Commentary on Titus

“If anyone is without charge, the husband of one wife, having believing children, not open to the accusation of dissipation, or unruly.” First, then, let him be without charge, which I think is called by another word, to Timothy, “irreproachable”: not that he should be without any charge only at the time when he is to be ordained, and have washed away past stains by a new way of life, but that from the time he was reborn in Christ he should be bitten by no consciousness of sin. For how can the head of the Church take away evil from its midst if he has fallen into a like offence? Or with what freedom can he rebuke the sinner, when he silently answers himself that he has committed the very things he rebukes? So, “he who desires the episcopate desires a good work.” A work, he says, not honour, not glory. “But he must also have a good testimony from those outside, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” As for his saying, “the husband of one wife,” we ought to understand it thus: not that we should think every man married once better than one married twice, but that he can exhort to single marriage and continence who holds up his own example in teaching. For suppose that someone lost his wife as a young man, and, overcome by the necessity of the flesh, took a second wife, whom he too soon lost, and afterwards lived continently; while another had his marriage until old age, and the use of a wife, which most people think happiness, and never ceased from the work of the flesh: which of the two seems to you better, more chaste, more continent? Surely the one who was unfortunate even in his second marriage and afterwards lived chastely and holily, and not the one who was not separated from his wife's embrace even in old age. Let no one, then, who is chosen as married once applaud himself as better than every man married twice, since in him it was rather good fortune than will that was chosen. Some think thus of this passage: it was a Jewish custom, they say, to have two wives or more, as we read in the Old Law of Abraham and Jacob; and they would have this now be the precept, that the one to be chosen bishop should not have two wives at the same time. Many, more superstitiously than truly, think that even those who, when they were Gentiles, had one wife and, having lost her, married another after the baptism of Christ, should not be chosen for the priesthood; when surely, if this is to be observed, those rather ought to be kept from the episcopate who before indulged a wandering lust among harlots and, once reborn, took one wife; and it is much more detestable to have committed fornication with many than to be found twice married, because in the one case it is the misfortune of marriage, in the other a wantonness prone to sin. Montanus and those who follow the schism of Novatus have claimed for themselves the name of purity, and think that second marriages should be barred from the communion of the Church; whereas the Apostle, laying this down for bishops and presbyters, has surely relaxed it for the rest — not that he exhorts to second marriages, but that he makes allowance for the necessity of the flesh. Tertullian too wrote a heretical book, On Monogamy, which no one who has read the Apostle will fail to see contradicts the Apostle. And indeed, for a bishop or presbyter to be without charge and to have one wife is in our power. But what follows — “to have believing children, not open to the accusation of dissipation, and not unruly” — is outside our will. For suppose that parents have instructed their children well and always taught them the Lord's precepts from an early age: if afterwards these give themselves to dissipation and, overcome by vices, give the reins to lust, will the fault overflow onto the parents, and will the children's sins stain the father's holiness? If anyone instructed his children well, I think Isaac was among them, who certainly must be believed to have instructed his son Esau well. But Esau, a fornicator and profane, sold his birthright for a single meal. Samuel too, who was such that he called on the Lord and the Lord heard him, and in the time of harvest obtained winter rain, had sons who turned aside after avarice and took bribes, and were such unjust judges that the people, not bearing it, demanded a king for themselves like the other nations. So, if there were an election of priests, both Isaac because of Esau and Samuel because of his sons would be thought unworthy of the priesthood. And when the sins of parents are not imputed to their children — that saying being no longer in force, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge” — will the vices of children count against the parents? First, then, it must be said that the name of priesthood is so holy that even things placed outside us are reckoned to us: not that we cannot become bishops because of our own vices, but that we are to be kept from this rank because of our children's lack of restraint. For with what freedom can we rebuke other people's children and teach what is right, when the one rebuked can at once retort to us: “First teach your own children”? Or with what face do I rebuke a stranger who commits fornication, when my own conscience answers me: “Disinherit, then, your son who commits fornication; cast off your children who serve their vices”? When a worthless son lives with you in the same house, do you dare to take the speck from another's eye, not seeing the beam in your own? So the just man is not polluted by his children's vices; but the Apostle reserves freedom of speech for the ruler of the Church, so that he may be such as not to fear to reprove strangers because of the vices of his children. Then this too must be brought against those who swell with pride over the episcopate and think they have obtained not a stewardship of Christ but an empire: that those who have not been ordained bishops are not at once worse than all these, nor should these think themselves more approved because they were chosen; but let them understand that some have been removed from the priesthood because the vices of their children hindered them. And if the sins of children keep a just man from the episcopate, how much more will each, considering himself and knowing that “the mighty will be mightily tormented,” withdraw himself from what is not so much an honour as a burden, and not seek to occupy the place of others who are more worthy! Finally, this must be said: that in the Scriptures by sons are understood λογισμοί, that is, thoughts, and by daughters πρᾶξις, that is, works; and that the one who ought now to be ordered to become bishop is he who has his thoughts and his works in his power, truly believes in Christ, and is stained by no blemish of creeping vices.