Eran.--He put up with this style of address before the resurrection in condescension to the weakness of them that had not yet properly believed. But after the resurrection these names are needless.
Orth.--Where shall we rank the blessed Paul? among the perfect or the imperfect?
Eran.--It is wrong to joke about serious things.
Orth.--It is wrong to make light of the reading of the divine oracles.
Eran.--And who is such a wretch as to despise his own salvation?
Orth.--Answer my question, and then you will learn your ignorance.
Eran.--What question?
Orth.--Where are we to rank the divine Apostle?
Eran.--Plainly among the most perfect, and one of the perfect teachers.
Orth.--And when did he begin his teaching?
Eran.--After the ascension of the Saviour, the coming of the Spirit, and the stoning of the victorious Stephen.
Orth.--Paul, at the very end of his life, when writing his last letter to his disciple Timothy, and in giving him, as it were, his paternal inheritance by will, added "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." [1238] Then he went on to mention his sufferings on behalf of the gospel, and thus showed its truth saying, "Wherein I suffer trouble as an evil doer even unto bonds." [1239]
It were easy for me to adduce many similar testimonies, but I have judged it needless to do so.
Eran.--You promised to prove that the Lord supplied the lacking instruction to them that needed, and you have shown that He discoursed about His own Godhead to the Pharisees, and to the rest of the Jews. But that He gave also His instruction about the flesh you have not shewn.
Orth.--It would have been quite superfluous to have discoursed about the flesh which was before their eyes, for He was plainly seen eating and drinking and toiling and sleeping. Furthermore, to omit the many and various events before the passion, after His resurrection He proved to His disbelieving disciples not His Godhead but His manhood; for He said, "Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself. Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." [1240]
Now I have fulfilled my promise, for we have proved the giving of instruction about the Godhead to them that were ignorant of the Godhead, and about the resurrection of the flesh to them that denied this latter. Cease therefore from contending, and confess the two natures of the Saviour.
Eran.--There were two before the union, but, after combining, they made one nature.
Orth.--When do you say that the union was effected?
Eran.--I say at the exact moment of the conception.
Orth.--And do you deny that the divine Word existed before the conception?
Eran.--I say that He was before the ages.
Orth.--And that the flesh was co-existent with Him?
Eran.--By no means.
Orth.--But was formed, after the salutation of the angel, of the Holy Ghost?
Eran.--So I say.
Orth.--Therefore before the union there were not two natures but only one. For if the Godhead pre-existed, but the manhood was not co-existent, being formed after the angelic salutation, and the union being coincident with the formation, then before the union there was one nature, that which exists always and existed before the ages. Now let us again consider this point. Do you understand the making of flesh or becoming man to be anything other than the union?
Eran.--No.
Orth.--For when He took flesh He was made flesh.
Eran.--Plainly.
Orth.--And the union coincides with the taking flesh.
Eran.--So I say.
Orth.--So before the making man there was one nature. For if both union and making man are identical, and He was made man by taking man's nature, and the form of God took the form of a servant, then before the union the divine nature was one.
Eran.--And how are the union and the making man identical?
Orth.--A moment ago you confessed that there is no distinction between these terms.
Eran.--You led me astray by your arguments.
Orth.--Then, if you like, let us go over the same ground again.
Eran.--We had better so do.
Orth.--Is there a distinction between the incarnation and the union, according to the nature of the transaction?
Eran.--Certainly; a very great distinction.
Orth.--Explain fully the character of this distinction.
Eran.--Even the sense of the terms shows the distinction, for the word "incarnation" shows the taking of the flesh, while the word "union" indicates the combination of distinct things.
Orth.--Do you represent the incarnation to be anterior to the union?
Eran.--By no means.
Orth.--You say that the union took place in the conception?
Eran.--I do.
Orth.--Therefore if not even the least moment of time intervened between the taking of flesh and the union, and the assumed nature did not precede the assumption and the union, then incarnation and union signify one and the same thing, and so before the union and incarnation there was one nature, while after the incarnation we speak properly of two, of that which took and of that which was taken.
Eran.--I say that Christ was of two natures, but I deny two natures.
Orth.--Explain to us then in what sense you understand the expression "of two natures;" like gilded silver? like the composition of electron? [1241] like the solder made of lead and tin?
Eran.--I deny that the union is like any of these; it is ineffable, and passes all understanding.
Orth.--I too confess that the manner of the union cannot be comprehended. But I have at all events been instructed by the divine Scripture that each nature remains unimpaired after the union.
Eran.--And where is this taught in the divine Scripture?
Orth.--It is all full of this teaching.
Eran.--Give proof of what you assert.
Orth.--Do you not acknowledge the properties of each nature?
Eran.--No: not, that is, after the union.
Orth.--Let us then learn this very point from the divine Scripture.
Eran.--I am ready to obey the divine Scripture.
