Titus 1
Commentary from 27 fathers
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς Θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
ѡ҆ ᲂу҆пова́нїи жи́зни вѣ́чныѧ, ю҆́же ѡ҆бѣтова̀ нело́жный бг҃ъ пре́жде лѣ́тъ вѣ́чныхъ,
Having then this hope [in the resurrection], let our souls be bound to him who is faithful in his promises and just in his judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie shall much more himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie.
First Letter of Clement 27
Since the periods of time, therefore, come within the scope of our knowledge or speculations, we pass judgment upon them according to the understanding of human reasoning. In this way we believe ourselves justified in saying about anything: “It has not been before it is born.” The times that have already past always come before the origin of everything. Since in the things of God, that is, in the birth of God, everything is before the eternal time, then we cannot say of him: “Before he was born.” Nor can we say that he to whom the eternal promise was made before the eternal time has the “hope of life everlasting,” according to the statement of the apostle, which the God who does not lie has promised to him before the eternal time, nor can we say that at one time he had not been. We cannot assume that he whom we must confess as being before the eternal time has had his beginning after something.
On the Trinity 12.27
But God can neither be in doubt, nor can he be deceived. For he only is in doubt who is ignorant of the future. One who has predicted one thing while something else has happened is deceived about the future. Not so with God. What is plainer than the fact that Scripture states the Father to have said one thing of the Son and that the same Scripture proves another thing to have taken place? The Son was beaten, he was mocked, was crucified and died. He suffered much worse things in the flesh than those servants who had been appointed before. Was the Father deceived? Was he ignorant of it? Was he unable to give help? The One who is the truth cannot make a mistake. It is written that “the ever-truthful God cannot lie.” How could he who knows all be ignorant? What could he not do, who could do all?
Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.17.215-16
Ver. 2. "Which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
That is, not now upon a change of mind, but from the beginning it was so foreordained. This he often asserts, as when he says, "Separated unto the Gospel of God." (Rom. i. 1.) And again, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate." (Rom. viii. 29.) Thus showing our high origin, in that He did not love us now first, but from the beginning: and it is no little matter to be loved of old, and from the beginning.
"Which God, that cannot lie, promised." If He "cannot lie," what He has promised will assuredly be fulfilled. If He "cannot lie," we ought not to doubt it, though it be after death. "Which God, that cannot lie," he says, "promised before the world began"; by this also, "before the world began," he shows that it is worthy of our belief. It is not because the Jews have not come in, that these things are promised. It had been so planned from the first. Hear therefore what he says,
"But hath in His own times manifested."
Wherefore then was the delay? From His concern for men, and that it might be done at a seasonable time. "It is time for Thee, Lord, to work" (Ps. cxix. 125), says the Prophet. For by "His own times" is meant the suitable times, the due, the fitting.
Homily on Titus 1
"According to the faith of the elect of God and the knowledge of the truth, which is in accordance with piety towards eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal times and has manifested in due time His word in preaching, believed in accordance with the command of our Savior God by me, Titus, his dear son according to the common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father, and Jesus Christ our Savior." If anyone knows the art of grammar, or dialectic, in order to have the correct reasoning of speech, and to judge between false and true. Also, geometry and arithmetic and music have truth in their science; but that is not the science of piety. The science of piety is to know the Law, understand the prophets, believe in the Gospel, and not ignore the apostles. Conversely, there are many who have a true knowledge of piety: but not immediately the truth of the other arts of which we have just mentioned above. Therefore, this truth, whose knowledge is in line with piety, is placed in the hope of eternal life: because he who knows himself immediately bestows on him the reward of immortality. Without piety, knowledge of the truth is pleasing at present: but it does not have the eternity of rewards, which the truthful God promised before eternal times: and he manifested it in his time in Christ Jesus. To whom did he promise it before and afterwards made it clear except to His wisdom, which was always with the Father, when He rejoiced over the perfect world and rejoiced over the sons of men, and promised them who would believe in Him, that they would have eternal life? Before the foundation of the world was laid, before the seas were spread, the mountains established, the sky hung, and the earth with a solid mass lowered, God promised this, in whom there is no falsehood. Not because He can lie, and does not want to break out into words of falsehood: but because He is the father of truth and has no lie in Him, according to the saying: But let God be true: and every man a liar (Rom. 3:4). Therefore, God is called not a liar: indeed, when He promises certain things to the prophets with an oath, in order that we may be more secure, we hope that what is foretold will come to pass, and believing with our whole heart, we may be prepared to attain what is to come.
It seems not irrelevant briefly to discuss why God alone is true, and every man a liar, as it is said by the voice of the Apostles. And if I am not mistaken, how is he alone said to have immortality, when he has made angels and many rational creatures to whom he has given immortality: so too he is said to be true alone, not because the others, who are not immortal, are not lovers of truth, but because he alone is naturally, and immortal, and true. The others, indeed, attain immortality and truth by his gift, and it is one thing to be true, but another to have something in and of oneself: it is another thing to have what the giver has in his power to give. But I also think that this should not be passed over in silence, that God is not a liar, having promised eternal life before the eternal ages: from which, according to the history of Genesis, the world was made, and through the succession of nights and days, months and years, times were established. In this cycle and wheel of the world, times slip away and come, and either the future or the past is. Hence some philosophers do not believe that there is a present time: but either the past or the future; because everything that we speak, do, or think, either passes if it has happened, or if it has not yet happened, we expect it to come. Therefore, before the times of this world, it must be believed that there was a certain eternity of centuries, in which the Father always was with the Son and the Holy Spirit: and, so to speak, the time of God is one, that is, all eternity: in fact, there are innumerable times, since he who exceeds all times was there before all time. But not even a thousand years of our world are yet completed: and how many previous eternities, how many times, how many origins of ages must be considered, in which the angels, thrones, dominations, and other powers served God: and without the vicissitudes and measures of times, they stood by God's command! Before all these times, therefore, which neither speech can utter nor mind can grasp, nor silent thought dare touch, God the Father promised his Word and Wisdom, and his very Wisdom and the life of those who were to believe, should come into the world.
Commentary on Titus
I confess that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I am perfectly sure that no one creature is coeternal with the Creator. Curiously enough, the apostle uses the expression tempora aeterna in reference not to the future but to the past. Thus he says: “in the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised before the eternal times, he has in due times manifested, his word.” He seems to be saying that time stretches backward eternally; yet time is not coeternal with God, since not only did God exist “before eternal times” but he promised eternal life which he manifested in his own time, that is, in due time. Now, what he promised was his Word. For the Word is eternal life. But how did he make this promise, since it was made to those who certainly did not exist before the “eternal times”? The meaning, then, must be that what was to take place in its own time was already predestined and determined in his eternity and in his coeternal Word.
City of God 12.16
in the hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the beginning of time.
in hope of eternal life. Indeed, to know the truth itself for its own sake is a great reward beyond thousands, but now the generous God also gives, besides this very reward, eternal life. For it is said to be for the knowledge of the truth, of the life that is based on hope, eternal. And the term "eternal," making a comparison to the Jews: for they had the promise of present life.
which God, who never lies. If God is without deceit, He will certainly fulfill what He has promised.
promised before the beginning of time. Not by a later decree or repentance, Paul says, did God determine this, but from the beginning. The greatest honor is that we were loved from the beginning.
Commentary on Titus
Having said how much God has benefited us for the present life, he speaks also of what He will give in the future. Already the very knowledge of the truth is the greatest benefit for us who have been freed from error. But as a reward for this, He will give us also eternal life. Since we have come to know Him, "we hope," he says, "for eternal life." Do you see how he immediately, from the very beginning, points to the benefits of God, so as to make both the bishop himself and all the more his disciples more ready to please the Benefactor? With the words "in hope of eternal life" he overturns Jewish rites, for they had the present life as their reward.
If He is unchangeable, then He will undoubtedly give even after death what He promised. From ancient times, he says, He predetermined this, and not as a result of repentance. It is not because the Jews did not turn to Him that He will give this to us, but because it was predetermined from ancient times — and He loved us from eternity. That He loved us from the beginning — this points to our nobility.
Commentary on Titus
He then describes apostleship from its objective: first, the objective is mentioned; second, its dignity, at which God, who does not lie.
But the objective is hope of life everlasting, because even though Moses can be called an apostle, inasmuch as he was sent by the Lord, yet not in the hope of life everlasting, but of the land of the Hevite and Amorrhite. Paul, however, is an apostle in the hope of life everlasting: for this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40); by his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope (1 Pet 1:3); we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God (Rom 5:2).
This promise is firm for two reasons: first, by reason of the one who promises; hence he says, God, who does not lie. For God is truth, the opposite of which is a lie: God is not a man, that he should lie (Num 23:19).
Second, by reason of God's intention to give; hence he says, has promised before the times of the world. For an age, according to the Philosopher, is the measure of a thing's duration. The ages of the world, therefore, are times which are distinguished according to the successions of things. As if to say: before time began its march. And because this time began when the world began, God's intention existed before the beginning of the world.
Another version has times eternal, i.e., olden times, for that is the meaning of the word 'eternal,' namely, old. Or eternal, not really, but in the imagination. And so, even prior to that, he promised this. But to promise is to declare one's intention to give: and from all eternity God uttered his Word, in which was contained the promise that the saints would possess eternal life: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).
Commentary on Titus
But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
ἐφανέρωσε δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ,
ꙗ҆ви́ же во времена̀ своѧ̑ сло́во своѐ проповѣ́данїемъ, є҆́же мнѣ̀ порꙋ́чено бы́сть по повелѣ́нїю сп҃си́телѧ на́шегѡ бг҃а:
Ver. 3. "But hath in due times manifested His word through preaching, which is committed unto me."
That is, the preaching is committed unto me. For this included everything, the Gospel, and things present, and things future, life, and godliness, and faith, and all things at once. "Through preaching," that is, openly and with all boldness, for this is the meaning of "preaching." For as a herald proclaims in the theater in the presence of all, so also we preach, adding nothing, but declaring the things which we have heard. For the excellence of a herald consists in proclaiming to all what has really happened, not in adding or taking away anything. If therefore it is necessary to preach, it is necessary to do it with boldness of speech. Otherwise, it is not preaching. On this account Christ did not say, Tell it "upon the housetops," but "preach upon the housetops" (Matt. x. 27); showing both by the place and by the manner what was to be done.
"Which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour."
The expressions, "committed unto me," and "according to the commandment," show the matter to be worthy of credit, so that no one should think it discreditable, nor be hesitating about it, or discontented. If then it is, a commandment, it is not at my disposal. I fulfill what is commanded. For of things to be done, some are in our power, others are not. For what He commands, that is not in our power, what He permits, is left to our choice. For instance, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt. v. 22.) This is a commandment. And again, "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.) This also is a command. But when He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast" (Matt. xix. 21): and, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt. xix. 12): this is not a command, for He makes His hearer the disposer of the matter, and leaves him the choice, whether he will do it or not. For these things we may either do or not do. But commandments are not left to our choice, we must either perform them, or be punished for not doing so. This is implied when he says, "Necessity is laid upon me; yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel." (1 Cor. ix. 16.) This I will state more plainly, that it may be manifest to all. For instance, He that is intrusted with the government of the Church, and honored with the office of a Bishop, if he does not declare to the people what they ought to do, will have to answer for it. But the layman is under no such obligation. On this account Paul also says, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour," I do this. And see how the epithets fit in to what I have said. For having said above, "God who cannot lie," here he says, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour." If then He is our Saviour, and He commanded these things with a view that we should be saved, it is not from a love of command. It is a matter of faith, and the commandment of God our Saviour.
Homily on Titus 1
Pay close attention to the text and order of the reading: for eternal life, which the not false God promised before eternal ages, is none other than the Word of God. For he has manifested his word in due time, saying: Therefore the word itself, which was in the beginning with the Father, must be that life eternal which he had promised; and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1) But that the Word of God, which is Christ himself, is life, he testifies in another place, saying: I am the life (John 14:6). Now life is not short, not bounded by certain periods; but eternal, which was manifested in the last ages, in the preaching which was believed in by the teacher of the gentiles, Paul, and revealed to the world, and made known to men, according to the command of the Savior God, who wished us to be saved, and fulfilled what he had promised.
Commentary on Titus
but has now been revealed in his times his message through his preaching, which was entrusted to me, according to the command of our Savior God.
but has now been revealed. What did God reveal in his own times and appropriate seasons? The life which he had promised from eternity. For his Word, that is, Christ, is life and the giver of life. Therefore, when Paul said that God had promised life, he immediately added, "revealed in his times his message through his preaching": but through his preaching, as if the Word itself, that is, Christ, is the author and giver of that life. Through preaching indeed, that is, openly and plainly.
which was entrusted to me. From what Paul says: It has been entrusted to me, and, according to the command, he signified that it must necessarily be done and, without making any excuse, whether willing or unwilling, to preach. This also you, he said, do, O Titus.
Commentary on Titus
Lest someone say: why did He delay in giving that which was determined from eternity? he says it was out of care for us and in order to do it at the fitting time. By "time" Scripture means the opportune time, as for example: "It is time for the Lord to act" (Ps. 119:126). So "in its own time," he says, that is, the suitable, proper time. And what did He manifest? "His Word," he says, that is, the Gospel. In what manner? "In preaching," that is, openly, with boldness. He who preaches neither adds nor takes away. So we too preach what has been commanded to us, assuredly, only in the hearing of all, just as Christ said: "Preach upon the housetops" (Matt. 10:27), signifying by the manner and place directness, impartiality, and freedom. Note: the sequence required him to say: "He manifested in its own time," that is, eternal life, but he did not put it that way, but rather "He manifested His Word." Rightly so. For the Gospel encompasses everything: both what has been given to us in the present time, such as godliness, faith, and truth, and what is promised in the age to come, that is, eternal life. Some, however, understood "His Word" to mean the Son.
This preaching, he says, has been entrusted to me. So then, if it has been entrusted, I must not think anything unworthy of the One who entrusted it to me, nor must I pretend or express displeasure at what has been entrusted to me. Moreover, it has been entrusted to me "by commandment," which is to say: I am compelled to do this against my will. Of the things that must be done, some are done "by commandment," and others by exhortation. For example: "be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:24) — this is a commandment, and whoever does not fulfill it is punished; but: "sell your possessions" (Matt. 19:21), if you wish, and also: "he who is able to accept it, let him accept it" (Matt. 19:12) — these are exhortations, and the one who does not fulfill them is not punished. So then, he says, preaching has been entrusted to me by commandment, so that I must necessarily fulfill it. "Woe to me," he says, "if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16), and this is not out of love of power, but out of necessity. Whose commandment is it? "Of God our Savior." Therefore, if God, who desires our salvation, has commanded this, how shall I not show my devotion to the work of salvation?
Commentary on Titus
This hope is confirmed by the manifestation of the promise; hence he says, but has in due times manifested his word. And he describes this manifestation in three ways.
First, from the time; hence he manifested when his Word became incarnate. Therefore, he says, in due times, i.e., when man became convinced of his pride, through which he sinned. Hence a physician, first of all, convinces his patient in order to heal him more easily. For man took pride in his knowledge; but he became convinced of his ignorance before the time of the law, when he fell into idolatry and vices against nature. He also took pride in his strength, but became convinced of his weakness during the time of the law: but when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law (Gal 4:4).
Second, this manifestation is described from its manner, because it occurred through public preaching: go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). Hence he says, in preaching: a dispensation is committed to me (1 Cor 9:17).
Third, from its author; hence he says, according to the commandment of God our Savior: he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21); he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15).
Commentary on Titus
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν· χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.
ті́тꙋ, прⷭ҇номꙋ ча́дꙋ по ѻ҆́бщей вѣ́рѣ: блгⷣть, млⷭ҇ть, ми́ръ ѿ бг҃а ѻ҆ц҃а̀ и҆ гдⷭ҇а і҆и҃са хрⷭ҇та̀ сп҃са на́шегѡ.
