CXXX. To Bishop Timotheus.^19391939    Timotheus was Bishop of Doliche, a town of the Euphratensis. He was present at Antioch when Athanasius of Perrha was deposed, and also at Chalcedon. The letter may be dated from Nicerte in 450.

Not without purpose does the supreme Ruler allow the spirits that are against us to agitate the waves of impiety. He does so that He may try the courage of the sailors, and, while He exhibits some men’s manliness, convicts others of cowardice, stripping the mask from the faces of some who put on an appearance of piety, and proclaiming others as foremost fighters in the ranks of the truth. We have seen an instance of this in the present time. The storm rose high; some shewed their secret impiety; some abandoned the truth which they were holding, went over to the phalanx of our foes, and now, with them, are smiting the very men whom they used to call their chiefs. The witnesses of these things detest the enemy and pity the deserters, but are afraid to give aid to the victims of the attack upon the apostolic doctrines. Nay, suppose the traitors to urge them with greater insistency, they will perhaps themselves pass over to the side of the assailants, will give no quarter to their fellow-believers, but will drive against them their barbs side by side with the very men whom they accuse. They will act thus though they have been taught by the divine Scripture that a wrong done to one’s neighbour incurs punishment, while the suffering of injustice entails great and lasting rewards.

Your own piety, your zeal for the faith, and your good will to myself, have been proved by this agitation. Twice you have written me a letter in contempt of all that might deter you, and have thus shewn your brotherly affection. You have also indicated the conflict you are sustaining on behalf of the apostolic doctrines. You ask me to tell you by letter what we ought to think and preach concerning the passion of salvation. I have received your request with delight, and, not indeed to give you information but only to remind one who is beloved of God, will proceed to tell you what I have learnt from the divine Scripture and from the Fathers who have interpreted it.

Know then, most godly sir, that before all things it is necessary to observe the distinction of terms, and, in addition to this, the cause of the divine incarnation. Once let these be made clear, and there will be no ambiguity left about the passion. We will therefore first, to those who endeavour to contradict us, put this enquiry. Which of the names given to the only begotten Son of God are anterior to the incarnation, and which posterior, or rather, connected with the operation of the œconomy? They will reply that the terms anterior are, “God the Word,” “only begotten Son,” “Almighty,” and “Lord of all creation”; and that the names “Jesus Christ” belong to the incarnation. For, after the incarnation, God the Word, the only begotten Son of God is called Jesus Christ; for “Behold” He says “unto you is born this day Christ the Lord”^19401940    Luke ii. 11 and because others had been called christs, priests, kings, and prophets, lest any one should suppose Him to be like unto them, the angels conjoined the title Lord with that of Christ, in order to prove the supreme 302dignity of Him that was born. And, again, Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call His name Jesus”^19411941    Luke i. 31 “for He shall save His people from their sins.”^19421942    Matt. i. 21. Observe the confusion of quotation. Before the incarnation, however, He was never called either Christ or Jesus. For truly the divine Prophets, in their predictions of things to come, used the words, just as they prophesied about the birth, the cross, and the passion, when the events had not yet come to pass. Nevertheless, even after the incarnation He is called God the Word, Lord, Almighty, only begotten Son, Maker, and Creator. For He was not made man by mutation, but, remaining just what He was, assumed what we are, for “Being in the form of God,” to use the words of the divine Apostle “He took the form of a servant.”^19431943    Phil. ii. 6 On this account, therefore, even after the incarnation, He is called also by the titles which are anterior to the incarnation, since His nature is invariable and immutable. But when relating the passion the divine Scripture nowhere uses the term God, since that is the name of the absolute nature. No one on hearing the words “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”^19441944    John i. 1 and similar expressions, would suppose that the flesh existed before the ages, or is of one substance with the God of the universe, or was Creator of the world. Every one knows that these terms are proper to the Godhead. Nor would any one on reading the genealogy of St. Matthew suppose that David and Abraham according to nature were forefathers of God, for it is the assumed nature which is derived from them.

