The Beggar (or The Many-Shaped)

OF THE BLESSED THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS: THE ERANISTES, OR POLYMORPHUS

PREFACE

^A There are some who, not possessing the fame worthy of praise either from their lineage, or from their education, or from their glorious deeds, strive to become distinguished through wicked pursuits. Such was that Alexander the coppersmith, who had nothing worthy of notice: neither nobility of birth, nor skill in speech, nor the power of leadership, nor the art of commanding armies, nor the recommendation of warlike exploits; for he practiced only a base trade, and he became known solely by his frenzy against the most divine Paul. And Semei again, a man altogether obscure and servile, became most renowned because of his insolence against the inspired David. They say that even the inventor of the Manichaean heresy was a slave, and that in his desire for glory he wrote down that detestable superstition. Many do the very same thing even now; for, shunning the labors that precede the glory of virtue, which is to be yearned for, they have procured for themselves a most shameful and wretched fame. ^B Since they desired to be patrons of new doctrines, they begged their impiety from many sects and compiled this pernicious heresy. I, therefore, shall endeavor to discourse with them briefly, both for the sake of their own healing and for the sake of strengthening those who are sound. The name of the writing is *Eranistes*, or *Polymorphus* (that is, the beggar or the multiform). For, begging their detestable doctrines from many impious men, they bring forth this variegated and multiform opinion. For to name the Lord Christ as God alone is the teaching of Simon, and Cerdo, and Marcion, and of others who share in this detestable neighborhood. ^C As for confessing the birth from the Virgin, yet calling it transitory, and holding that it was nothing from

the Virgin that the God Word took, they have pillaged this from the monstrosities of Valentinus, and Bardesanes, and those near to them. ^A Yet to call the divinity of the Lord Christ and his humanity one nature, this they have stolen from the trifles of Apollinarius. Again, to attribute passion to the divinity of Christ, this they have filched from the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius; so that this commencement ^B is quite like those garments worn by beggars, stitched together from diverse rags. For this reason, I call this work the Eranistes, or the Polymorph. The discourse will proceed in the manner of a dialogue, containing questions and answers, propositions and solutions, objections and other things proper to the character of a dialogue. But the names of those questioning and answering I shall not insert into the body of the discourse, as did the ^C ancient sages of the Greeks, but I shall write them in the margins at the beginnings of the lines. For they offered their writings to those practiced in every kind of learning, and to those whose life was spent in the pursuit of letters; but I desire that my reading be easy and accessible, and the discovery of benefit be gained, even by those who have not been initiated into the mysteries of the liberal arts. This will be so, as the persons conversing become clear from the names written in the margins. And to him who contends for the apostolic doctrines, the name Orthodoxos is given; ^D the other is called Eranistes. Just as we are accustomed to call a beggar him who is fed by the mercy of many, and a merchant him who knows how to collect money, so we have bestowed this name upon this one, derived from his practices. I ask my readers, however, that they weigh the truth free from any prejudice. For we, caring for clarity, have divided the work into three dialogues. And the first will join the battle regarding the immutability of the divinity of the only-begotten Son; the second, God willing, will show the union of the divinity and humanity of the Lord Christ to have been without confusion; and the third will contend for the impassibility of the divinity of our Savior. After these three struggles, as it were, we shall add certain supplementary passages, attaching a brief summary to each chapter, and openly showing that what we preserve is what was preached by the apostles.

IMMUTABLE. DIALOGUE I. ORTHODOX AND ERANISTES.

^A ORTHODOX. It would indeed be better for us to be in agreement and to preserve the apostolic teaching intact. But because, I know not for what reason, concord has been broken, and you are now proposing to us new dogmas, let us, if you please, seek the truth together without any contention.

ERANISTES. We have no need of inquiry: for we hold the truth as having already been explored and perceived.

ORTHODOX. Every heretic is persuaded of this; and indeed, Jews and Greeks also think themselves defenders of the true dogmas; and not only those who follow the doctrines of Plato and Pythagoras, but also the disciples of Epicurus, and those who are entirely atheists and hold no opinion. But it is not fitting to serve a preconceived opinion, but to inquire into the true doctrine.

ERANISTES. I obey your admonition, and I accept your suggestion.

^B ORTHODOX. Since, therefore, you have easily accepted my former exhortation, I ask you again not to subject the search for truth to human reasoning, but to seek the footsteps of the apostles, the prophets, and the saints who have followed them. For travelers are wont to do this when they have strayed from the royal road; they examine the paths to see if there are footprints of those passing by or coming, whether of men, or of horses, or of asses, or of mules. And when they find them, they track them like hounds, and do not desist until they have returned to the straight road.

ERANISTES. Let us do so. You therefore lead the way, as you have begun the discourse.

ORTHODOX. Let us then, in the first place, discuss the divine names—I mean substance, and hypostases, and persons, and properties—and let us recognize and define what difference they have among themselves; then let us proceed to the rest in order.

ERANISTES. You have given a most beautiful and most fitting beginning to our discourse. For these things having been clearly explained, our discussion will proceed more easily.

ORTHODOX. Since, therefore, we have agreed that these things ought to be done thus, answer me, my friend. Is it by the power of God, and of the Father, and of the

