Dialogue 2

Eranistes and Orthodoxus.

Eran.— I have 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, that is, vital? for the fable-mongering quackery of the Apollinarians compels us to ask unseemly questions.

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

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. And in the gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

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, reckoning one soul for each immigrant. And the divine apostle at Troas, when all supposed Eutychus to be dead, said Trouble not yourselves for his soul is in him.

Eran.— It is shown 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, and the race followed, it results that the Creator, with the intention of renewing the blurred image, assumed the nature in its entirety, and stamped an imprint far better than the first.

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, You shall call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins, and unto you is born this day in the city of David Christ the Lord. Now these are angels' voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, and all things were made by Him, and He was life, and He was the true light which lights every man that comes into the world. There are also other similar passages, declaring the divine nature. But after the Incarnation He was named Jesus and Christ.

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.

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. Does he so style the apostles because he blames them?

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 you shall all flesh come. Hear too, the prophet Isaiah foretelling All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.

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 sins it shall die. Moreover through the great Moses He says If a soul sin— And again It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off. And many other passages of the same kind may be found.

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. Tell me now, how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for both ailments, or for each the proper one?

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 living body, but in his work deprives the reasonable soul alike of its honour and of its salvation. This is the contrariety of these corrupt opinions. But do you, with all due love of truth, tell us, must we institute a discussion with these men, or shall we let them go dashed down headlong and howling to their doom?

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 showing 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 incarnation a mere appearance.

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 has told you the truth, which I heard of my Father? And He frequently called Himself Son of Man.

And the meritorious Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says,— You men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you. And the blessed Paul, when bringing the message of salvation to the chiefs of the Areopagus, among many other things said this,—

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men everywhere to repent: Because he has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained, whereof he has given assurance unto all men, in that he has raised him from the dead. He then who excuses himself from using the name appointed and preached by the Lord and his Apostles deems himself wiser than even these great instructors, aye, even than the very well-spring of the wisest.

Eran.— They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the greater part of the world has professed the faith.

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. Do stop your idle prating, and laying down the law about divine names. Moreover in this passage that very name 'mediator' stands indicative both of Godhead and of manhood. He is called a mediator because He does not exist as God alone; for how, if He had had nothing of our nature could He have mediated between us and God? But since as God He is joined with God as having the same substance, and as man with us, because from us He took the form of a servant, He is properly termed a mediator, uniting in Himself distinct qualities by the unity of natures of Godhead, I mean, and of manhood.

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

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 you a god to Pharaoh. And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to God, for Aaron your brother, He says, shall be your Prophet. But the reality is by nature God, and by nature man.

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.

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 the son of God; abides a priest continually. I presume you spoke of this passage.

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 the Son of God, abides a priest continually. Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchisedec in things concerning the human nature. And he speaks of Melchisedec as made like the Son of God. Now let us examine the point in this manner;— do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 the Son of God.

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, and when he had lived so many years he ended his life. So too he writes of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest, but of Melchisedec he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end.

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. For Melchisedec was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ for all men has made the right holy offering of salvation.

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.

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 learned 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.

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, and writing after the Passion and the Resurrection to the Corinthians he exclaims For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. And in order to make his meaning clear he adds, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And after the Passion and the Resurrection the divine Peter, in his address to the Jews, called Him man. And after His being taken up into heaven, Stephen the victorious, amid the storm of stones, said to the Jews, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Are we to suppose ourselves wiser than the illustrious heralds of the truth?

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 showing 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. Now let us look at the matter in this light. Does the best general engage the enemy, attack with arrows and javelins, and endeavour to break their column all alone, or does he also arm his men, and marshal them, and rouse their hearts to play the man?

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 you be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. And again, Stand therefore with your loins girt about with truth, and so on. Bear in mind too what we have already said, that a physician supplies what nature lacks. Does he find the cold redundant? He supplies the hot, and so on with the rest; and this is what the Lord does.

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 showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? And when they replied: For a good work we stone you not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest yourself God, He added It is written in your law I said you are gods. If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world you blaspheme, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my father believe me not...that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.

Eran.— In the passages you have just read you have shown that the Lord showed 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? And when they said Of David He went on How then does David calling him Lord say 'The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right hand.' Then He goes on to argue, If then He is His Lord how is He His Son?

