the ‘Coessential®,’ and blaspheming of theirown accord? against the Holy Spirit, in affirming that It is a creature, and came into being as a secured the ear of the new Emperor before the Arian deputation from Alexandria could reach him. The letter before us (Migne xxvi. 813) was drawn up at Antioch, as it would seem in response to arequest from Jovian on a doctrinal statement. The short letter of Jovian prefixed to the Epistle is a formal authorisation for the bishop’s return to his see, with which, taught by his experience under Julian, he was careful toarm himself. The documents given as an appendix are notes made at Antioch, and carefully preserved, of the reception given by Jovian to the Arian deputation. They are probably the ‘exemplaria’ referred to in Hist. Aceph. § 14.(see note there). They are characteristic, and interesting in many ways; among others, as shewing how accurately Jovian had been primed by Athanasius with the leading facts of his case.
2 Proy. xxi.1. The letter as given by Theodoret adds, ‘and you will peacefully eujoy a long reign:’ probably the words were erased from our text on account of Jovian’s premature death. If genuine, they stamp the prediction sz#g7. p. 487, as, at least in part, a vaticinium ex eventu.
3 Very probably orally, see Prolegg. uz sipr.
6 This reference is explained above, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 9 sub jin.
7 ’Avrot, i.e. adding this, as a feature of their own, to the Arianism they shared with their predecessors. Acacius seems to be specially referred to; he had just signed the Homousios, with explanations; cf. Pseudo-Ath. de Hypocr. Metat. et Eused, oa ; VEITERS OF ‘thing made by the Son, we hasten as of bounden duty, in view of the injury resulting to the people from such blasphemy, to hand to your ‘Piety the faith confessed at Nicaea; in order ‘that thy religiousness may know what has been written with all accuracy, and how far wrong they are who teach contrary to it.
2. For know, most religious Augustus, that these things have been preached from time immemorial, and this faith the Fathers who met at Niczea confessed; and to it have assented all the Churches in every quarter, both those in Spain, and Britain, and the Gauls, and all Italy and Dalmatia, Dacia and Meesia, Macedonia and all Greece, and in all Africa and Sardinia, and Cyprus and Crete, as well as Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, and those in Egypt and the Libyas, Pontus and Cappadocia, and those near at hand to us%, and the Churches in the East, except a few who hold with Arius. For of all those above mentioned we have both learnt the opinion by experience, and we have letters. And you know, O most religious Augustus, that even if some few speak against this faith, they cannot create a demurrer 9, inasmuch as the whole world 7° holds the Apostolic faith. For they having long been infected by the Arian heresy, now the more obstinately oppose the truth. And that your Piety may know, although you know already, yet we hasten to append the faith confessed by the Bishops at Nica. The faith then confessed at Nicea by the Fathers is as follows:— 4. By this faith, Augustus, all must needs abide, as Divine and Apostolic, and none must unsettle it by plausibilities, and contentions about words, which is what the Arian madmen have done, saying that the Son of God is from nought, and that once there was when He was not, and that He is created, and made and changeable. For for this cause, as we said before, the Synod at Niczea anathematised such heresy, but confessed the faith of the truth. For they have not merely said that the Son is like?? the Father, lest He should be believed merely like God, instead of Very God from God; but they wrote ‘ Coessential,’ which was peculiar to a genuine and true Son, truly and naturally from the Father. Nor yet did they make the Holy Spirit alien from the 8 This points to Antioch as the place of composition, which is fairly certain on other grounds.
9 mpoxpima, a ‘prejudicium’ or Zyzea facie objection in their favour.
10 A pardonable exaggeration, but its very use is significant; cf, de Syx. 33, and Bright’s note, Later Treatises, p.20.
1° Ut supr. p. 75; the other authorities for the text of the creed in Hahn § 73, note. Cf. Hort, p. 54 sgg. The only important yariant here not noticed by Hort is rév eva kvpiov.
‘12 See above, pp. 83 and 84, note 4, also Prolegg. ii. § 8 (2) b.
Fathersand the Son, but rather glorified Him together with the Father and the Son, in the one faith of the Holy Triad, because there 1s in the Holy Triad also one Godhead.
