i. 17 (elsewhere onlyin 1 Peter); d:,rw0oµai in Rom. xi. 1, 2 and in 1 Tim. i. 19 ( elsewhere only in the Acts); av07JT0<; in Rom. i. 14 and Gal. iii. 1, 3, and in 1 Tim. vi. 9 and Titus iii. 3 ( elsewhere only in Luke xxiv. 25); av1nro1<pi70 ~ in Romans, Corinthians, and in 1 Tim. i. 5 and 2 Tim. i. 5 (elsewhere only in 1 Pet. i. 22 and Jae. iii. 17). Compare ?rVrup.a 8n,\i'a,; in 2 Tim. i. 7 with ?rVrup.a «SovXt{a,; tl,; <f,6{3ov in Rom. viii. 15; XP6vwv a1wvlwv in 2 Tim. i. 9 and Titus i. 2 with Rom. xvi. 25 and 1 Cor. ii. 7. St. Paul applies the noun -rr>..auµa to the man, and the verb -rr>..auuw to God his Maker, in Rom. ix. 20; and tho writer of 1 Tim. ii. 13 also uses .,,.>..tJ.uuoµai of the formation of man by God. The term ayiauµ6,, which is used by St. Paul seven or eight times (and only once by St. Peter besides), is ahm found in 1 Tim. ii. 15. St. Paul speaks of the gospel as the "mystery of Christ," " the hidden myate-ry," etc , in Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 3, 4; Col. i. 26, and frequently elsewhere; and so we have the phrases, "the mystery of the faith," "the myHtery of gorl.liness,'' in I Tim. iii. 9, 16. The following thirty words are also peculiar to St. Paul and to the pastoral Epistles : &.vlyKATJTO,, avTapKtta, ar.paTo,, v-rr@pOX71, crtµ.voo;, µ.Ecr{rr,,, V1TOTaY71, v/3ptCTT7/<;, 7rpotcrrr,/U, iv«SE{KVVµt, 7rp~TTJ'i, XPTJUTOTTJ<;, &.va,calvwcri,, 7rpOK07t'TUV ( except Luke ii. 52), 7rp0K07t'TJ, o>..t0po,, KaTapy•w ( except Luke xiii. 7), ~CTTpa.KLVO,, £KKa8a{pw, '77f'to,, &.Aa(wv, O.UTopyo,, aU7t'Ol'«So,; (T.R.), pop<f,wui,, a1XfLa:l.wT(VW, uwptvw, aOOKLJLO,, paKpo0vµ.{a ( except James and 1 and 2 Peter), .,,.&.871µ.a (except 1 Peter), .,,.,\,iuuw. But when we pass from these resemblances in mere diction to consider the intellectual power, the t1ert1e, and Divine glow of the pastoral Epistles, the evidence is overwhelming. Place by their side the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, or the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, or the (so-called) 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and you feel the immeasurable difference between them. The combination of mental vigour and sober, practical good sense, and sagacious intuition with regard to men and things, and extensive knowledge, with fervent zeal, and enthusiasm of temperament, and ardent piety, and entire self-sacrifice, and heavenly mindedness, and the upward, onward movement of the whole inner man under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, producing an inartistic eloquence of immense force and persuasiveness, is found in these pastoral Epistles, as in a.ll the other Epistles of this great apostle; but it is found nowhere else. St. Paul, we know, could have wiitten them; we know of no one else who conlrl. To attribute them to some unknown fraudulent impostor instead or to him, the stamp of whose personality they bear in every line as di:stinctly as they bear his name in their superscriptions, is a caricature of criticisu1, and a. burlesque of unbelief. Applying, further, the· usual tests of authenticity, we may observe that all the historical and chronological marks which we can discover in these Epistles agree with the theory of their being written in the reign of the Emperor Nero. 'l'he earnestness with which the apostle directs prayers for rulers to be used in all churches-" that we may lead a quiet life" (1 Tim. ii. I, 2; Titus iii. 1)-ta.llies well with the idea that the attitude of Nero INTRODUCTION TO
towarde the Christians was beginning to excite considerable anxiety. Such thoughts as those in l Tim. i. I and vi. 15 derive fresh significance from Buoh an idea; while the later utterance 6f 2 1'im. iv. 16-18 8 hows that what was only feared before had become a fact, and that the writer of 2 Timothy was in the midst of the Neronian persecution. Again, the restless state of the Jewish mind, and the unhealthy crop of bereisies, containing the germ of later Gnosticism, springing up amongst the semi-Christian Jews, which is reflected in the pastoral Epistles, is in aecordance with all that we know of Jewish sectarianism at this time, as depicted by Philo, Josephus, and other later writers quoted by Bishop Lightfoot (' Introduction to Colossians,' p. 83, note). G,noaticism, as it appears in the Epistle to the Colossians and M it was taught by Cerinthus- Gnosticism, evidenced by a few Gnostic allusions, as cl.vnBluw; rrjc; l{,£vowvv- JUJV yvoo£111c; (1 Tim. vi. 20); by a mystical instead of the real resurrection (2 Tim. ii. 18); by abstinence from meats and from marriage; by old wives' fableR and ascetic practices (1 Tim. i. 8, 9) ;-does indeed appear in the pastoral Epistles, as was inevitable, considering their scope; but it is a Gnosticism distinctly of Jewish origin (Titus i. 10, 14), and as different from the later Gnosticism of Marcion and Va.lentinian and Ta.tian as the a.corn is from the oak tree, or the infant from the grown-up man. These pai;sages, which the great ingenuity and learning of Baur have laboured to wrest into evidences against the authenticity of these Epistles, are really very weighty evidences in their favour. So, too, are a.11 the marks of the then ecclesiastical polity which stand out in these Epistles. The case may be thus stated. TowardR the end of the isecond century, when it is argued by Baur and his followers that these Epistles were forged, diocesan episcopacy was universal in the whole Church, and the word '-1rlu1t07roc; meant exclusively what we now mean by a bishop as distinguished from presbyters. And not only so, but it was the universal belief that such episcopacy had existed in regular succession from the apostles themselves, and lists of bishops were preserved in several Churches, of whom the first was said to have been appointed by an apostle. Under these circumstances, it seems to be absolutely impossible that a forger. writing in the latter part of the second century, and personating St. Paul, should represent the clergy in Crete and at Epheisus under the name of i-rr,uKo7rot (1 Tim. iii.; Titus i. 7), and should not make mention of any bishop presiding over those Churches. So. again, the use of the word " presbyter " in these Epi8tles distinctly showi; the term not yet hardened down into an exclusively technical term. The same thing is also true of the words 8c.aKovoc;, 81.aKovla, and &aicov£LV (see 1 Tim. v. 1; iv. 6; i. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 5, 11; i. 18), so that the use of these ecclesiastical terms in the pastoral Epistles is, when properly weighed, an evidence of very great weight in favour of their belonging to the first, not the second, century. In like manner, the missionary and movable episcopates of 'I'imothy and THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. YII