Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

Eran.— When we know the Apostle's meaning there is nothing absurd in adding what is left out.

Orth.— But to add anything to the divine words is wild and rash. To explain what is written and reveal the hidden meaning is holy and pious.

Eran.— Quite right.

Orth.— We two then shall do nothing unreasonable and unholy in examining the mind of the Scriptures.

Eran.— No.

Orth.— Let us then look together into what seems to be hidden.

Eran.— By all means.

Orth.— Did the great Paul call the divine James the Lord's brother?

Eran.— He did.

Orth.— But in what sense are we to regard him as brother? By relationship of His godhead or of His manhood?

Eran.— I will not consent to divide the united natures.

Orth.— But you have often divided them in our previous investigations, and you shall do the same thing now. Tell me; do you say that God the Word was only begotten Son?

Eran.— I do.

Orth.— And only begotten means only Son.

Eran.— Certainly.

Orth.— And the only begotten cannot have a brother?

Eran.— Of course not, for if He had had a brother He would not be called the only begotten.

Orth.— Then they were wrong in calling James the brother of the Lord. For the Lord was only begotten, and the only begotten cannot have a brother.

Eran.— No, but the Lord is not incorporeal and the proclaimers of the truth are referring only to what touches the godhead.

Orth.— How then would you prove the word of the apostle true?

Eran.— By saying that James was of kin with the Lord according to the flesh.

Orth.— See how you have brought in again that division which you object to.

Eran.— It was not possible to explain the kinship in any other way.

Orth.— Then do not find fault with those who cannot explain similar difficulties in any other way.

Eran.— Now you are getting the argument off the track because you want to shirk the question.

Orth.— Not at all, my friend. That will be settled too by the points we have investigated. Now look; when you were reminded of James the brother of the Lord, you said that the relationship referred not to the Godhead but to the flesh.

Eran.— I did.

Orth.— Well, now that you are told of the passion of the cross, refer this too to the flesh.

Eran.— The Apostle called the crucified “Lord of Glory,” and the same Apostle called the Lord “brother of James.”

Orth.— And it is the same Lord in both cases. If then you are right in referring the relationship to the flesh you must also refer the passion to the flesh, for it is perfectly ridiculous to regard the relationship without distinction and to refer the passion to Christ without distinction.

Eran.— I follow the Apostle who calls the crucified “Lord of glory.”

Orth.— I follow too, and believe that He was “Lord of glory.” For the body which was nailed to the wood was not that of any common man but of the Lord of glory. But we must acknowledge that the union makes the names common. Once more: do you say that the flesh of the Lord came down from heaven?

Eran.— Of course not.

Orth.— But was formed in the Virgin's womb?

Eran.— Yes.

Orth.— How, then, does the Lord say “If you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before,” and again “No man has ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?”

Eran.— He is speaking not of the flesh, but of the Godhead.

Orth.— Yes; but the Godhead is of the God and Father. How then does He call him Son of man?

Eran.— The peculiar properties of the natures are shared by the person, for on account of the union the same being is both Son of man and Son of God, everlasting and of time, Son of David and Lord of David, and so on with the rest.

Orth.— Very right. But it is also important to recognise the fact that no confusion of natures results from both having one name. Wherefore we are endeavouring to distinguish how the same being is Son of God and also Son of man, and how He is “the same yesterday, today, and for ever,” and by the reverent distinction of terms we find that the contradictions are in agreement.

Eran.— You are right.

Orth.— You say that the divine nature came down from heaven and that in consequence of the union it was called the Son of man. Thus it behooves us to say that the flesh was nailed to the tree, but to hold that the divine nature even on the cross and in the tomb was inseparable from this flesh, though from it it derived no sense of suffering, since the divine nature is naturally incapable of undergoing both suffering and death and its substance is immortal and impassible. It is in this sense that the crucified is styled Lord of Glory, by attribution of the title of the impassible nature to the passible, since, as we know, a body is described as belonging to this latter.

Now let us examine the matter thus. The words of the divine Apostle are “Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” They crucified the nature which they knew, not that of which they were wholly ignorant: had they known that of which they were ignorant they would not have crucified that which they knew: they crucified the human because they were ignorant of the divine. Have you forgotten their own words. “For a good work we stone you not but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest yourself God.” These words are a plain proof that they recognised the nature they saw, while of the invisible they were wholly ignorant: had they known that nature they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Eran.— That is very probable, but the exposition of the faith laid down by the Fathers in council at Nicæa says that the only begotten Himself, very God, of one substance with the Father, suffered and was crucified.

Orth.— You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and again.

Eran.— What do you mean?

Orth.— I mean that after the union the holy Scripture applies to one person terms both of exaltation and of humiliation. But possibly you are also ignorant that the illustrious Fathers first mentioned His taking flesh and being made man, and then afterwards added that He suffered and was crucified, and thus spoke of the passion after they had set forth the nature capable of passion.

Eran.— The Fathers said that the Son of God, Light of Light, of the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.

Orth.— I have observed more than once that both the Divine and the human are ascribed to the one Person. It is in accordance with this position that the thrice blessed Fathers, after teaching how we should believe in the Father, and then passing on to the person of the Son, did not immediately add “and in the Son of God,” although it would have very naturally followed that after defining what touches God the Father they should straightway have introduced the name of Son. But their object was to give us at one and the same time instruction on the theology and on the œconomy, lest there should be supposed to be any distinction between the Person of the Godhead and the Person of the Manhood. On this account they added to their statement concerning the Father that we must believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now after the incarnation God the Word is called Christ, for this name includes alike all that is proper to the Godhead and to the manhood. We recognise nevertheless that some properties belong to the one nature and some to the others, and this may at once be understood from the actual terms of the Creed. For tell me: to what do you apply the phrase “of the substance of the Father”? To the Godhead, or to the nature that was fashioned of the seed of David?

Eran.— To the Godhead, as is plain.

Orth.— And the clause “Very God of very God”; to which do you hold this belongs, to the Godhead or to the manhood?

Eran.— To the Godhead.