APPENDIX TO LETTER LVI.
Petition made at Antioch to Jovian the Emperor on the part of Luciust and Bernicianus, and certain other Arians against Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
First Petition which they made as the Emperor was departing to Camp, at the Roman Gate.
May it please your Might and your Majesty and your Piety to hear us. Zhe Emperor: ‘Who are you and where from?’ Zhe Arians: ‘Christians, my Lord.’ Emperor: ‘Where from, and from what city?’ Zhe Arians: ‘Alexandria.’—Z mperor: ‘ What do you want?’ The Arians: ‘May it please your Might and your Majesty, give us a Bishop.’ Lmperor: ‘I ordered the former one, whom you had before, Athanasius, to occupy the See.’ Zhe Arians: ‘May it please your Might: he has been many years both in banishment, and under accusation.’ Suddenly a soldier answered in indignation: ‘May it please your Majesty, enquire of them who they are and where from, for these are the leavings and refuse of Cappadocia, the remains of that unholy George who desolated the city and the world.’ The Emperor on hearing this set spurs to his horse, and departed to the Camp.
Second Petition of the Arians.
“We have accusations and clear proofs against Athanasius, in that ten and twenty years ago he was deprived by the ever memorable Constantine and Constantius, and incurred banishment under the most religious and philosophical and blessed Julian.’ Lmgeror: ‘ Accusations ten, twenty, and thirty years old are now obsolete. Don’t speak to me about Athanasius, for I know why he was accused, and how he was banished.’
Third Petition of the Arians.
‘And now again, we have certain other accusations against Athanasius.’ “mferor: ‘The rights of the case will not appear by means of crowded numbers, and clamours, but choose two from yourselves, and from the party of the majority other two, for I cannot answer each one severally.’ Those from the majority: ‘These are the leavings from the unholy George, who desolated our province, and who would not allow a counsellor to dwell in the cities.” Zhe Arians: ‘May it please you, any one you will except Athanasius.’ Emperor: ‘I told you that the case of Athanasius was already settled,’ (and then angrily) ‘feri, feri?!’ Zhe Arians: ‘May it please you, if you send Athanasius, our city is ruined, and no one assembles with him.’ Aperor: ‘Yet I took pains, and ascertained that he holds right opinions and is orthodox, and teaches aright.’ Zhe Arzans: ‘ With his mouth he utters what is right, but in his soul he harbours guile.” mperor: ‘That will do, you have testified of him, that he utters what is right and teaches aright, but if he teaches and speaks aright with his tongue, but harbours evil thoughts in his soul, it concerns him before God. For we are men, and hear what is said; but what is in the heart God knows.’ Zhe Arians; ‘ Authorise our holding communion together.’ Lemperor: “Why, who prevents you?’ Zhe Arians: ‘May it please you, he proclaims us as sectarians and dogmatisers.’ Lmfperor: ‘It is his duty, and that of those who teach aright.” Zhe Arians: ‘May it please your Might; we cannot bear this man, and he has taken Oniginally Arian deacon (p.70), and presently bishop of the Arians at Alexandria; see 7st. Aceph. p. 499, and Prolegg. ch. ii. § ro. 2 i.e. strike, strike! probably a direction to the guard to silence the petitioners, BVilA Villy AD ORSISIUM.
away the lands of the Churches.’ Amperor: ‘Oh then, it is on account of property you are come here, and not on account of the faith ’—then he added—‘ go away, and keep the peace.’ Once more he added to the Arians: ‘Go away to the Church, to-morrow you have a Communion, and after the dismissal, there are Bishops here, and here is Nemesinus3, each one of you shall sign as he believes: Athanasius is here too; whoeyer does not know the word of faith, let him learn from Athanasius. You have to-morrow and the day after, for I am going out to Camp.’ And a certain lawyer4 belonging to the Cynics petitioned the Emperor: ‘May it please your Majesty, on account of Bishop Athanasius, the Receiver-General5 seized my houses,’ Emperor: ‘If the Receiver-General seized your houses what has that to do with Athanasius?’ Another lawyer, Patalas, said: ‘I have a complaint against Athanasius.’ Limperor: ‘And what have you to do with Christians, being a heathen?’ But certain of the majority of them of Antioch took Lucius and brought him to the Emperor, saying: ‘May it please your Might and your Majesty, look whom they wanted to make a Bishop!’