"To Titus mine own son," that is, my true son. For it is possible for men not to be true sons, as he of whom he says, "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, with such an one no not to eat." (1 Cor. v. 11.) Here is a son, but not a true son. A son indeed he is, because he has once received the grace, and has been regenerated: but he is not a true son, because he is unworthy of his Father, and a deserter to the usurped sovereignty of another. For in children by nature, the true and the spurious are determined by the father that begot, and the mother who bore them. But it is not so in this case, but it depends on the disposition. For one who was a true son may become spurious, and a spurious son may become a true one. For it is not the force of nature, but the power of choice, on which it depends, whence it is subject to frequent changes. Onesimus was a true son, but he was again not true, for he became "unprofitable"; then he again became a true son, so as to be called by the Apostle his "own bowels." (Philem. 12.)
Ver. 4. "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith."
What is "after the common faith"? After he had called him his own son, and assumed the dignity of a father, hear how it is that he lessens and lowers that honor. He adds, "After the common faith"; that is, with respect to the faith I have no advantage over thee; for it is common, and both thou and I were born by it. Whence then does he call him his son? Either only wishing to express his affection for him, or his priority in the Gospel, or to show that Titus had been enlightened by him. On this account he calls the faithful both children and brethren; brethren, because they were born by the same faith; children, because it was by his hands. By mentioning the common faith, therefore, he intimates their brotherhood.
Ver. 4. "Grace and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."
Because he had called him his son, he adds, "from God the Father," to elevate his mind by showing whose son he was, and by not only naming the common faith, but by adding "our Father," he implies that he has this honor equally with himself. Moral. Observe also how he offers the same prayers for the Teacher, as for the disciples and the multitude. For indeed he needs such prayers as much, or rather more than they, by how much he has greater enmities to encounter, and is more exposed to the necessity of offending God. For the higher is the dignity, the greater are the dangers of the priestly office. For one good act in his episcopal office is sufficient to raise him to heaven and one error to sink him to hell itself. For, to pass over all other cases of daily occurrence, if he happens, either from friendship or any other cause, to have advanced an unworthy person to a Bishopric, and have committed to him the rule of a great city, see to how great a flame he renders himself obnoxious. For not only will he have to account for the souls that are lost, for they are lost through the man's irreligion, but for all that is done amiss by the other. For he that is irreligious in a private station will be much more so when he is raised to power. It is much indeed, if a pious man continue such after his elevation to rule. For he is then more strongly assailed by vainglory, and the love of wealth, and self-will, when office gives him the power; and by offenses, insults, and reproaches, and numberless other evils. If therefore any one be irreligious, he will become more so when raised to office; and he who appoints such a ruler will be answerable for all the offenses committed by him, and for the whole people. But if it is said of him who gives offense to one soul, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt. xviii. 6); what will he have to suffer who offends so many souls, whole cities and populations, and multitudes of families, men, women, children, citizens, and husbandmen, the inhabitants of the city itself, and of all places subject to it? To say thrice as much more is to say nothing, so severe is the vengeance and the punishment to which he will be obnoxious. So that a Bishop especially needs the grace and peace of God. For if without these he governs the people, all is ruined and lost, for want of those helms. And though he be skilled in the art of steering, he will sink the vessel and those that sail in it, if he has not these helms, "the grace and peace of God."
Hence I am struck with astonishment at those who desire so great a burden. Wretched and unhappy man, seest thou what it is thou desirest? If thou art by thyself, unknown and undistinguished, though thou committest ten thousand faults, thou hast only one soul for which to give an account, and for it alone wilt thou be answerable. But when thou art raised to this office, consider for how many persons thou art obnoxious to punishment. Hear what Paul says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account." (Heb. xiii. 17.) But dost thou desire honor and power? But what pleasure is there in this honor? I confess, I see not. For to be a ruler indeed is not possible, since it depends upon those under thy rule to obey or not. And to any one who considers the matter closely; it will appear that a Bishop does not so much come to rule, as to serve a multitude of masters, who are of opposite desires and sentiments. For what one commends, another blames; what this man censures, that admires. To whom therefore shall he listen, with whom shall he comply? It is impossible! And the slave that is bought with money complains if his master's commands are contrary to each other. But shouldest thou grieve, when so many masters give the contrary orders, thou art condemned even for this, and all mouths are opened against thee. Tell me then, is this honor, is this rule, is this power?
Homily on Titus 1
And the Apostle writes to his beloved son Titus, which is called in Greek, γνησίῳ τέκνῳ: and cannot be explained in Latin: for γνήσιος means this rather, when someone is called faithful and proper, and (so to speak) legitimate or genuine without comparison to another. From which we understand that there was much difference even among the sons of Paul, that he had some γνησίους, that is, most genuine, closely connected to himself, and born of true marriage and free procreation; but others almost from a handmaid and from Hagar, who cannot receive inheritance with the free son, Isaac. For the speech and wisdom and doctrine by which Titus instructed the Churches of Christ, made him a true son of the Apostle, and separate from all the companionship of others. Let us see after this what follows: According to the common faith, whether he said that it was common to all who believed in Christ, or common to him and Titus alone. Indeed, to me it seems that the common faith of the Apostle Paul and Titus was better than that of all believers; among whom, due to the variety of opinions, faith could not be common but diverse. Finally, the preface of the Epistle and the greeting of the Apostle's preface to Titus are completed with such an ending: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. Whether both grace and peace are given to both the Father and Christ Jesus, and both can be understood from each other, or whether grace refers to the Father and peace to the Son, must not be passed over without doubt. The Apostle had cursed some, that grace and peace would multiply to them: now, to Titus, peace and grace are placed without multiplication. Noah the righteous man, and the only one saved in a storm-tossed world, is said to have found not many graces, but one grace before God. And Moses said to the Lord, "If I have found grace with you" (Exodus 33:13). And wherever grace is placed in the person of the saints, seek and you shall find it, not that they have found graces but grace. That merchant of the Gospel who had many pearls, at last found one precious one, which he bought alone from many pearls (Matthew 13). For the perfect, indeed, it is to buy one pearl and one treasure for all pearls and all their substance by their business: but for those who are just beginning and are still on the way, not only one and alone but many pearls must be had.
Commentary on Titus
Natural generation does not operate by the assent of the one who is born, whereas the birth that comes from faith requires such assent. Although the one who preaches may sincerely believe, he who hears, unless he takes to himself what he learns with faith, cannot be called the son of the preacher.
Interpretation of the Letter to Titus
to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
to Titus, my true child. For one is a child because they have been baptized by them, but not legitimately, because they are sinful. The reason for you being my child, Paul says, is shared faith. He praises Titus as having nothing more than faith in him.
Another way. Titus, the child of Paul, as he was taught faith by him, and according to common faith, that is, from baptism, is a brother of Paul. For there is one Father, Christ, and one mother, the baptismal font.
Grace, mercy. It is fitting that grace and mercy be prayed for Titus, who is a teacher. For if you do not govern the people, that is, with grace, mercy, and peace, Paul says, the ship of the Church will be overturned.
On the training of teachers for ministry and the rebuke of the disobedient.
Commentary on Titus
A son can also be not true, as a fornicating Christian, or a covetous one: such a son, although regenerated through baptism, is not true, because he is unworthy of the father.
Having called Titus a son and having assumed for himself the title of father, the apostle again diminishes this honor, saying: in faith I have nothing more in comparison with you, for it is common, and by it both I and you were regenerated. Why then does the apostle call him his son? Either to show his love for him, or because he himself baptized Titus. Since both share one and the same faith, they are brothers to one another. But since Paul baptized Titus, he is a father to him. Thus, the expression "according to the common faith" signifies brotherhood.
And by this he indicates brotherhood, when he says "from God the Father," he stirs up Titus so that he might remember whose son he is, namely God's. See how what he wishes for ordinary people, the same he wishes for the bishop and teacher. For he himself more than others needs the gracious power of God, as one bearing exceedingly heavy burdens; he needs mercy, as one for whom it is difficult to avoid being guilty before God in many things; he needs peace, as one placed in the necessity of being in conflicts and waging unceasing struggle. For even faithful discharge of the episcopate alone leads one up to heaven, and negligence alone casts one down to hell.
Commentary on Titus
The person greeted is mentioned when he says, to Titus, whom he describes from three marks: first, from his name; second, from his love; third, from his sonship.
He is a son or child through love and the faith, which should be common, so that all say the same thing. Hence he says, according to the common faith, which is also called Catholic, i.e., universal. Hence, it is said: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5).
The good he wishes him is grace and peace. These usually go together, because grace is the beginning of all spiritual gifts, and peace is the end: he makes peace in your borders (Ps 147:14). From God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Savior.
Commentary on Titus
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην,
Сегѡ̀ ра́ди ѡ҆ста́вихъ тѧ̀ въ кри́тѣ, да недоконча̑ннаѧ и҆спра́виши и҆ ᲂу҆стро́иши по всѣ̑мъ градѡ́мъ пресвѵ́теры, ꙗ҆́коже тебѣ̀ а҆́зъ повелѣ́хъ:
5–7Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.
The Didache, Chapter 15
Thence, therefore, among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for digamy.
On Exhortation to Chastity
Whoever loves Christ must demonstrate this in the way he treats his slaves, knowing that the Lord will require of him whatever he expects from them.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete."
As if the whole world had been one house, they divided it among themselves, administering its affairs everywhere, each taking care of his several portion of it.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are [R. V. were] wanting."
He does not command this in an imperious manner; "that thou shouldest set in order," he says. Here we see a soul free from all envy, seeking everywhere the advantage of his disciples, not curiously solicitous, whether the good was done by himself or by another. For where he in his own person set it in order. But those things which were rather attended with honor and praise he committed to his disciple, as the ordination of Bishops, and such other things as required some farther arrangement, or, so to speak, to be brought to greater perfection. What sayest thou? does he farther set in order thy work? and dost thou not think it a disgrace bringing shame upon thee? By no means; for I look only to the common good, and whether it be done by me, or by another, it makes no difference to me. Thus it becomes him to be affected who presides in the Church, not to seek his own honor, but the common good.
"And ordain elders in every city," here he is speaking of Bishops, as we have before said, "as I had appointed thee. If any is blameless." "In every city," he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one, but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only, and to bring that into order.
Homily on Titus 2
"For this reason, I left you in Crete, so that you would correct what was lacking." It is the dignity of the apostolic Church to lay the foundation, which no one can lay except the architect. And the foundation is none other than Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Those who are lesser artisans can build houses upon the foundation. Therefore, as a wise architect, Paul exerted himself in every labor, not to glory in what had already been prepared, but after he had softened the hard hearts of the Cretans to faith in Christ, and had subdued them by both word and signs, and had taught them to believe in God the Father and in Christ, not in their native Jupiter, he left Titus as his disciple in Crete, to confirm the rudiments of the nascent Church and to correct anything that might appear lacking, while he himself went to other nations, in order to lay again the foundation of Christ in them. But when he says, "so that you would correct what was lacking," it shows that they had not yet attained to the full knowledge of the truth, and even though they had been corrected by the Apostle, they still needed further correction. However, everything that is corrected is imperfect. Moreover, in Greek, the addition of the preposition in the word ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, which means "correct," does not mean exactly the same thing as διορθώσῃ, that is, "to correct," but rather, to over-correct, so that the things that I have corrected, and which have not yet been brought to the full line of truth, may be corrected by you, and receive the rule of equality.
And (as) you should appoint presbyters through cities, just as I arranged for you. Bishops who have the power to appoint presbyters in individual cities should listen, under which law the order of Ecclesiastical constitution is maintained: nor should they think that the words of the apostles are their own, but Christ's, who said to the disciples: He who despises you, despises me; but he who despises me, despises him who sent me (Luke 10:16). So whoever hears you, hears me; and whoever rejects me, rejects him who sent me. From this it is clear that those who wish to confer the Ecclesiastical grade on anyone without merit, but through grace, contrary to the law of the apostles, do so against Christ himself, who through his apostle carried out the appointment of presbyter in the Church. Moses, the friend of God, to whom God spoke face to face (Deut. 5 and 31), could certainly have made his sons his successors in the principality and bequeathed his dignity to his descendants; but Jesus, a stranger from another tribe, was elected so that we would know that the principality must not be conferred on bloodline, but on life. But now we see many doing this as a favor, so that they do not seek to elevate pillars in the Church who can benefit the Church more, but those whom they themselves love, or with whose services they are entangled: or for whom someone of their ancestors begged, and, to not speak of worse things, who obtained the office by gifts. Let us carefully attend to the words of the apostles, saying: That you appoint presbyters in cities, just as I arranged for you. The person speaking about who ought to be ordained as a presbyter says this: "If anyone is without blame, a one-woman man, etc., for it is necessary for the bishop to be blameless, as a dispenser of God." Therefore, the presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before, by the instigation of the devil, competitions arose in religion and it was said among the people, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollo," "I am of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12), the governance of the church was conducted by the joint counsel of the presbyterate. But when each person began to consider those whom he had baptised as his own rather than Christ's, it was decided throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed in charge of the others and have care of the general well-being of the church, so that the seeds of schism might be rooted out. Someone may think that this is not the teaching of the scriptures but our own opinion, that a bishop and a presbyter are the same, that the difference lies only in the age of the office. That person should pay attention to the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, where he addresses his epistle to "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace to you and peace" (Phil. 1:1–2), and so on. Now, although the city of Philippi is one in Macedonia, it is impossible for there to be several bishops in one city. But because they used to call the same persons bishops then, whom they did "presbyters" also, for this reason he spoke without distinction of bishops and presbyters. Finally, lest this statement by confirmed only by one witness, let it be confirmed by another. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written, that when the Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards among other things he spoke: 'Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood' (Acts 20:28). And here observe carefully how, calling the Ephesian presbyters to him, he afterwards called the same men bishops. If anyone desires to receive the Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, and in which the care of the Churches is equally divided, it is read among many. For he writes to the people: 'Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you' (Hebrews 13:17). And Peter, who for the strengthening of the faith received the name of Firm, speaks in his epistle to the elders, saying: 'The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it not by constraint, but willingly according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily' (1 Peter 5:1-2). This we have shown in order to demonstrate that in former times those same people were presbyters whom later on were called bishops; and gradually it was so arranged that the various obligations were entrusted to one person. Therefore just as the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who has been placed over them as their head, so also let the bishops know that according to the custom of the Church they are greater than the presbyters and ought to regulate the whole church by common council, imitating Moses, who, when he alone had power over the people of Israel, chose seventy others with whom he might judge the people (Numbers 11). Let us see therefore what sort of man ought to be ordained presbyter or bishop.
Commentary on Titus
And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: “For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint presbyters in every city, as I had instructed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of wantonness or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.” … When subsequently one was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.
Letters 146.1
Paul emphasizes that correct teaching must accompany these ordinations. He mentions only presbyters, since theirs is the most general office.
Commentary on Titus
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might put in order what was left unfinished, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.
You see them as distributing the inhabited world like one house, and each doing something; but look at the athlete of Christ. Where there was danger, Paul himself was present; but when some honor was about to come, he sent the disciples. For Paul had left Titus to appoint bishops in each city, since he had first made him a bishop. And see, he is not ashamed to write to the disciple, saying, "put in order what was left unfinished." For Paul was looking to this one thing alone, namely the salvation of all.
elders in every city. For Paul did not wish the entire island of Crete, which was large, to be governed by one bishop, but each city to have its own shepherd. And he calls the bishops elders.
Commentary on Titus
Just as in a household among those appointed for service one does one thing and another does another, so too they divided the whole world among themselves by regions, and all labored. This is precisely what is indicated here by the words "I left you in Crete," because he himself evidently departed for another place to labor there. See how he is not embarrassed to write to his disciple to finish what he himself had left incomplete. He was concerned with the common benefit, not with his own honor. Notice also that he corrected all these things himself; but what pertained to honor or praise, this he entrusted to his disciple — I mean the ordination of bishops and everything else that required greater organization.
So he calls bishops here, and in the Epistle to Timothy. "In every city," he says. He did not wish the entire island to be entrusted to one person, but that each city should have its own pastor. In this way both the labor will be lighter, and the oversight more diligent.
Commentary on Titus
He comes now to the message and, as has been said, he aims at defending the Church against heretics: first, he admonishes Titus to instruct others to resist heretics; second, he teaches how they are to be resisted, at but speak the things (Titus 2:1).
