Put them in mind to be subject Titus 3:1, 2 Obedience to civil magistrates N. Emmons, D. D. I. WHO ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY CIVIL RULERS. All those who are in the peaceable possession of civil power. II. IT IS THE DUTY OF SUBJECTS TO OBEY THEIR CIVIL RULERS. 1. The Scripture expressly enjoins this duty upon subjects. 2. The duty of submission naturally results from the relation which subjects bear to their rulers. There would be no propriety in calling the body of the people subjects, unless they were under obligation to obey those in the administration of government. 3. All subjects ought to obey their rulers for the sake of the public good. III. MINISTERS OUGHT TO INCULCATE SUCH SUBMISSION TO CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 1. Preachers are expressly required to press this plain and important duty upon the people of their charge. 2. It becomes the preachers of the gospel, in this case, to fellow the example of the inspired teachers — John the Baptist, Christ, etc. 3. It no less belongs to the office of gospel ministers to teach men their duty towards civil rulers than to teach them any other moral or religious duty. 4. There are some peculiar reasons why the duty of submission to civil authority should be more especially inculcated upon the minds of subjects.(1) Men are extremely apt to forget that they are under any moral obligation to obey the rulers of the land.(2) There is scarcely any duty more disagreeable to the human heart than submission to civil government.(3) The safety and happiness of the whole body politic more essentially depend upon each member's performing this, than any other duty. Where there is no subordination, there can be no government; and where there is no government, there can be no public peace nor safety.Concluding reflections: 1. There is no ground to complain of the ministers of the gospel for inculcating political duties. 2. There appears to be no more difficulty in determining the measure of submission to civil government than the measure of submission to any other human authority. 3. It is extremely criminal to disobey civil rulers, and oppose the regular administration of government. 4. It is criminal not only to disobey and resist civil authority, but also to countenance, cherish, and inflame a spirit of disobedience and rebellion. 5. Those in executive authority are under indispensable obligation to give rebels and traitors a just recompense of reward. They are God's ministers to execute wrath upon them that do evil; and they ought not to hold the sword of justice in vain. ( N. Emmons, D. D. )

Benson Commentary Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, Titus 3:1-3 . Put them. — All the Cretian Christians; in mind to be subject — Passively, not resisting; to principalities — Supreme rulers; and powers — Subordinate governors; and to obey magistrates — Actively, as far as conscience permits. It is probable that the reason whey the apostle enjoined this so particularly was, because the Judaizing teachers in Crete affirmed, that no obedience was due from the worshippers of the true God to magistrates who were idolaters, and because by that doctrine they were beginning to make not only the Jewish, but the Gentile believers, bad subjects, and liable to be punished as evil-doers. To be ready to every good work — In every relation which they sustain; to speak evil of no man — Neither of magistrates, nor of any others. “The word ?????????? , besides evil-speaking, denotes all those vices of the tongue which proceed either from hatred or from contempt of others, and which tend to hurt their reputation, such as railing, reviling, mocking speeches, whisperings, &c.” To be no brawlers — Greek, ??????? ????? , not to be contentious: or quarrelsome, to assault none; but gentle — ???????? , yielding, when assaulted, and often giving up their own right rather than contend; showing — In their tempers, words, and actions; all meekness — A mild, inoffensive, and kind behaviour; unto all men — Even enemies, and such as we ourselves once were. For we ourselves also — Or, even we ourselves, though now new creatures in Christ Jesus; were sometimes, ???? , formerly, foolish — ??????? , ignorant, of God and divine things; unreasonable, particularly in rejecting the Lord Jesus, though demonstrated to be the true Messiah by the most incontrovertible evidences; and imprudent, or destitute of true wisdom, (as the word also implies,) being enemies to ourselves, in that we were disobedient to the divine commands, though holy, just, and good; and refused to hearken to the glad tidings of salvation announced in the gospel of his grace. The cause of this unreasonable and foolish conduct was, that we were deceived by the grand enemy of our souls, the subtle serpent that lies in wait to deceive; deluded by the allurements of this insnaring world, and erred, or wandered, (as the word ?????????? means,) from the right way of truth and righteousness into by-paths of error and sin, promising ourselves liberty; but serving — ??????????? , enslaved to, divers lusts — ?????????? , desires, irregular and inordinate; (see on Titus 2:12 ;) and pleasures — Which perished in the using, but nevertheless were alluring us forward to everlasting miseries. Such was the state of our understanding, will, and affections. But what were our tempers? Such was our conduct toward God and ourselves; but what was it toward our fellow-creatures? The apostle tells us: living in malice — Instead of exercising benevolence and love toward all men; and envy — Grieving at the good enjoyed by others, instead of rejoicing therein, as it was our duty to have done; hateful — Ourselves, while under the tyranny of such detestable passions, worthy to be abhorred by God and man; and hating one another — On account of little clashings and oppositions in our temporal interests, while we forgot the great ties and bonds which ought to have endeared us to each other. Dr. Whitby, arguing from Acts 23:1 ; 2 Timothy 1:3 ; Php 3:6 , pleads that the above description could not be applicable to Paul himself, even while he was in his unconverted state; and with him Dr. Macknight agrees; forgetting, it seems, the malicious and vengeful passions which evidently dwelt in him while he was Saul the persecutor, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the