Only-begotten Son, and of the all-holy Spirit that we profess, as we have been taught by the divine Scripture, both old and new, and by the Fathers who gathered at Nicaea, or do we follow the blasphemies of Arius? ^A ERANISTES. We confess one substance of the holy Trinity. ORTHODOX. And as for hypostasis, do we consider it to signify something other than substance, or do we believe it to be a different name for substance? ERANISTES. Is there any difference between substance and hypostasis? ORTHODOX. According to the wisdom of those outside, there is none: for substance signifies that which is, and hypostasis signifies that which subsists. But according to the doctrine of the Fathers, just as the common differs from the proper, or a genus ^B differs from a species or an individual, so substance differs from hypostasis. ERANISTES. Speak more clearly about genus, and species, and individual. ORTHODOX. We call "animal" a genus; for it signifies many things at once. It comprises both that which is endowed with reason and that which is devoid of reason; and of those devoid of reason there are again many species: some are winged, others amphibious, others terrestrial, others aquatic. And each of these is divided into many things. For of the terrestrial animals, one is a lion, another a leopard, another a bull, and ten thousand others. So too with the winged animals ^C and the others, there are many species; but nevertheless, the genus of all these is "animal," while the species are those already mentioned. Likewise, the name "human" is a common name for this nature. For it signifies the Roman, and the Athenian, and the Persian, and the Sarmatian, and the Egyptian, and, to speak comprehensively, all who partake of this nature. Yet the name "Paul" or "Peter" no longer signifies the common nature, but a certain human being. For no one, upon hearing "Paul," has his thoughts run to Adam, and Abraham, and Jacob, but he intends only him whose name he heard. But if one hears "human" simply, he does not fix his mind on one individual, but considers the Indian, and the Scythian, and the Massagete, and, in a word, the whole human race. ^D And this, not only nature teaches us, but also the divine Scripture. For God said, as it is written: "I will blot out the human whom I have created from the face of the earth" (Gen. vi, 7). This He said concerning a vast multitude. For after more than two thousand two hundred years had passed since Adam, He brought total destruction upon humans through the flood. In the same way the blessed David also says: "A human being, when he was in honor, did not understand" (Ps. xlvii, 21), not accusing this or that person, but all humans universally. Such...

are countless things to be found, but there is no need to prolong the discourse.

ERAN. ^A The distinction between the common and the proper has been openly shown; but let us return to the discussion concerning substance and hypostasis.

ORTH. Just as, therefore, the name "human" is a name common to this whole nature, so we have received that the name of the divine substance signifies the holy Trinity; but hypostasis denotes a certain person, as for instance, either of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. For we say that "hypostasis," and "person," and "property" signify the same thing, following the definitions of the holy Fathers.

ERAN. We agree that these things are so.

ORTH. Therefore, whatever is said concerning the divine nature is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as "God," "Lord," "Creator," "Almighty," and whatever is similar to these.

ERAN. These are indisputably common to the Trinity.

ORTH. But those things which in turn are indicative of the hypostases are no longer common to the holy Trinity, but belong to that hypostasis of which they are proper. For example, the name "Father" and "Ingenerate" are proper to the Father; and again, the name "Son," and "Only-Begotten," and "God the Word," do not signify the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son. And "Holy Spirit" and "Paraclete" are indicative of the hypostasis of the Spirit.

ERAN. Does not the holy Scripture, then, call both the Father and the Son "Spirit"?

ORTH. It has called both the Father and the Son "Spirit," signifying by this that the divine nature is incorporeal and cannot be circumscribed; but it calls only the hypostasis of the Spirit "Holy Spirit."

ERAN. This also is placed beyond controversy.

ORTH. Since, therefore, we have said that some things are common to the holy Trinity, while others are proper to each hypostasis, do we say that the name "immutable" is common to the substance, or proper to some person?

ERAN. ^C The "immutable" is common to the Trinity. For it is not possible that part of the substance should be mutable, and part immutable.

ORTH. You have spoken excellently. For just as the "mortal" is common to humans, so the "immutable" and that which is free from alteration is common to the holy Trinity. Therefore, the only-begotten Son is also immutable, just as the Father who begat him, and the Holy Spirit.

ERAN. Immutable. ^D

ORTH. How then, by putting forward that evangelical saying, "The Word became flesh" (John i, 14), do you attribute change to the immutable nature?

ERAN. ^A We do not say he became flesh through change, but as he himself knows.

ORTH. If he is not said to have become flesh by taking on flesh, then it is necessary to affirm one of two things: either that he underwent change into flesh, or that he only appeared to be such by illusion, while in the true sense God is without flesh.

ERAN. This is the opinion of the Valentinians, the Marcionists, and the Manichaeans. But we have been taught without controversy that God the Word was incarnate.

ORTH. And what do you understand "to be incarnate" to mean? Does it mean to have taken on flesh, or to have been changed into flesh?

ERAN. That which we heard the Evangelist saying: "The Word became flesh."

ORTH. But how do you understand "became"?

ERAN. He who underwent the change into flesh became flesh, and as I said already, as he himself knows. We know that all things are possible for him. For he turned the water of the Nile into blood, and the day into night, and he showed the sea to be dry land, and he filled the waterless desert with water. We also hear the Prophet saying: "All things that the Lord willed, he did in heaven and on earth" (Ps. cxxxiv, 6).

ORTH. The Creator changes the creation as he wills; for it is mutable and follows the nods of the one who fashioned it. But he himself has a nature that is immutable and devoid of alteration. ^B For this reason, the prophet says of the creation: "Who makes all things, and changes them" (Jerem. x, 16); but concerning God the Word, the great David says: "But you are the same, and your years will not fail" (Ps. ci, 28). And again, God himself says concerning himself: "I am, and I have not been changed" (Malach. iii, 6).

ERAN. One must not seek the hidden things.

ORTH. Nor must one be entirely ignorant of the things that have been revealed.

ERAN. The manner of the incarnation eludes me; I only heard that the Word became flesh.

ORTH. If he became flesh by being changed, he did not remain what he was before; and this is easy to perceive from many images. For this certain sand, when brought into contact with fire, ^C first becomes liquid, then it hardens into glass, and along with the change, it changes its designation. For ^D it is no longer called sand, but glass.

ERAN. It is so.

ORTH. And when we call the fruit of the vine grapes, when we squeeze it, we call it not grapes, but wine.

ERAN. Quite so.

ORTH. And the wine itself, when it has changed, we are accustomed to call not wine anymore, but vinegar.

