Eranistes and Orthodoxus.

Eran.—I am come as I promised. ’Tis yours to adopt one of two alternatives, and either furnish a solution of my difficulties, or assent to what I and my friends lay down.

Orth.—I accept your challenge, for I think it right and fair. But we must first recall to mind at what point we left off our discourse yesterday, and what was the conclusion of our argument.

Eran.—I will remind you of the end. I remember our agreeing that the divine Word remained immutable, and took flesh, and was not himself changed into flesh.

Orth.—You seem to be content with the points agreed on, for you have faithfully called them to mind.

Eran.—Yes, and I have already said that the man that withstands teachers so many and so great is indubitably out of his mind. I was moreover put to not a little shame to find that Apollinarius used the same terms as the orthodox, although in his books about the incarnation his drift has distinctly been in another direction.

Orth.—Then we affirm that the Divine Word took flesh?

Eran.—We do.

Orth.—And what do we mean by the flesh? A body only, as is the view of Arius and Eunomius, or body and soul?

Eran.—Body and soul.

Orth.—What kind of soul? The reasonable soul, or that which is by some termed the phytic, vegetable,¹¹⁷⁵

1175 φυτικός, of or belonging to φυτόν, or plant; but though φυτὸν is opposed to ξῷον, it is also used of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of physical life, and nothing beyond.

Eran.—Does then Apollinarius make a distinction of souls?¹¹⁷⁶

1176 cf. p. 132.

Orth.—He says that man is composed of three parts, of a body, a vital soul, and further of a reasonable soul, which he terms mind. Holy Scripture on the contrary knows only one, not two souls; and this is plainly taught us by the formation of the first man. For it is written God took dust from the earth and “formed man,” and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”¹¹⁷⁷

1177 Gen. ii. 7

1178 Matt. x. 28. cf. Luke xii. 4, 5

And the very divine Moses when he told the tale of them that came down into Egypt and stated with whom each tribal chief had come in, added, “All the souls that came out of Egypt were seventy-five,”¹¹⁷⁹

1179 Gen. xlvi. 20, lxx. In the Hebrew the number is but seventy, including Jacob himself. St. Stephen, as was natural in a Hellenized Jew follows the lxx. (Acts vii. 14.) For the number 75 there were doubtless important traditional authorities known to the lxx.

1180 Acts xx. 10

Eran.—It is shewn clearly that each man has one soul.

Orth.—But Apollinarius says two; and that the Divine Word took the unreasonable, and that instead of the reasonable, he was made in the flesh. It was on this account that I asked what kind of soul you assert to have been assumed with the body.

Eran.—I say the reasonable. For I follow the Divine Scripture.

Orth.—We agree then that the “form of a servant” assumed by the Divine Word was complete.

Eran.—Yes; complete.

Orth.—And rightly; for since the whole first man became subject to sin, and lost the impression of the Divine Image,¹¹⁸¹

1181 This “lost” must be qualified. The Scriptural doctrine is that the “image of God” though defaced and marred, is not lost or destroyed. After the flood the “image of God” is still quoted as against murder Gen. ix. 6. St. James urges it as a reason against cursing (iv. 9). cf. 1 Cor. xi. 7. So the IXth Article declares original sin to be, not the nature, which is good, but the “fault and corruption of the nature of every man;” in short the “image of God,” like the gifts of God, as David in Browning’s “Saul” has it, “a man may waste, desecrate, never quite lose.” cf. p. 164 and note.

Eran.—True. But now I beg you in the first place that the meaning of the terms employed may be made quite clear, that thus our discussion may advance without hindrance, and no investigation of doubtful points intervene to interrupt our conversation.

Orth.—What you say is admirable. Ask now concerning whatever point you like.

Eran.—What must we call Jesus the Christ? Man?

Orth.—By neither name alone, but by both. For the Divine Man after being made man was named Jesus Christ. “For,” it is written, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins,”¹¹⁸²

1182 Matt. i. 21

1183 Luke ii. 11 τίκτεται is substituted for ἐτέχθη, in addition to the omission of “a Saviour which is.” In this verse the mss. do not vary.

1184 John i. 1

1185 John i. 3

1186 John i. 4

Eran.—Therefore the Lord Jesus is God only.

Orth.—You hear that the divine Word was made man, and do you call him God only?

Eran.—Since He became man without being changed, but remained just what He was before, we must call Him just what He was.

Orth.—The divine Word was and is and will be immutable. But when He had taken man’s nature He became man. It behoves us therefore to confess both natures, both that which took, and that which was taken.

Eran.—We must name Him by the nobler.

Orth—Man,—I mean man the animal,—is he a simple or a composite being?

Eran.—Composite.

Orth.—Composed of what component parts?

Eran.—Of a body and a soul.

Orth.—And of these natures whether is nobler?

Eran.—Clearly the soul, for it is reasonable and immortal, and has been entrusted with the sovereignty of the animal. But the body is mortal and perishable, and without the soul is unreasonable, and a corpse.

Orth.—Then the divine Scripture ought to have called the animal after its more excellent part.

Eran.—It does so call it, for it calls them that came out of Egypt souls. For with seventy-five souls, it says, Israel came down into Egypt.

Orth.—But does the divine Scripture never call any one after the body?

Eran.—It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For “God,” it is written, “said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”¹¹⁸⁷

1187 Gen. vi. 3, lxx. and Marg. in R.V.

Orth.—But without blame no one is called flesh?

Eran.—I do not remember.

Orth.—Then I will remind you, and point out to you that even the very saints are called “flesh.” Answer now. What would you call the apostles? Spiritual, or fleshly?

Eran.—Spiritual;—and leaders and teachers of the spiritual.

Orth.—Hear now the holy Paul when he says “But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood neither went I up to them that were apostles before me.”¹¹⁸⁸

1188 Gal. i. 15–17

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—Is it not that he names them after their visible nature, and comparing the calling which is of men with that which is of heaven?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Then hear too the psalmist David—“Unto thee shall all flesh come.”¹¹⁸⁹

1189 Ps. lxv. 2

1190 Is. xl. 5

Eran.—It is made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human nature from the flesh without the least blame.

Orth.—I will proceed to give you the yet further proof.

Eran.—What further?

Orth.—The fact that sometimes when giving blame the divine Scripture uses only the name of soul.

Eran.—And where will you find this in holy Scripture?

Orth.—Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel “The soul that sinneth it shall die.”¹¹⁹¹

1191 Ez. xviii. 4 and 20

1192 Lev. v. 1

1193 The reference seems to be a loose combination of Numbers ix. 13. with Deut. xviii. 19

Eran.—This is plainly proved.

Orth.—In cases, then, where there is a certain natural union, and a combination of created things, and of beings connected by service and by time, it is not the custom of holy Scripture to use a name for this being derived only from the nobler nature; it names it indiscriminately both by the meaner and by the nobler. If so, how can you find fault with us for calling Christ the Lord, man, after confessing Him to be God, when many things combine to compel us to do so?

Eran.—What is there to compel us to call the Saviour Christ, “man”?

Orth.—The diverse and mutually inconsistent opinions of the heretics.

Eran.—What opinions, and contrary to what?

Orth.—That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three.¹¹⁹⁴

1194 Vide note on page 36.

Eran.—For each the proper one.

Orth.—We shall therefore endeavour to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture.

Eran.—Yes: this ought to be done.

Orth.—But in arguing with Sabellius we shall adopt the opposite course. Concerning the substance we shall advance no argument, for even he acknowledges but one.

Eran.—Plainly.

Orth.—But we shall do our best to cure the unsound part of his doctrine.

Eran.—We say that where he halts is about the hypostases.

Orth.—Since then he asserts there to be one hypostasis of the Trinity, we shall point out to him that the divine Scripture proclaims three hypostases.

Eran.—This is the course to take. But we have wandered from the subject.

Orth.—Not at all. We are collecting proofs of it, as you will learn in a moment. But tell me, do you understand that all the heresies which derive their name from Christ, acknowledge both the Godhead of Christ and His manhood?

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Do not some acknowledge the godhead alone, and some the manhood alone?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And some but a part of the manhood?

Eran.—I think so. But it will be well for us to lay down the names of the holders of these different opinions, that the point under discussion may be made plainer.

Orth.—I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the humanity of Christ. On the other hand Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus, fell into the diametrically opposite blasphemy; for they preach Christ to be man only, and deny the Godhead which existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the Godhead of the only begotten a created Godhead, and maintain that He assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the assumed body was a living¹¹⁹⁵

1195 ἔμψυχον

Eran.—It is inhuman to neglect the sick.

Orth.—Very well; then we must compassionate them, and do our best to heal them.

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—If then you had scientifically learned how to cure the body, and round you stood many men asking you to cure them, and shewing their various ailments, such as arise from running at the eyes, injury to the ears, tooth-ache, contraction of the joints, palsy, bile, or phlegm, what would you have done? Tell me; would you have applied the same treatment to all, or to each that which was appropriate?

