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 you 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 do you think 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 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?
Source: Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus") (New Advent)