Since then these points are plain and indubitable even among extreme heretics, and we acknowledge both the nature which is before the ages, and that which is of recent time, so are we bound to recognise at once the passibility of the flesh, and the impassibility of the Godhead, not dividing the union nor separating the only begotten into two persons, but contemplating the properties of the natures in the one Son. In the case of soul and body, which are of natures contemporary and naturally united, we are accustomed to make this distinction, describing the soul as simple, reasonable, and immortal, but the body as complex, passible, and mortal. We do not divide the union, nor cut one man in two. Far rather, then, in the case of the Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, and of the manhood assumed of David’s seed, is it becoming to adopt a similar course, and distinctly to recognise the everlasting, eternal, simple, uncircumscribed, immortal, and invariable character of the one nature, and the recent, complex, circumscribed, and fluctuating nature of the other. We acknowledge the flesh to be now immortal and incorruptible, although before the resurrection it was susceptible of death and of passion; for how otherwise was it nailed to the tree, and committed to the tomb? And though we recognise the distinction of the natures, we are bound to worship one Son, and to acknowledge the same as Son of God and Son of man, form of God, and form of a servant, Son of David, and Lord of David, seed of Abraham, and creator of Abraham. The union causes the names to be common, but the community of names does not confound the natures. With them that are right-minded some names are plainly appropriate as to God, and others as to man; and in this way both the passible and the impassible are properly used of the Lord Christ, for in His humanity He suffered, while as God He remained impassible. If, according to the argument of the impious, it was in the Godhead that He suffered, then, I apprehend, the assumption of the flesh, was supererogatory; for suppose the divine nature to have been capable of undergoing passion, then He did not need the passible manhood. But grant that, as even their own argument contends, the Godhead was impassible, and the passion was real, let them beware of denying that which suffered, lest they deny with it the reality of the passion; for if that which suffers does not exist, then the passion is unreal. Now for any one who likes to open the quaternion^19451945    The word τετρακτύς commonly expresses the sum of the first four numbers in the Pythagorean system, i.e. 10, the root of creation; (1+2+3+4=10.) Cf. the Pythagorean oath “Ναὶ μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ ψύχᾳ παραδόντα τετρακτύν.” Its use for τετραδεῖον or τετράδιον (cf. Acts xii. 4) may indicate acceptance of the theory of the mystic and necessary number of the gospels of which early and remarkable expression is found in Irenæus (cont. Hær. iii. 11.) of the sacred evangelists, it is easy to perceive that the divine Scripture distinctly proclaims the passion of the body, and to learn from them how Joseph of Arimathæa came to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus; how Pilate ordered the body of Jesus to be delivered, how Joseph took down the body of Jesus from the tree and wrapped the body of Jesus in the linen cloth, and laid it in the new tomb. All this is described by the four evangelists with frequent mention of the body. But if our opponents adduce the words of the angel to Mary and her companions, “Come 303where the Lord lay,”^19461946    Matt. xxviii. 6 let them be referred to the passage in the Acts which states that devout men “carried Stephen to his burial”^19471947    Acts viii. 2 and observe that it was not the soul, but the body, of the victorious Stephen, to which the customary rites were paid. And to this very day, when we approach the shrines of the victorious martyrs, we commonly enquire what is the name of him who is buried in the grave, and those who are acquainted with the facts reply peradventure “Julian the martyr,” or “Romanus,” or, “Timotheus.”^19481948    There were many martyrs of the name of Julianus. Theodoret might have visited a shrine of Julianus martyred at Emesa in the reign of Numerian. A Romanus was one of the seven martyrs at Samosata in the persecution of Diocletian. Among martyred Timothei was one who suffered at Gaza in 304.

Very often it is not entire bodies that are buried, but only very small remains, yet nevertheless we speak of the body by the name that belongs to the whole man. It was in this sense that the angel called the body of the Lord, “Lord,” because it was the body of the Lord of the universe. Moreover the Lord Himself promised to give on behalf of the life of the world, not His invisible nature, but His body. “For,” He says, “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world,”^19491949    John vi. 51 and when He took the symbol of divine mysteries, He said, “This is my body which is given for you.”^19501950    Luke xxii. 19 Or according to the version of the Apostle, “broken.”^19511951    1 Cor. xi. 24 In no place where He spoke of the passion did He mention the impassible Godhead.

It is therefore before all things necessary that the question should be put to those who are endeavouring to contradict us whether they confess that the perfect manhood was assumed by God the Word, and assert the union to have been made without confusion. Once let these points be admitted, and the rest will follow in due course, and the passion will be attributed to the passible nature. I have now summed up these heads and have exceeded the limits of my letter. I have sent also what I lately wrote at the suggestion of a very godly and holy man of God, the lord—^19521952    The name is omitted.in the form of a concise instruction designed to teach the truth of the apostolic doctrines. Should I find a good copyist, I will also send your holiness what I have written in the form of a dialogue,^19531953    Garnerius identifies the “short instruction” with the composition mentioned in letter CIX. and sent to Eusebius of Ancyra; and the bishop whose name is omitted with the same Eusebius. But in his note on CIX, he thinks this composition is a part of Dial. II. It would seem from this letter that the composition in question was distinct from the Dialogues. extending the argument, and strengthening my positions, by the teaching of the Fathers. I have moreover now sent a few statements of the ancient teachers, sufficient to shew the drift of their instruction. Give me in return, most godly sir, the succour of your prayers, that I may pass through the terrible tempest and reach the quiet haven of the Saviour.