In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he advises Titus to ordain bishops to resist the heretics; second, why this is necessary, at for there are also many (Titus 1:10).
In regard to the first he does three things: first, he entrusts Titus with the task of appointing bishops; second, he describes the marks bishops ought to have, at if anyone is without crime; third, he applies what he said, at for a bishop must be.
Because the Apostle had been commissioned to the Church of the gentiles and was unable to do everything by himself, he says, for this cause I left you in Crete, i.e., the island of Crete, to take my place as bishop of the church in Crete: a brother helped is like a strong city (Prov 18:19).
But instead of saying, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, he should have said, you should supply it.
I answer that a Gloss amplifies this statement: that you should correct everything that is evil and supply whatever is lacking in good: that we may supply what is lacking in your faith (1 Thess 3:10). Or, one might answer that there are sins of omission and sins of transgression, and both need correction. But among the saints and the perfect, as Titus was, transgressions did not abound; hence he does not say, you should correct transgressions, but the things that are wanting, i.e., omissions.
And should ordain elders, i.e., bishops; hence further on he says, a bishop must be without crime. And he uses the names, 'elder' and 'bishop' indiscriminately. A certain heretic took advantage of this and campaigned for the bishopric; but when he failed, he separated from the Church and taught many false doctrines, among which was the teaching that there is no difference between bishops and priests. This is contrary to Dionysius. Therefore, the Apostle uses the same name in both cases to identify the two, although the name 'elder' suggests a senior. Also, because it is the duty of superiors to appoint bishops, even though the canons elect him.
And he says, ordain, not in the villages, but in every city; for just as in a republic kings live only in the cities, so in the spiritual kingdom bishops live in the cities: a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9). Furthermore, they should be elders: woe to you, O land, when your king is a child (Eccl 10:16). By elders we should understand those who are so not only in years, but also in morals: gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them (Num 11:16). Second, they should be ordained according to the form of the Church; hence he says, as I also appointed you: my son, keep sound wisdom and discretion; let them not escape from your sight (Prov 3:21).
Commentary on Titus
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.
а҆́ще кто̀ є҆́сть непоро́ченъ, є҆ди́ныѧ жены̀ мꙋ́жъ, ча̑да и҆мы́й вѣ̑рна, не во ᲂу҆коре́нїи блꙋда̀, и҆лѝ непокори̑ва.
Should we not rather recognize, from among the store of primitive scriptural precedents, those that correspond with the gospel order of things respecting discipline? By this means we convey to the new community the typical requirements of antiquity. In the old law I find the pruning knife applied to the license of repeated marriage.… Among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage. This rule is so rigidly observed that I remember some removed from their office for bigamy.
On Exhortation to Chastity 7
How detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the apostle declare, when he suffers not men twice married to preside (over a Church ), when he would not grant a widow admittance into the order unless she had been "the wife of one man; " for it behoves God's altar to be set forth pure.
To His Wife Book 1
Come, now, you who think that an exceptional law of monogamy is made with reference to bishops, abandon withal your remaining disciplinary titles, which, together with monogamy, are ascribed to bishops. Refuse to be "irreprehensible, sober, of good morals, orderly, hospitable, easy to be taught; "nay, indeed, (be) "given to wine, prompt with the hand to strike, combative, money-loving, not ruling your house, nor caring for your children's discipline,"-no, nor "courting good renown even from strangers.
On Monogamy
We have already said that a bishop, a presbyter and a deacon, when they are constituted, must be married but once, whether their wives are alive or whether they are dead. It is not lawful for them, if they are unmarried when they are ordained, to be married afterwards; or if they are married at that time, to marry a second time, but to be content with that wife which they had when they came to ordination.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
We have already said, that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon, when they are constituted, must be but once married, whether their wives be alive or whether they be dead; and that it is not lawful for them, if they are unmarried when they are ordained, to be married afterwards; or if they be then married, to marry a second time, but to be content with that wife. which they had when they came to ordination.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the Apostle is the Master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept), but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle's authority to beget children in the priesthood; for the speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again.
And I have thought it well not to pass by this point, because many contend that having one wife is said of the time after Baptism; so that the fault whereby any obstacle would ensue would be washed away in baptism. And indeed all faults and sins are washed away; so that if anyone have polluted his body with very many whom he has bound to himself by no law of marriage, all the sins are forgiven him, but if any one have contracted a second marriage it is not done away; for sin not law is loosed by the laver, and as to baptism there is no sin but law. That then which has to do with law is not remitted as though it were sin, but is retained. And the Apostle has established a law, saying: "If any man be without reproach the husband of one wife." So then he who is without blame the husband of one wife comes within the rule for undertaking the priestly office; he, however, who has married again has no guilt of pollution, but is disqualified for the priestly prerogative.
Letters, Epistle 63, Sections 62-63
Ver. 6. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, hating faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly."
Why does he bring forward such an one? To stop the mouths of those heretics, who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne; and at the same reproving the wanton, and not permitting their admission into this high office who contracted a second marriage. For he who retains no kind regard for her who is departed, how shall he be a good president? and what accusation would he not incur? For you all know, that though it is not forbidden by the laws to enter into a second marriage, yet it is a thing liable to many ill constructions. Wishing therefore a ruler to give no handle for reproach to those under his rule, he on this account says, "If any be blameless," that is, if his life be free from reproach, if he has given occasion to no one to assail his character. Hear what Christ says, "If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. vi. 23.)
"Hating faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly."
We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others? If he cannot keep in order those whom he has had with him from the beginning, whom he has brought up, and without? For if the incompetency of the father had not been great, he would not have allowed those to become bad whom from the first he had under his power. For it is not possible, indeed it is not, that one should turn out ill who is brought up with much care, and has received great attention. Sins are not so prevalent by nature, as to overcome so much previous care. But if, occupied in the pursuit of wealth, he has made his children a secondary concern, and not bestowed much care upon them, even so he is unworthy. For if when nature prompted, he was so void of affection or so senseless, that he thought more of his wealth than of his children, how should he be raised to the Episcopal throne, and so great rule? For if he was unable to restrain them it is a great proof of his weakness; and if he was unconcerned, his want of affection is much to be blamed. He then that neglects his own children, how shall he take care of other men's? And he has not only said, "not riotous," but not even "accused of riot." There must not be an ill report, or such an opinion of them.
Homily on Titus 2
“A bishop then must be blameless.” The same thing that he says to Titus, “if any be blameless.” All the virtues are comprehended in this one word; thus he seems to require an impossible perfection. For if every sin, every idle word, is deserving of blame, who is there in this world that is sinless and blameless? Still he who is chosen to be shepherd of the church must be one compared with whom other men are rightly regarded as but a flock of sheep.
Letters 69.8
“One that rules well his own house.” That is, not by increasing riches, not by providing regal banquets, not by having a pile of finely wrought plates, not by slowly steaming pheasants so that the heat may reach the bones without melting the flesh upon them. No, he does this rather by first requiring of his own household the conduct which he has to inculcate in others.
Letters 69.9
"If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of reckless living, or disobedient." Therefore he must be blameless, which I believe is also referred to in Timothy as irreprehensible (1 Tim. III): not that during the time he is ordained he has no crime, and has washed away past stains with a new life, but from the time he is reborn in Christ, he is not tormented by any consciousness of sin. For how can the leader of the Church remove evil from those who are in similar transgression? Or with what freedom can he rebuke the sinner, when the sinner answers silently that he himself has committed the same thing he is rebuking? Therefore, whoever desires a bishopric, desires good work. He says work, not privilege, not glory. But he must also have a good testimony from those outside, so that he does not fall into shame, and into the trap of the devil. And what he says, the husband of one wife, must be understood thus: so that we do not think that every monogamist is better than a widower; but so that he can exhort to monogamy and continence, who offers his example in teaching. For suppose a young man lost his wife and was overcome by the necessity of the flesh, and took a second wife, whom he also immediately lost and then lived continently; another, however, married until old age, and, as most believe, never gave up the work of the flesh: which of the two do you think is better, more chaste, more continent? Certainly he who was unfortunate even in a second marriage and afterwards conducted himself modestly and piously, is preferable to him who has been separated neither by the embrace of his wife nor by advanced age. Therefore, whoever is chosen as a quasi-monogamist should not applaud himself because he is better than every man who is twice married, since the greater happiness rather than his will has been chosen. Some people think this about this place: it was the custom of the Jews either to have two or more wives: which we read in the Old Law of Abraham and Jacob: and now they want it to be a precept, that he who is to be elected bishop should not have two wives at the same time. Even those who have been with the Gentiles, and after losing one wife, have taken another after the baptism of Christ, think more superstitiously than truly, that they should not be read in the priesthood: for certainly, if this is to be observed. those who, before taking one regenerated wife, indulged in wandering through prostitutes, should be more strongly barred from the episcopate: and it is much more detestable to fornicate with several than to find one who is twice married; because in the former, there is a kind of unhappiness in marriage, while in the latter there is a tendency to voluptuousness towards sin. Montanus and those who follow the Novatian schism, took the name of cleanliness to themselves: and they think that second marriages should be prohibited from the communion of the Church: whereas the Apostle, imposing this on bishops and presbyters, relaxed it in other respects. Not that he encourages second marriages; but that he indulges the necessity of the flesh. And Tertullian wrote a heretical book about Monogamy, which no one who has read the Apostle will be ignorant of opposing. And indeed, it is in our power to have a bishop or a presbyter without blame, and to have one wife. But that which follows, to have faithful children, not accused of lewdness, and not subject, is beyond our power. For to be sure, if parents have well instructed their children and always taught them the precepts of the Lord from a young age, if later they give themselves to lewdness, and putting aside the reins of vice, will the fault then rebound to the parents, and the sins of the father will stain the holiness of the son? If anyone has well instructed his children, I believe that includes Isaac, who is to be held as having well instructed his son Esau. But Esau, a fornicator and profane, sold his firstborn for one meal (Gen. 25:29-34). Samuel too, who was such that he called upon the Lord, and the Lord answered him, and in the time of harvest obtained the rain of the winter season, had sons who turned aside after bribes, and became such wicked judges that the people, not bearing it, demanded a king for themselves like the other nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5). Therefore, if the election of the priests were to take place, and Isaac on account of Esau and Samuel on account of his sons were deemed unworthy of the priesthood. And since the sins of parents are not attributed to their children, will the faults of the children prejudge the parents? (Ezekiel 18:2) First of all, it must be said that the name of the priesthood is so sacred that even external things are considered for us, not because we are not bishops because of our faults: but because we are barred from this position because of the incontinence of our sons. For with what freedom can we correct other people's children and teach what is right: when immediately he who has been corrected can say to us: First teach your sons? Or with what confidence do 1 Cor.ect a stranger who commits fornication when my own conscience responds to me: Therefore disinherit the fornicating son: reject your sons serving vices? But when a wicked son comes together with you under the same roof, do you dare to remove the speck from someone else's eye, not seeing the beam in your own eye (Matthew VII and Luke VI)? Therefore, the righteous is not polluted by the vices of his children: but freedom is reserved by the Apostle for the prince of the Church: so that he may become such that he may not be afraid to rebuke outsiders because of the vices of his children. Then also it must be inferred against those who are swollen with pride about the episcopate and think that they have achieved not the dispensation of Christ, but authority: because they are not immediately better than all those who have not been ordained bishops: and from the fact that they have been elected they themselves think that they are more confirmed: but understand that some are removed from the priesthood because their children's vices have hindered them. But if the sins of the children prohibit the righteous from the episcopate: how much more should each one consider himself and know that the powerful suffer torment powerfully (Wisdom VI), so he will withdraw from this not as much honor as burden: and he will not seek to take the place of others who are more worthy! Finally, it must be said that in the Scriptures by sons are meant reasonings, that is, thoughts; but by daughters, deeds, that is, works, and now he who will become a bishop must be commanded to have both thoughts and works in his power, and he truly believes in Christ, and is not stained by any creeping vice.
Commentary on Titus
Paul does not measure the virtue of fathers by the depravity of their children, nor did the misbehavior of his sons make Samuel unworthy of the priesthood; Paul wishes only to show the likely intentions of the father from what has been created in the sons.
Commentary on Titus
The first freedom, then, is to be without crimes. And so when the apostle Paul chose either priests or deacons to be ordained, and when anyone is to be ordained to take charge of a church, he does not say, If anyone is without sin. For if he were to say this, every person would be rejected, no one would be ordained. But he says, “if anyone is without crime,” such as homicide, adultery and uncleanness of fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and other things of this sort.
Tractates on John 41.10.1
If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children who are not accused of overindulgence or insubordination.
If anyone is blameless. Let his life be pure, it is said, and let no one have occasion to find fault with his life.
the husband of one wife. Paul says that she alone should know the lawful one. He silences heretics who detest marriage, as if they could also take care of anything after marriage. But he forbids the second marriage, as being under condemnation.
having faithful children. For he who has not disciplined his own children, how can he manage others?
Commentary on Titus
If he leads a life free from reproach, if no one reproaches him for his way of life. For if the light, He says, is darkness, then the darkness how much more?
To shut the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage, he accepts a married man into the episcopacy. For marriage is so honorable that with it one can even ascend to the sacred throne. But to restrain the incontinent, he says: "the husband of one wife." For he who preserved no affection for his deceased wife, how will he be a good leader in the Church? A bishop must be blameless. But a man twice married is not blameless, even though this is permitted by civil laws.
Who has not raised his own children, how will he manage others? It is clear that if he had first raised his children well and with care, they would not have turned out disobedient. For sins are not such by their nature that they could be stronger than such diligence. The Apostle did not say simply: not profligate children, but even entirely free from reproach of profligacy and free from evil suspicion.
Commentary on Titus
Then, when he says, if anyone is without crime, he describes them in three ways: first, in regard to themselves; second, in regard to their wives; third, in regard to their children.
In regard to themselves he says, without crime. But is there such a person? For it is said: if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). I answer that a crime is one thing and a sin another. A sin is an evil which might be great or small, open or secret; but a crime is great and public: O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? (Ps 15:1) And the answer is given: he who walks blamelessly, and does what is right. This does not mean that a person who has sinned after baptism cannot be chosen, but that the chosen must not be disreputable.
In regard to the second he says, the husband of one wife. The Orientals explain this by saying that he may not have two wives simultaneously, as was the custom some followed. But if this were so, the Apostle would have had no reason for writing this; whereas, according to the laws of the Romans to whom the Apostle was writing, it was not lawful to have more than one wife. Furthermore, in 1 Timothy he says, let a widow be enrolled, having been the wife of one husband (1 Tim 5:9), and yet it was never lawful for a woman to have more than one husband at once. And thus, he desired the same of widows, namely, that they have never had more than one husband.
Jerome says that the requirement was that he have had only one wife after baptism; and it does not apply if he had others before baptism. Nevertheless, Augustine and Ambrose say that through baptism all crimes are washed away, but it does not wash away matrimony. Therefore, according to them it is more correct to say that he may not have had more than one wife either before or after baptism.
According to others the reason behind this law was that it had been a sign of incontinence to have more than one. But this is not true, because it would not be held against him if he had concubines, who are more incontinent. But there is a deeper reason, namely, because he dispenses the sacraments, and no sacramental defect should be present in him; but the sacrament of matrimony signifies Christ's union with the Church. Therefore, if the sign is to correspond to the things signified, then as Christ is one and the Church is one, so also a bishop. But this signification would be lacking if the bishop had more than one wife. However, in the old law the Patriarchs signified this union, not as joined to Christ but because they would be joined in the future; and because the Church of the future was to be composed of Jews and gentiles, the Patriarchs took not one but several wives. Consequently, that multitude of wives signified this.
In regard to the third, i.e., on the part of the children, he says, having faithful children, not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. For a bishop is ordained to oversee; and one appointed to such a task ought to be skilled in it; otherwise, he will be unable to rule prudently. But it is presumed that he is well skilled, if he has ruled others well.