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. Thus, when we boil and dissolve the stone,

we no longer call it stone, but unslaked lime or plaster. There are countless ^A things of this sort that can be found, which change their name along with their change. ERAN. This is admitted. ORTH. If, therefore, you say that God the Word has undergone a change into flesh, why do you not call him flesh rather than God? For a change of name is appropriate to a change of nature. For if, where the things that are changed retain some relationship with what they were before (for vinegar has a certain proximity to wine, and wine to the fruit of the vine, and glass to sand), they obtain other names after the change, how—where the difference is infinite, and as great as that between a gnat and the ^B entire visible and invisible creation (for the distance between the nature of flesh and divinity is this great, and indeed much greater)—could the previous appellation remain after the change? ERAN. I have often said that strictly speaking the Word did not become flesh through mutation, but remaining what He was, He became what He was not. ORTH. But the expression "became," unless it is clarified, implies change and alteration. For unless He became flesh by assuming flesh, He became flesh by being changed. ERAN. This "assuming" is your own invention. For the evangelist says: "The Word became flesh." ORTH. You seem either to be ignorant of the divine Scripture or to be acting wickedly while knowing it. But I shall either teach you if you are ignorant, or convict you if you are acting wickedly. Answer me, therefore, do you acknowledge that the doctrine of the divine ^C Paul is spiritual? ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. And do you say that the same Spirit worked through the evangelists and through the apostles? ERAN. I say so; for thus I have been taught by the apostolic Scripture: "There are," it says, "divisions of gifts of grace, but the same Spirit." And again: "All these things works the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one individually as He wills." And again: "Having the same Spirit of faith." ORTH. You have cited the apostolic testimonies at the right time. If, therefore, we say that the teaching of the evangelists and the apostles is of the same Spirit, listen to the Apostle interpreting the words of the Gospel. For writing to the Hebrews, he said thus: "For ^D nowhere does He take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham." Tell me, therefore, what do you understand by the seed of Abraham? Does not the seed of Abraham have what Abraham had according to nature? ERAN. Not everything. For Christ did not commit sin. ORTH. Sin is not of nature, but of evil choice. For this reason I did not say indefinitely: what He had

^A Abraham, but what he had according to nature, that is, a body and a soul endowed with reason. Tell me clearly, therefore, do you acknowledge that the seed of Abraham is both a body and a soul endowed with reason? If not, then in this you follow the ravings of Apollinarius. But I will compel you to acknowledge this by another path as well. Tell me, then, do the Jews have a body and a soul endowed with reason? ERAN. It is clear they do. ORTH. When, therefore, we hear the prophet saying: “But you, Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham whom I have loved,” ^B do we consider the Jews to be merely flesh, or men composed of bodies and souls? ERAN. You speak the truth. ORTH. And the seed of Abraham, is it not devoid of soul or mind, but possessing everything that characterizes the nature of Abraham? ERAN. He who says these things introduces two sons. ORTH. But he who says that God the Word was turned into flesh mentions no Son at all. For flesh by itself is not the Son. ^C But we confess one Son, who took to Himself the seed of Abraham, as the divine Apostle says, and who accomplished the salvation of men. But if you do not welcome the apostolic teaching, speak out openly. ERAN. Then we say that the apostles have spoken contradictory things. For it seems in some way contradictory that “The Word became flesh” and that “He took to Himself the seed of Abraham.” ORTH. To you, who do not understand or who are contentiously arguing in vain, they seem to be contrary. But to those who use a sound mind, they do not appear so. For the divine Apostle teaches that God the Word did not become flesh through change, but by taking to Himself the seed of Abraham. ^D At the same time, he also calls to memory the promise made to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises given to the patriarch by the God of the universe? ERAN. Which ones? ORTH. When He led him out of his father’s house and commanded him to come into Palestine, did He not say to him: “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you, and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”? ERAN. I remember these promises. ORTH. Therefore, call to mind also the covenants made by God with Isaac and Jacob. For He gave these same promises to them also, confirming the former with the second and third. ERAN. I remember these as well. ORTH. The divine Apostle, interpreting these covenants, says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to his seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your seed,’ which is Christ.”

^A clearly demonstrating that the humanity of Christ blossomed from the seed of Abraham, and that he fulfilled the promise made to Abraham.

ERAN. These things have been spoken by the Apostle.

ORTH. These might indeed be sufficient to remove every controversy that is stirred up regarding this matter. Yet I shall remind you of another prophecy. Jacob the patriarch gave this blessing, which was given to him and to his father and to his grandfather, to his son Judah alone, saying: “A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes to whom it is reserved, and he shall be the expectation of the nations.” Do you not admit this prophecy as having been foretold concerning Christ the Savior?

ERAN. The Jews interpret such prophecies incorrectly; but I am a Christian, believing in the divine Scriptures, and I accept without any doubt the prophecies concerning our Savior.

ORTH. Since, therefore, you confess that you believe in the prophecies, and say that those things which were foretold concerning our Savior have been revealed, consider from this the aim of the Apostolic words. For, showing that the promises made to the patriarchs reached their outcome, he uttered that admirable voice: “For he does not take hold of angels,” ^B as if to say: The promise is true; the Lord has put an end to the promises; the fountain of blessing has been opened to the nations; God has taken hold of the seed of Abraham; through this he grants the promised salvation, through this he confirms the expectation of the nations.

ERAN. The prophetic [words] have been most excellently joined to the apostolic [words].

ORTH. Thus, again, the divine Apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah, and showing that this too has received its fulfillment, exclaims: “For it is manifest that the Lord has sprung from Judah.” This same thing both the prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew have done. For the one delivered the prediction, and the other attached the prophetic testimony to the history. And what is worthy of admiration is that he says that the manifest enemies of the truth openly told Herod that Christ would be born in Bethlehem. “For it is written,” he says, “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah; ^C for out of you shall come forth to me a leader who shall shepherd my people Israel.” But let us also add that which the Jews maliciously omitted, while they brought forward an incomplete testimony. For when the prophet had said, “Out of you shall come forth to me a leader,” he added: “And his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”

ERAN. You have done excellently in bringing forward the whole testimony of the prophet. For it shows that he who was born in Bethlehem is God.

ORTH. Not only God, but also man. ^D

^A For as man, he is the one who sprouted from Judah according to the flesh and was born in Bethlehem; but as God, he exists before the ages. For the words, "Out of you shall come forth to me a leader," signify his birth according to the flesh, which took place in the last of the days; but the words, "His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity," clearly proclaim his pre-eternal existence. In the same way, the divine Apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, while lamenting the shifting of the ancient good fortune of the Jews for the worse and commemorating the divine promise and legislation given to them, added these words: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Rom. IX, 5). And at once he manifested him both as the Creator, Lord, and governor ^B of all as God, and as having sprouted from the Jews as man.

