Fragmenta in epistulam i ad Timotheum

He has not placed the phrase "by command" in the other letters. Why does he place it now? Because he was about to legislate certain things and set forth ecclesiastical canons. Anticipating this, he persuades that he is about to speak by the command of God. And indeed the law contains what is to be done, and grace what is forbidden, but he named each from the predominant element, and especially because in grace are the commandments of the Savior—not laws—but left to choice. If these are not done, the one who has not done them is not absolutely condemned, as for instance the possession of virginity and anything else of that sort. But perhaps someone will say: How can you say that the one who died is God, when Paul has clearly said in what he wrote to Timothy: "The man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all"? What then? Do you not hear him saying that the Lord of glory was crucified? And that Christ is from Judah according to the flesh, he who is God over all, blessed to the ages, amen? And that Jesus Christ is yesterday and today, the same and to the ages? For he was one from both divinity and humanity, the natures existing perfectly according to their own principle, being consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us humans, the same, according to humanity. For indeed we say that the human being like us, consisting of soul and body and completing one hypostasis, is a mortal rational animal; but according to the body mortal, according to the soul rational. Yet the whole animal is called mortal and the whole is called rational, and neither are the things from which it is naturally composed confused, nor is it divided into two persons.

Thus also Emmanuel, being one from two natures and one hypostasis and one nature of the Word incarnate, neither confounded the things from which the ineffable union came to be, nor, remaining one, does he give entry to the dyad from which division arises; for what is properly one could never become two, and if it changes into two, it will certainly cease to be one. Therefore, being one, Jesus Christ, even if someone names him from a part and calls him man, is understood as God incarnate, and conversely, if one calls him God, the Word made man is signified. For this reason, knowing him to be one and indivisible, we necessarily employ the prior distinction, saying that he is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us, the same one, according to humanity, and the same one passible in flesh and impassible in divinity. According to a similar pattern, one may see that the inspired scripture proceeds: for in one place Christ is said to have been handed over by the Father, and in another it is written that he handed himself over. And Paul, writing to the Romans, says concerning the Father: "who did not spare his own son, but handed him over for all of us." But to Timothy he writes thus: "one God and mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all." And observe the refinement and precision of scripture. For where he said "own son" of God and Father, meaning Christ, and said "who did not spare his own son," indicating that he is own, being of the same essence and not alien, then he added the subordinate and economic phrase "handed him over for all of us." But where the economic preceded, he said:

The man Jesus Christ. He added the theoprepes and did not say "the one who was handed over" but the one who gave himself as a ransom for all. And writing to the Galatians he speaks thus: "But now I live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me." What then of things so artfully composed? And passing over things spoken with all the most theoprepes harmony and clinging to Jewish blindness and pettiness, the children of Nestorius offer that Christ was handed over or raised by the Father, and they attempt through these, as it seems to them, to show that he is not true God after he became truly man. Since this woman came to be in transgression, she will be saved through the children and descendants who will come from her who accomplish piety. What then, if she has no children, or if they are born but are not male? But even if they are born to some, they are born to the common race; through whom the transgression is said universally to the race of women. For if the one woman is the cause of evil for all, how is it not likely that the many, through the generation of the pious, dissolve the evil brought upon them through one woman, Christ having given the beginning of the dissolution through himself? The woman will be saved, then, from what? From transgression and disobedience; so that she must also have her own accomplishments, so that if disobedience is forgiven, other sins do not condemn her. And it is not simply said to him: she will be saved through childbearing, but so that mothers, having their salvation in their children, may raise them in all piety and righteousness.

She will be saved through childbearing. She is not judged by what she transgressed, but by becoming a mother of those who obey she will be saved, that is, according to the principle of obedience, since she has other particular achievements through which she is saved. He says this, as we have already stated, so that mothers may raise their children in piety. She will be saved from the reproach of transgression through childbearing. For the apostle says this not to reproach, but to exhort to piety and to raising children in faith. He did not say "of honor," he did not say "of attendance," but "of a good work," such as a good source, a good labor for the oversight of the churches. If someone desires the episcopate, he desires a good work. He conceded not the desire but the pursuit, so that one might prepare himself for suitability for the episcopate. Rather, the concession of desire is an exhortation to a good life, and it becomes like an approach to beneficence and the best life, so that having seemed to have permitted the desire, through what he adds he exhorts more. He conceded the desire, not the pursuit, so that one might prepare himself for suitability for the episcopate through good works and faith. Therefore, the concession of desire is rather an exhortation to a good life. And desire is like an entrance into beneficence and the best life. He enumerates as many things as must befit the bishop, which suffice rather to dissuade, so that having seemed to have permitted the desire, through what he lists about what sort the bishop must be, he dissuades more.