Eran.—I should certainly have given to each the appropriate remedy.

Orth.—So by applying cold treatment to the hot, and heating the cold, and loosing the strained, and giving tension to the loose, and drying the moist, and moistening the dry, you would have driven out the diseases and restored the health which they had expelled.

Eran.—This is the treatment prescribed by medical science, for contraries, it is said, are the remedies of contraries.

Orth.—If you were a gardener, would you give the same treatment to all plants? or their own to the mulberry and the fig, and so to the pear, to the apple, and to the vine what is fitting to each, and in a word to each plant its own proper culture?

Eran.—It is obvious that each plant requires its own treatment.

Orth.—And if you undertook to be a ship builder, and saw that the mast wanted repair, would you try to mend it in the same way as you would the tiller? or would you give it the proper treatment of a mast?

Eran.—There is no question about these things: everything demands its own treatment, be it plant or limb or gear or tackle.

Orth.—Then is it not monstrous to apply to the body and to things without life to each its own appropriate treatment, and not to keep this rule of treatment in the case of the soul?

Eran.—Most unjust; nay, rather stupid than unrighteous. They who adopt any other method are quite unskilled in the healing art.

Orth.—Then in disputing against each heresy we shall use the appropriate remedy?

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—And it is fitting treatment to add what is wanting and to remove what is superfluous?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—In endeavouring then to cure Photinus and Marcellus and their adherents, in order to carry out the rule of treatment, what should we add?

Eran.—The acknowledgment of the Godhead of Christ, for it is this that they lack.

Orth.—But about the manhood we will say nothing to them, for they acknowledge the Lord Christ to be man.

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—And in arguing with Arius and Eunomius about the incarnation of the only begotten, what should we persuade them to add to their own confession?

Eran.—The assumption of the soul; for they say that the divine Word took only a body.

Orth.—And what does Apollinarius lack to make his teaching accurate about the incarnation?

Eran.—Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess that, with the body, was assumed a reasonable soul.

Orth.—Then shall we dispute with him on this point?

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—But under this head what did we assert to be confessed, and what altogether denied, by Marcion, Valentinus, Manes and their adherents?

Eran.—That they admitted their belief in the Godhead of Christ, but do not accept the doctrine of His manhood.

Orth.—We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine incarnation¹¹⁹⁶

1196 οἰκονουίαν. cf. p. 72, note.

Eran.—It will be well so to do.

Orth.—We will therefore tell them that it is right to style the Christ not only God, but also man.

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—And how is it possible for us to induce others to style the Christ ‘man’ while we excuse ourselves from doing so? They will not yield to our persuasion, but on the contrary will convict us of agreeing with them.

Eran.—And how can we, confessing as we do that the divine Word took flesh and a reasonable soul, agree with them?

Orth.—If we confess the fact, why then shun the word?

Eran.—It is right to name the Christ from His nobler qualities.

Orth.—Keep this rule then. Do not speak of Him as crucified, nor yet as risen from the dead, and so on.

Eran.—But these are the names of the sufferings of salvation. Denial of the sufferings implies denial of the salvation.

Orth.—And the name Man is the name of a nature. Not to pronounce the name is to deny the nature: denial of the nature is denial of the sufferings, and denial of the sufferings does away with the salvation.

Eran.—I hold it profitable to acknowledge the assumed nature; but to style the Saviour of the world man is to belittle the glory of the Lord.

Orth.—Do you then deem yourself wiser than Peter and Paul; aye, and than the Saviour Himself? For the Lord said to the Jews “Why do ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard of my Father?”¹¹⁹⁷

1197 John viii. 40. Note the looseness of citation.

And the meritorious Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says,—“Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you.”¹¹⁹⁸

1198 Acts ii. 22

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”¹¹⁹⁹

1199 Acts xvii. 30, 31

Eran.—They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the greater part of the world¹²⁰⁰

1200 ἠ οἰκουμένη means of course the Empire and the adjacent countries, the “orbis veteribus notus.”

Orth.—But we have still among us Jews and pagans and of heretics systems innumerable, and to each of these we must give fit and appropriate teaching. But, supposing we were all of one mind, tell me now, what harm is there in calling the Christ both God and man? Do we not behold in Him perfect Godhead, and manhood likewise lacking in nothing?

Eran.—This we have owned again and again.

Orth.—Why then deny what we have again and again owned?

Eran.—I hold it unnecessary to call the Christ ‘man,’—especially when believer is conversing with believer.

Orth.—Do you consider the divine Apostle a believer?

Eran.—Yes: a teacher of all believers.

Orth.—And do you deem Timothy worthy of being so styled?

Eran.—Yes: both as a disciple of the Apostle, and as a teacher of the rest.

Orth.—Very well: then hear the teacher of teachers writing to his very perfect disciple. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.”¹²⁰¹

1201 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6

1202 cf. Job ix. 33. “daysman betwixt us that might lay his hand upon us both.”

Eran.—But was not Moses called a mediator, though only a man?¹²⁰³

1203 Gal. iii. 19. cf. Deut. v. 5

Orth.—He was a type of the reality: but the type has not all the qualities of the reality. Wherefore though Moses was not by nature God, yet, to fulfil the type, he was called a god. For He says “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.”¹²⁰⁴

1204 Exodus vii. 1

1205 Ex. vii. 1

Eran.—But who would call one not having the distinct characteristics of the archetype, a type?

Orth.—The imperial images, it seems, you do not call images of the emperor.

Eran.—Yes, I do.

Orth.—Yet they have not all the characteristics which their archetype has. For in the first place they have neither life nor reason; secondly they have no inner organs, heart, I mean, and belly and liver and the adjacent parts. Further they present the appearance of the organs of sense, but perform none of their functions, for they neither hear, nor speak, nor see; they cannot write; they cannot walk, nor perform any other human action; and yet they are called imperial statues. In this sense Moses was a mediator and Christ was a mediator; but the former as an image and type and the latter as reality. But that I may make this point clearer to you from yet another authority, call to mind the words used of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Eran.—What words?

Orth.—Those in which the divine Apostle comparing the Levitical priesthood with that of the Christ likens Melchisedec in other respects to the Lord Christ, and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec.¹²⁰⁶

1206 Hebrews vi. 20

Eran.—I think the words of the divine Apostle are as follows;—“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest continually.”¹²⁰⁷

1207 Hebrews vii. 1, 2, 3

Orth.—Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not mutilating it, but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of these points fit Melchisedec in nature and reality?

Eran.—Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine apostle has asserted it?

Orth.—Then you say that all this fits Melchisedec by nature?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—Do you say that he was a man, or assumed some other nature?

Eran.—A man.

Orth.—Begotten or unbegotten?

Eran.—You are asking very absurd questions.

Orth.—The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth. Answer then.

Eran.—There is one only unbegotten, who is God and Father.

Orth.—Then we assert that Melchisedec was begotten?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words which you quoted a moment ago, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” How then do the words “Without father and without mother” fit him; and how the statement that he neither received beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends humanity?

Eran.—These things do in fact overstep the limits of human nature.

Orth.—Then shall we say that the Apostle told lies?

Eran.—God forbid.

Orth.—How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the Apostle, and apply the supernatural to Melchisedec?

Eran.—The passage is a very difficult one, and requires much explanation.

Orth.—For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine Apostle adds “made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.”¹²⁰⁸

1208 Heb. vii. 3

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—Why?

Eran.—He was born of the holy Virgin alone.

Orth.—He is therefore properly styled “without father”?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine Nature He had a mother?¹²⁰⁹

1209 The bearing of this on Theodoret’s relation to Nestorianism will be observed.

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—For He was begotten of the Father alone before the ages?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—And yet, as the generation He has of the Father is ineffable, He is spoken of as “without descent.” “Who” says the prophet “shall declare His generation?”¹²¹⁰

1210 Is. liii. 8

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—Thus it becomes Him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for He is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.

Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchisedec.

Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Saviour these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchisedec. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and in like manner of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, of Melchisedec it records neither the father nor the mother, nor does it teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons, to the end that he may be a type of Him who is in reality without father, and without mother. And this is what the divine Apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”¹²¹¹

1211 Heb. vii. 6

Eran.—Then, since Holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother?

Orth.—If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the Divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality.

Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype.

Orth.—Is man called an image of God?

Eran.—Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God.¹²¹²

1212 Gen. i. 27

Orth.—Listen then to the Apostle. He says: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”¹²¹³

1213 1 Cor. xi. 7

Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.

Orth.—According to your argument then he must needs have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded, and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype.

Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect.

Orth.—Though truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says “Who is the image of the invisible God?”¹²¹⁴

1214 Coloss. i. 15

Eran.—What then; has not the Son all the qualities of the Father?

Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten.

Eran.—If He were He would not be Son.

