Philip Schaff (ed.) · 176 of 886

The Unconfounded. · Part 2

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 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.” 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 ye 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 shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?” And when they replied: “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself God,” He added “It is written in your law I said ye 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 hath sanctified and sent into the world thou blasphemest, 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 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?” And when they said “Of David” He went on “How then doth 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 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.” 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 cometh 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 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.”

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 learnt to believe from the divine Scriptures.

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

Eran.—On the sixth day.

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

Eran.—I think twenty.

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

Eran.—Forty-two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orth.—He was made flesh by taking flesh.

Eran.—Yes.

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

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Was He then changed into flesh?

Eran.—Certainly not.

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

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

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

Eran.—The analogy does not hold good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eran.—And what of the body?

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

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

Orth.—Yes.

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

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 thou fearest 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 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.” 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 hateth.” 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 thine ear and hear” and “Open thine eyes and see” and “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” and “Thy 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.