2 Tim. Ignatius seems to allude when he writes to Poly- carp (c. 6), " Please him whose soldiers ye are, and from whom j'ou receive paj''" (comp. 2 Tim. ii, 4) ; and Poly- carp (.-1 d Pliilippen. c. 5) : " He has promised us that if we walk worthily of him, we shall reign with him" (comp. 2 Tim. ii, 11, 12). To the epistle to Titus Igna- tius alludes (.-1 d Tndl. c. 3) : " Whose behavior is itself a great lesson of instruction." (The word for "beha- vior," Kardffnjfta, occurs in the New Test, only in Tit. ii, 3). Likewise Clem. Rom. {Ep. i. 2) : " Ye were ready for every good work" (comp. Tit. iii, 1). To 1 Tim. we have direct testimony in Irenaaus {Adi: Ilcer. i, 1, 1) : "They introduce vain genealogies, which, as the apos- tle says. ' minister' questions, rather than godly edify- ing, which is in faith" (comp. 1 Tim. i, 4) ; in Clem. Alex. {Strom, ii, 383): "Concerning which the apostle writing says, ' O Timothy, keep that which is commit- ted to thee'" (comp. I Tim. vi, 20, 21); and in Tertull. {De PrcBscrip. Uceret. c. 25) : "And this word Paul has used to Timothv, ' O Timothy, keep the deposit' "(comp.
X.— b D
ibid.). To 2 Tim. in Irenseus (.4 dv. flar. iii, 3, 3) : " The apostles delivered the episcopate to Linus; . . . of which Linus Paid makes mention in those epistles which he wrote to Timothy" (^comp. 2 Tim. iv, 21); and in Ter- tull. {Scorp. c. 13) : " Exulting (i. e. Paul) in the prospect of it, he writes to Timothy, • I am poured out as a drink- offering; and the time of my departure is at band"" (comp. 2 Tim. iv, 6). To the epistle to Titus in Ire- nseus {Adv. Hm: iii, 3, 4): "The apostles would not even in word communicate with those who adulterated the truth, as Paul says, 'A heretic after the first admo- nition reject, knowing that such a one is perverse'" etc. (comp. Tit. iii, 10, 11); in Clem. Alex. {Admon. ad Gent. p. 6) : " For as that divine apostle of the Lord says, ' The saving grace of God hath appeared unto all men,' " etc. (comp. Tit. ii, 11-13); and in Tertull. {De Prces. c. 6): "Paul, . . . who suggests that 'a heretic after the first admonition is to be rejected as perverse'" (comp. Tit. iii, 10). See also Tert"ull. {Ad Uxorem, i. 7), Ire- nreus (Adr. Iher. iv, 16, 3; ii, 14,8). Parallelisms, im- plying quotation, in some cases with close verbal agree- ment, are found likewise in Ignatius, Ad Macjv. c. 8 (1 Tim. i, 4) ; Polycarp, c. 4 (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 7, 8) ; Theoph- ilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. iii, 120 (comp. 1 Tim. ii, 1, 2). Later testimony is so abimdant that it is needless to adduce it. Thus the external testimony, indirect and direct, to the three e]iistles is, so far as the Church is concerned, as strong as to any portion of Scripture. It must not be concealed that they were rejected by some of the Gnostic heretics, as Marcion and Basilides (see Tertull. Adv. Mar. v, 21 ; Jerome, Prohnj. ad Tit.). Tatian accepted the Epistle to Titus, but rejected those to Timothy. The contents of the epistles sufficiently account for the repugnance of the Gnostic teachers to admit their genuineness. Origen mentions {Comment, in iMatt. p. 117) some who rejected 2 I'im. on account of the allusion to the apocryphal story of Jannes and Jambres (iii, 8), which they considered unworthy of an apostle.
The Pastoral Epistles have, however, been subjected to a more elaborate scrutiny by the criticism of (ier- many. The first doubts were uttered by J. C. Schmidt. These were followed by the Sendschreiben of Schleier- macher, who, assuming the genuineness of 2 Tim. and Titus, undertook, on that hypothesis, to prove the spu- riousness of 1 Tim. Bolder critics saw that the posi- tion thus taken was untenable, that the three epistles must stand or fall together. Eichhorn {Einleit. in) and De Wette {Einleit.) denied the Pauline authorship of all three. There was still, however, an attem|)t to main- tain their authority as embodying the substance of tlie apostle's teaching, or of letters written by him, on the hypothesis that they had been sent forth after his death by some over-zealous disciple, who wished, under the shadow of his name, to attack the prevailing errors of the time (Eichhorn, ibid.). One writer (Schott, Isayorje llist.-crit. p. 324) ventures on the hypothesis that Luke was the writer. Baur ( Die sogenannten Pastoral-BrieJ'e), here as elsewhere more daring than others, assigns them to no earlier period than the latter half of the 2d cen- tury, after the death of Polycarp in A.D. 167 (p. 138). On this hypothesis 2 Tim. was the earliest, 1 Tim. the latest of the three, each probably by a different writer (p. 72-76). They grew out of the state of parties in the Church of Rome, and, like the Gospel of Luke and the Acts, were intended to mediate between the extreme Pauline and the extreme Petrine sections of the Church (p. 58). Starting from the data supplied by the Epistle to the Philippians, the writers, first of 2 Tim., then of Titus, and lastly of 1 Tim., aimed, by the insertion of personal incidents, messages, and the like, at giving to their compilations an air of verisimilitude (p. 70). It will be seen from the above statement tliat the ques- tion of authorship is here more than usually important. There can be no solution as regards these epistles like that of an obviously dramatic and therefore legitimate personation of character, such as is possible in rela-