best people upon earth, the disciples of the Lord Jesus; binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, and being exceedingly mad against them, punishing them oft in every synagogue, pursuing them into strange cities, and persecuting them even unto death, Acts 9:1 ; Acts 22:4 ; Acts 26:11 . On account of which conduct, when the eyes of his understanding were opened by the wonderful miracle of grace which the Lord Jesus wrought for him, he always reckoned himself the chief of sinners. But besides the persecuting spirit which he manifested toward the Christians, when he had a just view of his temper and behaviour in other respects, and became acquainted with the purity of God’s holy law, he was so convinced of the depravity of his nature, and of the imperfection of his best obedience, that, notwithstanding all he says in the passages above quoted by Whitby, he could undoubtedly, as Dr. Doddridge justly observes, “apply what he here wrote to much of his own character while an enemy to Christianity.” The reader will easily see that the duty inculcated in this passage is highly reasonable, and of peculiar importance, namely, that we should be ready to show that mercy to others which God hath shown to us; and that, from a recollection of the errors and sins which we were chargeable with in our unconverted state, we should exercise compassion toward those who are still ignorant and out of the way, but who may hereafter be brought to the saving knowledge of the truth, and be created anew in Christ Jesus, as we have been. Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Titus 3:4-7 . But after that the kindness — ????????? , the goodness, the benignity, ??? ??????????? , and philanthropy, love toward man, of God our Saviour, appeared — ??????? , was manifested, or shone forth, namely, through the preaching of the gospel. The Father is here called God our Saviour, as is evident from Titus 3:6 , where the same person is said to have poured out the Holy Ghost on believers, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Indeed, the title of our Saviour justly belongs to the Father, because he formed the scheme of our salvation, and sent his Son into the world to accomplish it; on which account the title of Saviour is given to the Son likewise. Not by works of righteousness which we have done — The best of which were so defective and polluted by sin while we were in our unregenerate state, that, instead of meriting acceptance, they needed forgiveness. But according to his mercy — His compassion for us in our state of sin and misery, and his free, unmerited love; he saved us — From our state of ignorance and guilt, of depravity, weakness, and misery. Observe, reader, the apostle does not say, he will save us, but, he hath saved us, true believers in Christ being already enlightened, justified, and made new creatures, and therefore in a great measure saved. See on Ephesians 2:8 ; 2 Timothy 1:9 . By the washing of regeneration — That is, by regeneration itself, the thing signified, and not merely by baptismal water, the outward and visible sign; which regeneration cleanses the soul from the filth of sin, (as water washes the body,) implying the renewing influences of the Holy Ghost: see on Ezekiel 36:25 ; Ezekiel 36:27 ; Ephesians 5:26-27 . Which he shed on us abundantly — ???????? , richly, through our believing with our heart unto righteousness, on Jesus Christ our Saviour — In virtue of whose sacrifice and intercession it has been imparted to us, sinful and guilty children of men. That being justified — Acquitted from the guilt of sin, and accounted righteous; by his grace — His mere mercy, his unmerited favour, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; see on Romans 3:24-28 ; we should be made heirs — All who are justified being adopted into God’s family, born of God’s Spirit, and made his children, and therefore his heirs, Romans 8:17 ; according — Agreeably; to the hope of eternal life — With which we are inspired, and for which his promises, in and through Christ Jesus, made to all such, lay a firm foundation, 2 Timothy 1:1 ; Titus 1:2 . Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Titus 3:8 . This is a faithful saying — A saying of infallible truth and infinite importance; (see on 1 Timothy 1:15 ;) and these things I will that thou affirm constantly — ???????? ?? ?????????????? , I will that thou strenuously, zealously, and continually assert, as a matter of unspeakable moment; that they who have believed in the living and true God — Or rather, who have believed God, (as the words ?? ????????????? ?? ??? signify,) namely, with respect to the revelation which he has made of his will; might be careful — ??? ?????????? , may think, consider, contrive, prepare, and take care; to maintain — Greek, ??????????? , to excel, take the lead, and go before others; in good works — Of all kinds which they have ability and opportunity to perform, namely, works of piety toward God, and of justice and mercy for the good of men. Though the apostle does not lay these for the foundation of men’s confidence and hope of eternal life, yet he brings them in, as we see here and elsewhere, in their proper place, and then mentions them, not slightly, but as affairs of great importance. He insists that all believers should fix their thoughts upon them, use their best contrivance, their utmost endeavours, not barely to practise, but to excel, to be eminent and distinguished in them, because, though they do not procure our reconciliation with God, yet they are good — ???? , amiable and honourable, as the word means, namely, to the Christian profession, and bring glory to God; and are profitable to men — To those who do them, and to those who are the objects of them: to the former, as being the means of exercising, and thereby increasing, their grace, and preparing them for a greater reward in the everlasting kingdom of their God and Saviour; and to the latter, as lessening their miseries and increasing their happiness in a variety of ways. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Titus 3:9 . But avoid foolish questions — Questions of no consequence; and genealogies — See on 1 Timothy 1:4 ; 2 Timothy 2:23 ; and contentions, &c., about the law — About the observance of the ceremonial law, or some little things contained therein; for they are unprofitable, &c. — Not only consuming to no purpose that time which is capable of being much better improved, but also tending to discompose men’s minds, to alienate the affections of Christians from each other, and to render them indifferent to the proper duties of life. Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10-11 . A man that is a heretic — Greek, ????????? , a party or schism-maker, namely, in the church, among the true, genuine people of God; or one that causes divisions among those that are united in Christian fellowship; see on Romans 16:17 ; after the first and second admonition — From thee and the elders of the church, given with proper solemnity; reject — Avoid, and declare him unfit to be any longer looked upon as a member of your community. “This is the only place in the whole Scripture where this word heretic occurs; and here it evidently means a man that obstinately persists in contending about foolish questions, and thereby occasions strifes and animosities, schisms and parties, among the faithful. This, and this alone, is a heretic in the Scripture sense. And his punishment likewise is here fixed. Shun, avoid, leave him to himself, have no fellowship with him. As for the Popish sense of the word, ‘A man that errs in fundamentals,’ although it crept, with many other things, early into the church, yet it has no shadow of foundation either in the Old or New Testament.” — Wesley. Knowing that such a one — Who is so fond of his own darling notions, that he will ruin the peace of the church: and will not submit to thy remonstrances, and those of the wiser and better part of the society; is subverted — Or perverted, as ??????????? maybe properly rendered; and sinneth — In making such obstinate efforts to diffuse his notions, and form a party to himself; being condemned of himself — Convinced in his own conscience that he acts wrong, as he cannot but see it to be evil to cause strife, animosity, contention, and disunion among those that fear God, and were, before he thus troubled them, united in Christian love. “In the first age, when the doctrines of the gospel were delivered by the apostles in person, under the guidance of inspiration, and when the true meaning of the doctrines was not liable to any doubt, because it was ascertained by the apostles themselves, if any teacher taught differently from them, and made a party in the church in opposition to them, he must have done these things contrary to his conscience, either from the love of money, or the lust of power, or from an immoderate propensity to sensual pleasures.” — Macknight; who observes further, “This method of treating heretics is worthy of attention; for the Spirit of God doth not order heretics to be banished, and their goods confiscated; far less doth he order them to be imprisoned, tortured, and burned, if they will not retract their errors. He doth not even give allowance to rail at or speak evil of them. Such methods of treating heretics never proceeded from the college of the apostles, but from the synagogue of Satan. To disown a wicked man as a Christian brother, and to avoid all familiar society with him, and to cast him out of the church by a public sentence of excommunication, is what the church and every society hath a right to do, agreeably to our Lord’s rule, ( Matthew 18:15 ; Matthew 18:17 ,) and is all that should be done in such a case.” Titus 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter. Titus 3:12 . When I shall send Artemas to thee, or Tychicus — To succeed thee in thy office; be diligent to come unto me — Tychicus is often mentioned in St. Paul’s epistles, but of Artemas we know nothing: only from this passage it appears that he was a faithful and able teacher, and fit to supply Titus’s place in Crete. At Nicopolis — There was a city of this name in Macedonia, on the confines of Thrace; also one in Epirus, and another in Pontus. The one in Epirus was built opposite to Actium, and named Nicopolis, or the city of victory, in memory of the victory which Augustus obtained over Antony and Cleopatra. It is probable that this was the Nicopolis here referred to: many think the Nicopolis in Macedonia was intended. For I have determined to winter there — This manner of speaking shows that the apostle was at liberty when he wrote this epistle, and consequently that it was written in the interval between his first and second imprisonment, and not from Nicopolis; for he was not there when he wrote it, but only expected to be there by and by. See the preface. Titus 3:13 Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. Titus 3:13-15 . Bring — Or send forward; Zenas the lawyer — Zenas is mentioned in this passage only, and called ??????? , the lawyer, because, according to Jerome’s interpretation, which is also that of Dr. Benson, he had formerly been a teacher of the law among the Jews; see Matthew 22:35 , where the same appellation is given to one of that profession. He might possibly, however, as others think, be a Roman lawyer; and Apollos — It is probable that Zenas and Apollos were to pass through Crete, either in their way to the apostle, or to some place whither he had sent them. He therefore desired Titus to help them forward on their journey by supplying them with such necessaries as they were in want of, that they might not be retarded. And let ours also — All our brethren in Crete, whether ministers or private members of the church; learn — By thy admonition and example; to maintain good works — Works of charity and bounty; for necessary uses — For the relief of the poor brethren, that they may not want any necessary; that they — The Cretian believers; be not unfruitful — Unserviceable to those among whom they dwell. Perhaps, at some former period, they had not assisted Zenas and Apollos as they ought to have done. Greet them that love us in the faith — That is, for the faith’s sake, and with such a love as Christianity requires. Titus 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, Chapter 24 THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY, WITH ITS LIMITS; THE DUTY OF COURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS. - Titus 3:1-3 ST. PAUL, having in the previous chapter sketched the special duties which Titus is to inculcate upon different classes of Christians, - aged