Another petition made at the porch of the palace® on the part of Lucius: —‘ May it please your Might, listen to me.’ The Emperor stopped and said: ‘Iask you, Lucius, how did you come here, by sea or by land?’ Lucius: ‘Ma it please you, by sea.” “mferor: ‘Well, Lucius, may the God of the world, and the radiant sun, and moon, be angry with those men that made the voyage with you, for not casting you into the sea; and may that ship never again have fair winds, nor find a haven with her passengers when in a storm.’ And through Euzoius7 the unbelieving Arians asked Probatius and his fellows, the successors of Eusebius® and Bardio as eunuchs, that they might be granted an audience. The Emperor learned this, and tortured the eunuchs and said: ‘If any one wants to make a petition against Christians let this be his fate.’ And so the Emperor dismissed them, ieee ome bv De First Letter to Orsistus*.
‘ AND having spent a few days there, he saith to the Abbat Theodorus:. Since the Passover is nigh, visit the brethren after your manner; and as the Lord shall dispose me, I will do. And he embraced him, and sent him away, having written a letter by him to the Abbat Orsisius and the brethren, to the following effect ’— I have seen your fellow-worker and father of the brethren, Theodorus, and in him the master of our father Pachomius. And I rejoiced to see the sons of the Church, and they made me glad by their presence, But the Lord is their recompenser. And as Theodorus was about to leave me for you, he said to me: Rememberme. And I said to him: If 1 3 Possibly an imperial notary or registrar, see D.C.B. iv. 15.
4 SxodagtiKkos. 5 KalodrKkos.
6 In the New Town, on the island of the Orontes.
7 Originally one of the Arian clergy of Alexandria (s1r. p.70), now Arian bishop of Antioch. 8 Hist. Ar. 35, &c.
I Orsisius was chosen abbat of Tabenne in Upper Egypt, A.D. 347, in succession to Petronius. Presently, however, he resigned in favour of Theodorus, the favourite disciple of Pachomius. The two letters which follow are from the life of Pachomius, §§ 92, 96, Acta SS. for May, vol. iii, (Also in Migne xxvi. 977-) They belong, the first to the year 363 A.D., not long before the death of Julian (D.C.B. i. 199a), the second to the summer of the following year, 364 (7/7. note 3). Both letters are characteristic; the second a moving and simple consolation to mourners.
forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten, yea let my tongue cleave to my throat if I remember thee not?.
(Rae Veet Second Letter to Orsistus, ‘But the most holy Archbishop Athanasius, when he heard about our father Theodorus, was grieved, and sent this letter to the Abbat Orsisius and the brethren to console them for his decease, as follows:’— Athanasius to Orsisius, Abbat, father of monks, and to all with him who practise the solitary life, and are settled in faith in God, beloved brethren most longed for in the Lord, greeting.
I have heard about the decease of the blessed Theodorus 3, and the tidings caused me great anxiety, knowing as I did his value to you. Now if it had not been Theodorus, I should have used many words to you, with tears, considering what follows after death. But since it is Theodorus whom you and I have known, what need I say in my letter save ‘ Blessed is’ Theodorus, ‘who hath not walked in the council of the ungodly+?’ Butif ‘he is blessed that feareth the Lords,’ we may now confidently call him blessed, having the firm assurance that he has reached as it were a haven, and has a life without care. Would that the same had also befallen each one of us; would that each of us in his running might thus arrive; would that each of us, on his voyage, might moor his own bark there in the stormless haven, so that, at rest with the fathers, he might say, ‘here will I dwell, for I have a delight therein®.’ Wherefore, brethren beloved and most longed-for, weep not for ‘Theodorus, for he ‘is not dead, but sleepeth?.’
2 Ps, cxxxvil. 6, LXX.
3 On Theodore see Amélineau, S. Pakiédme, &c., pp. xcv. —xcvii. The death of Theodore is fixed for April 27, 364, on the following grounds. He died (Vit. Pachom. 95) of a short and sudden illness, on Pachon 2 (April 27), and shortly after Easter, Moreover his death took place 18 years after that of Pachomius. But Ammon (as he tells us himself, swf7. p. 487) became a Christian and a monk ‘a year and more’ after March 15, 351 (proclamation of Gallus as Czsar), and six years after the death of Pachomius.