Orth.—Then does not what I said hold good; the image has not all the qualities of the archetype?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Thus too the divine Apostle said that Melchisedec is made like unto the Son of God.¹²¹⁵

1215 Hebrews vii. 3

Eran.—Suppose we grant that he is without Father and without Mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?

Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth,¹²¹⁶

1216 Gen. iv. 25

1217 Gen. v. 5

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchisedec is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec.¹²¹⁸

1218 Heb. vi. 20

Eran.—We have spent many words on this matter.

Orth.—Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one.

Eran.—Let us return to the question before us.

Orth.—What was the question?

Eran.—On my remarking that Christ must not be called man, but only God, you yourself besides many other testimonies adduced also the well known words of the Apostle which he has used in his epistle Timothy—“One God, one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.”¹²¹⁹

1219 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6

Orth.—I remember from what point we diverged into this digression. It was when I had said that the name of mediator exhibits the two natures of the Saviour, and you said that Moses was called a mediator though he was only a man and not God and man. I was therefore under the necessity of following up these points to show that the type has not all the qualities of the archetype. Tell me, then, whether you allow that the Saviour ought also to be called man.

Eran.—I call Him God, for He is God’s Son.

Orth.—If you call him God, because you have learnt that he is God’s Son, call him also man, for he often called Himself “Son of Man.”

Eran.—The name man does not apply to Him in the same way as the name God.

Orth.—As not really belonging to Him or for some other reason?

Eran.—God is his name by nature; man is the designation of the Incarnation.¹²²⁰

1220 οἰκονομία. Vide p. 72 n.

Orth.—But are we to look on the Incarnation as real, or as something imaginary and false?

Eran.—As real.

Orth.—If then the grace of the Incarnation is real, and what we call Incarnation is the divine Word’s being made man, then the name man is real; for after taking man’s nature He is called man.

Eran.—Before His passion He was styled man, but afterward He was no longer so styled.

Orth.—But it was after the Passion and the Resurrection that the divine Apostle wrote the Epistle to Timothy wherein he speaks of the Saviour Christ as man,¹²²¹

1221 1 Tim. ii. 5

1222 1 Cor. xv. 21

1223 1 Cor. xv. 22

1224 Acts ii. 22

1225 Acts vii. 56

Eran.—I do not suppose myself wiser than the holy doctors, but I fail to find the use of the name.

Orth.—How then could you persuade them that deny the incarnation of the Lord, Marcionists, I mean, and Manichees, and all the rest who are thus unsound, to accept the teaching of the truth, unless you adduce these and similar proofs with the object of shewing that the Lord Christ is not God only but also man?

Eran.—Perhaps it is necessary to adduce them.

Orth.—Why not then teach the faithful the reality of the doctrine? Are you forgetful of the apostolic precept enjoining us to be “ready to give an answer.”¹²²⁶

1226 1 Peter iii. 15

Eran.—He ought rather to do this latter.

Orth.—Yes; for it is not the part of a general to expose his own life, and take his place in the ranks, and let his men go fast asleep, but rather to keep them awake for their work at their post.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—This is what the divine Paul did, for in writing to them who had made profession of their faith he said, “Take unto you the whole armour of God that ye be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil.”¹²²⁷

1227 Eph. vi. 11 and 13, and observe looseness of quotation.

1228 Eph. vi. 14

Eran.—And where will you show that the Lord has done this?

Orth.—In the holy gospels.

Eran.—Show me then and fulfil your promise.

Orth.—What did the Jews consider our Saviour Christ?

Eran.—A man.

Orth.—And that He was also God they were wholly ignorant.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—Was it not then necessary for the ignorant to learn?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Listen to Him then saying to them: “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?”¹²²⁹

1229 John x. 32

1230 John x. 33

1231 John x. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. Observe the variation in 34, and the omission in 38.

Eran.—In the passages you have just read you have shewn that the Lord shewed Himself to the Jews to be God and not man.

Orth.—Yes, for they did not need to learn what they knew; that He was a man they knew, but they did not know that He was from the beginning God. He adopted this same course in the case of the Pharisees; for when He saw them accosting Him as a mere man He asked them “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?”¹²³²

1232 Matt. xxii. 42

1233 Matt. xxii. 43 and 44

Eran.—You have brought testimony against yourself, for the Lord plainly taught the Pharisees to call Him not “Son of David” but “Lord of David.” Wherefore He is distinctly shown wishing to be called God and not man.

Orth.—I am afraid you have not attended to the divine teaching. He did not repudiate the name of “Son of David,” but He added that He ought also to be believed to be Lord of David. This He clearly shews in the words “If He is his Lord how is He then his Son?” He did not say “if He is Lord He is not Son,” but “how is He his Son?” instead of saying in one respect He is Lord and in another Son. These passages both distinctly show the Godhead and the manhood.

Eran.—There is no need of argument. The Lord distinctly teaches that He does not wish to be called Son of David.

Orth.—Then He ought to have told the blind men and the woman of Canaan and the multitude not to call Him Son of David, and yet the blind men cried out “Thou Son of David have mercy on us.”¹²³⁴

1234 Matt. xx. 31

1235 Matt. xv. 22

1236 Matt. xxi. 9

1237 Luke xix. 40

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

1238 2 Tim. ii. 8

1239 2 Tim. ii. 9

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

1240 Luke xxiv. 39

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

1241 The metallic compound called electron is described by Strabo p. 146 as the mixed residuum, or scouring, (κάθαρμα) left after the first smelting of gold ore. Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. 23) describes it as containing 1 part silver to 4 gold. cf. Soph. Antig. 1038, and Herod. i. 50.

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

1242 John i. 1

1243 John i. 3

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

1244 John i. 1–3

1245 Matt. i. 1

1246 Luke iii. 23

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

1247 Matt. i. 17

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

1248 Matt. xxi. 27. A.V. “We cannot tell.”

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

1249 Luke ii. 51

1250 John ii. 4

1251 Matt. xxii. 42

1252 Mark vi. 1

1253 John viii. 58

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

1254 This, it will be remembered is the analogy employed in the “Quicunque vult.”

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?¹²⁵⁵

1255 All through the argument there seems to be some confusion between the two senses of ψυχή as denoting the immortal and the animal part of man, and so between the ψυχικόν and the πνευματικόν. According to the Pauline psychology, (cf. in 1 Cor. 15) the immortal and invisible could not be said to be proper to the σῶμα ψυχικόν. This “natural body” is a body of death (Rom. vii. 24) and requires to be redeemed (Rom. viii. 23) and changed into the “house which is from heaven.” (2 Cor. v. 2.) Something of the same confusion attaches to the common use of the word “soul” to which we find the language of Holy Scripture frequently accommodated. On the popular language of the dichotomy and the more exact trichotomy of 1 Thess. v. 23 a note of Bp. Ellicott on that passage may well be consulted.

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 define¹²⁵⁶

1256 “ζῶον λογικόν θνητόν.” The definition may be compared with those of— Plato.—ζῶον ἄπτερον, δίπουν, πλατυώνυχον· ὃ μόνον τῶν ὄντων ἐπιστήμης τῆς κατὰ λόγους δεκτικόν ἐστι. Deff. Aristotle.—πολιτικὸν ζῶον. Pol. I. ii. 9.

Orth.—Agreed.

Eran.—And we give names to him from both these attributes.

Orth.—Yes.

Eran.—As then in this case we make no distinction, but call the same man both reasonable and mortal, so also should we do in the case of the Christ, and apply to Him both the divine and the human.

Orth.—This is our argument, although you do not accurately express it. For look you. When we are pursuing the argument about the human soul, do we only mention what is appropriate to its energy and nature?

Eran.—This only.

Orth.—And when our discussion is about the body, do we not only recall what is appropriate to it?

Eran.—Quite so.

Orth.—But, when our discourse touches the whole being, then we have no difficulty in adducing both sets of qualities, for the properties both of the body and of the soul are applicable to man.

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Well; just in this way should we speak of the Christ, and, when arguing about His natures, give to each its own, and recognise some as belonging to the Godhead, and some as to the manhood. But when we are discussing the Person we must then make what is proper to the natures common, and apply both sets of qualities to the Saviour, and call the same Being both God and Man, both Son of God and Son of Man—both David’s Son and David’s Lord, both Seed of Abraham and Creator of Abraham, and so on.

Eran.—That the person of the Christ is one, and that both the divine and the human are attributable to Him, you have quite rightly said, and I accept this definition of the Faith; but your real position, that in discussing the natures we must give to each its own properties, seems to me to dissolve the union. It is for this reason that I object to accept these and similar arguments.

Orth.—Yet when we were enquiring about soul and body you thought the distinction of these terms admirable, and forthwith gave it your approbation. Why then do you refuse to receive the same rule in the case of the Godhead and manhood of the Lord Christ? Do you go so far as to object to comparing the Godhead and the manhood of the Christ to soul and body? So, while you grant an unconfounded union to soul and body, do you venture to say that the Godhead and manhood of the Christ have undergone commixture and confusion?