Yet a bishop is expected to do three things besides rule: first, to teach the faith; make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19); therefore he says, faithful. Second, to instruct the people in virtue: do you have children? Discipline them, and make them obedient from their youth (Sir 7:23). But sins of lust destroy virtue: a braggart and fool goes beyond the right moment (Sir 20:7); therefore he says, not open to the charge of being profligate. In 1 Samuel, Eli is punished for failing to correct his sons on this point (1 Sam 3:13). Third, it is required that he correct the unruly; hence he says, or insubordinate, i.e., not obedient: a horse that is untamed turns out to be stubborn, and a son unrestrained turns out to be willful (Sir 30:8).
Commentary on Titus
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ,
Подоба́етъ бо є҆пі́скопꙋ без̾ поро́ка бы́ти, ꙗ҆́коже бж҃їю строи́телю: не себѣ̀ ᲂу҆гожда́ющꙋ, (не де́рзꙋ, не напра́сливꙋ,) не гнѣвли́вꙋ, не пїѧ́ницѣ, не бі́йцѣ, не скверностѧжа́тельнꙋ,
For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides. Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed. The result of this is, that the sins of Basilides are not so much abolished as enhanced, inasmuch as to his former sins he has also added the crime of deceit and circumvention. For he is not so much to be blamed who has been through heedlessness surprised by fraud, as he is to be execrated who has fraudulently taken him by surprise. But if Basilides could deceive men, he cannot deceive God, since it is written, "God is not mocked." But neither can deceit advantage Martialis, in such a way as that he who also is involved in great crimes should hold his bishopric, since the apostle also warns, and says, "A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God."
Epistle LXVII
Ver. 7. "For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker."
For a ruler without, as he rules by law and compulsion, perhaps does not consult the wishes of those under his rule. But he who ought to rule men with their own consent, and who will be thankful for his rule, if he so conduct himself as to do everything of his own will, and share counsels with no one, makes his presidency tyrannical rather than popular. For he must be "blameless, as the steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry." For how shall he instruct others to rule that passion, who has not taught himself? For power leads on to many temptations, it makes a man more harsh and difficult to please, even him that was very mild, surrounding him with so many occasions of anger. If he have not previously practiced himself in this virtue, he will grow harsh, and will injure and destroy much that is under his rule.
"Not given to wine, no striker." Here he is speaking of the insolent man. For he should do all things by admonition or rebuke, and not by insolence. What necessity, tell me, for insult? He ought to terrify, to alarm, to penetrate the soul with the threat of hell. But he that is insulted becomes more impudent, and rather despises him that insults him. Nothing produces contempt more than insult; it disgraces the insolent person, and prevents his being respected, as he ought to be. Their discourse ought to be delivered with much caution. In reproving sins they should bear in mind the future judgment, but keep clear of all insolence. Yet if any prevent them from doing their duty, they must prosecute the matter with all authority. "Not a striker," he says. The teacher is the physician of souls. But the physician does not strike, but heals and restores him that has stricken him. "Not given to filthy lucre."
Homily on Titus 2
"For it is necessary that a bishop be without blame, as the steward of God: not arrogant, not prone to anger, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy for filthy lucre." Therefore, it is required among stewards that a faithful person be found: and not eating and drinking with drunkards, striking slaves and maidservants; but uncertain of the return of God, and giving food to his servants in due season. But between the stewards and the servile, this is the only difference: that a servant is appointed over his servants. Therefore, a bishop and a priest must know that the people are their servants, not slaves. The rest that follows is up to us: Not arrogant, that is not swelling and pleasing himself because he is a bishop, but like a good steward, seeking what will benefit many. Not prone to anger. He is angry who is always angry and is moved like a leaf by a light breeze of provocation and sin. And indeed, there is nothing more shameful than an angry teacher, who ought to be gentle (and according to what is written: But the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle to all, masterful, patient, instructing in meekness those who oppose him), he, on the other hand, with an angry face, trembling lips, wrinkled front, unrestrained invective, a face varying between paleness and redness, shouting uproariously, does not lead astray so much towards good, as hurries towards evil by his cruelty; hence Solomon says: Anger destroys even the wise (Prov. 21); And: The anger of a just man does not work the justice of God (James I, 20). Nor is he who is sometimes angry, actually irascible: but he is called irascible, who is frequently overcome by this passion. The bishop is also prohibited from being given to wine, about which it is written to Timothy: Not given to much wine. (1 Tim. 3:8). But what kind of bishop is it to see intoxicated, with his mind occupied, or to raise laughter against the gravity of his position, and to cackle with loose lips: or if, when he has remembered some little thing sad, he bursts into sobs and tears among his cups. It is a long journey to go through all the follies that drunkenness suggests. You may see some hurling drinking cups across the room, or throwing them in the countenance of their fellow guests; some tearing their clothing and wounding themselves on the bodies of others; some shouting; some nodding off; while he who drinks most is regarded as the strongest: it is even an accusation against him, that he has not drunk frequently enough when the king has called upon him to testify. They vomit in order to drink, and drink to be able to vomit. The stomach and the throat are engaged in but one business. Let it suffice to have said thus much, that according to St. Paul, intemperance lies in wine. And wherever there is gluttony or drunkenness, there debauchery reigns. Look at the belly and the genitals, and according to the character of the vices so is the order of the members. I will never consider a drunkard to be chaste, for even if he has fallen asleep in his cups, he could still have sinned through the wine. But we are filled with wonder that the Apostle should condemn intoxication in bishops or priests, when in the old law it was commanded that the priests, when they entered into the temple, should not drink wine at all; and when a lawful Nazarite is bidden to nourish his holy locks, to avoid all defilement, to abstain from wine, or anything that is made of grapes, from the husks that remain after wine has been pressed, and from every sort of strong drink which perverts a sound mind. Let every one say what he likes: I speak my own thoughts: I know what abstinence has done for me, and what harm has come of its intermission or its excess. After drunkenness, however, he warns that a person should not be a striker; as in simplicity of understanding it builds up the listener so they do not easily reach out to strike, so that the insane person does not burst out to strike another in the face. However, it is better not to say that one is a striker who is gentle and patient, who knows in time what should be spoken and what should be kept silent, and who does not hit the conscience of the weak with useless talk. For when the Apostle was forming the leader of the church, he did not forbid him from being a boxer and pancratiast (that is, an athlete) (which is also reprehensible in any plebeian or pagan), but as I said: so that the abusive and garrulous one does not lose him, who could be corrected by modesty and gentleness. The desire for shameful gain from someone who is to become a bishop should also be alien. For there are many who teach things that are not proper, for the sake of shameful gain: who destroy entire households, and think that piety is a business. But it is better, according to Solomon, to have a little with righteousness, than to have much gain with iniquity (Prov. 16:8): and a good name is to be preferred in poverty than in wealth. A bishop who desires to be an imitator of the Apostle should be content with food and clothing alone (1 Tim. 6). Those who serve at the altar should live by it (1 Cor. 9). They live, he says, but do not become rich. Hence also, money is shaken off our belt; and we have only one tunic (Matt. 10 and Mark 6): nor do we think about tomorrow. The desire for shameful gain is to think more about the future than the present. What a bishop or presbyter should not have has been taught by the Apostle's word; but now, on the contrary, what he should have is explained.
Commentary on Titus
That a priest must avoid covetousness even Samuel teaches when he proves before all the people that he has taken nothing from anyone. And the same lesson is taught by the poverty of the apostles who used to receive sustenance and refreshment from their brothers and to boast that they neither had nor wished to have anything besides food and clothing. What the epistle to Timothy calls covetousness Titus openly censures as the desire for filthy lucre.
Letters 69.9
Paul here shows that at this time “elders” and “bishops” were interchangeable and that some were put in charge of towns, some of whole regions. These latter became the bishops of later times.
Commentary on Titus
He is not given to useless discord.
Commentary on Titus
Here it is clear that he calls presbyters bishops. In the same community it was the custom that there would be more presbyters than bishops.
Interpretation of the Letter to Titus
7–8For the bishop must be blameless as God's steward, not stubborn, not quick-tempered, not drunken, not violent, not greedy for gain; but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined.
To be accused is a general concept. For to be accused encompasses all things that are to be named: that is, one against whom no crime can be charged.
as God's steward. Since, Paul says, the office is great, it also requires great watchfulness.
not quick-tempered. For he who cannot master himself, how will he be able to beneficially lead others?
not drunken. Drunkard, overbearing.
not violent. Not one who harms the consciences of brothers.
not greedy for gain. As one who is poor is usually like: as if any profit, even if it seems just, is disgraceful for a bishop.
holy. Pure from passions.
disciplined. Not only regarding food alone, but also all passions.
Commentary on Titus
How can he be blameless if he has unbelieving and undisciplined children? God has placed him over His house, he occupies God's place; therefore in all respects he must be a precise fulfiller of His will.
Civil authorities rule over their subordinates by the force of law, and therefore can display boldness and self-assertion. But a bishop governs those who are voluntarily subject to him, and he must not reach such a degree of boldness as to act autocratically, arbitrarily, and without asking the opinion of his subordinates; for this would be coercive.
Self-love is necessarily followed by irascibility, from which also, of course, consequently, the bishop must abstain. For how will he teach others to bridle this passion if he has not taught this to himself?
That is, an insulter. What need is there to insult? The disobedient should be brought to fear by gehenna, not insulted.
Not striking with the hands, nor with bitter and harsh words. For he is a physician. And a physician rather heals wounds, but does not inflict them himself.
That is, showing great contempt for wealth. In a bishop, all covetousness, even righteous covetousness, is shameful.
Commentary on Titus
Then when he says, a bishop must be without crime, he amplifies what he has said: first, the fact that he said, without crime; second, the marks he must be without, at not proud.
The reason for the first requirement is that he must dispense divine things: like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials (Sir 10:2); he who walks in the way that is blameless shall minister to me (Ps 101:6).
Then when he says, not proud, he shows the vices from which he should be immune: first, the crimes from which he should be immune; second, the virtues he should have, at but given to hospitality.
Now some sins are carnal and some spiritual. He makes no mention of the first, because it is taken for granted that he is free of those: but immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints (Eph 5:3). But he does mention spiritual sins, which are five in number. Two of them have no place among prelates, namely, envy, which is a childish sin: envy slays the little one (Job 5:2), for a prelate should be above envy; and spiritual sloth, because all things succeed for him according to his wishes. But pride is mentioned because it tempts those in authority, and anger and covetousness, which bear on the temporal things which he dispenses.
In regard to the first of these three he says, not proud: the man of haughty looks and arrogant heart I will not endure (Ps 101:5); if they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself; be among them as one of them (Sir 32:1).
In regard to the second, he removes anger when he says, not subject to anger; then its incentive, which is wine, when he says, nor given to wine: who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine (Prov 23:29). Then, the result of anger, which is to strike; hence he says not violent, i.e., not cruel: I gave my back to the smiter and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard (Isa 50:6). Or, not violent, i.e., not offending the consciences of others with their depraved character, wounding their conscience (1 Cor 8:12).
In regard to the third he says, not greedy of filthy gain: but they considered our existence an idle game, and life a festival held for profit, for he says one must get money however one can, even by base means (Wis 15:12).
Commentary on Titus
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον, φιλάγαθον, σώφρονα, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, ἐγκρατῆ,
но страннолюби́вꙋ, бл҃голю́бцꙋ, цѣломⷣреннꙋ, првⷣнꙋ, прпⷣбнꙋ, воздержа́тельнꙋ,
Ver. 8. "But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate."
Ver. 9. "Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught."
You see what intensity of virtue he required. "Not given to filthy lucre," that is, showing great contempt for money. "A lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy"; he means, giving away all his substance to them that need. "Temperate"; he speaks not here of one who fasts, but of one who commands his passions, his tongue, his hands, his eyes. For this is temperance, to be drawn aside by no passion.
"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught." By "faithful" is here meant "true," or that which was delivered through faith, not requiring reasonings, or questionings.
"Holding fast," that is, having care of it, making it his business. What then, if he be ignorant of the learning that is without? For this cause, he says, "the faithful word, according to teaching."
"That he may be able both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers."
So that there is need not of pomp of words, but of strong minds, of skill in the Scriptures and of powerful thoughts. Do you not see that Paul put to flight the whole world, that he was more powerful than Plato and all the rest? But it was by miracles, you say. Not by miracles only, for if you peruse the Acts of the Apostles, you will find him often prevailing by his teaching previously to his miracles.
"That he may be able by sound doctrine to exhort," that is, to retain his own people, and to overthrow the adversaries. "And to convince the gainsayers." For if this is not done, all is lost. He who knows not how to combat the adversaries, and to "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ," and to beat down reasonings, he who knows not what he ought to teach with regard to right doctrine, far from him be the Teacher's throne. For the other qualities may be found in those under his rule, such as to be "blameless, to have his children in subjection, to be hospitable, just, holy." But that which characterizes the Teacher is this, to be able to instruct in the word, to which no regard is now paid.
Homily on Titus 2
8–9"But [he should be] hospitable, a lover of good, chaste, just, holy, continent or abstinent, one who holds to the correct doctrine, faithful in speech, so that [he] is able to comfort [others] in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it." Above all, hospitality is required of a future bishop. For if everyone wishes to hear it from the Gospel: "I was a stranger and you took me in" (Matt. 25:35): how much more should a bishop, whose house should be a common inn for everyone! For a layman receiving one or two, or a few, fulfills the duty of hospitality. If a bishop does not receive all, he is inhuman. But I fear that just as the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon (Matt. 12), judging the men of her own time, and the men of Nineveh, who repented at the preaching of Jonah will condemn those who disdained to hear a greater Savior than Jonah: so most people judge bishops, withdrawing themselves from the ecclesiastical rank and exercising things that do not befit a bishop; of whom I think John writes to Gaius: "Dear friend, you are faithful in whatever you do for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out receiving no help from the pagans" (3 John 5ff.). And truly, with the Holy Spirit speaking through him, [John] foretells what will happen in the churches, even then condemning those who desire to have the first place, Diotrephes, who does not receive us. Therefore, when I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. Truly, it is now evident that what was predicted [has come true]: in many cities, bishops or priests, if they see laypeople being hospitable, lovers of good, [they] envy, become angry, excommunicate, and expel them from the Church, as if it were not lawful to do what the bishop does not do: and that such laypeople should be damned by the priests. Therefore, [the priests] hold them [i.e. the laypeople] in heavy burdens, and, as if imposed on their own necks, they turn them away from good work and disturb them with various persecutions. But let the bishop be chaste, whom the Greeks call σώφρονα; and the Latin interpreter, being deceived by the ambiguity of the word, translated it as "prudent" instead of "chaste". But if it is ordered for lay people to abstain from sexual intercourse during prayer, what should be thought of a bishop who will offer God the unstained victims daily for his own and the people's sins? Let us turn to the books of the Kings and find priest Abimelech who did not want to give bread to David and his men until he questioned whether they were pure from women. And unless he had heard that they had been pure from work with their wives yesterday and the day before, he would not have allowed the loaves that he had previously denied. There is as much difference between the loaves of the offering and the body of Christ as there is between shadow and body, image and truth, exemplars of the future and the very things that were foreshadowed by the exemplars. Therefore, just as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, renunciation of gain, hospitality, and kindness must be especially present in the bishop and outstanding among all laymen, so must personal chastity and (if I may say so) priestly modesty be present, so that the mind, which will make Christ's body, is free not only from unclean works but also from the error of the eye and thought. And the bishop also should be just and holy so that he may exercise justice among the peoples whom he presides over and give to each what he deserves, not showing partiality in judgment. The difference between laypersons and bishops in justice consists in this: a layperson can appear just in a few things, while a bishop can exercise justice in as many people as he has subjects. But sanctus, which in Greek is called ὅσιος, signifies this more: when sanctity itself is mixed with piety and refers to God. For whom we call sanctum, the Greeks call ἅγιον; but whom they call ὅσιον, we can call pious towards God. Let the bishop also be abstinent: not only (as some think) from lust and embracing his wife, but from all disturbances of the soul, so that he not be roused to anger, not be cast down by sadness, not be agitated by fear nor lifted up by excessive joy. Abstinence, moreover, has been counted among the fruits of the spirit by the Apostle. And if it is required of all, how much more from a bishop, who must bear the sins of sinners with patience and gentleness: console the fearful: sustain the weak: render no evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Finally, let him hold fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine, so that just as the word of God is faithful and worthy of every acceptance, so he may present himself in such a way that everything he says is considered worthy of faith, and his words are a rule of truth. Let him also be able to console those who are agitated by the turmoil of this age and to destroy weak precepts through sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is said, in distinction to weak and frail doctrine. Let him also be such that he can refute contradicting heretics or Jews and the wise of this age. And indeed, the virtues that he has placed in the bishop pertain to life. But what he says here, that he may be able to console in sound doctrine and to refute the contradicting, refers to knowledge. For if a bishop's only holy life, it can benefit him to live so. Moreover, if he is learned in doctrine and speech, he can instruct himself and others, and not only instruct and teach his own but also strike back at adversaries, who unless they are refuted and convicted, can easily pervert the hearts of the simple. This passage is against those who think it is a sin to read scriptures and who despise those who meditate day and night on the Law of the Lord, as though they were useless talkers, not realizing that the Apostle, after the catalogue of the bishop's conversation, likewise commanded doctrine.