(Ep. Amm. 4, 5.) This dates the latter event a little dess thai five years before March 15, 351. _ But Pachomius died, according to his Zz/e, on Pachon 14 (May 9), of an epidemic which attacked the community after Easter. ‘Chis double condition is satisfied by the year 346, in which Waster fell on Pharm. 4, forty days before the day of Pachomius’ decease. If then Pachomius died in 346, Theodore died in 364. Against this result we have(z) the fact that in that year April 27 was twenty-three days after Easter; but the Easter gathering of the monks would last over April 11 (Low Sunday), and the death of Theodore would come suddenly enough a fortnight later; (2) the fragment (swv. p. 551) probably belonging to Letter 39, which a coptic life of Theodore makes him state that he received before his last Easter. But this cannot be correct; for all known data forbid us to place the death of Theodore as late as 367. (Tillemont’s tentative opinion, vii. 691, 76r, is bound up with Aan obsolete chronology of the exiles of Athan.) On the other hand Theodore cannot have died as early as 363. Athanasius was with him (s#r. p. 487) in the summer of that year, and when our present letter was written Ath. had clearly kept Easter at home, which suits 364, but excludes 363. 4 Ps. i. 1.
5 Ps cxii. 1. 6 Ib, cxxxii, 14. 7 Matt. ix 24, Let none weep when he remembers him, but imitate his life. For one must not grieve over one that is gone to the place where grief is not. This I write to you all in common; but especially to you, beloved and most longed-for Orsisius, in order that, now that he is fallen asleep, you may take up the whole charge, and take his place among the brethren. For while he survived, you two were as one, and when one was away, the work of both was carried on: and when both were there you were as one, discoursing to the beloved ones what made for their good. Thus act, then, and so doing write and tell me of the safety of yourself and of the brotherhood. And I exhort you all to pray together that the Lord may grant further peace to the Churches. For we now kept festival with joy, both Easter and Pentecost, and we rejoice in the benefits of the Lord. I write to you all. Greet all who fear the Lord. Those with me greet you. I pray that you may be well in the Lord, beloved and much-longed-for brethren.
LETTER LIX. To Epictetus.
To my Lord, beloved brother, and mostlonged-for fellow-minister Epictetus *, Athanasius greeting in the Lord. I thought that all vain talk of all heretics, many as they may be, had been stopped by the Synod which was held at Niczea. For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. For this reason at the present time, at the assembling of diverse synods, both in t Of Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, nothing else is known. This letter reflects the uncertainty, which attended the victory of the Nicene Creed, as to the relation of the Historical Christ to the Eternal Son. The questions raised at Corinth were those which troubled the Eastern Church generally, and which came to a head in the system of Apollinarius, whose distinctive tenet, however, is not mentioned in this letter. Persons anxious to place the Nicene doctrine in intelligible connection with the matter of the Gospel Narrative had debated the question before Epictetus, and with deference to his ruling. Their tentative solutions (§ 2 7z/. fall into two classes, both of which, in attempting to solve the problem, proceed upon the assumption incidentally combated by Athan., that the Manhood of Christ was a Hypostasis or Person, which if invested with Divine attributes, would introduce a fourth hypostatic entity into the Trinity. To avoid this, one class identified the Logos and the “Av@pwzos, either by assuming that the Logos was changed into flesh, or that the flesh was itself nonnatural and of the Divine Essence. ‘The other class excluded the Man Jesus from the Trinity, explaining His relation to God on the lines of Photinus or the later Nestorians. Both alternatives are already glanced at (sugr. p. 485) by the Council of 362.
