THE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF S. PAUL.--THE NEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS 309
THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION OF ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 319
THE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE FAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH 331
THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC CONTEST; AS HUSBANDRY 343
THE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE INCARNATION.--THE GOSPEL OF S. PAUL 353
THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT, OF A DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH 364
THE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND JAMBRES ON THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT IN EPHESUS 375
THE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LIFELONG CONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED WRITINGS 385
THE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT FAILURE AND THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT TEST OF SINCERITY 397
THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE LORD.--THE MISSION TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE, AND THE FINAL HYMN OF PRAISE 418
"Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus."--1 TIM. i; 2 TIM. i. 1.
"Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ."--TITUS i. 1.
The first question which confronts us on entering upon the study of the Pastoral Epistles is that of their authenticity, which of late has been confidently denied. In reading them are we reading the farewell words of the great Apostle to the ministers of Christ? Or are we reading only the well-meant but far less weighty counsels of one who in a later age assumed the name and imitated the style of St. Paul? It seems necessary to devote the first of these expositions to a discussion of this question.
The title "Pastoral Epistles" could hardly be improved, but it might easily be misunderstood as implying more than is actually the case. It calls attention to what is the most conspicuous, but by no means the only characteristic in these Epistles. Although the words which most directly signify the pastor's office, such as "shepherd," "feed," "tend," and "flock," do not occur in these letters and do occur elsewhere in Scripture, yet in no other books in the Bible do we find so many directions respecting the pastoral care of Churches. The title is much less appropriate to 2 Timothy than to the other two Epistles. All three are both pastoral and personal; but while 1 Timothy and Titus are mainly the former, 2 Timothy is mainly the latter. The three taken together stand between the other Epistles of St. Paul and the one to Philemon. Like the latter, they are personal; like the rest, they treat of large questions of Church doctrine, practice, and government, rather than of private and personal matters. Like that to Philemon, they are addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals; yet they are written to them, not as private friends, but as delegates, though not mere delegates, of the Apostle, and as officers of the Church. Moreover the important Church matters of which they treat are regarded, not, as in the other Epistles, from the point of view of the congregation or of the Church at large, but rather from that of the overseer or minister. And, as being official rather than private letters, they are evidently intended to be read by other persons besides Timothy and Titus.
Among the Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul none have excited so much controversy as these, especially as regards their genuineness. But the controversy is entirely a modern one. It is little or no exaggeration to say that from the first century to the nineteenth no one ever denied or doubted that they were written by St. Paul. It is true that certain heretics of the second century rejected some or all of them. Marcion, and perhaps Basilides, rejected all three. Tatian, while maintaining the Apostolicity of the Epistle to Titus, repudiated those to Timothy. And Origen tells us that some people doubted about 2 Timothy because it contained the names of Jannes and Jambres, which do not occur in the Old Testament. But it is well known that Marcion in framing his mutilated and meagre canon of the Scriptures, did not profess to do so on critical grounds. He rejected everything excepting an expurgated edition of St. Luke and certain Epistles of St. Paul,--not because he doubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. They did not fit into his system. And the few others who rejected one or more of these Epistles did so in a similar spirit. They did not profess to find that these documents were not properly authenticated, but they were displeased with passages in them. The evidence, therefore, justifies us in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second century, these three Epistles were, until quite recent times, universally accepted as written by St. Paul.