable extent merely confirmatory of the

teaching already given to the congregations by Timothy and Titus. The double character of these Epistles is

a strong proof of their authenticity. Such a mixture of character could only spring from the intimate friend

and leader, whose interest in the work which his two subordinates were doing was at times lost in the

personal relation.