Dialogues (Eranistes) · Part 42

Eran.--I follow the Apostle who calls the crucified "Lord of glory."

Orth.--I follow too, and believe that He was "Lord of glory." For the body which was nailed to the wood was not that of any common man but of the Lord of glory. But we must acknowledge that the union makes the names common. Once more: do you say that the flesh of the Lord came down from heaven?

Eran.--Of course not.

Orth.--But was formed in the Virgin's womb?

Eran.--Yes.

Orth.--How, then, does the Lord say "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before," and again "No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?"

Eran.--He is speaking not of the flesh, but of the Godhead.

Orth.--Yes; but the Godhead is of the God and Father. How then does He call him Son of man?

Eran.--The peculiar properties of the natures are shared by the person, for on account of the union the same being is both Son of man and Son of God, everlasting and of time, Son of David and Lord of David, and so on with the rest.

Orth.--Very right. But it is also important to recognise the fact that no confusion of natures results from both having one name. Wherefore we are endeavouring to distinguish how the same being is Son of God and also Son of man, and how He is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," and by the reverent distinction of terms we find that the contradictions are in agreement.

Eran.--You are right.

Orth.--You say that the divine nature came down from heaven and that in consequence of the union it was called the Son of man. Thus it behoves us to say that the flesh was nailed to the tree, but to hold that the divine nature even on the cross and in the tomb was inseparable from this flesh, though from it it derived no sense of suffering, since the divine nature is naturally incapable of undergoing both suffering and death and its substance is immortal and impassible. It is in this sense that the crucified is styled Lord of Glory, by attribution of the title of the impassible nature to the passible, since, as we know, a body is described as belonging to this latter.

Now let us examine the matter thus. The words of the divine Apostle are "Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." They crucified the nature which they knew, not that of which they were wholly ignorant: had they known that of which they were ignorant they would not have crucified that which they knew: they crucified the human because they were ignorant of the divine. Have you forgotten their own words. "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." These words are a plain proof that they recognised the nature they saw, while of the invisible they were wholly ignorant: had they known that nature they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Eran.--That is very probable, but the exposition of the faith laid down by the Fathers in council at Nicæa says that the only begotten Himself, very God, of one substance with the Father, suffered and was crucified.

Orth.--You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and again.

Eran.--What do you mean?

Orth.--I mean that after the union the holy Scripture applies to one person terms both of exaltation and of humiliation. But possibly you are also ignorant that the illustrious Fathers first mentioned His taking flesh and being made man, and then afterwards added that He suffered and was crucified, and thus spoke of the passion after they had set forth the nature capable of passion.

Eran.--The Fathers said that the Son of God, Light of Light, of the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.

Orth.--I have observed more than once that both the Divine and the human are ascribed to the one Person. It is in accordance with this position that the thrice blessed Fathers, after teaching how we should believe in the Father, and then passing on to the person of the Son, did not immediately add "and in the Son of God," although it would have very naturally followed that after defining what touches God the Father they should straightway have introduced the name of Son. But their object was to give us at one and the same time instruction on the theology and on the oeconomy, lest there should be supposed to be any distinction between the Person of the Godhead and the Person of the Manhood. On this account they added to their statement concerning the Father that we must believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now after the incarnation God the Word is called Christ, for this name includes alike all that is proper to the Godhead and to the manhood. We recognise nevertheless that some properties belong to the one nature and some to the others, and this may at once be understood from the actual terms of the Creed. For tell me: to what do you apply the phrase "of the substance of the Father"? to the Godhead, or to the nature that was fashioned of the seed of David?

Eran.--To the Godhead, as is plain.

Orth.--And the clause "Very God of very God"; to which do you hold this belongs, to the Godhead or to the manhood?

Eran.--To the Godhead.

Orth.--Therefore neither the flesh nor the soul is of one substance with the Father, for they are created, but the Godhead which formed all things.

Eran.--True.

Orth.--Very well, then. And when we are told of passion and of the cross we must recognise the nature which submitted to the passion; we must avoid attributing it to the impassible, and must attribute it to that nature which was assumed for the distinct purpose of suffering. The acknowledgment on the part of the most excellent Fathers that the divine nature was impassible; and their attribution of the passion to the flesh is proved by the conclusion of the creed, which runs "But they who state there was a time when He was not, and before He was begotten He was not, and He was made out of the non-existent, or who allege that the Son of God was of another essence or substance mutable or variable, these the holy catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." See then what penalties are denounced against them that attribute the passion to the divine nature.

Eran.--They are speaking in this place of mutation and variation.

Orth.--But what is the passion but mutation and variation? For if, being impassible before His incarnation, He suffered after His incarnation, He assuredly suffered by undergoing mutation; and if being immortal before He became man, He tasted death, as you say, after being made man, He underwent a complete alteration by being made mortal after being immortal. But expressions of this kind, and their authors with them, have all been expelled by the illustrious Fathers from the bounds of the Church, and cut off like rotten limbs from the sound body. We therefore exhort you to fear the punishment and abhor the blasphemy.

Now I will show you that in their own writings the holy Fathers have held the opinions we have expressed. Of the witnesses I shall bring forward some took part in that great Council; some flourished in the Church after their time; some illuminated the world long before. But their harmony is broken neither by difference of periods nor by diversity of language; like the harp their strings are several and separate but like the harp they make one harmonious music.

Eran.--I was anxious for and shall be delighted at such citations. Instruction of this kind cannot be gainsaid, and is most useful.

Orth.--Now; open your ears and receive the streams that flow from the spiritual springs.

Testimony of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and martyr.

From his Epistle to the Smyrnæans:--

"They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which of His goodness the Father raised."

Testimony of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons.

From his third book against heresies (Chap. xx.):--

"It is clear then that Paul knew no other Christ save Him that suffered and was buried and rose and was born, whom he calls man, for after saying, If Christ be preached that He rose from the dead,' he adds, giving the reason of His incarnation, For since by man came death by man came also the resurrection of the dead,' and on all occasions in reference to the passion, the manhood and the dissolution of the Lord, he uses the name of Christ as in the text, Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died,' and again, But now in Christ ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ,' and again, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.'"

Of the same from the same work. (Chapter xxi.):--

"For as He was Man that He might be tempted, so was He Word that He might be glorified. In His temptation, His crucifixion and His dying, the Word was inoperative; but in His victory, His patience, His goodness, His resurrection and His assumption it was co-operative with the manhood."

Of the same from the fifth book of the same work:--

"When with His own blood the Lord had ransomed us, and given His soul on behalf of our souls, and His flesh instead of our flesh."