Dialogues (Eranistes) · Part 18

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? 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" and "By Him all things were made" 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" and so on. Hear too Matthew, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David,--Son of Abraham,"--and so on. Luke too traced His genealogy to Abraham and David. 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.