ERAN. See, you have interpreted these; but what would you say to the prophecy of Jeremiah? For that proclaims him to be God alone.

ORTH. What prophecy do you mean?

ERAN. "This is our God, no other shall be reckoned in comparison to him. He discovered every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved of him. After this he was seen upon the earth and conversed with men" (Baruch III, 35-37). In these words, the prophet prophesied not concerning flesh, nor concerning humanity, nor concerning man, but concerning God alone.

ORTH. Where, then, is any need for syllogisms? Do we say that the divine nature is invisible, or do we not obey the Apostle saying, "To the immortal, invisible, only God" (1 Tim. I, 17)?

ERAN. Without controversy, the divine nature is invisible.

ORTH. How then was it possible for the invisible nature to be seen without a body? ^C Or do you not remember those apostolic texts which clearly teach the unseeability of the divine nature? For he says thus: "Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see" (1 Tim. I, 16). If, therefore, the sight of the divine nature is impossible for men, and I say also for angels, tell me how he who is unseeable and invisible was seen upon the earth.

ERAN. The prophet said that he was seen upon the earth.

ORTH. And the Apostle said, "To the immortal, invisible, only God," and, "Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see."

ERAN. What then? Does the prophet lie?

ORTH. God forbid! For both these and those are words of the divine Spirit.

ERAN. Let us inquire, ^D therefore, how the invisible was seen.

ORTH. Do not bring me cogitations and syllogisms

^A which are not confirmed by the testimony of divine Scripture. If you bring me the solution to the difficulty from divine Scripture, I will accept it and offer no contradiction.

ORTH. You know that we have recently explained the evangelical pronouncement through the testimony of the Apostle, and the divine Apostle revealed to us how the Word became flesh, saying explicitly: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The same Teacher will therefore now instruct us how God the Word was seen on earth and lived among men.

ERAN. I assent to both apostolic and prophetic words. Produce, therefore, according to your promise, the interpretation of the prophecy.

ORTH. The divine Apostle, in writing to Timothy, added these things also: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." ^B It is manifest, therefore, that while the divine nature is invisible, the flesh is visible, and that through this visible thing nature, that invisible one, was beheld, performing miracles through it and revealing its own power. For with his hand he fashioned the sense of sight and healed the man blind from birth. And again, he restored the faculty of hearing to the deaf and loosened the bound tongue, using his fingers as an instrument and applying saliva as a sort of salutary restorative. So too, in walking upon the sea, he revealed the omnipotence of the divinity. Aptly, therefore, did the divine Apostle say: "God was manifest in the flesh." For through it, that nature appeared which could not be seen: through it, the hosts of angels also saw it; for he says, "Seen of angels." Thus, the nature of incorporeal beings became a participant in this gift along with us. ^C

ERAN. Did the angels, then, not see God before the advent of the Savior?

ORTH. The Apostle said that, having been manifested in the flesh, he was seen by angels.

ERAN. But the Lord said: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

ORTH. But the Lord again said: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." For this reason, the Evangelist also cries out plainly: "No man hath seen God at any time," ^D and confirms what was said by the Lord: "For the only begotten Son," he says, "who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

^A And the great Moses, desiring to see the invisible nature, heard the Lord God himself saying: "No man shall see my face, and live."

ERAN. How then are we to understand: "Their angels do always behold the face of your Father"?

ORTH. Just as we are accustomed to understand the things said about those men who were thought to have seen God.

ERAN. Speak more clearly, for I have not understood. Does it mean that God can be seen by men?

ORTH. By no means.

ERAN. But nevertheless, we hear the divine Scripture saying: "God appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre," and Isaiah saying: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up." ^B And Micah also says the same thing, and Daniel, and Ezekiel. And about Moses the lawgiver, the history says that the Lord talked to Moses face to face, as a man would talk to his friend. And the God of all himself said: "Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in appearance, and not by riddles." What then shall we say? That they beheld the divine nature?

ORTH. By no means. For God himself said: "No man shall see my face, and live."

ERAN. Do those, then, who say they have seen God lie?

ORTH. God forbid! For they saw what it was possible for them to see.

ERAN. Does the benevolent Lord, therefore, measure the revelations according to the capacity of those who behold them?

ORTH. Certainly. And he has made this clear through the prophet. ^C "For I," he said, "have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I have been assimilated." He did not say, "I appeared," but, "I have been assimilated." But similitude does not denote the very nature of the thing seen. For neither does the image of a king show the nature of the king, even if it preserves the features of the king clearly.

ERAN. This is obscure and not sufficiently explained. Therefore, those who beheld those revelations did not see the essence of God either?

ORTH. Who is so bereft of his senses as to dare to affirm this?

ERAN. But it is said, nonetheless, that they have seen [him].

ORTH. It is said. But we, using pious thoughts and believing in the divine declarations ^D which proclaim explicitly, "No man hath seen God at any time,"

^A nor that they have seen the divine nature, but rather certain visions adjusted to their own capacity. ERAN. We say so. ORTH. Let us understand it thus, then, concerning the angels, hearing that “They see always the face of your Father.” For they do not see the divine essence—the uncircumscribed, the incomprehensible, the inconceivable, that which encompasses all things—but a certain splendor accommodated to their own nature. ERAN. It is acknowledged that these things are so. ORTH. After the incarnation, however, he was seen even by the angels, according to the divine Apostle, not using a likeness of glory, but a true and living one, as a kind of veil, the covering of the flesh. For, he says, “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels.” ^B ERAN. This I have accepted as a Scriptural testimony, but I do not accept innovations in words. ORTH. What new name have we devised? ERAN. The name of the “veil.” For what Scripture has called the Lord’s flesh a veil? ORTH. You seem not to read the divine Scripture very diligently; otherwise, you would not have blamed the likeness proposed by us. For first, the divine Apostle, in saying that the invisible nature was manifested through the flesh, permits us to understand the flesh as a veil of the divinity. Furthermore, the divine Apostle explicitly used this name in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For he speaks thus: “Having therefore, brethren, confidence for the entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus, which he hath dedicated for us as a new and living way ^C through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, and a great priest over the house of God, approaching with truth, entering with a true heart in fullness of faith,” and what follows. ERAN. This proof is irrefutable; for it is confirmed by apostolic testimony. ORTH. Do not, then, accuse us of introducing new things. For we shall provide you also with another prophetic testimony, which openly calls the Lord’s flesh a robe and a mantle. ERAN. If it does not appear puzzling and ambiguous, we shall not gainsay it, and we shall be grateful. ORTH. I shall cause you yourself to bear witness to the truth of the promise. You know that Jacob the patriarch, when blessing Judah, defined the principality of Judah by the birth of the Lord? ^D “There shall not fail,” he said, “a prince from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he comes for whom it is reserved, and he will be the object of expectation.