In the present case, both classes of suggestions seem to have been made tentatively and dona fide (§ 12). The letter must have been written before the two books against Apollinarianism, which ’ (if genuine) fall about 372. Its more exact date depends on the identification of the Councils referred to in § 1 (viv YEvopLevav), and is therefore very doubtful. At any rate Apollinarianism proper is not alluded to, and Apollinarius is said to have expressed to Serapion of Thmuis his high opinion of our Letter (see Letter 54, note r). It was much quoted in the Christological controversies of the next 80 years, e.g. by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, by Theodoret, Cyril, and Leo the Great (see Migne xxvi. 1050; Bright, Later Treatises, pp. 43 sg., and D.C.B. s.v. Epicretus and APOLEINARIS the younger).
Gaul and Spain, and great Rome?, all who came together, as though moved by one spirit, unanimously anathematised those who still were secretly holding with Arius, namely Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and Gaius of Pannonia. And they wrote everywhere, that, whereas the above-said were devising the names of synods to cite on their side, no synod should be cited in the Catholic Church save only that which was held at Nicza, which was a monument of victory over all heresy, but especially the Arian, which was the main reason of the synod assembling when it did. How then, after all. this, are some attempting to raise doubts or questions? If they belong to the Arians, this is not to be wondered at, that they find fault with what was drawn up against themselves, just as the Gentiles when they hear that ‘the idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands 3,’ think the doctrine of the divine Cross folly. But if those who desire to reopen everything by raising questions belong to those who think they believe aright, and love what the fathers have declared, they are simply doing what the prophet describes, giving their neighbour turbid confusion to drink 4, and fighting about words to no good purpose, save to the subversion of the simple.
2. I write this after reading the memoranda submitted by your piety, which I could wish had not been written at all, so that not even any record of these things should go down to posterity. For who ever yet heard the like? Who ever taught or learned it? For ‘from Sion shall come forth the law of God, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem5;’ but whence came forth this? What lower region has vomited the statement that the Body born of Mary is coessential with the Godhead of the Word? or that the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body, and altered from its own nature? Or who ever heard in a Church, or even from Christians, that the Lord wore a body putatively, not in nature; or who ever went so far in impiety as to say and hold, that this Godhead, which is coessential with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect instead of perfect; and that what hung upon the tree was not the body, but the very creative Essence and Wisdom? Or who that hears that the Word transformed for Himself a passible body, not of Mary, but of His own Essence, could call him who said this a Christian? Or who devised this abominable impiety, for it to enter even his imagina- 2 Are these those referred to in the letter to Ruf., and held a.p. 362-3, or are they to be identified with one or other of those held ‘ under Damasus (see Introd. to ad Afros.)? 3: Psiexvey4s 4 Hab. ii, r5, LXX. 5 Isa, ii. 3; Mic. iv. 2, s LIX. ADP EPICTETUM.
LIX. ADP EPICTETUM.
tion, and for him to say that to pronounce the | Lord’s Body to be of Mary is to hold a Tetrad instead of a Triad in the Godhead? Those who think thus, saying that the Body of the Saviour which He put on from Mary, is of the Essence of the Triad. Or whence again have certain vomited an impiety as great as those already mentioned; saying namely, that the body is not newer than the Godhead of the Word, but was coeternal with it always, since it was compounded of the Essence of Wisdom. Or how did men called Christians venture even to doubt whether the Lord, Who proceeded from Mary, while Son of God by Essence and Nature, is of the seed of David according to the flesh °, and of the flesh of the Holy Mary? Or who have been so venturesome as to say that Christ Who suffered in the flesh and was crucified is not Lord, Saviour, God, and Son of the Father7? Or how can they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word has descended upon a holy man as upon one of the prophets, and has not Himself become man, taking the body from Mary; but that Christ is one person, while the Word of God, Who before Mary and before the ages was Son of the Father, isanother? Or how can they be Christians who say that the Son is one, and the Word of God another?
3. Such were the contents of the memoranda; diverse statements, but one in their sense and in their meaning; tending to impiety. It was for these things that men who make their boast in the confession of the fathers drawn up at Niczea were disputing and quarrelling with one another. But I marvel that your piety suffered it, and that you did not stop those who said such things, and propound to them the right faith, so that upon hearing it they might hold their peace, or if they opposed it might be counted as heretics. For the statements are not fit for Christians to make or to hear, on the contrary they are in every way alien from the Apostolic teaching. For this reason, as I said above, I have caused what they say to be baldly inserted in my letter, so that one who merely hears may perceive the shame and impiety therein contained. And although it would be right to denounce and expose in full the folly of those who have had such ideas, yet it would be a good thing to close my letter here and write no more. For what is so manifestly shewn to be evil, it is not necessary to waste time in exposing further, lest contentious persons think the matter doubtful. It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content 7 This opinion seems to belong to that next to be mentioned, | the two, however, are separately dealt with below, cc. 1o and rr.
with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the ‘inventors of evil things ®’ make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices.