Eran.—I hold the Godhead of the Christ aye, and His flesh too, to be infinitely higher in honour than soul and body; but after the union I do assert one nature.

Orth.—But now is it not impious and shocking, while maintaining that a soul united to a body is in no way subject to confusion, to deny to the Godhead of the Lord of the universe the power to maintain its own nature unconfounded or to keep within its proper bounds the humanity which He assumed? Is it not, I say, impious to mix the distinct, and to commingle the separate? The idea of one nature gives ground for suspicion of this confusion.

Eran.—I am equally anxious to avoid the term confusion, but I shrink from asserting two natures lest I fall into a dualism of sons.

Orth.—I am equally anxious to escape either horn of the dilemma, both the impious confusion and the impious distinction; for to me it is alike an unhallowed thought to split the one Son in two and to gainsay the duality of the natures. But now in truth’s name tell me. Were one of the faction of Arius or Eunomius to endeavour, while disputing with you, to belittle the Son, and to describe Him as less than and inferior to the Father, by the help of all their familiar arguments and citations from the divine Scripture of the text “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”¹²⁵⁷

1257 Matt. xxvi. 39

1258 John xii. 27

Eran.—I should say that the divine Scripture uses some terms according to the theology and some according to the œconomy, and that it is wrong to apply what belongs to the œconomy to what belongs to the theology.¹²⁵⁹

1259 Consult note on page 72.

Orth.—But your opponent would retort that even in the Old Testament the divine Scripture says many things œconomically, as for instance, “Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking,”¹²⁶⁰

1260 Gen. iii. 8

1261 Gen. xviii. 21

1262 Gen. xxii. 12

Eran.—I might answer to this that there is a great distinction between the œconomies. In the Old Testament there is an œconomy of words; in the New Testament of deeds.

Orth.—Then your opponent would ask of what deeds?

Eran.—He shall straightway hear of the deeds of the making flesh. For the Son of God on being made man both in word and deed at one time exhibits the flesh, at another the Godhead: as of course, in the passage quoted, He shews the weakness of the flesh and of the soul, the sense namely of fear.

Orth.—But if he were to go on to say, “But he did not take a soul but only a body; for the Godhead instead of a soul being united to the body performed all the functions of the soul,” with what arguments could you meet his objections?

Eran.—I could bring proofs from the divine Scripture shewing how God the Word took not only flesh but also soul.

Orth.—And what proofs of this shall we find in Scripture?

Eran.—Have you not heard the Lord saying “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.…I lay it down of myself that I might take it again.”¹²⁶³

1263 John x. 18; 17

1264 John xii. 27

1265 Matt. xxvi. 38

1266 Psalm xvi. 10 and Acts ii. 31

Orth.—You have quoted this testimony most appositely and properly, but your opponent might reply that even before the incarnation God said to the Jews, “Fasting and holy day and feasts my soul hateth.”¹²⁶⁷

1267 Isaiah i. 13, 14. Sept.

Eran.—But he shall be told again how the divine Scripture, when speaking of God, mentions even parts of the body as “Incline thine ear and hear”¹²⁶⁸

1268 Daniel ix. 18

1269 Ibid

1270 Isaiah lviii. 14

1271 Ps. cxix. 73

If then after the incarnation we are forbidden to understand soul to mean soul, it is equally forbidden to hold body to mean body. Thus the great mystery of the œconomy will be found to be mere imagination; and we shall in no way differ from Marcion, Valentinus and Manes, the inventors of all these figments.

Orth.—But if a follower of Apollinarius were suddenly to intervene in our discussion and were to ask “Most excellent Sir; what kind of soul do you say that Christ assumed?” what would you answer?

Eran.—I should first of all say that I know only one soul of man; then I should answer, “But if you reckon two souls, the one reasonable and the other without reason, I say that the soul assumed was the reasonable. Yours it seems is the unreasonable, inasmuch as you think that our salvation was incomplete.”

Orth.—But suppose he were to ask for proof of what you say?

Eran.—I could very easily give it. I shall quote the oracles of the Evangelists “The Child Jesus grew and waxed strong in spirit and the grace of God was upon him”¹²⁷²

1272 Luke ii. 40

1273 Luke ii. 52

Orth.—Good Sir, you have bravely broken through the three fold phalanx of your foes; but that union, and the famous commixture and confusion, not in two ways only but in three, you have scattered and undone; and not only have you pointed out the distinction between Godhead and manhood, but you have in two ways distinguished the manhood by pointing out that the soul is one thing and the body another, so that no longer two, according to our argument, but three natures of our Saviour Jesus Christ may be understood.

Eran.—Yes; for did not you say that there is another substance of the soul besides the nature of the body?

Orth.—Yes.

Eran.—How then does the argument seem absurd to you?

Orth.—Because while you object to two, you have admitted three natures.

Eran.—The contest with our antagonists compels us to this, for how could any one in any other way argue against those who deny the assumption of the flesh, or of the soul, or of the mind, but by adducing proofs on these points from the divine Scripture? And how could any one confute them who in their readiness strive to belittle the Godhead of the only Begotten but by pointing out that the divine Scripture speaks sometimes theologically and sometimes œconomically.

Orth.—What you now say is true. It is what I, nay what all say, who keep whole the apostolic rule. You yourself have become a supporter of our doctrines.

Eran.—How do I support yours, while I refuse to acknowledge two sons?

Orth.—When did you ever hear of our affirming two sons?

Eran.—He who asserts two natures asserts two sons.

Orth.—Then you assert three sons, for you have spoken of three natures.

Eran.—In no other way was it possible to meet the argument of my opponents.

Orth.—Hear this same thing from us too; for both you and I confront the same antagonists.

Eran.—But I do not assert two natures after the union.

Orth.—And yet after many generations of the union a moment ago you used the same words. Explain to us however in what sense you assert one nature after the union. Do you mean one nature derived from both or that one nature remains after the destruction of the other?

Eran.—I maintain that the Godhead remains and that the manhood was swallowed up by it.¹²⁷⁴

1274 καταποθῆναι i.e., was absorbed and made to disappear. Contrast the adsumptione Humanitatis in Deum (or "in Deo,” as the older mss. read) of the Athanasian Creed.

Orth.—Fables of the Gentiles, all this, and follies of the Manichees. I am ashamed so much as to mention such things. The Greeks had their gods’ swallowings¹²⁷⁵

1275 The allusion is to the fable of Saturn devouring his children at their birth.

Eran.—Like the sea receiving a drop of honey, for straightway the drop, as it mingles with the ocean’s water, disappears.

Orth.—The sea and the drop are different in quantity, though alike in quality; the one is greatest, the other is least; the one is sweet and the other is bitter; but in all other respects you will find a very close relationship. The nature of both is moist, liquid, and fluid. Both are created. Both are lifeless yet each alike is called a body. There is nothing then absurd in these cognate natures undergoing commixture, and in the one being made to disappear by the other. In the case before us on the contrary the difference is infinite, and so great that no figure of the reality can be found. I will however endeavour to point out to you several instances of substances which are mixed without being confounded, and remain unimpaired.

Eran.—Who in the world ever heard of an unmixed mixture?

Orth.—I shall endeavour to make you admit this.

Eran.—Should what you are about to advance prove true we will not oppose the truth.

Orth.—Answer then, dissenting or assenting as the argument may seem good to you.

Eran.—I will answer.

Orth.—Does the light at its rising seem to you to fill all the atmosphere except where men shut up in caverns might remain bereft of it?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And does all the light seem to you to be diffused through all the atmosphere?

Eran.—I am with you so far.

Orth.—And is not the mixture diffused through all that is subject to it?

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—But, now, this illuminated atmosphere, do we not see it as light and call it light?

Eran.—Quite so.

Orth.—And yet when the light is present we sometimes are aware of moisture and aridity; frequently of heat and cold.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And after the departure of the light the atmosphere afterwards remains alone by itself.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Consider this example too. When iron is brought in contact with fire it is fired.

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—And the fire is diffused through its whole substance?

Eran.—Well?

Orth.—How, then, does not the complete union, and the mixture universally diffused, change the iron’s nature?

Eran.—But it changes it altogether. It is now reckoned no longer as iron, but as fire, and indeed it has the active properties of fire.

Orth.—But does not the smith call it iron, and put it on the anvil and smite it with his hammer?

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Then the nature of the iron was not damaged by contact with the fire. If then, in natural bodies, instances may be found of an unconfounded mixture, it is sheer folly in the case of the nature which knows neither corruption nor change to entertain the idea of confusion and destruction of the assumed nature, and all the more so when this nature was assumed to bring blessing on the race.

Eran.—What I assert is not the destruction of the assumed nature, but its change into the substance of Godhead.

