Dialogues (Eranistes) · Part 19

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.

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." 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; at another He rebukes her as her Lord. 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. He calls Nazareth and Capernaum His country, and again He exclaims "Before Abraham was I am." 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, 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.

Eran.--If the proper qualities of the natures remain distinct, how does the soul together with the body crave for food?

Orth.--The soul does not crave for food. How could it when it is immortal? But the body, which derives its vital force from the soul, feels its need, and desires to receive what is lacking. So after toil it longs for rest, after waking for sleep, and so with the rest of its desires. So forthwith after its dissolution, since it has no longer its vital energy, it does not even crave for what is lacking, and, ceasing to receive it, it undergoes corruption.

Eran.--You see that to thirst and to hunger and similar appetites belong to the soul.

Orth.--Did these belong to the soul it would suffer hunger and thirst, and the similar wants, even after its release from the body.

Eran.--What then do you say to be proper to the soul?

Orth.--The reasonable, the absolute, the immortal, the invisible.

Eran.--And what of the body?

Orth.--The complex, the visible, the mortal.

Eran.--And we say that man is composed of these?

Orth.--Yes.

Eran.--Then we define man as a mortal reasonable being.