^A And you confessed previously that this prophecy was spoken concerning the Savior.

ERAN. I confessed it.

ORTH. Recall, then, what follows. For he says likewise: “He whom the nations expect; he shall wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape.”

ERAN. The patriarch spoke concerning garments, not concerning a body.

ORTH. Point out, then, when or where he washed his cloak in the blood of the grape.

ERAN. You yourself point out that he tinted his body with these things.

ORTH. I ask you to answer more mystically. For perhaps some who are not initiated in the mysteries are standing by.

ERAN. I shall listen in this way, and in this way I shall answer.

ORTH. Do you know that the Lord called Himself a vine?

ERAN. I know that He said: “I am the true vine.”

ORTH. And the fruit of the vine, when pressed, what name does it have?

ERAN. It is called wine.

ORTH. When the soldiers pierced the side of the Savior with a spear, what do the authors of the Gospels say flowed from it?

ERAN. Blood and water.

ORTH. Therefore, he called the blood of the Savior the blood of the grape. For if the Lord is called ^B a vine, and the fruit of the vine is called wine, and streams of blood and water flowed from the side of the Lord and ran down through the rest of the body, then the patriarch quite rightly and appositely prophesied: “He shall wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape.” For just as we call the mystical fruit of the vine, after the sanctification, the Lord’s blood, so he named the blood of the true vine the blood of the grape.

ERAN. The matter proposed has been demonstrated both mystically and clearly.

ORTH. Even if the things said suffice for your faith, nevertheless I will add another proof for the confirmation of the truth.

ERAN. You will do me a favor if you do this; for you will increase the benefit.

ORTH. Do you know that God called His own body bread?

ERAN. I know.

ORTH. And elsewhere did He call His flesh grain?

ERAN. I know that too. For I heard Him ^C saying: “The hour has come that the Son of man—

^A —should be glorified; and: Unless a grain of wheat falling into the ground dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.”

26 ORTH. Yet in the institution of the mysteries, He called the bread body, and the mixture blood. ERAN. He did so name them. ORTH. And yet, according to nature, the body would rightly be called body, and the blood blood. ERAN. It is admitted. ORTH. But our Savior exchanged the names, and to the body indeed He gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol that of the body; and thus, having called Himself the vine, He bestowed the name of blood upon the symbol. ERAN. You have spoken truly indeed. But I wished to learn the reason for the exchange of names. ORTH. The purpose is manifest to those who have been initiated into the divine mysteries. For He wished those who participate in the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of those things which are seen, but by the exchange of names to believe in the transformation which has been wrought by grace. For He who called His natural body grain and bread, and again called Himself the vine, He has honored the visible symbols with the appellation of body and blood, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. ERAN. Both mystically were the mystical things spoken, and clearly were those things explained which are not known to all. ORTH. Since, therefore, it is agreed that ^B both the stole and the mantle ^C were called the Lord’s body by the patriarch, and we have entered into the discussion concerning the divine mysteries, tell me, in the name of truth, of whom do you think the most holy food is a symbol and figure? Of the divinity of the Lord Christ, or of His body and blood? ERAN. It is clear that they are of those whose names they also received. ORTH. You mean of the body and blood? ERAN. I say so. ORTH. You have spoken as befits a friend of the truth. For the Lord, when He took the symbol, did not say: "This is my divinity," but, "This is my body"; and again, "This is my blood"; and elsewhere: "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." ERAN. These are true, for they are divine oracles. ORTH. If they are true, therefore, the Lord certainly had a body. ERAN. But I say that He was without a body. ORTH. Yet you confess that He had a body. ERAN. I say that the Word became flesh; for so I have been instructed. ^D

^A ORTH. It is, as they say, pouring into a leaking jar; for after all those demonstrations and the solutions to your objections, you are revolving around the same arguments.

ERAN. I am not offering you my own words, but the words of the Gospel.

ORTH. And did I not bring you the interpretation of the Gospel sayings from prophetic and apostolic words?

ERAN. Those are not sufficient to resolve the question.

ORTH. But we have demonstrated that, while invisible, He was manifested through flesh. And we learned the kinship of that very flesh from holy men: «For He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham.» ^B And the Lord God said to the patriarch, «In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed»; and the Apostle, «For it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah.» And we have brought forward many other such testimonies. But since you wish to hear others, listen to the Apostle saying, «For every high priest taken from among men is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; therefore it is necessary that this one also have something to offer.»

ERAN. Prove, then, that He offered having taken a body.

ORTH. The divine Apostle himself clearly teaches this in the same passage. For a little later he says, «Therefore, coming into the world, He says, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, ^C but a body you have prepared for me.» He did not say, «You have changed into a body,» but, «A body you have prepared for me.» He signifies the formation of the body accomplished by the Spirit, according to the voice of the Gospel: «For it says, Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.»

ERAN. Then the Virgin gave birth only to a body.

ORTH. It appears you have not even grasped the configuration of the syllables, much less the meaning. For it teaches Joseph the mode of the conception, not the mode of the birth. For it did not say, «What is born of her—that is, what was made or formed—is of the Holy Spirit.» ^D Because Joseph, being ignorant of the mystery, was suspecting adultery, he was clearly instructed concerning the formation by the Spirit. Indicating these things through the Prophet, He said, «But a body you have prepared for me.» But the divine Apostle, filled with the Spirit, interpreted the prediction. If, therefore, it is the task of priests to offer gifts, and Christ is called a priest according to His humanity, and He offered no other sacrifice than His own body, it follows that the Lord Christ possessed a body.

