Acts allows no room for this, and the
reference to Apollos (iii. 13) implies a later period than St. Paul's
stay at Corinth (Acts xviii.).

_Answer._--All three Epistles may quite well be later than the history
related in Acts. There is no reason for denying that St. Paul was set
free after his trial at Rome, and arrested again at a later date.
Assuming that this liberation did take place, all historical
difficulties vanish. There are several points in favour of this
liberation. First, the attitude of the Roman government towards
Christianity was fairly tolerant until Nero began his persecution in
A.D. 64, and the state of the law would {197} have allowed St. Paul's
acquittal. Secondly, it was believed in the early Church that St. Paul
was set free. The Muratorian Fragment says that he went to Spain, and
St. Clement of Rome, writing from Rome about A.D. 95, says that he went
"to the boundary of the west," which seems to point to Spain. Thirdly,
the chronology implied in the ancient list of the bishops of Rome will
not allow us to put St. Paul's martyrdom earlier than A.D. 64.
Fourthly, the apostle himself expected to be set free (Phil. ii. 24;
Philem. 22). There is therefore no historical reason for denying that
St. Paul was set free from the imprisonment in which Acts leaves him.

2. _References to heresies._--It has been said that these Epistles
contain references to heresies later than the apostolic age, such as
the Gnosticism of the 2nd century. More especially, it is said that 1
Tim. vi. 20, which speaks of "oppositions of gnosis falsely so called,"
refers to a work by Marcion called the "Oppositions" (Antitheses), in
which he tried to demonstrate that the Old Testament was antagonistic
to the New.

_Answer._--The heresies here rebuked are not so definitely described
that we can determine their precise character. This fact is in favour
of the idea that the heresies belong to the 1st century rather than to
the 2nd. Stress has been laid upon statements which seem to imply
Gnostic heresy, and heresy of a "Docetic" character, _i.e._ teaching a
denial of the reality of our Lord's human nature. But there is
certainly nothing which suggests that the error here rebuked was as
developed as the heresy rebuked by St. Ignatius, or even that denounced
by St. John. It is most unlikely that the word "oppositions" can refer
to a book bearing that title. The passage 1 Tim. vi. 20 does not
suggest this. And if Marci