Orth.—Then the human race is no longer limited as heretofore?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—When did it undergo this change?

Eran.—After the complete union.

Orth.—And what date do you assign to this?

Eran.—I have said again and again, that of the conception.

Orth.—Yet after the conception He was an unborn babe in the womb; after His birth. He was a babe¹²⁷⁶

1276 Luke ii. 12 and 16

1277 Matt. ii. 13

Eran.—This is taught in the history of the divine gospels, and cannot be gainsaid.

Orth.—Now let us investigate what follows. We acknowledge, do we not, that the Lord was circumcised?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—Of what was there a circumcision? Of flesh or Godhead?

Eran.—Of the flesh.

Orth.—Of what was then the growth and increase in wisdom and stature?

Eran.—This, of course, is not applicable to Godhead.

Orth.—Nor hunger and thirst?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Nor walking about, and being weary, and falling asleep?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—If then the union took place at the conception, and all these things came to pass after the conception and the birth, then, after the union, the manhood did not lose its own nature.

Eran.—I have not stated my meaning exactly. It was after the resurrection from the dead that the flesh underwent the change into Godhead.

Orth.—Then, after the resurrection, nothing of all that indicates its nature remained in it?

Eran.—If it remained, the divine change did not take place.

Orth.—How then was it that He shewed His hands and His feet to the disciples who disbelieved?

Eran.—Just as He came in when the doors were shut.

Orth.—But He came in when the doors were shut just as He came out from the womb, though the virgin’s bolts and bars were undrawn, and just as He walked upon the sea. Then according to your argument not even yet had the change of nature taken place?

Eran.—The Lord shewed His hands to the Apostles in the same way as He wrestled with Jacob.

Orth.—No; the Lord does not allow us to understand it in this sense. The disciples thought they saw a spirit, but the Lord dispelled this idea, and shewed the nature of the flesh, for He said “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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.”¹²⁷⁸

1278 Luke xxiv. 38, 39

Eran.—But one of these alternatives must be accepted; either He partook because He needed, or else, needing not, He seemed to eat, and did not really partake of food.

Orth.—His body now become immortal required no food. Of them that rise the Lord says: “they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as Angels.”¹²⁷⁹

1279 Mark xii. 25

1280 Acts i. 4

1281 Acts x. 41

1282 Mark v. 43

1283 John xii. 21

Eran.—If we grant that the Lord really ate, let us grant that after the resurrection all men partake of food.

Orth.—What was done by the Saviour through a certain œconomy is not a rule and law of nature. This follows from the fact that He did other things by œconomy which shall by no means be the lot of them that live again.

Eran.—What do you mean?

Orth.—Will not the bodies of them that rise become incorruptible and immortal?

Eran.—So the divine Paul has taught us. “It is sown” he says “in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”¹²⁸⁴

1284 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 44

Orth.—But the Lord, who raises the bodies of all men, unmaimed and unmarred (for lameness of limb and blindness of eye are unknown among them that are risen),¹²⁸⁵

1285 Contrast Plato Gorgias §169 κατεαγότα τε εἴ του ἦν μέλη ἢ διεστραμμένα ζῶντος καὶ τεθνεῶτος ταῦτα ἔνδηλα, and Virgil Æn. vi. 494. “Atque hic Priamiden laniatum corpore toto Deiphobum vidit lacerum crudeliter ora.”

Eran.—True.

Orth.—If then after the resurrection the Lord both partook of food, and shewed His hands and His feet to His disciples, and in them the prints of the nails, and His side with the mark of the wound in it, and said to them, “Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have”¹²⁸⁶

1286 Luke xxiv. 39

Eran.—Then after the resurrection it is mortal and subject to suffering?

Orth.—By no means; it is incorruptible, impassible, and immortal.

Eran.—If it is incorruptible, impassible, and immortal, it has been changed into another nature.

Orth.—Therefore the bodies of all men will be changed into another substance, for all will be incorruptible and immortal. Or have you not heard the words of the Apostle, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality”?¹²⁸⁷

1287 1 Cor. xv. 53

Eran.—I have heard.

Orth.—Therefore the nature remains, but its corruption is changed into incorruption, and its mortal into immortality. But let us look at the matter in this way; we call a body that is sick and a body that is whole, in the same way, a body.

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Wherefore?

Eran.—Since both partake of the same substance.

Orth.—Yet we see in them a very great difference, for the one is whole, perfect, and unhurt; the other has either lost an eye, or has a broken leg, or has undergone some other suffering.

Eran.—But to the same nature belong both health and sickness.

Orth.—So the body is called substance; disease and health are called accident.

Eran.—Of course. For these things are accidents of the body, and again cease to be so.

Orth.—In the same way corruption and death must be called accidents, and not substances, for they too are accidents and cease to be so.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—So the body of the Lord rose incorruptible, impassible, and immortal, and is worshipped by the powers of heaven, and is yet a body having its former limitation.

Eran.—In these points you seem to say sooth, but after its assumption into heaven I do not think that you will deny that it was changed into the nature of Godhead.

Orth.—I would not so say persuaded only by human arguments, for I am not so rash as to say anything concerning which divine Scripture is silent. But I have heard the divine Paul exclaiming “God hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead,”¹²⁸⁸

1288 Acts xvii. 31

1289 Acts i. 11

1290 Matt. xxvi. 64

1291 Matt. xxv. 31–33

Eran.—Then He was not unlimited even before the incarnation, for the prophet saw Him surrounded by the Seraphim.¹²⁹²

1292 Isaiah vi. 2

Orth.—The prophet did not see the substance of God, but a certain appearance accommodated to his capacity. After the resurrection, however, all the world will see the very visible nature of the judge.

Eran.—You promised that you would adduce no argument without evidence, but you are introducing arguments adapted to us.

Orth.—I have learnt these things from the divine Scripture. I have heard the words of the prophet Zechariah “They shall look on Him whom they pierced,”¹²⁹³

1293 Zech. xii. 10

1294 Acts vii. 56

Eran.—These things are thus written, but I do not think that you will be able to show that the body, after the ascension into heaven, is called body by the inspired writers.

Orth.—What has been already said indicates the body perfectly plainly; for what is seen is a body; but I will nevertheless point out to you that even after the assumption the body of the Lord is called a body. Hear the teaching of the Apostle, “For our conversation is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.”¹²⁹⁵

1295 Phil. iii. 20, 21. Observe omission of “Christ.”

Eran.—Then will the bodies of the saints be equal with the body of the Lord?

Orth.—In its incorruption and its immortality they too will share. Moreover in its glory they will participate, as says the Apostle, “If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.”¹²⁹⁶

1296 Rom. viii. 17

1297 Matt. v. 14

1298 Malachi iv. 2

1299 Matt. xiii. 43

Eran.—One ought “to stir every stone,” as the proverb says,¹³⁰⁰

1300 Probably the λίθος in the stone on the Draught Board. So πάντα κινεὶν λίθον is to make every effort in the game.

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols?

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord.

Orth.—Of the real body or not?

Eran.—The real.

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body,¹³⁰¹

1301 τοῦ ὄντως σώματως ἀντίτυπά ἐστι τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια. The view of Orthodoxus, it will be seen, is not that of the Roman confession. cf. note on p. 206.

Eran.—You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.

Orth.—I will answer.

Eran.—What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?

Orth.—It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.

Eran.—Let your answer be put enigmatically.

Orth.—Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.—And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.—This name too is common, signifying species of drink.

Eran.—And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.—Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

Eran.—And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?

Orth.—I do.

Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.—You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped¹³⁰²

1302 προσκυνεῖται

Eran.—Yes; and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation; it is no longer called by the name it went by before, but is styled body. So must the reality be called God, and not body.

Orth.—You seem to me to be ignorant—for He is called not only body but even bread of life. So the Lord Himself used this name¹³⁰³

1303 John vi. 51

1304 Heb. xiii. 8

Eran.—You have said a great deal about this, but I follow the saints who have shone of old in the Church; show me then, if you can, these in their writings dividing the natures after the union.

Orth.—I will read you their works, and I am sure you will be astonished at the countless mentions of the distinction which in their struggle against impious heretics they have inserted in their writings. Hear now those whose testimony I have already adduced speaking openly and distinctly on these points.

Testimony of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and martyr:—

From the Epistle to the Smyrnæans:¹³⁰⁵

1305 Ad Smyr. III.

1306 The quotation is not from the canonical gospels. Eusebius (iii. 36) says he does not know from what source it comes. Jerome states it to be derived from the gospel lately translated by him, the gospel according to the Hebrews (Vir. Ill. 2). Origen ascribes the words to the “Doctrina Petri.” (de Princ. Præf. 8) Bp. Lightfoot, by whom the matter is fully discussed, (Ap. Fath. pt. II. Vol. ii. p. 295) thinks that either Jerome, more suo, was forgetful, or had a different recension of the gospel to the Hebrews from that used by Origen and Eusebius. Ignatius may be quoting a verbal tradition. Bp. Lightfoot further points out that Origen (l. c.) supposes the author of the Doctrina Petri to use this epithet ἀσώαατον not in its philosophical sense (= incorporeal) but as meaning composed of some subtle substance and without a gross body like man. Further Origen (c. Cels. V. 5) warns us that to Christians the word dæmon has a special connotation, in reference to the powers that deceive and distract men.