ERAN. As I have said many times, I do not say that God the Word appeared without a body; yet I claim that He did not assume a body, but became flesh.

^A ORTH. As I see it, we are engaged in a struggle with the companions of Valentinus, Marcion, and Manes. Indeed, even they never dared to say that the immutable nature was turned into flesh.

ERAN. To use insults is alien to Christians.

ORTH. We do not use insults, but we fight for the truth, and we are deeply pained that you dispute matters that are not at all doubtful as if they were doubtful. I, however, shall endeavor to break your ungenerous and contentious stubbornness. Answer me, therefore: do you remember the promises that were made by God to David?

ERAN. Which ones?

ORTH. Those which the Prophet set forth in the eighty-eighth Psalm.

ERAN. I know that many promises were made to David. Which ones, then, are you asking about at present?

ORTH. Those that were made concerning Christ the Lord.

ERAN. Do you yourself recall the words of the psalm to memory. For you promised that you would bring forward the proofs.

ORTH. Listen, then: the Prophet immediately in the beginning of the psalm praises God. For having foreseen with prophetic ^B eyes the future iniquity of the people and the captivity that would come about because of this, he praised his own Master, the author of the unerring promises. He spoke thus: "I will sing of your mercies, O Lord, forever; I will proclaim your truth with my mouth from generation to generation. For you said: mercy shall be built up forever, your truth shall be prepared in the heavens." By all these things the Prophet teaches both the promise made by God out of kindness and the truth of the promise. Then he adds what He promised and to whom, introducing God Himself as speaking: "For I have established," He says, "a covenant with my elect." And he called the patriarchs the elect. Afterwards he adds: "I have sworn to David my servant." Furthermore, he explains regarding what He swore: "I will prepare your seed forever, and I will build up your throne from generation to generation." Tell me, therefore, whom do you consider to be called the seed of David?

ERAN. This promise was made concerning Solomon.

ORTH. Therefore He also made the covenants with the patriarchs concerning Solomon. For before the things that are said there concerning David, He made mention of the promises made to them. "For I have established," He says, "a covenant with my elect." Now, He promised the patriarchs...

that in their seed He would bless all nations. Show me, therefore, that the nations were blessed through Solomon.

ERAN. Did God, therefore, fulfill this promise not through Solomon, but through our Saviour?

ORTH. Christ the Lord gave the fulfillment to the promises made to David.

ERAN. I think that God made these promises either concerning Solomon or concerning Zorobabel.

ORTH. A short while ago you were using the words of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Manes; but now ^B you have turned to the directly opposite faction, and you are championing the impudence of the Jews. This is a characteristic of those who turn away from the straight path; for they wander hither and thither, walking along an untrodden way.

ERAN. The Apostle casts revilers out of the kingdom of heaven.

ORTH. If they revile without cause. For the divine Apostle himself also at times makes use of this method, and calls the Galatians foolish; and concerning others he says: "Men corrupt in mind, reprobate concerning the faith"; and again concerning others: "Whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame," and the rest.

ERAN. What occasion for reviling, therefore, have I given you?

ORTH. Is it not, in your opinion, a most just occasion for the pious to be indignant that you willingly champion the most manifest enemies of the truth?

ERAN. And whose patronage have I undertaken ^C who wage war against the truth?

ORTH. Now, the Jews.

ERAN. How and in what manner?

ORTH. The Jews apply such prophecies as these to Solomon and Zorobabel, that they may show the Christian position to be unsustainable. But the very words themselves are sufficient to refute their perversity. For, "Until the age," He says, "I will establish thy throne." And not only did Solomon and Zorobabel, to whom they apply such prophecies, reach the end of their life after living the appointed time, but the entire race of David also perished. For who knows of anyone today who is descended from the Davidic root? ^D

ERAN. Are those, then, who are called the patriarchs of the Jews not from the Davidic lineage?

ORTH. By no means.

ERAN. But from where do they originate?

ORTH. From Herod the foreigner, who was an Ascalonite by his father's side, and an Idumean by his mother's. Furthermore, they themselves have perished entirely, and much time has passed since their rule also came to an end.

is that it has reached its end. But the Lord God not only promised to preserve the seed of David for eternity, but also to keep his kingdom inviolable. “For I will build,” he says, “ thy throne unto generation and generation.” We see, however, that his lineage has passed away and his kingdom has reached its end. Yet, though we see these things, we know that the God of all is truthful. ERAN. It is clear that God is not a liar. ORTH. If, therefore, God is truthful—as indeed He is—and He promised David that He would preserve both his lineage and his kingdom unto eternity, yet we see neither the lineage nor the kingdom (for both have ceased), how shall we persuade those who argue against us that God is truthful? ERAN. There is no doubt, then, that this prophecy points to Christ the Lord. ORTH. Since you concede this, come now, let us also examine the middle part of the psalm together; for we shall understand the meaning of the prophecy more clearly. ERAN. Lead the investigation; I shall follow in your footsteps. ORTH. When God had promised many things ^B concerning this son (of David)—that he would rule over sea and land, that he would be higher than the kings of the earth, that he would be called God’s firstborn, and would call God his Father with confidence—He added these words: “I will keep my mercy for him for ever, and my covenant shall be faithful to him: and I will make his seed to endure for ever and ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” ERAN. This promise transcends human nature. For it implies immortality and eternity, both in life and in glory; but humans are of short duration. For our nature is short-lived, and a kingdom, even during one's lifetime, has many sudden changes. Therefore, the greatness of this promise belongs only to Christ the Saviour. ORTH. Proceed, then, to what follows, which will strengthen this opinion for you even more. For the God of all says again: “Once have I sworn by my holy one, I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon perfected for ever.” And to show the truth of the promise, He added: “And a faithful witness in heaven.” ^D ERAN. One must believe without hesitation the things promised by a faithful witness. For if we are accustomed to believe men who promise to speak the truth, even if they do not confirm their words with an oath, who is so thunderstruck as to disbelieve the Creator of all things when He adds an oath to His words? For He who forbids others to swear, in order to show the immutability of His counsel, as the Apostle also says, mediated with an oath, “that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement.”