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 shows 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 You Son of David have mercy on us. And the woman of Canaan Have mercy on me O Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a Devil. And the multitude: Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. And not only did He not take it ill, but even praised their faith; for the blind He freed from their long weary night and granted them the power of sight; the maddened and distraught daughter of the woman of Canaan He healed and drove out the wicked demon; and when the chief priests and Pharisees were offended at them that shouted Hosanna to the Son of David He did not merely not prevent them from shouting, but even sanctioned their acclamation, for, said He, I tell you that if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out.

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. Then he went on to mention his sufferings on behalf of the gospel, and thus showed its truth saying, Wherein I suffer trouble as an evil doer even unto bonds.

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 shown.

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 has not flesh and bones as you see me have.

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? like the solder made of lead and tin?

Eran.— I deny that the union is like any of these; it is ineffable, and passes all understanding.

Orth.— I too confess that the manner of the union cannot be comprehended. But I have at all events been instructed by the divine Scripture that each nature remains unimpaired after the union.

Eran.— And where is this taught in the divine Scripture?

Orth.— It is all full of this teaching.

Eran.— Give proof of what you assert.

Orth.— Do you not acknowledge the properties of each nature?

Eran.— No: not, that is, after the union.

Orth.— Let us then learn this very point from the divine Scripture.

Eran.— I am ready to obey the divine Scripture.

Orth.— When, then, you hear the divine John exclaiming In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God and By Him all things were made and the rest of the parallel passages, do you affirm that the flesh, or the divine Word, begotten before the ages of the Father, was in the beginning with God, and was by nature God, and made all things?

Eran.— I say that these things belong to God the Word. But I do not separate Him from the flesh made one with Him.

Orth.— Neither do we separate the flesh from God the Word, nor do we make the union a confusion.

Eran.— I recognise one nature after the union.

Orth.— When did the Evangelists write the gospel? Was it before the union, or a very long time after the union?

Eran.— Plainly after the union, the nativity, the miracles, the passion, the resurrection, the taking up into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost.

Orth.— Hear then John saying In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made and so on. Hear too Matthew, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David,— Son of Abraham,— and so on. Luke too traced His genealogy to Abraham and David. Now make the former and the latter quotation fit one nature. You will find it impossible, for existence in the beginning, and descent from Abraham,— the making of all things, and derivation from a created forefather, are inconsistent.

Eran.— By thus arguing you divide the only begotten son into two Persons.

Orth.— One Son of God I both know and adore, the Lord Jesus Christ; but I have been taught the difference between His Godhead and his manhood. You, however, who say that there is only one nature after the union, do you make this agree with the introductions of the Evangelists.

Eran.— You appear to assume the proposition to be hard, nay impossible. Be it, I beg, short and easy;— only solve our question.

Orth.— Both qualities are proper to the Lord Christ,— existence from the beginning, and generation, according to the flesh, from Abraham and David.

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 learned to believe from the divine Scriptures.

Orth.— And how many days after the creation of heaven and earth are we told that Adam was formed?

Eran.— On the sixth day.

Orth.— And from Adam to Abraham how many generations went by?

Eran.— I think twenty.

Orth.— And from Abraham to Christ our Saviour how many generations are reckoned by the Evangelist Matthew.

Eran.— Forty-two.

Orth.— If then the Lord Christ is one nature how can He be Creator of all things visible and invisible and, at the same time, after so many generations, have been formed by the Holy Ghost in a virgin's womb? And how could He be at one and the same time Creator of Adam and Son of Adam's descendants?

Eran.— I have already said that both these properties are appropriate to Him as God made flesh, for I recognise one nature made flesh of the Word.

Orth.— Nor yet, my good sir, do we say that two natures of the divine Word were made flesh, for we know that the nature of the divine Word is one, but we have been taught that the flesh of which He availed Himself when He was incarnate is of another nature, and here I think that you too agree with me. Tell me now; after what manner do you say that the making flesh took place?

Eran.— I know not the manner, but I believe that He was made flesh.

Orth.— You make a pretext of your ignorance unfairly, and after the fashion of the Pharisees. For they when they beheld the force of the Lord's enquiry, and suspecting that they were on the point of conviction, uttered their reply We do not know. But I proclaim quite openly that the divine incarnation is without change. For if by any variation or change He was made flesh, then after the change all that is divine in His names and in His deeds is quite inappropriate to Him.