men and aged women, young women, young men, and slaves, - now passes on to point out what must be impressed on all Christians alike, especially as regards their conduct towards those who are in authority and who are not Christians. Here he is on delicate ground. The Cretans are said to have been a turbulent race, or rather a group of turbulent races; neither peaceable among themselves, nor very patient of foreign dominion: and the Roman rule had been established there for less than a century and a half. Previous to their conquest by Metellus in B.C. 67, they had been accustomed to democratic forms of government, and therefore would be likely to feel the change to the Roman yoke all the more acutely. As our own experiences in a neighboring island have taught us, people who have been allowed to misgovern themselves, and to fight among themselves, for many generations, do not readily give a welcome to a power which deprives them of these liberties, even when it offers in exchange for them the solid but prosaic advantages of peace and security. Besides this, there was in Crete a strong mixture of Jews, whose rebellious propensities seemed to be unquenchable. Nor was this all. Within the Church itself the spirit of anarchy had displayed itself: partly because, as in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, the characteristic faults of the people still continued to show themselves after the acceptance of Christianity; partly because, as everywhere in the Churches of that age the contests between Jewish and Gentile converts were always producing disorder. This appears in the first chapter of our Epistle, in which the Apostle states that "there are many unruly men specially they of the circumcision," and in which he finds it necessary to make it a qualification for the office of bishop or overseer, that the persons appointed should be such as "are not accused of riot or are unruly." Besides which, as we learn from numerous sources in the New Testament, there was in various quarters a tendency to gross misconceptions respecting Christian liberty. Through Gnostic and other anti-nomian influences there was a disposition in many minds to translate liberty into license, and to suppose that the Christian was above the distinctions of the moral law, which for him had no meaning. Lastly, there were probably some earnest Christians, who, without going to any of these disastrous extremes, or sympathizing with the factious and seditious spirit of their fellow-countrymen, nevertheless had serious doubts as to whether Christians were under any obligation to obey a pagan magistrate, and perhaps were inclined to believe that it was their duty to disobey him. For all these reasons St. Paul must have known that he was charging Titus to give instructions which would be very unwelcome to a large number of Cretan converts, when he told him to "put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers and authorities, and to be obedient." But it was the very fact that the instructions would be unwelcome to many that made it so necessary that they should be given. Both for the internal well-being of the Church, and for the maintenance of right relations with the State, it was imperative that the principle of obedience to authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, should be upheld. There must be peace, and there must be liberty: but there could be neither the one nor the other without a respect for law and for those who have to administer it. The Apostle does not here argue the case. He lays down certain positions as indisputable. The loyal Christian must submit himself to those who are placed over him; he must render obedience to existing authorities. There is one obvious limit to this which he indicates by a single word to be noticed hereafter, but with that one qualification the duty of obedience is imperative and absolute. Jew and Gentile Christian alike must obey the laws, not only of the Church, as administered by its overseers, but also of the State, as administered by the magistrates, even though the State be a heathen power and the magistrate an idolater. The reason why St. Paul does not argue the matter is obvious. He is not writing to those who are likely to dispute or disobey these injunctions, but to one who has to see that they are obeyed. His object is not to prove the excellence of the rules which he lays down, but to advise Titus as to what rules are to be most insisted upon. Titus was well aware of the principles upon which these rules were based and of the arguments by which the Apostle was accustomed to defend them. He does not need information on that point. What the Apostle thinks may be necessary for his guidance is a clear intimation of those practical lessons of which the Cretans needed most to be reminded. It was quite possible that Titus might have taken the view that the question about obedience to existing authorities was a burning one, and that it would be better for the present to say as little about it as possible. To object, therefore, that these directions in the second and third chapters of this Epistle are unworthy of St. Paul, and consequently not written by him, because they contain nothing which might serve as a sufficient refutation of the adversaries, is to beat the air without effect. They contain nothing calculated to serve as a refutation of the adversaries, because the apostle writes with no intention of refuting opponents, but in order to give practical instructions to his delegate. But although the Apostle does not here argue the case, we are not left in ignorance as to the principles upon which he based the rules here laid down so emphatically. The thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is quite clear on that point. "There is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God." That is the kernel of the whole matter. The fact that a few rule over the many is not to be traced to a world-wide usurpation of the rights of the simple and the weak by the selfishness of the crafty and the strong. That theory may explain the terrorism of a bully, or of a band of brigands, or of a secret society; it is no explanation of the universal relations between governors and the governed. Nor is it the result of a primeval "social compact," in which the weak voluntarily surrendered some of their