^A

ORTH. If, therefore, the promise is indisputably true, and yet we see neither the lineage nor the kingdom of the prophet David among the Jews, let us believe without doubt that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the seed of David according to his human nature. For he himself possesses both life and an eternal kingdom.

ERAN. We do not doubt it; I confess that these things are so.

ORTH. These things were indeed sufficient to demonstrate clearly the humanity of God and our Savior, which he assumed from the seed of David. But in order that we may banish all disagreement by the testimony of many, let us hear God, as he recalls through the voice of the prophet Isaiah the promises made to David. “For I will make with you,” he says, “an everlasting covenant.” And showing the lawgiver, he adds, “the holy things of David, which are sure.” ^B Since he therefore promised these things to David, and spoke through Isaiah, he will fulfill the promise in reality. Everything that follows in the prophecy is in harmony with these things. For he says: “Behold, I have given him as a testimony among the nations, a prince and a commander among the nations. Behold, nations that do not know you shall call upon you, and peoples who do not know you shall flee to you.” These things, however, befit no one among the descendants of David. For which of the descendants of David was declared a ruler of nations, as Isaiah writes? Or what nations, among those who were descended from David, called upon *him* as God in their prayers?

ERAN. It is not appropriate to prolong the discussion regarding manifest matters; for these things most truly befit Christ the Lord. ^C

ORTH. Let us then move to another prophetic testimony, and let us hear the same prophet saying: “A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from the root.”

ERAN. I suppose this prophecy was issued regarding Zerubbabel.

ORTH. If you also listen to what follows, you will not persist in your opinion. For this is how not even the Jews themselves have understood this prediction. For the prophet adds: “And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and piety; the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him.” ^D These things no one would attribute to a mere man; for even to the exceedingly holy, the gifts of the Spirit are given by division. And the divine Apostle is witness, saying: “For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,” and so on. Here, however, the prophet affirms that he who sprouted from the root of Jesse possesses all the operations of the Spirit.

ERAN. To oppose these things is manifest insanity.

ORTH. Hear, therefore, also what follows; for you will see...

^A in some things they exceed even human nature. He says thus: “He shall not judge according to opinion, nor shall he reprove according to rumor; but he shall judge the judgment of the humble in justice, and he shall reprove the illustrious of the earth in uprightness, and he shall strike the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the spirit of his lips he shall slay the ungodly.” Of these predictions, some are human, some are divine; for justice, and truth, and uprightness, and an immovable constancy in judging, declare human virtue. ERAN. From these things we have learned clearly that the prophet predicted the advent of our Savior Christ.

ORTH. What follows will teach you the truth of the interpretation more evidently. For he adds: “Then the wolf shall feed together with the lamb,” and what follows; by which he teaches both the difference of characters and the concord of faith. And we have as a witness of the prediction the experience of events. For those who abound in riches and those who struggle with poverty, servants and masters, ^B subjects and rulers, soldiers and private citizens, and those who hold the scepters of the world, one laver receives, one doctrine is offered to all, one mystical table is prepared for all, and each of the believers enjoys an equal portion.

ERAN. But these things demonstrate that the one of whom the prophet speaks is God.

ORTH. Not only God, but also man. For this very reason, beginning this prophecy straightway, he said that a rod would sprout from the root of Jesse; and completing the prediction, he took up the beginning again. For he says: “And there shall be the root of Jesse, and he who arises to rule over nations; in him shall nations hope, and his rest shall be honor.” Jesse was the father of David, and to David the promise was made with an oath. And he would not have called the Master Christ a rod springing from Jesse, ^C if he had known Him only as God. Moreover, the prophecy also foretold the transformation of the world. “For the whole earth,” he says, “is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much water covering the seas.”

ERAN. I have heard the prophetic oracles. I would now like to know clearly whether the divine chorus of the apostles also says that the Master Christ sprouted from the seed of David according to the flesh.

ORTH. You have asked for nothing arduous, but something very easy and simple. Hear, therefore, the prince of the apostles crying out: “Being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ according to the flesh, to sit upon his throne, ^D foreseeing this, he spoke concerning the resurrection of him, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” From these things it is possible for you to understand that He also sprouted from the seed of David according to the flesh

and that He possessed not only flesh, but also a soul.

ERAN. Which of the other apostles preached these same things?

ORTH. The testimony of the great Peter alone would have been sufficient to confirm the truth, for the Lord, having received the confession of the truth from him alone, honored it with a distinguished beatitude. But since you desire to hear others preaching this, listen to Paul and Barnabas haranguing in Antioch of Pisidia. For they, having made mention of David, added these things: “Of this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus,” and what follows. And writing to Timothy, the divine Apostle also included these things: “Be mindful that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel.” And writing to the Romans, straightway in the introduction he made mention of the Davidic kinship. For he says thus: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and what follows.

ERAN. ^B Many, indeed, are the proofs and true. But tell me, why did you omit the rest of the testimony?

ORTH. Because you are in doubt concerning the human nature, but not concerning the divine. If you were in doubt regarding the divinity, I would have brought forward the proofs concerning it for you. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to say “according to the flesh” in order to point out the divinity which is not expressed. For when I am speaking of the kinship of an ordinary man, I do not say, “This one is the son of that one ^C according to the flesh,” but simply, “He is his son.” So also the divine Evangelist, in describing the genealogy, said: “For Abraham, he says, begat Isaac,” and he did not add “according to the flesh,” because Isaac was only a man. In like manner he also commemorates the others; for they were men, having nothing beyond that nature. But those who preach the truth when discoursing about Christ the Lord, and who point out to those who are ignorant the kinship with the inferior nature, add “according to the flesh,” by this means indicating the divinity and ^D teaching that Christ the Lord is not man only, but also eternal God.

ERAN. You have brought forward many apostolic and prophetic testimonies; but I believe the Evangelist who says: “The Word became flesh.”

ORTH. I also assent to this divine teaching, but I understand it piously: that, having assumed flesh and a rational soul, He is said to have become flesh. For if God the Word assumed nothing from our nature, then the promises made by God to the patriarchs are not true.

