Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

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.