rights in order to have the advantage of the protection of the strong: that theory is pure fiction, and finds no support either in the fact of man’s nature, or in the relics of primitive society, or in the records of the past. The one explanation which is at once both adequate and true, is, that all authority is of Divine origin. This was the declaration of the Forerunner, when his disciples complained to him of the influence which Jesus exercised over those who came in contact with His teaching: "A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven." { John 3:27 } This was the declaration of the Christ, when the Roman Procurator pointed out to Him that He had power of life and death over Him: "Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above". { John 19:11 } The power of the Redeemer over the minds of men and the power of a heathen governor over the bodies of men have one and the same source, - Almighty God. Christ declared His innocence and asserted His claims; but He made no protest against being tried by a pagan official, who represented the power that had deprived the Jewish nation of its liberties, because he also represented the principle of law and order, and as such was the representative of God Himself. St. Paul, therefore, is doing more than restating what the Lord had already taught both by word and example. Christians must show submission to rulers and constituted authorities, and must yield ready obedience to magistrates, even when they are heathen. As heathen they were no doubt rebels against God, however little they might be aware of the fact. But as magistrates they were His delegates, however little they were aware of the fact. The Christian is aware of both facts; and he must not suppose that the one cancels the other. The magistrate still remains God’s delegate, however inconsistent his own life may be with such a position. Therefore it is not only allowable for Christians to obey him; but they must make it a matter of conscience to do so: and the history of the Church throughout the eras of persecution shows how greatly such teaching was needed. Whatever may have been the case when St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, we may safely maintain that persecution had already taken place when he wrote these instructions to Titus. Not that he seems to have a persecuting power in his mind, when he enjoins simple obedience to existing authority; but he writes with full knowledge of the extreme cases that might occur. A moralist who could insist upon the duty of submission to rulers, when a Nero had been on the throne for twelve or fourteen years, was certainly not one who could be ignorant of what his principles involved. Nor could it be said that the evils of Nero’s insolent despotism were counteracted by the excellence of his subordinates. The infamous Tigellinus was Praetorian Prefect and the Emperor’s chief adviser. Helius, who acted as governor of Italy during the Emperor’s absence in Greece, was in character a second Nero. And Gessius Florus, one of Pilate’s successors as Procurator of Judea, was so shameless in his enormities that the Jews regretted the departure of his predecessor Albinus, although he had mercilessly oppressed them. But all these facts, together with many more of the same kind, and some also of an opposite character, were beside the question. Christians were not to concern themselves with discussing whether rulers governed well or ill, or whether their private lives were good or bad. The one fact which concerned them was that the rulers were there to administer the law, and as such must be respected and obeyed. The conscience of Christians and the experiences of politicians, whether rulers or ruled, throughout all the subsequent ages have ratified the wisdom of St. Paul’s injunctions; and not only their wisdom, but their profound morality. Renan says with truth, but with a great deal less than the whole truth, that "Paul had too much tact to be a preacher of sedition: he wished that the name of Christian should stand well, and that a Christian should be a man of order, on good terms with the police, and of good repute in the eyes of the pagans" ("St. Paul," p. 477). The criticism which resolves a profound moral principle into a mere question of tact is worthy of the critic who makes it. Certainly St. Paul was far-sighted enough to see that frequent collisions between Christians and the recognized administrators of the law would be no good thing for Christianity: but it was not because he believed obedience to be the best policy that he charged Titus to insist upon it. It is of the very essence of a ruler that he is "not a terror to the good work, but to the evil: for he is a minister of God to thee for good an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil." It is quite possible that the law which he administers is unjust, or that he administers it in such a way as to make it work injustice, so that good deeds are punished and evil deeds are rewarded. But nowhere is good punished as good, or evil rewarded as evil. When Naboth was judicially murdered to gratify Jezebel, it was on the assumption that he was a blasphemer and a rebel; and when Jesus of Nazareth was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin and by the Procurator, it was on the assumption that he was guilty of similar crimes. So also with all the monstrous and iniquitous laws which have been made against Christianity and Christians. The persecuting edict "cast out their name as evil." It was because men believed, or professed to believe, that Christians were grievous offenders or dangerous citizens, that they brought them before the magistrates. And the same holds good of the religious persecutions of which Christians have been guilty against other Christians. Nowhere can we point to a case in which a person has been condemned for having been virtuous, or for having failed to commit a crime. Many have been condemned for what was really meritorious, or for refusing to do what was really wicked; but in all such cases the meritorious conduct and the wicked conduct were held to be of exactly the opposite character by the representatives of the law. Legally constituted authority, therefore, is always by profession, and generally in fact also, a terror to the evil and a supporter of the good. It is