Of the same from the same epistle:—

“And after His Resurrection He ate with them, and drank with them, as being of the flesh, although He was spiritually one with the Father.”

Testimony of Irenæus, the ancient bishop of Lyons;—

From the third Book of his work “Against Heresies.” (Chap. XX.)

“As we have said before, He united man to God. For had not a man vanquished man’s adversary, the enemy would not have been vanquished aright; and again, had not God granted the boon of salvation we should not have possessed it in security. And had not man been united to God, he could not have shared in the incorruption. For it behoved the mediator of God and men, by means of His close kinship to either, to bring them both into friendship and unanimity, and to set man close to God and to make God known to men.”

Of the same from the third book of the same treatise (Chapter XVIII):—

“So again in his Epistle he says ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,’¹³⁰⁷

1307 1 John v. 1

Of the same from the fourth book (Chapter VII):—

“As Isaiah saith ‘He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root. Israel shall blossom and bud and fill the face of the world with fruit.’¹³⁰⁸

1308 Isaiah xxvii. 6

Of the same from the same book (Chapter LIX):—

“And he judges also them of Ebion.¹³⁰⁹

1309 Vide note on page 38.

Of the same from the same book (Chapter LXIV):—

“They who preach that Emmanuel was of the Virgin set forth the union of God the Word with His creature.”

Of the same from the same treatise (Book V. Chap. I.):—

“Now these things came to pass not in seeming but in essential truth, for if He appeared to be man though He was not man then the Spirit of God did not continue to be what in truth It is; for the Spirit is invisible; nor was there any truth in Him, for He was not what He appeared to be. And we have said before that Abraham and the rest of the prophets beheld Him in prophecy prophesying what was destined to come to pass in actual sight. If then now too He appeared to be of such a character, though in reality He was not what He appeared, then a kind of prophetic vision would have been given to men, and we must still look for yet another advent in which He will really be what He is now seen to be in prophecy. Now we have demonstrated that there is no difference between the statements that He only appeared in seeming and that He took nothing from Mary, for He did not really even possess flesh and blood whereby He redeemed us, unless He renewed in Himself the old creation of Adam. The sect of Valentinus are therefore vain in teaching thus that they may cast out the life of the flesh.”

Testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his work on the distribution of the talents:¹³¹⁰

1310 The only fragment of this work.

“Any one might say that these and those who uphold otherwise are neighbours, erring as they do in the same manner, for even they either confess that the Christ appeared in life as mere man, denying the talent of His Godhead, or else acknowledging Him as God, on the other hand they deny the man, representing that He deluded the sight of them that beheld Him by unreal appearances; and that He wore manhood not as a Man but was rather a mere imaginary semblance, as Marcion and Valentinus and the Gnostics teach, wrenching away the Word from the flesh, and rejecting the one talent, the incarnation.”

Of the same from his letter to a certain Queen:¹³¹¹

1311 Several fragments of this letter will be found in Dialogue III.

“He calls Him ‘the first fruits of them that sleep,’ as being ‘the first born from the dead,’¹³¹²

1312 Coloss. i. 18

1313 Vide John xx. 27 and Luke xxiv. 39. The quotation confuses the words of the resurrection day and of the week after.

Of the same from his discourse on Elkanah and Hannah:—

“Wherefore three seasons of the year typified the Saviour Himself that He might fulfil the mysteries predicted about Him. In the Passover, that He might shew Himself as the sheep doomed to be sacrificed and shew a true Passover as says the Apostle, ‘Christ, God,¹³¹⁴

1314 1 Cor. v. 7. The addition of ὁ Θεός has no authority.

Of the same from his work on the great Psalm:¹³¹⁵

1315 Probably the cxixth Ps. It is doubtful whether the work forms part of a Commentary on the Pss. or is quoted from a homily on this special Psalm.

“He who drew from the nethermost hell man first formed of the earth when lost and held fast in bonds of death; He who came down from above and lifted up him that was down; He who became Evangelist of the dead, ransomer of souls and resurrection of them that were entombed; this was He who became succourer of vanquished man in Himself, like man firstborn Word; visiting the first formed Adam in the Virgin; the spiritual seeking the earthy in the womb; the ever-living him who by disobedience died; the heavenly calling the earthly to the world above, the highborn meaning to make the slave free by His own obedience; He who turned to adamant man crumbled into dust and made serpents’ meat; He who made man hanging on a tree of wood Lord over him who had conquered Him and so by a tree of wood is proved victorious.”

Of the same from the same book:—

“They who do not now recognise the Son of God in the flesh will one day recognise Him when He comes as judge in glory, though now in an inglorious body suffering wrong.”

Of the same from the same book:—

“Moreover the apostles when they had come to the sepulchre on the third day did not find the body of Jesus, just as the children of Israel went up on the mountain, and could not find the tomb of Moses.”

Of the same from his interpretation of Psalm II.:—

“When He had come into the world He was manifested as God and Man. His manhood is easy of perception because He is ahungered and aweary, in toil He is athirst, in fear He flees,¹³¹⁶

1316 The word φεύγειν is not used of the Saviour in the Gospel. Joseph was bidden φεῦγε εἰς Αἴγυπτον. When our Lord was brought to the cliff overhanging Nazareth διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο

Of the same from his work on Psalm XXIV.:—

“He comes to the heavenly gates, angels travel with Him and the gates of the heavens are shut. For He hath not yet ascended into heaven. Now first to the heavenly powers flesh appears ascending. The Word then goes forth to the powers from the angels that speed before the Lord and Saviour, ‘Lift the Gates ye princes and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors and the King of glory shall come in.’”¹³¹⁷

1317 Ps. xxiv. Sept.

Testimony of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor.

From his work on The Titles of the Psalms:—

“He predicted that He would sit upon a holy throne, shewing that He has been set forth on the same throne as the divine Spirit on account of the God that dwells in Him continually.”

Of the same from his work upon the Soul:—

“Before His passion in each case He predicted His bodily death, saying that He would be betrayed to the father of the High Priest, and announcing the trophy of the Cross. And after the passion, when He had risen on the third day from the dead, His disciples being in doubt as to His resurrection, He appeared to them in His very body and confessed that He had complete flesh and bones, submitting to their sight His wounded side and shewing them the prints of the nails.”

Of the same from his discourse on “The Lord formed me in the beginning of His ways”:¹³¹⁸

1318 Proverbs viii. 22. Sept.

“Paul did not say ‘conformed to the Son of God’ but ‘conformed to the image of His Son’¹³¹⁹

1319 Romans viii. 29

1320 The original here is corrupt.

1321 χαρακτήρ cf. Heb. i. 3. I have used the equivalent given in A.V. for the Greek word of the text meaning literally stamp or impression, as on coin or seal, and so exact representation.

Of the same from the same work:—

“That he speaks of the body as conformed to those of men he teaches more clearly in his Epistle to the Philippians, ‘our conversation’ he says ‘is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.’¹³²²

1322 Phil. iii. 20, 21

Of the same from the same work:—

“But as being born of the Virgin He is said to have been made man of the woman,¹³²³

1323 Gal. iv. 4

1324 Luke ii. 22; 24

Testimony of the holy Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.

From his Second Discourse against heresies:¹³²⁵

1325 Oratio Secunda contra Arianos. Ben. Ed. I. 1. 538.

“We should not have been redeemed from sin and the curse had not the flesh which the Word wore been by nature that of man, for we should have had nothing in common with that which was not our own; just so man would not have been made God, had not the Word which was made flesh been by nature of the Father and verily and properly His. And the combination is of this character that to the natural God may be joined the natural man, and so his salvation and deification be secure. Therefore let them that deny Him to be naturally of the Father, and own Son of His substance, deny too that He took very flesh of man from the Virgin Mary.”

Of the same from his Epistle to Epictetus:—

“If on account of the Saviour’s Body being, and being described in the Scriptures as being, derived from Mary, and a human Body, they fancy that a quaternity is substituted for a Trinity, as though some addition were made by the body, they are quite wrong; they put the creature on a par with the Creator, and suppose that the Godhead is capable of being added to. They fail to see that the Word was not made flesh on account of any addition to Godhead, but that the flesh may rise. Not for the aggrandisement of the Word did He come forth from Mary, but that the human race may be redeemed. How can they think that the body ransomed and quickened by the Word can add anything in the way of Godhead to the Word that quickened it?”