Orth.--When, then, you hear the divine John exclaiming "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" [1242] and "By Him all things were made" [1243] and the rest of the parallel passages, do you affirm that the flesh, or the divine Word, begotten before the ages of the Father, was in the beginning with God, and was by nature God, and made all things?
Eran.--I say that these things belong to God the Word. But I do not separate Him from the flesh made one with Him.
Orth.--Neither do we separate the flesh from God the Word, nor do we make the union a confusion.
Eran.--I recognise one nature after the union.
Orth.--When did the Evangelists write the gospel? Was it before the union, or a very long time after the union?
Eran.--Plainly after the union, the nativity, the miracles, the passion, the resurrection, the taking up into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost.
Orth.--Hear then John saying "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made" [1244] and so on. Hear too Matthew, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David,--Son of Abraham,"--and so on. [1245] Luke too traced His genealogy to Abraham and David. [1246] Now make the former and the latter quotation fit one nature. You will find it impossible, for existence in the beginning, and descent from Abraham,--the making of all things, and derivation from a created forefather, are inconsistent.
Eran.--By thus arguing you divide the only begotten son into two Persons.
Orth.--One Son of God I both know and adore, the Lord Jesus Christ; but I have been taught the difference between His Godhead and his manhood. You, however, who say that there is only one nature after the union, do you make this agree with the introductions of the Evangelists.
Eran.--You appear to assume the proposition to be hard, nay impossible. Be it, I beg, short and easy;--only solve our question.
Orth.--Both qualities are proper to the Lord Christ,--existence from the beginning, and generation, according to the flesh, from Abraham and David.
Eran.--You laid down the law that after the union it is not right to speak of one nature. Take heed lest in mentioning the flesh you transgress your own law.
Orth.--Even without mentioning the flesh it is quite easy to explain the point in question, for I am applying both to the Saviour Christ.
Eran.--I too assert that both these qualities belong to the Lord Christ.
Orth.--Yes; but you do so in contemplation of two natures in Him, and applying to each its own properties. But if the Christ is one nature, how is it possible to attribute to it properties which are inconsistent with one another? For to have derived origin from Abraham and David, and still more to have been born many generations after David, is inconsistent with existence in the beginning. Again to have sprung from created beings is inconsistent with being Creator of all things; to have had human fathers with existence derived from God. In short the new is inconsistent with the eternal.
Let us also look at the matter in this way. Do we say that the divine Word is Creator of the Universe?
Eran.--So we have learnt to believe from the divine Scriptures.
Orth.--And how many days after the creation of heaven and earth are we told that Adam was formed?
Eran.--On the sixth day.
Orth.--And from Adam to Abraham how many generations went by?
Eran.--I think twenty.
Orth.--And from Abraham to Christ our Saviour how many generations are reckoned by the Evangelist Matthew.
Eran.--Forty-two. [1247]
Orth.--If then the Lord Christ is one nature how can He be Creator of all things visible and invisible and, at the same time, after so many generations, have been formed by the Holy Ghost in a virgin's womb? And how could He be at one and the same time Creator of Adam and Son of Adam's descendants?
Eran.--I have already said that both these properties are appropriate to Him as God made flesh, for I recognise one nature made flesh of the Word.
Orth.--Nor yet, my good sir, do we say that two natures of the divine Word were made flesh, for we know that the nature of the divine Word is one, but we have been taught that the flesh of which He availed Himself when He was incarnate is of another nature, and here I think that you too agree with me. Tell me now; after what manner do you say that the making flesh took place?
Eran.--I know not the manner, but I believe that He was made flesh.
Orth.--You make a pretext of your ignorance unfairly, and after the fashion of the Pharisees. For they when they beheld the force of the Lord's enquiry, and suspecting that they were on the point of conviction, uttered their reply "We do not know." [1248] But I proclaim quite openly that the divine incarnation is without change. For if by any variation or change He was made flesh, then after the change all that is divine in His names and in His deeds is quite inappropriate to Him.
Eran.--We have agreed again and again that God the Word is immutable.
Orth.--He was made flesh by taking flesh.
Eran.--Yes.
Orth.--The nature of God the Word made flesh is different from that of the flesh, by assumption of which the nature of the divine Word was made flesh and became man.
Eran.--Agreed.
Orth.--Was He then changed into flesh?
Eran.--Certainly not.
Orth.--If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten--the Lord Christ--the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; [1249] at another He rebukes her as her Lord. [1250] At one time He finds no fault with them that style Him Son of David; at another He teaches the ignorant that He is not only David's Son but also David's Lord. [1251] He calls Nazareth and Capernaum His country, [1252] and again He exclaims "Before Abraham was I am." [1253] You will find the divine Scripture full of similar passages, and they all point not to one nature but to two.
Eran.--He who contemplates two natures in the Christ divides the one only begotten into two sons.
Orth.--Yes; and he who says Paul is made up of soul and body makes two Pauls out of one.
Eran.--The analogy does not hold good.
Orth.--I know it does not, [1254] for here the union is a natural union of parts that are coæval, created, and fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will, of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.