charged with the all-important duty of upholding right and punishing wrong in human conduct, a duty which it never disowns. For even when through blindness or perversity it upholds what is wrong or punishes what is right, it professes to be doing the opposite. Therefore to rebel against it is to rebel against the principle of moral government; it is a revolt against that principle which reflects and represents, and that by his ordinance, the moral government of Almighty God. St. Paul assumes that rulers aim at what is just and right. The Christian is "to be ready unto every good work": and, although the words are no doubt intended to have a general meaning as well, yet the context suggests that their primary meaning in this place is that Christians are always, not only to be obedient to rulers and magistrates, but to be ready to support and assist them in any good work: the presumption being that what the authorities direct is good. But, without perhaps having this object in view, the Apostle here indirectly intimates the limits to Christians’ obedience and support. They are to be given to further "every good work": they cannot of course be given to further what is evil. What then must a Christian do when lawful authority requires him to do what he knows to be wrong? Is he to rebel? to stir up a revolt against those who make this demand? No, he is still "to be in subjection to rulers": that is, he must disobey and quietly take the consequences. He owes it to his conscience to refuse to do what it condemns: but he also owes it to the representative of Divine law and order to abstain from shaking its authority. It has the power to give commands and the right to punish disobedience, and he has no right to refuse both obedience and punishment. To disobey and submissively take the consequences of disobedience is his plain duty in so painful a case. In this way, and in this way only, will loyalty to conscience and loyalty to authority both alike be preserved. In this way, and in this way best (as history has again and again shown), is the reformation of unjust laws effected. The moral sense of society is far more impressed by the man who disobeys for conscience’ sake and unresistingly goes to prison or mounts the scaffold for his disobedience, than by him who violently resists all attempts to punish him and stirs up rebellion against the authority which he cannot conscientiously obey. Rebellion may succeed in redressing injustice, but at a cost which is likely to be more grievous than the injustice which it redresses. Conscientious disobedience, accompanied by loyal submission to the penalty of disobedience, is sure to succeed in reforming unjust laws, and that without any cost to counterbalance the good thus gained. Having thus trenchantly determined the duty of believers towards rulers and magistrates, St. Paul passes on to sketch their proper attitude towards other members of society. And just as in speaking of conduct towards authorities he evidently has in his mind the fact that most authorities are unbelievers, so in speaking of conduct in society he evidently is thinking of a state of society in which many of its members are unbelievers. What kind of conduct will Titus have to insist upon as befitting a Christian? "To speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness towards all men." It would he difficult to point to a precept which is more habitually violated by Christians at the present day, and therefore more worthy of constantly being brought to the front and urged upon their consideration. There are plenty of precepts both of the Old and of the New Testaments, which are habitually violated by the godless and the irreligious, by those who, while bearing the name of Christian, scarcely make even a pretence of endeavoring to live Christian lives. But here we have a group of precepts, which a large number, not only of those who profess to live soberly and righteously, but of those who do indeed in other respects live as Christians should, consent to forget or ignore. "To speak evil of no man; not to be contentious; to be gentle, showing all meekness towards all men." Let us consider calmly what such words as these really mean; and then let us consider what we constantly meet with in the controversial writing, and still more in the controversial speaking, of the present day. Consider the tone of our party newspapers, and especially our religious newspapers, on the burning questions of the hour and on the men who take a leading part in them. Read what a High Church paper says of a Low Church Bishop, or what a Low Church paper says of a High Church Bishop, and measure it by the injunction "to speak evil of no man." Or, again, read what some of the organs of Dissent allow themselves to say respecting the clergy of the Established Church, or what some Church Defense orators have allowed themselves to say respecting Liberationists, and measure it by the injunctions "not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness towards all men." It is sometimes necessary to speak out and call attention to real or suspected evils; although not nearly so frequently as we like to think. But it is never necessary to throw mud and deal in personal abuse. Moreover, it is very unbecoming to do so. It is doubly unbecoming, as St. Paul reminds us. First, such conduct is utterly unchristian. Secondly, it is very much out of place in those who before now have been guilty of quite as grave faults as those for which we now abuse others. We are just the persons who ought to remember, because we know from personal experience how much the grace of God can effect. If we have by His mercy been brought out of the sins which we now condemn in other people, what may we not hope for in their case, provided we do not disgust them with virtue by our acrimonious and uncharitable fault-finding? Abuse is the wrong weapon to use against unrighteous conduct, just as rebellion is the wrong weapon to use against unrighteous laws. Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Chapter 25 THE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW BIRTH-THE LAVER OF REGENERATION. - Titus 3:4-7 FOR the second time in this short letter we have one of those statements of doctrine which are not common among the practical instructions which form the mare portion of the Pastoral Epistles. The other doctrinal statement was noticed in a previous discourse on 1 Timothy 2:11-14 . It is worth while to compare the two. Though similar, they are not identical in import, and they are introduced for quite different purposes. In the earlier passage, in order to show why different classes of Christians should be taught to exhibit the virtues which specially befit them, the Apostle states the purpose of Christ’s work of redemption, a purpose which all Christians are bound to help in realising, stimulated by what has been done for them in the past and by the hope which lies before them in the future. In the passage which we have now to consider, St. Paul contrasts with the manifold wickedness of unbelievers the undeserved mercies of God towards them, in order to show what. gratitude those who have been brought out of their unbelief ought to feel for this unearned blessing, a gratitude which they ought to exhibit in gentle forbearance and goodwill towards those who are still in the darkness of unbelief as well as to others. The passage before us forms the main part of the Second Lesson for the evening of Christmas Day in both the old and the new lectionaries. Its appropriateness in setting forth so explicitly the Divine bounty in the work of regeneration is manifest. But it would have been equally appropriate as a lesson for Trinity Sunday, for the part which each Person of the Blessed Trinity takes in the work of regeneration is plainly indicated. The passage is in this respect strikingly parallel to what St. Peter had written in the opening of his Epistle: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ". { 1 Peter 1:2 } The goodness and love of God the Father towards mankind is the source of man’s redemption. From all eternity He saw man’s fall; and from all eternity He devised the means of man’s recovery. He appointed His Son to be our representative; and He accepted Him on our behalf. In this way the Father is "our Savior," by giving and accepting One Who could save us. The Father "saved us through Jesus Christ our Savior." Thus the Father and the Son co-operate to effect man’s salvation, and each in a very real and proper sense is called "our Savior." But it is not in man’s own power to accept the salvation thus wrought for him and offered to him. For power to do this he needs Divine assistance; which, however, is abundantly granted to him. By means of the outward laver of baptism the inward regeneration and renewal by the Spirit is granted to him through the merits of Christ; and then the work of his salvation on the Divine side is complete. Through the infinite mercy of the Blessed Trinity, and not through his own merits, the baptized Christian is in a state of salvation, and is become an heir of eternal life. It remains to be seen whether the Christian, thus richly endowed, will continue in this blessed state, and go on, by the daily renewal of the Holy Spirit, from grace to grace; or will through his own weakness and willfulness, fall away. But, so far as God’s share in the transaction is concerned, his salvation is secured; so that, as the Church of England affirms in the note added to the service for the Public Baptism of Infants: "It is certain by God’s Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." And the several parts which the Persons of the Blessed Trinity take in the work of salvation are clearly indicated in one of the prayers before the baptismal act, as in the present passage by St. Paul. Prayer is offered to the "heavenly Father," that He will "give His Holy Spirit to this Infant, that he may be born again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation; through our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus, as at the baptism of the Christ, so also at that of every Christian, the presence and co-operation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indicated. It is the Apostle’s object in this condensed doctrinal statement to emphasize the fact that it was "not by works in righteousness which we ourselves did," but by the work of the Blessed Trinity, that we were placed in a state of salvation. He does not stop to make the qualifications, which, however true and necessary, do not alter this fact. In the case of adults, who are converted to Christianity, - and it is of such that he is thinking, - it is necessary that they should be duly prepared for baptism by repentance and faith. And in the case of all (whether adults, or infants who live to become responsible for their actions), it is necessary that they should appropriate and use the graces bestowed upon them; in other words, that they should grow in holiness. All this is true: but it does not affect the position. For although man’s co-operation is indispensable-for God saves no man against his will-yet without God’s assistance man cannot either repent or believe before baptism, nor can he continue in holiness after baptism. This passage expressly denies that we effect our own salvation, or that God effected it in return for our merits. But it gives no encouragement to the belief that we have nothing to do with "working out our own salvation," but have merely to sit still and accept what has been done for us. That "the washing of regeneration," or (as the margin of the R.V. more exactly has it) "the laver of regeneration," signifies the Christian rite of baptism, ought to be regarded as beyond dispute. This is certainly one of those cases to which Hooker’s famous canon of interpretation most thoroughly applies, that "where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst" ("Eccl. Pol.," 5. 