Of the same from the same Epistle:—

“Let them be told that if the Word had been a creature, the creature would not have assumed a body to quicken it. For what help can creatures get from a creature standing itself in need of salvation? But the Word, Himself Creator, was made maker of created things, and therefore in the fulness of the ages He attached the creature to Himself, that once more as a Creator He might renew it, and might be able to create it afresh.”

From the longer Discourse “De Fide”:—

“This also we add concerning the words ‘Sit thou on my right hand,’¹³²⁶

1326 Ps. cx. 1

1327 Jerem. xxiii. 24

1328 1 Cor. xi. 24

1329 Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24

1330 Acts ii. 22

Of the same from his book against the Arians:—

“And when he says ‘Wherefore God hath also highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name’¹³³¹

1331 Phil. ii. 9

Of the same from the same work:—

“And when he says ‘the Holy Ghost was not yet because that Jesus was not yet glorified,’¹³³²

1332 John vii. 39

Of the same from the same work:—

“So that He is very God both before His being made man and after His being made mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ united to the Father in spirit, and to us in flesh, who mediated between God and men, and who is not only man but also God.”

Testimony of the Holy Ambrosius, bishop of Milan.

In his Exposition of the Faith:—

“We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, was begotten before all ages, without beginning, of the Father, and that in these last days the same was made flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, assumed the manhood, in its perfection, of a reasonable soul and body, of one substance with the Father as touching His Godhead and of one substance with us as touching His manhood. For union of two perfect natures hath been after an ineffable manner. Wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; knowing that being coeternal with His own Father as touching His Godhead, by virtue of which also He is creator of all, He deigned, after the assent of the Holy Virgin, when she said to the angel ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word’¹³³³

1333 Luke i. 38

1334 John ii. 19

“The same Christ is both passible and impassible; as touching His manhood passible and as touching His Godhead impassible. ‘Behold behold me, it is I, I have undergone no change’—and when God the Word had raised His own temple and in it had wrought out the resurrection and renewal of our nature, He shewed this nature to His disciples and said ‘Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me,’ not ‘be’ but ‘have.’¹³³⁵

1335 Luke xxiv. 39

“Them therefore that assert that the Christ was mere man, that God the Word was passible, or changed into flesh, or that the body which He had was consubstantial, or that He brought it from Heaven, or that it was an unreality; or assert that God the Word being mortal needed to receive His resurrection from the Father, or that the body which He assumed was without a soul, or manhood without a mind, or that the two natures of the Christ became one nature by confusion and commixture; them that deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was two natures unconfounded, but one person, as He is one Christ and one Son, all these the catholic and apostolic Church condemns.”

Of the same:¹³³⁶

1336 De incarnat. sacram. Chap. 6.

“If then the flesh of all was in Christ or hath been in Christ subject to wrongs, how can it be held to be of one essence with the Godhead? For if the Word and the flesh which derives its nature from earth are of one essence, then the Word and the soul which He took in its perfection are of one essence, for the Word is of one nature with God both according to the Word of the Father, and the confession of the Son Himself in the words, ‘I and my Father are one.’¹³³⁷

1337 John x. 30

Of the same from his letter to the Emperor Gratianus:¹³³⁸

1338 De Fide ii. Chap. 9.

“Let us preserve a distinction between Godhead and flesh. One Son of God speaks in both, since in Him both natures exist. The same Christ speaks, yet not always in the same but sometimes in a different manner. Observe how at one time He expresses divine glory and at another human feeling. As God He utters the things of God, since He is the Word; as man He speaks with humility because He converses in my essence.”

On the same from the same book:¹³³⁹

1339 Chap. 7.

“As to the passage where we read that the Lord of glory was crucified,¹³⁴⁰

1340 1 Cor. ii. 8

1341 John iii. 13

Similarly of the same:¹³⁴²

1342 Id. Chap. 9.

“Let then vain questions about words be silent, as it is written, the kingdom of God is not in ‘enticing words’ but in ‘demonstration of the spirit.’¹³⁴³

1343 1 Cor. ii. 4

Of the same from his work on the Incarnation of the Lord against the Apollinarians:¹³⁴⁴

1344 De Incarn. Sac. 6.

“But while we are confuting these, another set spring up who assert the body of the Christ and His godhead to be of one nature. What hell hath vomited forth so terrible a blasphemy? Really Arians are more tolerable, whose infidelity, on account of these men, is strengthened, so that with greater opposition they deny Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be of one substance, for they did at least endeavour to maintain the Godhead of the Lord and His flesh to be of one nature.”

Of the same (from the same chapter):—

“He has frequently told me that he maintains the exposition of the Nicene Council, but in that examination our Fathers laid down that the Word of God, not the flesh, was of one substance with the Father, and they confessed that the Word came from the substance of the Father but that the flesh is of the Virgin. Why then do they hold out to us the name of the Nicene Council, while in reality they are introducing innovations of which our forefathers never entertained the thought?”

Of the same against Apollinarius:¹³⁴⁵

1345 De incarn. sacram. Chap. 4.

“Refuse thou to allow that the body is by nature on a par with the Godhead. Even though thou believe the body of the Christ to be real and bring it to the altar for transformation,¹³⁴⁶

1346 “Offeras transfigurandum altaribus.” The Benedictine Editors, by a curious anachronism, see here a reference to transubstantiation. But μεταποίησις, the word translated “transformation” implies no more than the being made to undergo a change, which may be a change in dignity without involving a change of substance. cf. pp. 200 and 201, where Orthodoxus distinctly asserts that the substance remains unchanged. Transubstantiation, definitely declared an article of faith in 1215, seems to have been first taught early in the 9th c. Vide Bp. Harold Browne on Art. xxviii.

1347 Gen. iv. 7. Sept.

Of the same, a little further on:¹³⁴⁸

1348 Id. Chap. 6.

“Let them who say that the nature of the Word has been changed into nature of the body say so no more, lest by the same interpretation the nature of the Word seem to have been changed into the corruption of sin. For there is a distinction between what took, and what was taken. Power came over the Virgin, as in the words of the angel to her, ‘The power of the highest shall overshadow thee.’¹³⁴⁹

1349 Luke i. 35. The Latin of the Benedictine edition of Ambrose is:— Desinant ergo dicere naturam Verbi in Corporis naturam esse mutatam; ne pari interpretatione videatur natura Verbi in contagium mutata peccati. Aliud est enim quod assumpsit, et aliud quod assumptum est. Virtus venit in Virginem, sicut et Angelus ad eam dixit “quia Virtus Altissimi obumbrabit te.” Sed natum est corpus ex Virgine; et ideo cælestis quidem descensio, sed humana conceptio est. Non ergo eadem carnis potuit esse divinitatisque natura.

1350 In the Greek text the last sentence is unintelligible and apparently corrupt. The translation follows the Latin text from which the version in the citation of Theodoret varies in important particulars. The Greek text of the quotation runs:— Παυσάσθωσαν τοίνον οἱ λεγοντες ὡς ἡ τοῦ Λόγου φύσις εἰς σαρκὸς μεταβέβληται φύσιν· ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ μεταβληθεῖσα κατὰ τὴν αὑτὴν ἑρμηνείαν γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ἡ τοῦ Λόγου φύσις τοῖς τοῦ σώμὰτος παθήμασι σύμφθορος. & 169·Ετερον γάρ ἐστι τὸ προσλαβὸν καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστι τὸ προσληφθέν. Δύναμις ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον, ὡς ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν λέγει ὅτι Δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι: & 135·λλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἦν τῆς Παρθένου τὸ τεχθέν· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Θεία μὲν ἡ κατάβασις ἡ δὲ σύλληψις ἀνθρωπίνη· οὐκ αὐτὴ οῦν ἠδύνατο τοῦ τε σὠματος πνεῦμα καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσις

The testimony of St. Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea.

From his homily on Thanksgiving:—

“Wherefore when He wept over His friend He shewed His participation in human nature and set us free from two extremes, suffering us neither to grow over soft in suffering nor to be insensible to pain. As then the Lord suffered hunger after solid food had been digested, and thirst when the moisture in His body was exhausted; and was aweary when His nerves and sinews were strained by His journeying, it was not that His divinity was weighed down with toil, but that His body showed the wonted symptoms of its nature. Thus too when He allowed Himself to weep He permitted the flesh to take is natural course.”

From the same against Eunomius:—

“I say that being in the form of God has the same force as being in God’s substance for as to have taken the form of a servant shews our Lord to have been of the substance of the manhood, so the statement that He was in the form of God attributes to Him the peculiar qualities of the divine substance.”¹³⁵¹

1351 Cf. Phil. ii. 16

The testimony of the holy Gregorius, bishop of Nazianzus.