Eran.— We have agreed again and again that God the Word is immutable.

Orth.— He was made flesh by taking flesh.

Eran.— Yes.

Orth.— The nature of God the Word made flesh is different from that of the flesh, by assumption of which the nature of the divine Word was made flesh and became man.

Eran.— Agreed.

Orth.— Was He then changed into flesh?

Eran.— Certainly not.

Orth.— If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten— the Lord Christ— the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord. At one time He finds no fault with them that style Him Son of David; at another He teaches the ignorant that He is not only David's Son but also David's Lord. He calls Nazareth and Capernaum His country, and again He exclaims Before Abraham was I am. You will find the divine Scripture full of similar passages, and they all point not to one nature but to two.

Eran.— He who contemplates two natures in the Christ divides the one only begotten into two sons.

Orth.— Yes; and he who says Paul is made up of soul and body makes two Pauls out of one.

Eran.— The analogy does not hold good.

Orth.— I know it does not, for here the union is a natural union of parts that are coæval, created, and fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will, of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eran.— And what of the body?

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

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

Orth.— Yes.

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

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 and that other, Now is my soul troubled and other like passages, how would you dispose of his objections? How could you show that the Son is in no way diminished in dignity by these expressions and is not of another substance, but begotten of the substance of the Father?

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.

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, and I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which has come to me; and if not I will know, and again, Now I know that you fear God and the like.

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 shows 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 showing 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. And again, Now is my soul troubled. And again, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death, and again David's words as interpreted by Peter His soul was not left in hell neither did His flesh see corruption. These and similar passages clearly point out that God the Word assumed not only a body but also a soul.

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 hates. Then he might go on to argue that as in the Old Testament He mentioned a soul, though He had not a soul, so He does in the New.

Eran.— But he shall be told again how the divine Scripture, when speaking of God, mentions even parts of the body as Incline your ear and hear and Open your eyes and see and The mouth of the Lord has spoken it and Your hands have made me and fashioned me and countless other passages.

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 and again Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men. I should say that these have nothing to do with Godhead for the body increased in stature, and in wisdom the soul— not that which is without reason, but the reasonable. God the Word then took on Him a reasonable soul.

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.

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' swallowings and the Manichees wrote of the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching as being as absurd as it is impious, for how could a nature absolute and uncompounded, comprehending the universe, unapproachable and infinite, have absorbed the nature which it assumed?

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 babe and was called a babe, and was worshipped by shepherds, and in like manner became a boy, and was so called by the angel. Do you acknowledge all this? or do you think I am inventing fables?

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 showed 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 showed 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 showed the nature of the flesh, for He said Why are you 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 has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. And observe the exactness of the language. He does not say is not flesh and bones, but has not flesh and bones, in order to point out that the nature of the possessor and the nature of that which is possessed are distinct and separate. Just in the same way that which took and that which was taken are separate and distinct, and the Christ is beheld made one of both. Thus the part possessing is entirely different from the part possessed; and yet does not divide into two persons Him who is an object of thought in them. The Lord, indeed, while the disciples were still in doubt, asked for food and took and ate it, not consuming the food only in appearance, nor satisfying to the need of the body.

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. The apostles however bear witness that He partook of the food, for the blessed Luke in the preface to the Acts says being assembled together with the apostles the Lord commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem and the very divine Peter says more distinctly: Who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead. For since eating is proper to them that live this present life, of necessity the Lord by means of eating and drinking proved the resurrection of the flesh to them that did not acknowledge it to be real. This same course He pursued in the case of Lazarus and of Jairus' daughter. For when He had raised up the latter He ordered that something should be given her to eat and He made Lazarus sit with Him at the table and so showed the reality of the rising again.

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.

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), left in His own body the prints of the nails, and the wound in His side, whereof are witnesses both the Lord Himself and the hand of Thomas.

Eran.— True.

Orth.— If then after the resurrection the Lord both partook of food, and showed 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 has not flesh and bones as you see me have it follows that after His resurrection the nature of His body was preserved and was not changed into another substance.

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?

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 has appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He has ordained whereof He has given assurance unto all men in that He has raised Him from the dead, and I have learned from the holy