59:2). This Hooker holds to be "a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture"; and although some persons may think that assertion somewhat too strong, of the soundness of the rule no reasonable student of Scripture can doubt. And it is worth our while to notice that it is in connection with this very subject of baptismal regeneration that Hooker lays down this rule. He is answering those who perversely interpreted our Lord’s words to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit," { John 3:5 } as meaning no more than "Except a man be born of the Spirit," "water" being (as they imagined) only a metaphor, of which "the Spirit" is the interpretation. On which Hooker remarks: "When the letter of the law hath two things plainly and expressly specified, Water, and the Spirit; Water as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit as a gift which God bestoweth; there is danger in presuming so to interpret it, as if the clause which concerneth ourselves were more than needeth. We may by such rare expositions attain perhaps in the end to be thought witty, but with ill advice." All which may be fitly applied to the passage before us, in which it is quite arbitrary and against all probability to contend that "the bath of regeneration" is a mere metaphor for regeneration without any bath, or for the Holy Spirit, or for the unmeasured bounty with which the Holy Spirit is poured upon the believer. This might be tenable, if there had been no such rite as baptism by water enjoined by Christ and practiced by the Apostles as the necessary and universal method of admission to the Christian Church. In Ephesians 5:26 (the only other passage in the New Testament in which the word for "laver" or "bath" or "washing" occurs) the reference to baptism by water is indisputable, for the water is expressly mentioned. "Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word." And in the passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians which, like the one before us, contrasts the appalling wickedness of unbelievers with the spiritual condition of Christians, the reference to baptism is scarcely less clear. "And such were some of you: but ye were washed (lit. ‘he Washed away’ your sins), but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God". { 1 Corinthians 6:11 } In which passage, as here, the three Persons of the Trinity are named in connection with the baptismal act. And in speaking to the Jews at Jerusalem of his own admission to the Church, St. Paul uses the same forms of the same word as he uses to the Corinthians of their admission. The exhortation of Ananias to him, as he lay at Damascus, was "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" ( ????????? ???? ??? ), "calling on His Name": { Acts 22:16 } words which are very parallel to the exhortation of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost: "Repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" ( Acts 2:38 ; comp. Hebrews 10:23 ). In these passages we have a sacred rite described in which the human and the Divine elements are clearly marked. On man’s side there is the washing with water; and on God’s side there is the washing away of sin and pouring out of the Spirit. The body is purified, the soul is purified, and the soul is hallowed. The man is washed, is justified, is sanctified. He is regenerated: he is "a new creature." "The old things," his old principles, motives, and aims, then and there "passed away" (aorist tense, parhlqen): "behold, they are become new". { 2 Corinthians 5:17 } Can any one, with these passages before him, reasonably doubt that, when the Apostle speaks of "the washing of regeneration" he means the Christian rite of baptism, in which, and by means of which, the regeneration takes place? We are fully justified by his language here in asserting that it is by means of the baptismal washing that the regeneration takes place; for he asserts that God "saved us through the washing of regeneration." The laver or bath of regeneration is the instrument or means by which God saved us. Such is the natural, and almost the necessary meaning of the Greek construction ( ??? with the genitive). Nor is this an audacious erection of a comprehensive and momentous doctrine upon the narrow basis of a single preposition. Even if this passage stood alone, it would still be our duty to find a reasonable meaning for the Apostle’s Greek: and it may be seriously doubted whether any more reasonable meaning than that which is here put forward can be found. But the passage does not stand alone, as has just been shown. And there are numerous analogies which throw light upon the question, proving to us that there is nothing exceptional in God (Who of course does not need any means or instruments) being willing to use them, doubtless because it is better for us that He should use them. In illustration of the Greek construction we may compare that used by St. Peter of the event which he takes (and the Church of England in her baptismal service has followed him) as a type of Christian baptism. "When the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism." St. Peter says that Noah and his family "were saved by means of water" ( ?? ?????? ) just as St. Paul says that God "saved us by means of the laver of regeneration" ( ??? ?? ). In each case the water is the instrument of salvation. And the analogy does not end with the identity of the instrument; that is the mere external resemblance between the flood and baptism. The main part of the likeness lies in this, that in both cases one or the same instrument both destroys and saves. The Flood destroyed the disobedient by drowning them, and saved Noah and his family by floating them into a new home. Baptism destroys the old corrupt element in man’s nature by washing it away, and saves the regenerated soul by bringing it into a new life. And the other event which from the earliest days has been taken as a figure of baptism is of the same kind. At the crossing of the Red Sea, the water which destroyed the Egyptians saved the Israelites. In all these cases God was not tied to use water, or any other instrument. He could have saved Noah and the Israelites, arid destroyed the disobedient and the Egyptians, just as He could have healed Naaman and the man born blind, without employing any means whatever. But for our edification He condescends to employ means, such as we can perceive and understand. In what way is the employment of perceptible means a help to us? In two at least. It serves the double purpose of being both a test of faith and an aid to faith. 1. The acceptance of Divinely appointed means is necessarily a test of faith. Human intellect is apt to assume that Omnipotence is above using instruments. "Is it likely," we ask, "that the Almighty would employ these means?" Are they not altogether beneath the dignity of the Divine Nature? 2. Man needs tools and materials: but God needs neither. It is not credible that He has ordained these things as conditions of His own operation. All which is the old cry of the captai