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 begot 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.
Source: Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus") (New Advent)