He gives the most instructive advice, introducing in detail the forms of blameless conduct. He does not reproach in order to strike, but the one who is moved irrationally; for a just accusation brings shame, but an irrational reproach strikes. Instead of "he was seen in the flesh, he was justified in the spirit by his conduct." For even if he was in the flesh, he did not live according to the flesh, but subjected the flesh to the spirit, opening for us a path of righteousness. Or he also says this, that when the spirit produces signs, Christ was justified according to our confession and faith. He was seen by angels. Who? The crucified Christ. He does not say this, that the angels do not see his divinity; for the Savior himself said that the angels see the face of my Father in the heavens. But when he says, "No one has ever seen God," it is clear that they have not seen him as he is, but insofar as it is possible for an angel and a human to see. Thus God is invisible to both angels and humans, but he was seen through the economy. The church on earth was justified in the spirit through confession. This is similar to "how you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged"; for when the spirit produces signs, he was justified according to our confession and the faith of believers. He who came for the salvation of humans was seen by angels; through this he showed that the divinity of the only-begotten is invisible even to angels, but he was seen by them through the

of the flesh. He was taken up in glory; upon clouds, it says. Instead of: if she, being a widow, had not rejected the children she had. If she had entertained strangers—clearly the faithful—and was enrolled in marriage. If she had washed the feet of saints. He added this to show that one must also receive them with care. It is clear that he says all these things while requiring what is within one's means; for she is not more destitute than the one who pays out two obols. That those who had promised Christ to remain thus later married. He calls "first faith" instead of "first obedience," and "first" as the foremost, highest, and most supreme for them. Teaching is the simple transmission through the words of scripture and the explanation of the meanings in the words, while discourse is that which presents the meanings. Since he said above: "Lay hands on no one quickly, nor share in others' sins," now he gives the reason why he said that. Not everyone's sins are evident; for many sin in secret. So he says: test by time; for what can escape notice today is exposed tomorrow, and some sins are evident, bringing people to judgment—for all know that they sin and judge them unworthy—while some appear later, and things that are otherwise cannot be hidden. Since, then, the situation regarding people is thus, lay hands on no one quickly, lest he be found sinning in secret and be advanced unworthily, and you share in his transgression. Likewise, good works are also evident.

Concerning good works he said only this, that they cannot be hidden—he did not say that they escape notice—but concerning evil works, some are evident, while others escape notice. Why? Because one does not quickly conceal what is good; for the one who does the truth comes to the light, while the evildoer conceals himself, wishing to escape notice. The pious and faithful master quickly established receiving the benefit and goodwill of the servant, and being kind, he becomes grateful toward him. "Those who receive the benefit" is used instead of "those who are sensitive to requiting it." Just as fire is produced from the friction of stone and wood, so impiety is generated from the assembly of the base. It is not said simply "of the one who gives life," but in order to remind that the one who gives life and grants revival to each will also give to each a reward worthy at the time of the resurrection, since he was about to enjoin the keeping of the faith. He did not place the word simply; for if he gives life to all things, clearly he will deem the pious men worthy also of resurrection in addition to common life-giving, granting revival to the bodies of the dying. So, about to enjoin that the commandment be kept unstained, he mentions the one who gives life, so that the hope of that life might urge toward piety. It should be noted that he said "giving life to all things," not that we should think he gives life to inanimate things as well. Such also is the phrase "all things came to be through him"; for it does not mean absolutely all things, but those of which the discourse speaks.

As the creatures remain, according to his grace and will, in immortality and incorruption, and require participation from him, even if they have received an immortal nature like the angels, while this belongs properly to him alone, since he is life itself and the foundation of all beings and the supply of every good.