Commentary on Titus
Not only not to receive profit, but also to give everything away to strangers.
The apostle thus calls the gentle, moderate, and unenvious person.
That is, pure.
Impartial in regard to people.
That is, reverent toward everything divine, neglecting nothing in relation to God.
The temperate person [must be temperate] not only in food, but also in tongue, hands, and shameful glances; for in this consists true temperance.
Commentary on Titus
Then he mentions the good they should have: first, that which pertains to right living; second, to true doctrine, at embracing that faithful word (Titus 1:9).
All of these are obvious and need no comment.
Commentary on Titus
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν.
держа́щемꙋсѧ вѣ́рнагѡ словесѐ по ᲂу҆че́нїю, да си́ленъ бꙋ́детъ и҆ ᲂу҆тѣша́ти во здра́вѣмъ ᲂу҆че́нїи, и҆ проти́вѧщыѧсѧ ѡ҆блича́ти.
When Paul describes the character of those who are called bishops and portrays what sort of a man a bishop ought to be, he instructs that he should be a teacher. He must be “able also to refute the adversaries,” that by his wisdom he may restrain those who speak vainly and deceive souls. He prefers for the episcopate a man once married rather than one twice married, and a man unblamable rather than blameable, and a sober man rather than one not of this character, and a prudent man rather than one imprudent, and an orderly man rather than one even slightly disorderly. In the same way he most wishes that the one who is to be selected as bishop should be a teacher and capable of “refuting adversaries.”
Against Celsus 3.48
“For the bishop,” he says, “must hold to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to convict even the gainsayers.” How, then, if he is inexperienced at speaking, as they say, will he be able to convict the objectors and to stop their mouths? If it is permissible to welcome such inexperience in the episcopacy, then why should any church leader bother to read books and study the Scriptures? This is all just a pretense and excuse and a pretext for carelessness and indolence.
On the Priesthood 4.8
To Titus he gives commandment that among a bishop’s other virtues [which he briefly describes] he should be careful to seek a knowledge of the Scriptures. A bishop, he says, must hold fast “the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” In fact, want of education in a clergyman prevents him from doing good to any one but himself. Even if the virtue of his life may build up Christ’s church, he does it an injury as great by failing to resist those who are trying to pull it down.
Letters 53.3
If anyone says, however, that if teachers are made learned by the Holy Spirit then they do not need to be taught by educators what they should say or how they should say it, he should also say that we should not pray because the Lord says, “for your Father knows what is needful for you, before you ask him.” With such a false premise one might argue that the apostle Paul should not have taught Timothy and Titus what or how they should teach others. One upon whom is imposed the personage of a teacher in the church should have these three apostolic epistles before his eyes. Do we not read in the first epistle to Timothy … and in the second epistle is it not said … again, does he not say to Titus that a bishop should persevere in “that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers”?
On Christian Doctrine 4.16.33
holding firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he may be able both to encourage with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.
holding firmly to the trustworthy message. Or of the true, or of that which is granted through faith, and not from reasoning.
Therefore Paul said, as it has been taught, meaning that one can teach even without external wisdom. For, he says, there is no need for natural or philosophical evidence, but rather for doctrine and usefulness.
be able both to encourage with sound doctrine. This will be from both understanding and knowledge of the Scriptures. Teaching that is healthy is that which teaches true doctrines and a righteous life.
and to refute those who contradict it. For the one who does not know how to fight against enemies, and to capture every thought into the obedience of Christ, will do none of the necessary things.
Against those who advocate for bodily purifications, and in favor of spiritual virtue.
Commentary on Titus
Instead of: caring, taking concern for this matter. "Faithful," that is, handed down through faith, and not through reasoning. Therefore he also said: "according to the teaching," showing that he could teach even without external wisdom. It is not grandeur of expression that is needed, but experience in the Scriptures and power in thought. For only such teaching will be successful, as was the teaching of Paul himself.
That is, so that he might both guard and strengthen his own, and repel enemies. For whoever is not "mighty" either to fight against enemies "and bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5), or to comfort, admonish, and establish his own, is a false bishop. Other virtues can be found even in subordinates, such as hospitality, sound-mindedness, and the rest; but what most characterizes a bishop is the ability to teach.
Commentary on Titus
Above, he described what a bishop should be in his conduct; here he shows how he should be equipped in doctrine: first, he shows that he should apply himself diligently to study; second, he describes what he should study; third, its profit.
In regard to the first he says, embracing that faithful word. For when one embraces something he holds it firmly, embraces, as it were, with love. So a bishop must hold knowledge in his embrace, clinging to it firmly with his mind and heart: she hastens to make herself known to those who desire her (Wis 6:13); prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her (Prov 4:8).
The matters he studies must not be fables, nor temporal subjects, but that faithful word, i.e., true: the Lord is faithful in all his words and gracious in all his deeds (Ps 145:13). Or, that faithful word, i.e., of the faith, in which a bishop should be well instructed.
For some study merely to learn things and adapt them to their own lives. But this is not enough for a bishop, for he must instruct others. And therefore he says, which is according to doctrine. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct (1 Tim 4:12).
Its usefulness lies in making his office easy to fulfill. But a bishop's duties are akin to those of a shepherd: feed my sheep (John 21:17). But a shepherd has two things to do, namely, feed the flock: feed the flock of God that is your charge (1 Pet 5:2), and hold off the wolf. So also a bishop: he should feed his flock with true doctrine: I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding (Jer 3:15).
Hence he says, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine. He does not say, that he may exhort, but that he may be able to exhort, which means that he must have exhortations ready to hand, when it is necessary to give them. This is prefigured in Exodus by the handle on the ark, enabling it to be carried: mighty in deed and word (Luke 24:19). And he says, sound, i.e., without admixture of falsity: but speak the things that become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1); for our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile (1 Thess 2:3).
Second, he must guard the flock against heretics; hence he says, and to convince those who contradict it; and this is by the study of Sacred Scripture: all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction (2 Tim 3:16); I have not denied the words of the Holy One (Job 6:10).
And these two things, according to the Philosopher, pertain to the work of a wise man, namely, not to lie about things he knows, as to the first, and to be able to unmask liars, as to the second.
Commentary on Titus
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Εἰσὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς,
Сꙋ́ть бо мно́зи непокори́ви, сꙋесло́вцы и҆ ᲂу҆мо́мъ прельще́ни, наипа́че же сꙋ́щїи ѿ ѡ҆брѣ́занїѧ,
I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
"For there are," he says, "many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers:" Wherefore it was not said to all, "Ye are the salt of the earth." For there are some even of the hearers of the word who are like the fishes of the sea, which, reared from their birth in brine, yet need salt to dress them for food.
The Stromata Book 1
10–11Ver. 10. "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision;"
Ver. 11. "Whose mouths must be stopped."
Seest thou how he shows that they are such? From their not wishing to be ruled, but to rule. For he has glanced at this. When therefore thou canst not persuade them, do not give them charges, but stop their mouths, for the benefit others. But of what advantage will this be, if they will not obey, or are unruly? Why then should he stop their mouths? In order that others may be benefited by it.
"Who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake."
For if he has undertaken the office of a Teacher, and is not able to combat these enemies, and to stop their mouths who are so shameless, he will become in each case the cause of their destination who perish. And if some one has thus advised, "Seek not to be a judge, unless thou canst take away iniquity" (Ecclus. vii. 6); much more may we say here, "Seek not to be a Teacher, if thou art unequal to the dignity of the office; but though dragged to it, decline it." Dost thou see that the love of power, the love of for filthy lucre, is a cause of these evils? "Teaching things which they ought not," he says, "for filthy lucre's sake."
Homily on Titus 2
10–11For there are many who are not subject, vain talkers, and deceivers of minds: especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be indicated as silent: who overturn whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for the sake of base gain. Let him who is to be a prince of the Church have eloquence associated with integrity of life, lest his works be taciturn without speech, and let his words blush when his deeds fail: especially when they are not a few, but many: neither subject, but insolent, who do not care to say what the Psalmist says: Is not my soul subject to God (Ps. 61:1)? But let them overthrow the good seed of minds, which naturally have knowledge of God, with empty persuasion. For this, it seems to me that Paul meant when he said "deceivers", not as the Latin interpreter simply translated "deceivers", but "deceivers of the mind". And indeed, without the authority of the Scriptures, their talk would not have faith, unless their perverse doctrine appeared to be confirmed by divine testimonies. These are of the circumcision of the Jews, who at that time were striving to subvert the nascent Church of Christ and to introduce legal precepts, on which Paul explains more fully both to the Romans and to the Galatians. And just a few months ago, we presented three volumes on the explanation of the Letter to the Galatians. Men of such a kind, as the Doctor of the Church, to whom the souls of the people are entrusted, ought to surpass with reason the Scriptures, and to impose silence upon them in evidence: they overthrow not merely one or few houses, but all homes with owners and families, teaching [them] about differences of foods, about the long-ago abolition of the Sabbath, about the harm of circumcision: and if they did this very thing by zeal for the faith, it might be pardoned to some extent, with the Apostle saying: I bear witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). But because God is their belly, they willingly seek to make their own disciples for shameful gain, so that they may be fed by their followers as masters. But we can interpret this, which has been said for the sake of shameful gain, in another way: that we may think the Apostle used a common word, by which all heretics with their perverse teachings usually assert that they are gainers of men. When in fact it is not gain, but destruction, deceiving the souls of the deluded. On the contrary, he who has corrected his erring brother according to the Gospel, if he was converted, has gained him. For what greater gain can there be or what is more precious than if one gains a human soul? Therefore, every teacher of the Church who persuades rightly by the reason of faith in Christ is an honest gainer. And every heretic who deceives and is deceived by certain tricks of men, speaks what ought not to be spoken, for the sake of shameful gain.
Commentary on Titus
10–11For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially those from the circumcision. They must be silenced, who overturn whole households, teaching things they ought not for dishonest gain.
Paul said the root of all things, from which the rest also grow. For the disobedient person does not want to yield themselves, but desires to rule and oversee others. Then it is necessary that he who rules with ecclesiastical authority also teaches, but he who teaches before he has learned, because he does not obey others, is rightly found to be a babbler and a deceiver of minds.
especially those from the circumcision. For even Christ reproached them for seeking power: who, even after receiving faith, did not abandon this disease.
They must be silenced. For if a bishop has the care and leadership entrusted to him of others, and does not know how to silence the mouths of babblers and seducers, and to convict them, he becomes the cause of loss for those who perish. And rightly it is said: must be silenced: that is, by the force of rebukes, they should not even be allowed to speak, so that from this there may also be found listeners.
teaching things they ought not for dishonest gain. There is nothing that this passion does not urge to transgress.
Commentary on Titus
He pointed to the root of all evils — insubordination. Since the insubordinate person does not want to be under authority, but pushes forward to have authority over others, he has obviously learned nothing sound or right, because he did not want to endure being taught. One who deceives himself and others is an idle talker and a mind-deceiver.
The Lord also reproached them for their love of preeminence, because they had not abandoned this malady even after they came to believe.
Commentary on Titus
So then when he says, for there are also many, he posits the necessity of teaching. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the false teachers; second, the perverse things they study, at one of them.
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the condition of false teachers; second, the perversity of their learning at who subvert whole houses.
Then first he shows their condition; second he prescribes a remedy, at who must be reproved.
He describes their condition on four points: first, from the number, when he says, many: the number of fools is infinite (Eccl 1:15); second, from the vice of disobedience, when he says, disobedient, both to God and to superiors: disobedient to parents (Rom 1:30); stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Sam 15:23); third, from their speech, when he says, vain talkers, namely, in relation to themselves: the Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are in vain (Ps 94:11): for all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature (Wis 13:1); and false teachers especially are foolish. Then he continues, seducers, namely, in relation to inferiors: evil men and deceivers will go on from bad to worse (2 Tim 3:13). Fourth, from their place when he says, especially they who are of the circumcision, who compelled men to observe Jewish practices: look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh (Phil 3:2).
Against these he proposes a remedy; for they are not to be tolerated, because the people would become corrupt, and the shepherd would be blamed: you have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the Lord (Ezek 13:5); convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching (2 Tim 4:2); therefore, he says, who must be reproved.
Commentary on Titus
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσι διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν.
и҆́хже подоба́етъ ᲂу҆ста̀ загражда́ти: и҆̀же всѧ̑ до́мы развраща́ютъ, ᲂу҆ча́ще ꙗ҆́же не подоба́етъ, скве́рнагѡ ра́ди прибы́тка.
Reborn in Christ, they are still not pure Christians; they wish for the law to be partly venerated, for Christ to be partly venerated, all of this as if to profit from the Jews.
Commentary on the Letter to Titus
But I, pierced with such grief as I am, what can I do except speak? Or do they do such things and then say to me: “Be silent”? May the Lord preserve me from such cowardice that I should hold my peace through fear of their wrath, when he commands me through his apostle, saying that “they ought to be reproved” by the bishop for “teaching the things which they ought not.” … For when God commands that we speak and preach the word and that we refute and condemn “in season and out of season” those who “teach the things which they ought not”—as I can prove by the words of the Lord and the apostles—let no man think that I can be enjoined to silence in these matters.
Letters 34.4, 35.3
They must be rebuked sharply, so that their "mouths" are stopped. But what is the benefit, when they are of those who do not submit to the truth? For them there is none, but it is beneficial for those whom they might corrupt if the bishop remains silent; for their corruption the bishop himself will give an account. Therefore the mouths of such people must be "stopped": if you cannot do this, do not be a bishop.
You see what disobedience combined with love of money and "shameful gain" means, how "they subvert whole houses"! They are levers in the hands of the devil, by means of which he destroys the "houses" of God.
Commentary on Titus
Then when he says, who subvert whole houses, he shows their zeal: first, from the harm they inflict; second, from the false doctrine they teach; third, from the gain they desire.
The harm they cause is that they subvert whole houses. For Catholic doctrine is preached openly in the Church, but heretics teach in secret. That is why they seek hidden places: stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant (Prov 9:17). Therefore, they go from house to house to seduce women particularly: for among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins (2 Tim 3:5). Teaching things which they ought not, i.e., vain and useless things, not seeking spiritual gain but temporal. Hence he adds, for the sake of filthy gain, or their own temporal glory: they considered our existence an idle game, and life a festival held for profit, for he says one must get money however one can, even by base means (Wis 15:12).
Commentary on Titus
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
εἶπέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί.
Рече́ же нѣ́кто ѿ ни́хъ, сво́й и҆̀мъ проро́къ: кри́тѧне при́снѡ лжи́ви, ѕлі́и ѕвѣ́рїе, ᲂу҆трѡ́бы пра̑здныѧ.
What wonder, too, that others, such as Heracles and Perseus, should be called gods on the ground of their strength? And yet others, as Asclepius, on the ground of their skill? Either their subjects accorded them this honor or else the rulers themselves seized it. Some got the title from fear, others from reverence.… And those who lived later accepted these deifications uncritically.The Cretans always lie; for they, O King, Have built your tomb, and you are not yet dead. While you, Callimachus, believe in the birth of Zeus, you disbelieve in his tomb. While you imagine you are hiding the truth, you actually proclaim, even to those who do not realize it, that Zeus is dead.
