Orth.— The creature is transformed by the Creator as He will, for it is mutable and obeys the nod of Him that fashioned it. But His nature is immutable and invariable, wherefore of the creature the prophet says “He that makes and transforms all things.” But of the divine Word the great David says “You are the same and your years shall not fail.” And again the same God says of Himself “For I am the Lord and I change not.”
Eran.— What is hidden ought not to “be enquired into.”
Orth.— Nor yet what is plain to be altogether ignored.
Eran.— I am not aware of the manner of the incarnation. I have heard that the Word was made flesh.
Orth.— If He was made flesh by mutation He did not remain what He was before, and this is easily intelligible from several analogies. Sand, for instance, when it is subjected to heat, first becomes fluid, then is changed and congealed into glass, and at the time of the change alters its name, for it is no longer called sand but glass.
Eran.— So it is.
Orth.— And while we call the fruit of the vine grape, when once we have pressed it, we speak of it no longer as grape, but as wine.
Eran.— Certainly.
Orth.— And the wine itself, after it has undergone a change, it is our custom to name no longer wine, but vinegar.
Eran.— True.
Orth.— And similarly stone when burnt and in solution is no longer called stone, but lime. And innumerable other similar instances might be found where mutation involves a change of name.
Eran.— Agreed.
Orth.— If therefore you assert that the Divine Word underwent the change in the flesh, why do you call Him God and not flesh? For change of name fits in with the alteration of nature. For if where the things which undergo change have some relation to their former condition (for there is a certain approximation of vinegar to wine and of wine to the fruit of the vine, and of glass to sand) they receive another name after their alteration, how, where the difference between them is infinite and as wide as that which divides a gnat from the whole visible and invisible creation (for so wide, nay much wider, is the difference between the nature of flesh and of Godhead) is it possible for the same name to obtain after the change?
Eran.— I have said more than once that He was made flesh not by mutation, but continuing still to be what He was, He was made what He was not.
Orth.— But unless this word “was made” becomes quite clear it suggests mutation and alteration, for unless He was made flesh by taking flesh He was made flesh by undergoing mutation.
Eran.— But the word “take” is your own invention. The Evangelist says the Word was made flesh.
Orth.— You seem either to be ignorant of the sacred Scripture, or to do it wrong knowingly. Now if you are ignorant, I will teach you; if you are doing wrong, I will convict you. Answer then; do you acknowledge the teaching of the divine Paul to be of the Spirit?
Eran.— Certainly.
Orth.— And do you allow that the same Spirit wrought through both Evangelists and Apostles?
Eran.— Yes, for so have I learned from the Apostolic Scripture “There are diversities of gifts but the same spirit,” and again “All these things works that one and the selfsame spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will,” and again “Having the same Spirit of the Faith.”
Orth.— Your introduction of the apostolic testimony is in season. If we assert that the instruction alike of the evangelists and of the apostles is of the same spirit, listen how the apostle interprets the words of the Gospel, for in the Epistle to the Hebrews he says, “Verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Now tell me what you mean by the seed of Abraham. Was not that which was naturally proper to Abraham proper also to the seed of Abraham?
Eran.— No; not without exception, for Christ did no sin.
Orth.— Sin is not of nature, but of corrupt will. On this very account, therefore, I did not say indefinitely what Abraham had, but what he had according to nature, that is to say, body and reasonable soul. Now tell me plainly; will you acknowledge that the seed of Abraham was endowed with body and reasonable soul? If not, in this point you agree with the ravings of Apollinarius. But I will compel you to confess this by other means. Tell me now; had the Jews a body and a reasonable soul?
Eran.— Of course they had.
Orth.— So when we hear the prophet saying, “But you, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,” are we to understand the Jews to be bodies only? Are we not to understand them to be men consisting of bodies and souls?
Eran.— True.
Orth.— And the seed of Abraham not without soul nor yet intelligence, but with everything which characterizes the seed of Abraham?
Eran.— He who so says puts forward two sons.
Orth.— But he who says that the Divine Word is changed into the flesh does not even acknowledge one Son, for mere flesh by itself is not a son; but we confess one Son who took upon Him the seed of Abraham, according to the divine apostle, and wrought the salvation of mankind. But if you do not accept the apostolic preaching, say so openly.
Eran.— But we maintain that the utterances of the apostles are inconsistent, for there appears to be a certain inconsistency between “the Word was made flesh” and “took upon Him the seed of Abraham.”
Orth.— It is because you lack intelligence, or because you are arguing for arguing's sake, that the consistent seems inconsistent. It does not so appear to men who use sound reasoning; for the divine apostle teaches that the Divine Word was made Flesh, not by mutation, but by taking on Him the seed of Abraham. At the same time, too, he recalls the promise given to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises given to the Patriarch by the God of the Universe?
Eran.— What promises?
Orth.— When He brought him out of his father's house, and ordered him to come into Palestine, did He not say to him “I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you, and in your seed shall all families of the earth be blessed”?
Eran.— I remember these promises.
Orth.— Remember, too, the covenants made by God with Isaac and Jacob, for He gave them, too, the same promises, confirming the former by the second and the third.
Eran.— I remember them too.
Orth.— It is in relation to these covenants that the divine apostle writes in his Epistle to the Galatians “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.” He says not “seeds” as of many, but as of one...which is Christ, very plainly showing that the manhood of Christ sprang from the seed of Abraham, and fulfilled the promise made to Abraham.
Eran.— So the apostle says.
Orth.— Enough has been said to remove all the controversy raised on this point. But I will nevertheless remind you of another prediction. The blessing given to the Patriarch Jacob and to his father and his grandfather was given by him to his son Judah alone. He said “A Prince shall not fail Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall have come to whom it is in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles.” Or do you not accept this prediction as spoken of the Saviour Christ?
Eran.— Jews give erroneous interpretations of prophecies of this kind, but I am a Christian; I trust in the Divine word; and I receive the prophecies without doubt.
Orth.— Since then you confess that you believe the prophecies and acknowledge the predictions have been divinely uttered about our Saviour, consider what follows as to the intention of the words of the apostle, for while pointing out that the promises made to the patriarchs have reached their fulfilment, he uttered those remarkable words “He took not on Him the nature of angels,” all but saying the promise is true; the Lord has fulfilled His pledges; the fount of blessing is open to the gentiles; God had taken on Him the seed of Abraham; through it He brings about the promised salvation; through it He confirms the promise of the gentiles.
Source: Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus") (New Advent)