saying, “The hope of all the ends of the earth.” (Ps. lxiv. 5.) And again, the blessed Paul in another place writes, “For therefore we both labor, and suffer reproach, because we have hope in the living God.” The teacher must suffer dangers even more than the disciple. “For I will smite the shepherd, (he says,) “and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.” (Zech. xiii. 7.) Therefore the devil rages with greater violence against teachers, because by their destruc- tion the flock also is scattered. For by slaying the sheep, he has lessened the flock, but when 409 he has made away with the shepherd, he has ruined the whole flock, so that he the rather assaults him, as working greater mischief by a less effort; and in one soul effecting the ruin of all. For this reason Paul, at the beginning, elevates and encourages the soul of Timothy, by saying, We have God for our Saviour and Christ for our hope. We suffer much, but our hopes are great; we are exposed to snares and perils, but to save us we have not man but God. Our Saviour is not weak, for He is God, and whatever be our dangers they will not overcome us; nor is our hope made ashamed, for it is Christ.1089 For in two ways we are enabled to bear up against dangers, when we are either speedily delivered from them, or supposed by good hopes under them. But Paul never calls himself the Apostle of the Father, but always of Christ. Because he makes everything common to both. The Gospel itself he calls “the Gospel of God.”1090 And whatever we suffer here, he implies, things present are as nothing. “Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith.” This too is encouraging. For if he evinced such faith as to be called peculiarly Paul’s “own” son, he might be confident also with respect to the future. For it is the part of faith not to be cast down or disturbed, though circumstances occur that seem contrary to the promises. But observe he says, “my son,” and even “mine own son,” and yet he is not of the same substance. But what? was he of irrational kind? “Well,” says one, “he was not of Paul, so this does not imply ’being of’ another.” What then? was he of another substance? neither was it so, for after saying “mine own son,” he adds, “in the faith,” to show that he was really “his own son,” and truly from him. There was no difference. The likeness he bore to him was in respect to his faith, as in human births there is a likeness in respect of substance. The son is like the father in human beings, but with respect to God the proximity is greater.1091 1089 Montfaucon adopts Savile’s conjecture. mss. Christ’s. The mistake would be easily made by a transcriber who did not follow the sense entirely. 1090 Ver. 11. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 1091 He supposes an Arian objector to argue that St. Paul here calls one a “son,” and his “own son,” who was not of his substance, and so our Lord may be called the Son of God, and yet not be of His substance. St. Chrysostom replies (1) that even so St. Paul does not leave room to suppose a different kind of substance, as though he had called a brute his son. The objector rejoins, that still he calls one a son who was not of “his own” substance. He answers (2) that even this does not follow, since he adds, “in the faith,” and the faith of Timothy was both exactly similar to his own, and derived from it. Thus the passage affords no countenance even to the 704 1 Timothy 1:1,2