A Plea Regarding Christians 30
Your Jupiter too, stolen in his infancy, was unworthy of both the home and the nutriment accorded to human beings; and, as he deserved for so bad a child, he had to live in Crete. Afterwards, when full-grown, he dethrones his own father, who, whatever his parental character may have been, was most prosperous in his reign, king as he was of the golden age.
Ad Nationes Book 2
Comic poets deride the Phrygians for their cowardice; Sallust reproaches the Moors for their levity, and the Dalmatians for their cruelty; even the apostle brands the Cretans as "liars." Very likely, too, something must be set down to the score of bodily condition and the state of the health.
A Treatise on the Soul
But the heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the Spirit, “Why do you preach my laws and take my covenant in your mouth?” Thus, the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Savior. The blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, “The Cretans are always liars,” and ‘We are his offspring,” and “Evil communications corrupt good manners,” yet has a religious meaning, as being holy—is “doctor of the nations, in faith and verity,” as having “the mind of Christ.”
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 3.39
There are several questions here. First, who it was that said this? Secondly, why Paul quoted it? Thirdly, why he brings forward a testimony that is not correct? Let us then offer a seasonable solution of these, having premised some other things. For when Paul was discoursing to the Athenians, in the course of his harangue he quoted these words, "To the Unknown God": and again, "For we also are His offspring, as certain also of your own poets have said." (Acts xvii. 23, Acts xvii. 28.) It was Epimenides who said this, himself a Cretan, and whence he was moved to say it is necessary to mention. It is this. The Cretans have a tomb of Jupiter, with this inscription. "Here lieth Zan, whom they call Jove." On account of this inscription, then, the poet ridiculing the Cretans as liars, as he proceeds, introduces, to increase the ridicule, this passage.
For even a tomb, O King, of thee They made, who never diedst, but aye shalt be.
If then this testimony is true, observe what a difficulty! For if the poet is true who said that they spoke falsely, in asserting that Jupiter could die, as the Apostle says, it is a fearful thing! Attend, beloved, with much exactness. The poet said that the Cretans were liars for saying that Jupiter was dead. The Apostle confirmed his testimony: so, according to the Apostle, Jupiter is immortal: for he says, "this witness is true"! What shall we say then? Or rather how shall we solve this? The Apostle has not said this, but simply and plainly applied this testimony to their habit of falsehood. Else why has he not added, "For even a tomb, O king, of thee, they made"? So that the Apostle has not said this, but only that one had well said, "The Cretans are always liars." But it is not only from hence that we are confident that Jupiter is not a God. From many other arguments we are able to prove this, and not from the testimony of the Cretans. Besides, he has not said, that in this they were liars. Nay and it is more probable that they were deceived as to this point too. For they believed in other gods, on which account the Apostle calls them liars.
And as to the question, why does he cite the testimonies of the Greeks? It is because we put them most to confusion when we bring our testimonies and accusations from their own writers, when we make those their accusers, who are admired among themselves.
Homily on Titus 3
You ask me at the close of your letter why it is that sometimes in my writings I quote examples from secular literature and thus defile the purity of the church with the foulness of heathenism.… For who is there who does not know that both in Moses and the prophets there are passages cited from Gentile books and that Solomon proposed questions to the philosophers of Tyre and answered others put to him by them.… The apostle Paul also, in writing to Titus, has used a line of the poet Epimenides: “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” Half of this line was afterward adopted by Callimachus.
Letters 70.2
"A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. For this cause, reprove them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of people who turn away from the truth." As for the text of the discourse and the context of the passage, what he says: "A certain one of them, their own prophet," seems to be referring to those he spoke of earlier, especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of shameful gain. And he continues, "A certain one of them, their own prophet." However, since this hexameter verse is not found in any of the prophets who prophesied in Judah, it seems to me that it should be read in two ways: either that what he says, "A certain one of them, their own prophet," is connected with what came before, in order to correct the things that were lacking in Crete, or that it refers specifically to the Cretans. But because there are many things in between, and this seems absurd and perhaps no one will accept it, therefore, with regard to the things that are closer, it must be read differently from what came before, as follows: "For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group; they must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach, and that for the sake of dishonest gain." A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: so that what is said, "their own prophet," does not refer specifically to the Jews, and especially to those of the circumcision, but rather to many who are rebellious, full of meaningless talk and deception, who must be silenced along with those of the circumcision group, who are disrupting whole households by teaching things they should not, and who, since they were in Crete, should be believed to be Cretans. However, this couplet is said to be found in the oracles of the Cretan poet Epimenides; he called him a prophet, jokingly or allusively, meaning that Christians of such kind deserve to have prophets, just as prophets belonged to Baal and to the confusion of the Jews and to other offenses, and the scriptures mention any wicked prophets, genuinely because he wrote about oracles and responses that also foretold the future and predicted things that were to come long before. Finally, the book itself is titled Oracles, and because it seemed to promise something divine, I think the Apostle looked into it to see what the pagan divination promised, and in due time he used the couplet when he wrote to Titus, who was on Crete, in order to convict the false teachers of Crete with their own teacher. However, Paul is found to have done this not only in this place, but also in others. In the Acts of the Apostles, when he preached to the people, and in the Areopagus, which is the court of the Athenians, he argued, he says among other things: For we are his offspring, as some of your own poets have said (Acts 17), which hemistich is read in the Phaenomena Arati; which Cicero translated into Latin; and Germanicus Caesar, and recently Avienus, and many others, whom to enumerate is too long. To the Corinthians also (1 Cor. 15:33), who were themselves polished by Attic eloquence; and because of the proximity of the places, they were seasoned with the taste of Athenians, he took an iambic verse from Menander's comedy: Evil company corrupts good habits. Nor is it surprising if, for the opportunity of the time, he abuses the verses of pagan poets: for even altering some inscription of an altar, he spoke to the Athenians: "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. But the inscription on the altar was not as Paul asserted, to an unknown God, but as follows: To the Gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to unknown and foreign gods. But because Paul did not need many unknown gods, but only one unknown God, he used a unique expression; so that he would teach that he was their God whom the Athenians had marked with the title of the altar; and, knowing it correctly, they ought to worship him whom they were ignorant of and could not ignore. But Paul did this seldom, and as the circumstances of the place more than suitability demanded it, in the manner of bees, which are accustomed to compose honey from various flowers and to adapt the cells of their favors. Some consider this verse taken from Callimachus the Cyrenian poet, and are not entirely wrong. In his praise of Jupiter against the Cretans, who boasted about showing his tomb, he says, "The Cretans are always liars, who also built his tomb with a sacrilegious mind." But, as we said above, the whole verse was taken by the Apostle from Epimenides the poet, and Callimachus used his exordium in his poem. Or perhaps he turned the common proverb by which the Cretans were called deceitful into a meter without stealing the labor of others. Some believe that the Apostle should be blamed for having imprudently fallen; and when he rebuked false teachers, he proved that verse by saying that the Cretans were called deceitful because they had built the empty tomb of Jupiter. For they say that Epimenides or Callimachus accused the Cretans of being deceitful and dangerous beasts and lazy gluttons, because they do not feel the divine; and (even though) they create Jupiter, who reigns in heaven, buried on their own island; and this that they said is confirmed by the view of the Apostles: thus it follows that Jupiter is not dead, but alive. Therefore, it was unskillful of Paul, the destroyer of idolatry, while fighting against perverse teachers, to assert that the gods which he was attacking did exist. To this we must briefly respond that, in the case where he said "Evil company corrupts good morals," he did not immediately approve Menander's entire comedy or Aratus' book, but rather he used an opportunity provided by a verse. Similarly, in the present case, he did not confirm the entire work of Callimachus or Epimenides, whose one praises Jupiter and the other writes about oracles through one verse; rather, he only rebuked the Cretans as liars, blaming them for the vice of their people, not due to their opinion, which is praised by poets, but due to their innate ease of lying. But those who think that the whole book ought to be followed by the one who has made use of a part of the book, seem to me to admit the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, ((or of the Enochs)), concerning which Judas the Apostle gave testimony in his Epistle, among the sacred Scriptures of the Church; and many other things which the Apostle Paul spoke of in a hidden way. For we can say this by way of argument: that since he said that he worshipped the unknown God among the Athenians, whom they had written on an altar, Paul ought to follow and do those things also which were written on the altar, and those things which the Athenians were doing, since he had come to an agreement with them in part regarding the worship of an unknown God. Far be it from me to draw argument and scholastic elegance into calumny. There is no one so wicked, so much of a criminal, so much of a poisoner, who has not done something good at some time. Therefore, if I approve of one good thing of his, when I see it, and it is necessary for me to support the rest, which were bad, what is that to be blamed? If he is accused by an enemy against us and cries out, will he not speak some truth among the words of conflicts? And this too, is not always blamed by us against whom he speaks. So Callimachus and Epimenides, did not say that Jupiter is a god, and the rest that is contained in their poems, because the Cretans are deceitful; but they only spoke the truth, because they were expressing the inborn vice of the Cretans in terms of lies: because they are deceitful, they did not always speak the truth. For Jupiter would not cease to be a god even if the Cretans spoke the truth; but nevertheless, while they were silent, he who was dead would not have the name of a god. Finally, let us know that the Apostle spoke against the Cretans not by chance, and not incidentally (as they think), but carefully and watchfully, and defending himself in every way against the Cretans: This is a true testimony, he says; not the whole poem from which the testimony is taken, not the whole work: but only this testimony, this verse in which they are called liars. And certainly he who agreed only in one part of the poem, is to be believed to have refuted the rest. However, we have discussed in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians how either the Cretans are deceitful and foolish, or the Galatians are hard-necked, or each province is represented by its own vice. And since there is nothing else we can add here, we are content with that.
Commentary on Titus
Having criticized the dangers that arise from Christians of Jewish background, Paul now does the same with Gentile believers. “Of their own” does not refer to the Jews but to a poet or prophet of Gentile background, even one of the Cretans. He wished to criticize the Cretans because they believed they could show the tomb of Jove, even though Jove existed not as a man (as the poet thought) but as a god.
Commentary on Titus
If you were to hear, even from one who was profane, the prayer of the priest couched in words suitable to the mysteries of the gospel, can you possibly say to him, “Your prayer is not true,” though he himself may be not only a false priest but not a priest at all? The apostle Paul said that certain testimony of a Cretan prophet (he knew not which) was true, though he was not reckoned among the prophets of God.… If, therefore, the apostle himself bore witness to the testimony of some obscure prophet of a foreign race because he found it to be true, why do not we, when we find in any one what belongs to Christ and is true even though the man with whom it may be found is deceitful and perverse? Why do we not in such a case make a distinction between the fault which is found in the man and the truth which he has not of his own but of God?
The Letters of Petilian the Donatist 2.30.69
The quote is from Callimachus, who is not a Jewish prophet but a pagan poet. He calls the Cretans liars on account of a tomb of Jove. Paul is not here offering fables but insisting on the inconsistency of the Cretans, for it is true that the one they call Jove is in another place dead and they have built him a tomb.
Interpretation of the Letter to Titus
One of them, a prophet of their own, said: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
It is asked for what reason Paul brought forward the testimony of the Greeks, and commended it, especially since it was not rightly said? But what is the testimony? The Cretans built a tomb for Zeus. And so a certain poet says: The Cretans built a tomb for you, O king; but you are by no means dead, for you always live. Part of this prophecy is: The Cretans are always liars, etc. However, the Apostle attested that this saying is true. But if this testimony is true, then Zeus must be immortal. Yet we say that in this alone he said the testimony was true, because he called them liars themselves.
— [OECUMENIUS] Epimenides the Cretan, the oracle of the prophet. Callimachus has also made use of the verse spoken by him in the hymn to Zeus. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius G f. 314r] —
Where Paul says: "This testimony," namely that he says they themselves are liars. Indeed, someone might say this is so: but why did he bring forth testimony from the Greeks? And we say that this affected them with the greatest shame that it produced testimony of their own wickedness from their own people. For since those among us do not have faith in them, Paul brought their own accusers to them. This God was also doing when, through the star, He indicated Christ to the Magi, so that they would be occupied with astronomy (Matt. 2), as if admonishing them by their own. Again, the prophet from the oxen drawing the ark (2 Sam. 6:3). Moreover, Saul from the woman having the spirit of Python (Acts 16:16), because he believed her. In these ways God was revealing Himself. Nor is it opposed by the fact that Christ and afterwards the apostles forbade demons to speak: for signs were made which could persuade (Mark 9:38). It was necessary that they persuade men by those whom they believed.
Commentary on Titus
Then, he describes their hearers, for they were Cretans, and to them he refers this work: first, he describes their condition; second, he prescribes a remedy, at wherefore, rebuke them.
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes their condition from witnesses; second, he confirms it.
He says, therefore: such are their teachers; but their hearers are just as easy to seduce according to the testimony of one of their poets, namely, Epimenis, whom Paul calls one of their prophets.
Here it should be noted that a prophet is one whose intellect is enlightened by God to know things that transcend common knowledge: if there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream (Num 12:6); or one who explains prophecies in the same spirit and method as they were delivered; or one who utters prophetic words. Hence something prophetic might be uttered from an inner instinct without understanding it: Caiaphas being high priest that year prophesied (John 11:51). For he had no intention of prophesying when he said that it is expedient for him to die lest he seduce the people. Nevertheless, he was moved to say this by the Spirit. This manner of prophesying also belongs to those who accept someone's words as an omen that might actually be from demons.
And he says, a prophet of their own, because such a person is familiar with their condition.
Then when he says, Cretans, he gives the testimony. And he describes them with three marks: first, the corruption of reason, when he says, are always liars: you destroy those who speak lies (Ps 5:6).
Second, the corruption of their irascibility when he says, evil beasts, i.e., cruel. They are called beasts, as it were, laying waste, because they are cruel: like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Prov 28:15). He says, evil, because according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when a man acts according to reason, he is the best of animals; but when he stoops to wickedness, he is the worst: for if he falls away because of cruelty, no beast is as cruel. Hence he says that an evil man is ten thousand times worse than an evil beast.
Third, from the corruption of their desire when he says, slothful bellies, having sloth present in their bellies; for they were gluttons and such men seek rest: soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry (Luke 12:19).
Commentary on Titus
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει,
Свидѣ́тельство сїѐ и҆́стинно є҆́сть: є҆ѧ́же ра́ди вины̀ ѡ҆блича́й и҆̀хъ неща́днѡ, да здра́ви бꙋ́дꙋтъ въ вѣ́рѣ,
Ver. 13. "Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith."
This he says, because their disposition was froward, deceitful, and dissolute. They have these numberless bad qualities; and because they are prone to lying, deceiving, gluttonous, and slothful, severe reproof is necessary. For such characters will not be managed by mildness, "therefore rebuke them." He speaks not here of Gentiles, but of his own people. "Sharply." Give them, he says, a stroke that cuts deep. For one method is not to be employed with all, but they are to be differently dealt with, according to their various characters and dispositions. He does not here have recourse to exhortation. For as he who treats with harshness the meek and ingenuous, may destroy them; so he who flatters one that requires severity, causes him to perish, and does not suffer him to be reclaimed.
"That they may be sound in the faith."
This then is soundness, to introduce nothing spurious, nor foreign. But if they who are scrupulous about meats are not sound, but are sick and weak; for, "Them that are weak," he says, "receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" (Rom xiv. 1); what can be said of those who observe the same fasts, (with the Jews,) who keep the sabbaths, who frequent the places that are consecrated by them? I speak of that at Daphne, of that which is called the cave of Matrona, and of that plain in Cilicia, which is called Saturn's. How are these sound? With them a heavier stroke is necessary. Why then does he not do the same with the Romans? Because their dispositions were different, they were of a nobler character.