From his discourse De nova dominica:¹³⁵²

1352 The passage quoted is not in the 43rd discourse de nova dominica but in the 40th on Holy Baptism.

“Believe that He will come again at His glorious advent judging quick and dead,¹³⁵³

1353 Acts i. 11

“In order that He may be seen by them that pierced Him¹³⁵⁴

1354 Zechariah xii. 10

Of the same from his Epistle to Cledonius:—

“God and man are two natures, as soul and body are two; but there are not two sons, nor yet are there here two men although Paul thus speaks of the outward man and the inward man.¹³⁵⁵

1355 2 Cor. iv. 16

Of the same from the same Exposition to Cledonius:—

“If any one says that the flesh has now been laid aside, and that the Godhead is bare of body, and that it is not and will not come with that which was assumed, let him be deprived of the vision of the glory of the advent! For where is the body now, save with Him that assumed it? For it assuredly has not been, as the Manichees fable, swallowed up by the Son, that it may be honoured through dishonour; it has not been poured out and dissolved in the air like a voice and stream of perfume or flash of unsubstantial lightning. And where is the capacity of being handled after the resurrection, wherein one day it shall be seen by them that pierced Him? For Godhead of itself is invisible.”

Of the same from the second discourse about the Son:—

“As the Word He was neither obedient nor disobedient, for these qualities belong to them that are in subjection and to inferiors; the former of the more tractable and the latter of them that deserve condemnation. But in the form of a servant He accommodates Himself to his fellowservants and puts on a form that was not His own, bearing in Himself all of me with all that is mine, that in Himself He may waste and destroy the baser parts as wax is wasted by fire or the mist of the earth by the sun.”

Of the same from his discourse on the Theophany:—

“Since He came forth from the Virgin with the assumption of two things mutually opposed to one another, flesh and spirit, whereof the one was taken into God and the other exhibited the grace of the Godhead.”

Of the same a little further on:—

“He was sent, but as Man. For His nature was twofold, for without doubt He thenceforth was aweary and hungered and thirsted and suffered agony and shed tears after the custom of a human body.”

Of the same from his second discourse about the Son:—

“He would be called God not of the Word, but of the visible creation, for how could He be God of Him that is absolutely God? Just so He is called Father, not of the visible creation, but of the Word. For He was of two-fold nature. Wherefore the one belongs absolutely to both, but the other not absolutely.¹³⁵⁶

1356 Here the text is corrupt.

1357 Ephes. i. 17

Of the same from the same work:—

“‘For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.’¹³⁵⁸

1358 1 Tim. ii. 5

Of the same from the same work:—

“Is it not plain to all that as God He knows, and is ignorant, He says, as man? If, that is, any one distinguish the apparent from that which is an object of intellectual perception. For what gives rise to this opinion is the fact that the appellation of the Son is absolute without relation, it not being added of whom He is the Son; so to give the most pious sense to this ignorance we hold it to belong to the human, and not to the divine.”

Testimony of the Holy Gregorius, bishop of Nyssa.

From his catechetical discourse:—

“And who says this that the infinity of the Godhead is comprehended by the limitation of the flesh, as by some vessel?”

Of the same from the same work:—

“But if man’s soul by necessity of its nature commingled with the body, is everywhere in authority, what need is there of asserting that the Godhead is limited by the nature of the flesh?”

Of the same from the same work:—

“What hinders us then, while recognising a certain unity and approximation of a divine nature in relation to the human, from retaining the divine intelligence even in this approximation, believing that the divine even when it exists in men is beyond all limitation?”

Of the same from his work against Eunomius:—

“The Son of Mary converses with brothers, but the only begotten has no brothers, for how could the name of only begotten be preserved among brothers? And the same Christ that said ‘God is a spirit’¹³⁵⁹

1359 John iv. 24

1360 Luke xxiv. 39

1361 John xiv. 28

1362 Coloss. i. 16, 17

Of the same from the same work:—

“‘Being by the right hand of God exalted.’¹³⁶³

1363 Acts ii. 33

1364 Acts ii. 36

1365 Cf. John i. 2

Testimony of St. Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.

From his discourse on “My Father is greater than I”:¹³⁶⁶

1366 John xiv. 28

“Henceforth distinguish the natures; that of God and that of man. For He was not made man by falling away from God, nor God by increase and advance from man.”

Of the same from his discourse on “the Son can do nothing of Himself”:¹³⁶⁷

1367 John v. 19

“For after the resurrection the Lord shews both—both that the body is not of this nature, and that the body rises, for remember the history. After the passion and the resurrection the disciples were gathered together, and when the doors were shut the Lord stood in the midst of them. Never at any time before the passion did He do this. Could not then the Christ have done this even long before? For all things are possible to God.¹³⁶⁸

1368 Matt. xix. 26. Mark x. 27

Of the same from the same work:—

“Wherefore not before the passion, but after the passion, the Lord stood in the midst of the disciples when the doors were shut, that thou mayest know that thy natural body after being sown is ‘raised a spiritual body,’¹³⁶⁹

1369 1 Cor. xv

Testimony of the blessed Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria.

From his work against Origen:—

“Our likeness which He assumed is not changed into the nature of Godhead nor is His Godhead turned into our likeness. For He remains what He was from the beginning God, and He so remains preserving our subsistence in Himself.”

Of the same from the same treatise:—

“But you persist continually in your blasphemies attacking the Son of God, and using these words ‘as the Son and the Father are one, so also are the soul which the Son took and the Son Himself one.’ You are ignorant that the Son and the Father are one on account of their one substance and the same Godhead; but the soul and the Son are each of a different substance and different nature. For if the soul of the Son and the Son Himself are one in the same sense in which the Father and the Son are one, then the Father and the Soul will be one and the soul of the Son shall one day say ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father;’¹³⁷⁰

1370 John xiv. 9

1371 Hebrews i. 3

1372 Matt. xxvi. 38

1373 Coloss. i. 15

1374 John x. 18

1375 Phil. ii. 7

Testimony of the Holy John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople.

From the Discourse held in the Great Church:—

“Thy Lord exalted man to heaven, and thou wilt not even give him a share of the agora. But why do I say ‘to heaven’? He seated man on a kingly throne. Thou expellest him from the city.”

Of the same, on the beginning of Ps. xlii.:—

“Up to this day Paul does not cease to say ‘We are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.’¹³⁷⁶

1376 2 Cor. v. 20

1377 Ephes. i. 21

Of the same about the division of tongues:—

“For bethink thee what it is to see our nature riding on the Cherubim and all the power of heaven mustered round about it. Consider too Paul’s wisdom and how many terms he searches for that he may set forth the love of Christ to men, for he does not say simply the grace, nor yet simply the riches, but the ‘exceeding great riches of His grace in His kindness.’”¹³⁷⁸

1378 Ephes. ii. 7

Of the same from his Dogmatic Oration, on the theme that the word spoken and deeds done in humility by Christ were not so spoken and done on account of infirmity, but on account of differences of dispensation:—

“And after His resurrection, when He saw His disciple disbelieving, He did not shrink from shewing him both wound and print of nails, and letting him lay his hand upon the scars, and said ‘Examine and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones.’¹³⁷⁹

1379 Cf. Luke xxiv. 39. and John xx. 27. and cf. note on page 235.

Of the same against those who assert that demons rule human affairs:—

“Nothing was more worthless than man and than man nothing has become more precious. He was the last part of the reasonable creation, but the feet have been made the head, and through the firstfruits have been borne up to the kingly throne. Just as some man noble and bountiful, on seeing a wretch escaped from shipwreck who has saved nothing but his bare body from the waves, welcomes him with open hands, clothes him in a radiant robe, and exalts him to the highest honour, so too hath God done towards our nature. Man had lost all that he had, his freedom, his intercourse with God, his abode in Paradise, his painless life, whence he came forth like a man all naked from a wreck, but God received him and straightway clothed him, and, taking him by the hand, led him onward step by step and brought him up to heaven.”

Of the same from the same work:—

“But God made the gain greater than the loss, and exalted our nature to the royal throne. So Paul exclaims ‘And have raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places’¹³⁸⁰

1380 Ephes. ii. 6

Of the same from his III^rd oration against the Jews:—

“He opened the heavens; of foes he made friends; He introduced them into heaven; He seated our nature on the right hand of the throne; He gave us countless other good things.”

Of the same from his discourse on the Ascension:—

“To this distance and height did He exalt our nature. Look where low it lay, and where it mounted up. Lower it was impossible to descend than where man descended; higher it was impossible to rise than where He exalted him.”

Of the same from his interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians:—

“According to His good pleasure, which He had proposed in himself, that is which He earnestly desired, He was as it were in labour to tell us the mystery. And what is this mystery? That He wishes to seat man on high; as in truth came to pass.”

Of the same from the same interpretation:—

“God of our Lord Jesus Christ speaks of this and not of God the Word.”

Of the same from the same interpretation:—

“‘And when we were dead in sins He quickened us together in Christ;’¹³⁸¹

1381 Ephes. ii. 5