4. Whence did it occur to you, sirs, to say that the Body is of one Essence with the Godhead of the Word? For it is well to begin at this point, in order that by shewing this opinion to be unsound, all the others too may be proved to be the same. Now from the divine Scriptures we discover nothing of the kind. For they say that God came in a human body. But the fathers who also assembled at Niczea say that, not the body, but the Son Himself is coessential with the Father, and that while He is of the Essence of the Father, the body, as they admitted according to the Scriptures, is of Mary. Either then deny the Synod of Niczea, and as heretics bring in your doctrine from the side; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote. For here again you may see how monstrous it is: If the Word is coessential with the body which is of earthly. nature, while the Word is, by your own confession, coessential with the Father, it will follow that even the Father Himselt is coessential with the body produced from the earth. And why any longer blame the Arians for calling the Son a creature, when you go off to another form of impiety, saying that the Word was changed into flesh and bones and hair and muscles and all the body, and was altered from its own nature? For it is time for you to say openly that He was born of earth; for from earth is the nature of the ° bones and of all the body. What then is this great folly of yours, that you fight even with one another? For in saying that the Word is coessential with the Body, you distinguish the one from the other 9, while in saying that He has been changed into flesh, you imagine a change of the Word Himself. And who will tolerate you any longer if you so much as utter these opinions? For you have gone further in impiety than any heresy. For if the Word is coessential with the Body, the commemoration and the work of Mary are superfluous*°, inasmuch as the body could have existed before Mary, just as the Word also is eternal: if, that is, it is as you say coessential with the Body. Or what need was there even of the Word coming among us, to put on what was coessential with Himself, 9 ETepov Tpds ETEpOY GNMatvcT..
B72 PETTERS On or to change His own nature and become a body? For the Deity does not take hold * of itself, so as to put on what is of its own Essence, any more than the Word sinned, in that it ransoms the sins of others, in order that changing into a body it should offer itself a sacrifice for itself, and ransom itself.
5. But this is not so, far be the thought. For he ‘takes hold of the seed of Abraham ™,’ as the apostle said; whence it behoved Him to be made like His brethren in all things, and to take a Body like us. This is why Mary is truly presupposed, in order that He may take it from her, and offer it for us as His own. And this Isaiah pointed to in his prophecy, in the words: ‘ Behold the Virgin ",’ while Gabriel is sent to her—not simply to a virgin, but ‘to a virgin betrothed to a man*3,’ in order that by means of the betrothed man he might shew that Mary was really a human being. And for this reason Scripture also mentions her bringing forth, and tells of her wrapping Him in swaddling clothes; and therefore, too, the paps which He sucked were called blessed%. And He was offered as a sacrifice, in that He Who was born had opened the womb?. Now all these things are proofs that the Virgin brought forth, And Gabriel preached the Gospel to her without uncertainty, saying not merely ‘what is born in thee,’ lest the body should be thought to be extraneously induced upon her, but ‘of thee,’ that what was born might be believed to be naturally from her, inasmuch as Nature clearly shews that it is impossible for a virgin to produce milk unless she has brought forth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in swaddling clothes unless it has previously been naturally brought forth. This is the meaning of His being circumcised on the eighth day: of Symeon taking Him in his arms, of His becoming a young child, and growing when He was twelve years old, and of His coming to His thirtieth year. For it was not, as some suppose, the very Essence of the Word that was changed, and was circumcised, because it is incapable of alteration or change. For the Saviour Himself says, ‘ Behold, behold, it is I, and I change not3,’ while Paul writes: ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever4.’ But in the Body which was circumcised, and carried, and ate and drank, and was weary, and was nailed on the tree and suffered, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God. ‘This Body it was that