Homily on Titus 3
Therefore rebuke them sharply, he says, they are liars and evil beasts, and lazy gluttons, who deceive with falsehoods and thirst for the blood of the deceived like wild animals, and not working in silence, eat their own bread, whose god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame, and rebuke them so that they may be sound in the faith. Speak of the health of faith and what follows: that old men be sober, honorable, chaste, sound in the faith and love and patience, to whose faith the health of teachings is also called. For a time will come, he says, when they will not listen to sound doctrine. There are also speeches of health, of which he speaks in the first letter to Timothy: if anyone teaches differently and does not agree to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the teaching that is according to piety (1 Tim. 6:3). And in the second: Holding the example of sound words that you have heard from me (2 Tim. 1:13).
Commentary on Titus
This testimony is true. For this reason, he rebuked them sharply, so that they might be sound in the faith.
For this reason, he rebuked them sharply. Therefore, because some are wicked, he says, rebuke them more harshly, for they could not be led from gentleness to what is right.
be sound in the faith. To be sound in faith, however, is if one has introduced nothing external to it, neither Jewish nor Gentile.
Commentary on Titus
The question is asked, why did he adduce a "testimony" from Greek writers and approve it, even though it is unjust? And who said this? In truth, it was said by Epimenides, who more than all the Greek sages was occupied with prophecies and the propitiation of the gods, and was renowned for the beneficent gift of divination. He, indeed, when he saw that the Cretans had erected a tomb for Zeus and began to honor him as some mere man, as though zealous for the glory of their national god, composed the following address to Zeus: being such and such, the Cretans erected a tomb for you; but you have not died, you live forever. To this saying Paul now gives a "testimony" of truth. But how does he do this? For if it was spoken truly, then Zeus is immortal. No, it was not to this that the apostle directed attention when he said the "testimony" is true, but to the fact that Epimenides called the "Cretans liars" and the rest. And what is the benefit of a pagan testimony? Through this he best influenced them, presenting to them as proof of their arrogance their own writers. Paul customarily does this; in a similar manner he also reasoned with the Athenians on the basis of Aratus: what that poet ascribes to the falsely-named god Zeus, he applies to the true God, since on the basis of their own testimonies they can be better convinced. In a similar manner, with the Jews he speaks on the basis of the prophets, and not on the basis of the Gospels. So also does God act, drawing each person to Himself by the path that is familiar and trustworthy to that person. Thus, the "Magi" — by means of a "star" (Matt. 2:1–2), Saul through the sorceress (1 Sam. 28:3–25), since he believed her, and the diviners — through animals (cows) that carried the ark; and this does not mean that the pagan diviners speak the truth — on the contrary, He convicts them by their own mouths. And God allowed Balaam to bless and prophesy (Num. 23–24). For He customarily always shows condescension for our benefit. Why then did Christ and Paul forbid the demons to speak and testify? Because the signs were sufficient for believing; and Christ Himself preached about Himself, and this was sufficient. Moreover, the demons were not worshipped, and the idol did not speak of itself. Therefore the demons were forbidden to speak.
Since they are, he says, liars, which is explained by their craftiness, and gluttons, a strong and reproachful word is needed for them, for gentleness is useless with them. Just as one who rebukes a gentle person destroys him, so too one who flatters a shameless person ruins him, not allowing him to know himself. Here, the apostle says, it is not strangers who must be rebuked, but one's own people.
Commentary on Titus
Then he confirms this testimony when he says, this testimony is true. A Gloss says: this gives us to understand that a teacher of Sacred Scripture takes the testimony of truth wherever he finds it. Hence the Apostle frequently cites the sayings of gentiles, as in 1 Corinthians: bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor 15:33); and in Acts: we are indeed his offspring (Acts 17:28). This does not mean that their entire doctrine has been approved, but only what is good is chosen, because all truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit; and what is evil is rejected. Hence it is said: when you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails (Deut 21:11), i.e., remove all superfluities.
Having described the character of the Cretan people, he now prescribes the remedy: first, the remedy of rebuke; second, the reason for this, all things are clean to the clean.
In regard to the first he does three things: first, he advises Titus to rebuke them; second, he tells him the purpose of the rebuke, at that they may be sound; third, he shows the correct method for reaching the end, at not giving heed.
He says, therefore: the Cretans are evil beasts who should be whipped and flogged. And therefore, rebuke them sharply: the reproofs of discipline are the way of life (Prov 6:23); rebuke the beasts that dwell among the marshes (Ps 68:30).
But this seems contrary to the advice given in Timothy: rebuke, unfailing in patience (2 Tim 4:2).
I answer that there are two reasons for this advice: one on the part of those who are rebuked. For the Cretans are difficult and obstinate; consequently, they deserve to be rebuked sharply. Not so the Ephesians, whose archbishop was Timothy. The other is on the part of those who rebuke, because Titus was meek and mild; consequently, he is urged to act opposite to this. But Timothy was strict; therefore, he was urged to be patient.
Then when he says, that they may be sound in the faith, he touches on the purpose of the rebuke. For a man is sound when there is no decay in him: and he is sound in faith when no article of faith is incorrectly understood. But the Cretans' faith was vitiated by heresy: but I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor 11:3); if any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit (1 Tim 6:3).
Commentary on Titus
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
не внима́юще і҆ꙋдє́йскимъ ба́снемъ, ни за́повѣдемъ человѣ̑къ ѿвраща́ющихсѧ ѿ и҆́стины.
Let us see, however, what sort of rule of interpretation the apostle Paul taught us about these matters. Writing to the Corinthians he says in a certain passage, “For we know that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. And they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.” Do you see how much Paul’s teaching differs from the literal meaning? What the Jews supposed to be a crossing of the sea, Paul calls a baptism. What they supposed to be a cloud, Paul asserts is the Holy Spirit.… What then are we to do who received such instructions about interpretation from Paul, a teacher of the church? Does it not seem right that we apply this kind of rule which was delivered to us in a similar way in other passages? Or as some wish, forsaking these things which such a great apostle taught, should we turn again to “Jewish fables”?
Homilies on Exodus 5.1
But the apostles, who were about to say, “If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing,” and who were also about to say, “Let no one judge you in food, or in drink, or in participation of a feast day, or in new moons, or sabbaths, which are shadows of what will be,” they are prohibited from having two tunics so that they might inwardly and completely repudiate observances of this kind according to the letter of the law and not concern the disciples “with Jewish myths” and “place a yoke on them which neither they nor their fathers would have been able to bear.” But one is sufficient for them, and this one “inward.” For they do not want this tunic of the law that is external but that which comes from above. For Jesus permits them to have one, and that one is “interior.”
Homilies on Leviticus 6.3
Ver. 14. "Not giving heed," he says, "to Jewish fables."
The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.
Homily on Titus 3
Those who have this health of faith and doctrine and sound words, do not heed Jewish fables and the commands of men who turn away from the truth. Let us acquiesce for a short time to the Jews, and listen patiently to their foolishness, and then we will understand what the Jewish tales are which have no authority from Scripture, nor any rational basis, but are the product of the fables and imaginations of certain people about animals and legends, of whom Isaiah prophesied, saying: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Isaiah 29:13). This is confirmed by the testimony of the Savior in the Gospel, who accuses them of giving preference to the commandments of men over the Law of God. For God said, "Honor your father and mother." They, on the other hand, say, "Whatever gift you might have received from me is Corban, that is, an offering to God" (Mark 7:11-12). Anyone who falls short of circumcision after the coming of Christ is a slave to Jewish myths and the commandments of men, who turn away from truth. For it is not the one who appears to be a Jew outwardly who is, but the one who is in secret; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Whoever keeps the Passover, but not in the sincerity and truth of unleavened bread, so that he may purge out of his soul all the old leaven of wickedness and malice: this person attends to fables, and follows shadows, neglecting the truth. Whoever does not rise with Christ, nor seek the things that are above, but those that are below, saying, "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all perish with use, according to the commandments and doctrines of men: this person follows not good justices and not good precepts. But where is truth, and where is the spiritual law, where there are good justification, and the best of precepts is observed, and whoever does them shall live in them.
Commentary on Titus
Paul uses the term “Jewish fables” not to describe the law but the interpretation of the law put forward by the Jews. The Lord accuses them of this very thing when he says, “Why do you transgress the law for the sake of your own traditions?”
Interpretation of the Letter to Titus
not paying attention to Jewish fables and human commandments that turn away from the truth.
Jewish fables. The Jewish stories are called fables for two reasons: both because their time has passed, and because even when they were in force, they were a resemblance of truth and not the truth itself.
and human commandments. Paul speaks about the observations concerning food, which is evident from what follows.
Commentary on Titus
So then, soundness consists in not introducing anything false, anything foreign to the faith; just as submitting oneself to the law does not mean boldly relying on faith that it is sufficient for salvation. This is no small error. Jewish customs are doubly fables: both because they are untimely and utterly useless, and because attending to them is harmful. So then, just as one must not believe fables, neither should one believe these. Of course, the holy books of the Old Testament, rightly understood, are not fables. And how could they be, when from them we learn the evangelical truth? But wrong interpretations and additions — that is what the fables are. Listen to what follows next.
You see that what he calls fables? The commandments of men, as it is written in Isaiah (Isa. 29) and in the Gospel (Matt. 15), and the rest, obviously, also the observances concerning foods, as is evident from what follows.
Commentary on Titus
The road to this soundness is to avoid the errors of the Jews; hence he says, not giving heed to Jewish fables. For in the law there are two types of articles: those dealing with beliefs, and those dealing with precepts of religion, which were to be observed in divine worship. The first he calls fables, and the second commandments of men and not of God.
In this he seems to be condemning the old law as the Manicheans do. But the word fables could refer to their legends (matters above and beyond the doctrines of the law), which are myths, as in the Talmud: not to occupy themselves with fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim 1:4). Or, it might refer to the doctrine which formerly was true, but is now a fable as they understand it. Thus, behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (Isa 7:14) was true, but now, because they say that it still remains to be fulfilled, it is a fable. Likewise, commandments of men can mean those not found in the law of Moses, but in the tradition of their fathers: for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God (Matt 15:6).
But does that mean that commandments of men are to be ignored?
I answer that they are not, so long as they do not turn one from God's truth; that is why he continues, who turn themselves away from the truth: for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths (2 Tim 4:4); the same thing is found in Matthew: in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men (Matt 15:9). Or, it might be said that the commandments in God's law have been changed into commands of men. For when they are interpreted as signs of truth to come, they are commandments of God, but when they wish us to observe them after our body is dead to the law, they are commands of men.
Commentary on Titus
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις.
[Заⷱ҇ 301] Всѧ̑ ᲂу҆́бѡ чи̑ста чи̑стымъ: ѡ҆сквернє́нымъ же и҆ невѣ̑рнымъ ничто́же чи́сто, но ѡ҆скверни́сѧ и҆́хъ и҆ ᲂу҆́мъ и҆ со́вѣсть.
For, with respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after its birth is not pure, so that any one of us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, "To the pure all things are pure." Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion's sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made. For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.
Epistle LVIII
All things made by God are beautiful and pure, for the Word of God has made nothing useless or impure.… But since the devil’s darts are varied and subtle, he contrives to trouble those who are of simpler mind, and tries to hinder the ordinary exercises of the brethren, scattering secretly among them thoughts of uncleanness and defilement. Come, let us briefly dispel the error of the evil one by the grace of the Savior and confirm the mind of the simple.… For tell me, beloved and most pious friend, what sin or uncleanness there is in any natural secretion—as though a man were minded to make a culpable matter of the cleanings of the nose or the sputa from the mouth? And we may add also the secretions of the belly, such as are of a physical necessity of animal life. Moreover if we believe man to be, as the divine Scriptures say, a work of God’s hands, how could any defiled work proceed from a pure Power?… But when any bodily excretion takes place independently of will, then we experience this, like other things, by a necessity of nature.
Letters to Amun 48
Everything created by God is good; for those who do not know this, they become impure.
Commentary on the Letter to Titus
Ver. 15. "Unto the pure," he says, "all things are pure."
Thou seest that this is said to a particular purpose.
"But unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure."
Things then are not clean or unclean from their own nature, but from the disposition of him who partakes of them.
"But even their mind and conscience is defiled."
The swine therefore is clean. Why then was it forbidden as unclean? It was not unclean by nature; for, "all things are pure." Nothing is more unclean than a fish, inasmuch as it even feeds upon human flesh. But it was permitted and considered clean. Nothing is more unclean than a bird, for it eats worms; or than a stag, which is said to have its name from eating serpents. Yet all these were eaten. Why then was the swine forbidden, and many other things? Not because they were unclean, but to check excessive luxury. But had this been said, they would not have been persuaded; they were restrained therefore by the fear of uncleanness. For tell me, if we enquire nicely into these things, what is more unclean than wine; or than water, with which they mostly purified themselves? They touched not the dead, and yet they were cleansed by the dead, for the victim was dead, and with that they were cleansed. This therefore was a doctrine for children. In the composition of wine, does not dung form a part? For as the vine draws moisture from the earth, so does it from the dung that is thrown upon it. In short, if we wish to be very nice, everything is unclean, otherwise if we please not to be nice, nothing is unclean. Yet all things are pure. God made nothing unclean, for nothing is unclean, except sin only. For that reaches to the soul, and defiles it. Other uncleanness is human prejudice.
"But unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
For how can there be anything unclean among the pure? But he that has a weak soul makes everything unclean, and if there be set abroad a scrupulous enquiry into what is clean or unclean, he will touch nothing. For even these things are not clean, I speak of fish, and other things, according to their notions; (for "their mind and conscience," he says, "is defiled,") but all are impure. Yet Paul says not so; he turns the whole matter upon themselves. For nothing is unclean, he says, but themselves, their mind and their conscience; and nothing is more unclean than these; but an evil will is unclean.
Homily on Titus 3
"All things are clean to the clean, but to the unclean and unbelieving nothing is clean; instead, both their mind and their conscience are corrupted." For he had said earlier: "For there are many rebellious people who deceive others with their empty talk and false teaching. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced, because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money." So he is telling Titus to sharply rebuke them, so that their faith will be healthy and they will not waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. This kind of talk only leads to meaningless speculations, which don't help people live a life of faith in God. The Bible clearly states that all things are clean to those who believe in Jesus Christ and know that everything God created is good. But to those who are defiled by sin and unbelief, nothing is clean; in fact, both their mind and their conscience are corrupted. Therefore, even things that are clean by nature become unclean to them. This is not because there is anything inherently unclean or clean, but because of the kind of people who eat them. So, the clean remain clean for the clean, and the unclean become defiled for those who are defiled. Otherwise, even the unbelievers and defiled do not benefit from the bread of blessing and the Lord's cup; for whoever eats of that bread and drinks from the cup unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon themselves (1 Cor. 11). Everything has been cleansed by the coming of Christ. We cannot partake of what He has purified. But let us consider that in handling this, we do not give occasion to that heresy which, according to the Apocalypse (Chapter 2) and even the Apostle Paul himself writing to the Corinthians, thinks that it is right to eat of things offered to idols because all things are clean to the clean (1 Cor. 8). For the Apostle did not intend to discuss those things which are sacrificed to demons, but rather those who, according to the discipline of the abolished Law, regarded some things as clean and others as unclean. For we cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons: nor can we drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons at the same time (1 Cor. 10:20-21). Therefore, it is up to us to eat clean or unclean. For if we are clean, then the creature is clean for us. But if we are unclean and faithless, then all things become common to us, whether through the heresy that dwells in our hearts or through the consciousness of sins. Moreover, if our conscience does not condemn us, and we have confidence in God's mercy, then we will pray with our spirit and with our mind, we will sing praises with our spirit and with our mind (1 Corinthians 14), and we will be far from those of whom it is now written: "Their mind and conscience are defiled."
Commentary on Titus
God has made all things pure. If anything is unclean, the use to which it is put makes it so.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church
With all this, no one is pressed to endure hardships for which he is unfit. Nothing is imposed on anyone against his will, nor is he condemned by the rest because he confesses himself too feeble to imitate them. They bear in mind how strongly Scripture enjoins charity on all.… Accordingly, all their endeavors are concerned not about the rejection of kinds of food as polluted but about the subjugation of inordinate desire and the maintenance of brotherly love.
The Morals of the Catholic Church 1.33.71
The Jews, you see, had accepted that there were certain animals which they could not eat, and others from which they must abstain. The apostle Paul makes it clear that they received this law as a symbolic sign of future realities.
Sermons 149.3
But now, when you abstain for the sake of chastising the body from various kinds of food that are in themselves quite permissible, remember that “to the pure all things are pure”; don’t regard anything as impure except what unbelief has defiled; “for to the impure and unbelievers,” the apostle says, nothing is pure. But naturally, when the faithful are reducing their bodies to slavery, whatever is deducted from bodily pleasure is credited to spiritual health.
Sermons 208.1
Those likewise are to be detested who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ had Mary as his mother on earth. That dispensation did honor to both sexes male and female and showed that both had a part in God’s care; not only that which he assumed but that also through which he assumed it, being a man born of a woman.… Nor should our faith be lessened by any reference to “a woman’s internal organs,” as if it might appear that we must reject any such generation of our Lord because sordid people think that sordid. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men”; and “to the pure all things are pure.”
On Faith and the Creed 4.9-10
“If a man has attained to that which the apostle speaks of ‘to the pure, everything is pure,’ he sees himself less than all creatures.” The brother said, “How can I deem myself less than a murderer?” The old man said, “When a man has really comprehended this saying, if he sees a man committing a murder he says, ‘He has only committed this one sin, but I commit sin every day.’ ”
Sayings of the Fathers 97
Things are always pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and conscience are defiled.
— [OECUMENIUS] What then was the law given to the Jews concerning uncleanness? And we say, not because they were unclean did God legislate accordingly, but by this law cutting off much luxury and indifference among the Jews. For what is clean and unclean depends chiefly on the character of those receiving it. Since by nature all things are clean to those who do not examine too closely; but to those who are not such, all things are unclean, though not actually unclean. For only sin is truly unclean. [end of the excerpt by Oecumenius A f. 185v; B f. 224v; G f. 314v] —
but to the defiled. Therefore, impure things come from a defiled mind: just as for a person suffering from an illness, all things are unpleasant because of the disease.
but both their mind and conscience are defiled. No food is indeed impure, Paul says, but the mind and conscience of those people are impure, and their skepticism makes foods impure and useless.
Commentary on Titus
For, as in the old Testament outward acts were attended to, so in the New Testament it is not so much what is done outwardly as what is thought inwardly that is regarded with close attention, that it may be punished with searching judgment. For while the law forbids the eating of many things. as being unclean, the Lord nevertheless says in the Gospel, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but the things which come forth from the heart, these are they which defile a man." And soon after He added in exploitation, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." Hence it is abundantly indicated that what is shewn by Almighty God to be polluted in act is that which is engendered of the root of polluted thought. Whence also Paul the Apostle says, "All things are pure to the pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure." And immediately, to declare the cause of this defilement, he subjoins, "For their mind and conscience is defiled." If, then, food is not impure to one whose mind is not impure, why should what with a pure mind a woman suffers from nature be reckoned to her for impurity?
Register of Epistles, Book 11, Epistle 64
So then, foods are not clean or unclean by their own nature, but by the disposition of those who partake of them. The latter, being clean and pious, know that all things are clean, as the creation of God, and that only sin is unclean. For even if the law considered certain things unclean, this was not without purpose, but for the restraint of intemperance, knowing that the Jews would not have obeyed it without compulsion, being gluttons. Of course, if those who partake are clean and pious, then for such people all things will be clean. In what way? For if one reasons thus, then fish that devour men, and birds considered clean but feeding on worms, ought to seem unclean. Therefore an unclean mind, directed toward the bad side, by itself defiles what is not such by nature. In the same way, one suffering from a stomach ailment thinks that foods are unpleasant, even though they may be pleasant; and to one suffering from dizziness, the firmly standing earth seems to be moving. Such suspicion depends on his illness. This applies both to the Manichaeans and to the Marcionites and to the heretics newly sprung from them, called by most people Galatae.
Commentary on Titus
Then when he says, all things are clean to the clean, he specifies the reason behind his statements, namely, how they turn one from the truth and how they repeat fables and commands of men, which are chiefly concerned with distinguishing between foods according to the law, which some false prophets said must be observed. Consequently, first, he shows how these foods are related to those who are good; second, to those who are wicked, at but to them that are defiled.
He says, therefore: not giving heed to Jewish fables about food, because all things are clean to the clean.
Does this mean that adultery is clean to the clean?
I answer: no, because by the very fact that it is adultery it is unclean. But those things that are clean to the clean which of themselves do not defile one. In this matter Matthew says: whatever enters into the mouth does not defile a man (Matt 15:11); therefore, whatever enters the mouth is clean.
Against this there are two objections: one is found in Leviticus: and the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you (Lev 11:7).
I answer according to Augustine in Against Faustus: a thing is unclean either according to its nature or according to what it signifies; for example, if this word 'fool' is taken merely as a sound, it is not unclean but good; but if it is taken according to its signification, it implies uncleanness, because it signifies lack of wisdom. But the acts of that people were prophetic acts. Hence a pig as such is not unclean, but only inasmuch as it signifies a man given to pleasure. But now that the reality has come, these significations cease, and men use foods according to their nature.
Another objection is that in Acts the apostles commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:29). Consequently, it does not seem lawful to partake of such things. And so, all things are not clean to the clean.
I answer that some believe that this commandment should be interpreted literally, but in a mystical sense, so that by blood is understood homicide, and by strangling, the oppression of the poor. And this is good, but it is not the whole truth. Therefore, I say that literally it is a commandment, but we are not obliged to it. For some things are forbidden because they are evil; and these must simply be avoided. But other things are not evil absolutely, but for a time, and these must be observed so long as a reason exists. But the apostles forbade these things, not because they were evil in themselves, because in Matthew the Lord says the opposite (Matt 15:17). The reason behind them was that some had been converted from Judaism and some from paganism; consequently, it was necessary, if one people was to be formed, that one should condescend to another. In this matter the Jews were to be condescended to, because it was abominable to them to eat blood and anything suffocated. Therefore, to maintain peace, the apostles declared that this law was to be observed for that time.
Then when he says, but to them that are defiled, he shows how these foods are regarded by wicked men: concerning this he does three things, first, he shows this; second, he assigns the reason, at but both their mind; third, he manifests this with a sign, at they profess that they know.
He says, therefore: those foods are clean to the clean, but unclean to the defiled, i.e., to those whose consciences are defiled: whoever touches pitch will be defiled (Sir 13:1), and to unbelievers, i.e., whose faith is corrupt: he who is an unbeliever, acts unfaithfully (Isa 21:2).
Does the unbelieving sinner make an alms unclean?
The answer is that the Apostle does not employ an affirmative, but a negative word. Hence he does not say, all; he says that nothing is clean to them, which is true, because nothing is perfectly clean to them, because no act is clean unless it is directed to its proper end; whereas these acts are outside the end.
But is anything clean to them?
It seems so, although it is also true that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23).
I answer that evil never corrupts the good altogether. For it is impossible that there not be some good in every sinner, even in devils. Therefore, when a sinner does something precisely as sinner and unbeliever, the entire act is a sin in its root; but if he does something which springs from some good in him, such as from unformed faith or from his nature, it is not unclean. So it is signified that he says, but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, i.e., in so far as they are such. For they ate contrary to conscience and erred in faith; consequently, what was clean in its very nature they made unclean, as far as they were concerned.
The reason for this is that the cause of their acts is unclean, namely, their depraved intellect and will; hence he says, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled, namely, their mind by unbelief, and their conscience by sin: why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the land of your enemies, that you are growing old in a foreign country? (Bar 3:10)
Commentary on Titus
That red fire is only the flower on a stalk of living habits, which you cannot see. Only because your mother made you say 'Thank you' for a bun are you now able to thank Nature or chaos for those red stars of an instant or for the white stars of all time. Only because you were humble before fireworks on the fifth of November do you now enjoy any fireworks that you chance to see. You only like them being red because you were told about the blood of the martyrs; you only like them being bright because brightness is a glory. That flame flowered out of virtues, and it will fade with virtues. Seduce a woman, and that spark will be less bright. Shed blood, and that spark will be less red. Be really bad, and they will be to you like the spots on a wall-paper.
Tremendous Trifles, The Diabolist (1909)
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι.
Бг҃а и҆сповѣ́дꙋютъ вѣ́дѣти, а҆ дѣ́лы ѿме́щꙋтсѧ є҆гѡ̀, ме́рзцы сꙋ́ще и҆ непокори́ви и҆ на всѧ́кое дѣ́ло бл҃го́е неискꙋ́сни.
So that confession is by all means necessary. For it is in our power. But to make a defence for our faith is not universally necessary. For that does not depend on us. "But he that endureth to the end shall be saved." For who of those who are wise would not choose to reign in God, and even to serve? So some "confess that they know God," according to the apostle; "but in works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate." And these, though they confess nothing but this, will have done at the end one good work. Their witness, then, appears to be the cleansing away of sins with glory.
The Stromata Book 4
Ver. 16. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate."
This then is uncleanness. They are themselves unclean. But be not thou silent on that account. Do thy part, although they may not receive thee. Advise and counsel them, though they may not be persuaded. Here he censures them more severely. For they who are mad imagine that nothing stands still, yet this arises not from the objects that are seen, but from the eyes that see. Because they are unsteady and giddy, they think that the earth turns round with them, which yet turns not, but stands firm. The derangement is of their own state, not from any affection of the element. So it is here, when the soul is unclean, it thinks all things unclean. Therefore scrupulous observances are no mark of purity, but it is the part of purity to be bold in all things. For he that is pure by nature ventures upon all things, they that are defiled, upon nothing. This we may say against Marcion. Seest thou that it is a mark of purity to be superior to all defilement, to touch nothing implies impurity. This holds even with respect to God. That He assumed flesh is a proof of purity; if through fear He had not taken it, there would have been defilement. He who eats not things that seem unclean, is himself unclean and weak, he who eats, is neither. Let us not call such pure, they are the unclean. He is pure, who dares to feed upon all things. All this caution we ought to exercise towards the things that defile the soul. For that is uncleanness, that is defilement. None of these things is so. Those who have a vitiated palate think what is set before them is unclean, but this is the effect of their disorder. It becomes us therefore to understand the nature of things pure, and things unclean.
Homily on Titus 3
"They confess to know God, but deny Him with their deeds: abominable and disobedient, and disqualified for every good deed." Those whose mind and conscience are defiled confess to know God, but deny Him with their deeds, according to what is said in Isaiah: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (Isaiah 29:13). Therefore, just as someone who honors with their lips but moves far away in heart, so anyone confessing God with their words but denying Him with his deeds is. But he who denies God with his deeds, and with a deceitful confession is rightly accursed and profane, and having no reasonable conviction of truth, he is called disobedient and incredulous. So it happens that he is disqualified for every good work: namely, that even those things which he may have done well, having been overcome by his own natural goodness, are not good, while they are corrupt by his distorted state of mind. Some think that only if someone, when captured by Gentiles during persecution, denies themselves as Christians that they would be denying God. But behold the Apostle asserts that God is denied by all perverse deeds. Christ is wisdom, justice, truth, holiness, and strength. Wisdom is denied through foolishness, justice through iniquity, truth through lies, holiness through depravity, and strength through weakness of the soul. And as often as we are overcome by vices and sins, we deny God. Conversely, as often as we do good, we confess God. And it is not to be judged that only those who denied Christ in martyrdom will be denied by the Son of God on the day of judgment, but in all works, words, and thoughts, Christ, either denied, denies or confessed, confesses. Regarding this confession, He commanded His disciples, saying, “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), so that in all good works and words the mind dedicated to Christ may confess Him. There is also a commendable denial, of which the Apostle himself says: "As we deny impiety and worldly desires, we should live chastely, justly, and piously in the present age, while awaiting the blessed hope and coming of our God and Savior" (Titus 2:12). Whoever denies this denial and wants to follow the Savior speaking these words, "Whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself" (Luke 9:23), stripped of his old self with its works, and putting on the new, shall follow his God. But how one is to deny oneself must be considered. The chaste denies the fornicator he once was; the wise, the foolish; the just, the unjust; the brave, the weak. In general, we deny ourselves as often as we, trampling on our former vices, cease to be what we were and begin to be what we were not before.
Commentary on Titus
All the heresies … they all say, “Jesus is Lord.” And he’s not, of course, going to eliminate from the kingdom of heaven those whom he finds to be in the Holy Spirit; and yet he did say, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven.” But: “Nobody can say: Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit"; nobody at all, evidently; but in the sense in which it was meant, that is in deeds.… The same apostle, you see, also says of some people, “They claim to know the Lord but deny it by their deeds.” As it can be denied by deeds, so it can be said by deeds.
Sermons 269.4
Our peace also has its dangers, dearly beloved. In vain do people feel secure as a result of freedom for their faith if they do not resist the desires of vice. By the quality of works is the human heart made known, and outward actions disclose the beauty of souls. There are some, as the apostle says, who “profess to know God but deny him through their deeds.” Truly the guilt of denial is incurred when the ears have heard what is good but the conscience does not hold on to it. The frailty of the human condition easily slides into sin.
Sermons 36.4
They confess to know God, but by their works they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and unfit for every good work.
They confess to know God. This is truly impure, for faith without works is dead. (James 2:26)
Commentary on Titus
For behold, the voice of all proclaims Christ, but the life of all does not proclaim Him. Most follow God with their voices, but flee from Him by their conduct. Hence Paul says: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him."
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 19
What greatly gladdens is what follows: "Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed." In this saying, we are indeed specially marked out, we who retain in our minds Him whom we have not seen in the flesh. We are marked out—but only if we follow our faith with works. For he truly believes who practices by his deeds what he believes. In contrast to these, concerning those who hold faith in name only, Paul says: "They profess that they know God, but in their deeds they deny Him."
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." Perhaps each one may say within himself: "I have already believed; I shall be saved." He speaks truly, if he holds faith by works. For true faith is that which does not contradict in conduct what it says in words. Hence it is that Paul says of certain false believers: "They profess to know God, but they deny Him by their deeds."
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 29
Do you see what makes them unclean and abominable? It is that their deeds are wicked and unclean. For truly "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17). And a dead thing inspires disgust and is good for nothing.
Commentary on Titus
Then when he says, they profess that they know God, he explains their faith with a sign. For if a person claims that their words are true and that they believe in one God and confess him, this must be rejected as impossible.
First, he shows the good that was in them, namely, they profess outwardly with their lips that they know God: this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me (Isa 29:13); you are near in their mouth and far from their heart (Jer 12:2).
Second, he shows their inward failing: first, in regard to things present; second, in regard to things yet to come, at incredulous.
In regard to the present, in their works they deny him. For one who sins actually denies him by his actions, because a person cannot confess God without admitting his power, namely, that he should be obeyed. Hence, if they sin, they disobey and deny by their works the very things they profess by their lips.
But you say: whoever denies God is an unbeliever; but sinners deny God in their works. Therefore, sinners are unbelievers.
I answer that just as a person with general knowledge can err in particular cases, so a person with a general knowledge of the faith fails in a particular action, because his love is corrupted: he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8).
But can they fail as far as the future is concerned? They can, because they not only deny God but are not inclined to return to him.
For there are three things which incline a person to return to God, namely, God's grace: justified by his grace as a gift (Rom 3:24); the second is faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9); the third is the performance of a good work: the doers of the law will be justified (Rom 2:13).
But these three ways are not open to unbelievers: not the way of grace because they are abominable, i.e., not disposed to grace; not the faith, because they are incredulous, i.e., not suited for believing; you are among believers and destroyers (Ezek 2:6); third, not the performance of good works, because they are reprobate to every good work: refuse silver they are called (Jer 6:30).
Commentary on Titus
PAUL, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Παῦλος, δοῦλος Θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν
[Заⷱ҇ 300] Па́ѵелъ, ра́бъ бж҃їй, а҆пⷭ҇лъ же і҆и҃съ хрⷭ҇то́въ, по вѣ́рѣ и҆збра́нныхъ бж҃їихъ и҆ ра́зꙋмꙋ и҆́стины, ꙗ҆́же по бл҃гочⷭ҇тїю,