^A Indeed, the blessing of Judah is useless, and the promise made to David is false, and the Virgin is superfluous, having contributed nothing of our nature to the God who was incarnate. Furthermore, the predictions of the prophets have no fulfillment. Therefore our preaching is vain, and our faith is vain, and the hope of resurrection is also empty. For the Apostle lies, as it seems, when he says: “He raised us up together and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” For if the Lord Christ held nothing of our nature, He is falsely called our first-fruits; and the nature of the body was not raised from the dead, nor did it obtain a seat at the right hand in heaven. But if none of these things have been obtained, how did God raise us up together and make us sit with Christ, we who have no affinity to Him according to nature? But it is impious to say these things. ^B For the divine Apostle, although the common resurrection has not yet taken place, nor the kingdom of heaven yet been exhibited to those who believe, cries out: “He raised us up together and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” teaching that when our first-fruits have risen and sat at the right hand, we too shall certainly obtain the resurrection; and that those who share in the nature [of the first-fruits] and have received the faith will be participants in the glory of the first-fruits.

ERAN. You have recounted many true things; but I would like to know the meaning of the evangelic saying.

ORTH. You have no need of a foreign interpretation; for the Evangelist interprets himself. ^C For when he had said, “The Word became flesh,” he added: “And dwelt among us,” which is to say, having tabernacled among us, and using as a kind of temple the flesh taken from us, He is said to have become flesh. And teaching that He remained immutable, he added: “And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” For even though clothed in flesh, He manifested the nobility of the Father, and scattered the rays of His divinity, and emitted the splendor of His Lordly power, revealing the hidden nature through miracles. Similar to these are the things which the divine Apostle wrote to the Philippians: ^D “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Behold the harmony of the preaching. The Evangelist said: “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”; the Apostle: “Taking the form of a servant.” The Evangelist said again: “We beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father”; the Apostle: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.” And, to speak briefly, both teach that He,

^A being God, and Son of God, and invested with the glory of the Father, and possessing the same nature and power as the Begetter, who was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God, and had created the universe, took the form of a servant. And this—what was seen—seemed to be all that there was; but He was God, invested with human nature, and carrying out the salvation of mankind. This is what is meant by: “The Word became flesh,” and: “Being made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man.” For the Jews saw only this, and therefore said to Him: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, because, being a man, You make Yourself God.” And again: “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.”

ERAN. The Jews were blinded by their own unbelief, and on this account they used these words.

ORTH. But if you find even the Apostles saying such things before the Resurrection, will you accept the interpretation? I hear them, then, in the boat, after the greatest miracle of the calm, saying: “What kind of man is this, that even the sea and the winds obey Him?”

ERAN. This indeed has been demonstrated; but tell me that: the divine Apostle says He was made in the likeness of men.

ORTH. What was assumed is not the likeness of a man, but the nature of a man. For the form of a servant, just like the form of God, is understood as the nature of a servant—or rather, the nature of God. ^B Yet He Himself, having taken this, came to be in the likeness of man and was found in appearance as a man. For being God, He seemed to be a man because of the nature He had assumed. But the Evangelist, in saying he was made in the likeness of man, said that He was made flesh. And in order that you may know that those who deny the flesh of our Savior are disciples of the contrary spirit, hear the great John saying in his Catholic Epistle: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist.”

ERAN. You have interpreted this persuasively. But I wanted to learn how the ancient teachers of the Church understood, “The Word became flesh.”

ORTH. You ought to have been persuaded by the apostolic and prophetic proofs. But since you also seek the interpretations of the holy Fathers, I will, God willing, ^C provide this remedy for you as well.

ERAN. Do not bring before me obscure or ambiguous men; for I will not accept the interpretation of such people. ^D

ORTH. Does that highly celebrated Athanasius, that most brilliant luminary of the Church of Alexandria, see ^A fit to be trusted by you?

ERAN. By all means; for he confirmed the teaching through the sufferings he endured for the truth.

ORTH. Hear then what he wrote to Epictetus. He speaks as follows: "For that saying of John, *The Word became flesh*, has this meaning, as can be gathered from a similar example. For there are the words of Paul: *Christ became a curse for us* (Gal. III, 13). Just as it is not said that he became a curse because he himself became one, but because he accepted the curse on our behalf, so it is said that he became flesh, not because he was changed into flesh, but because he took on flesh for our sake." These are the words of the most divine Athanasius. But Gregory (Nazianzen), whose name is illustrious among all, who once ruled the royal city situated at the gate of the Bosporus, and later dwelt in Nazianzus, wrote thus to Cledonius against the deceptions of Apollinaris. ^B

ERAN. He was a famous man and a champion of the truth.

ORTH. Hear then what he says: "That therefore, *The Word became flesh*, seems to me to be equivalent to saying that he also became sin and a curse—not that the Lord was changed into these (for how could that be?), but that, by taking these upon himself, he removed our iniquities and bore our diseases (Isa. LIII, 4)."

ERAN. The interpretation of both is in agreement.

ORTH. Since, then, I have shown you that the shepherds of the southern and northern regions are in agreement, come, let me lead you as a guest to the most celebrated bishops of the West, who have written their interpretation in a different language, but not with a different meaning. ^C

ERAN. I hear of Ambrose, who adorned the episcopal see of Milan, and who both fought brilliantly against every heresy and wrote most beautifully in accordance with the doctrine of the apostles.

ORTH. I shall present his interpretation to you. He says this in his book *On the Faith*: "It is written, they say, that the Word became flesh. It is written; I do not deny it. Consider what follows."

^A For it follows: *And dwelt among us*, that is, He dwelt in human flesh. Do you wonder, then, at what is written, *The Word became flesh*, since the flesh was assumed by God the Word, just as it is also said concerning sin, which He did not have, that He was made sin? This means, not that He became the nature and operation of sin, but that He might crucify our sin in [His] flesh. Let them, therefore, cease to say that the nature of the Word has been altered or transformed. For the One who assumed is one thing, and what was assumed is another."

After these, it is fitting to hear from the masters of the East; for this alone of the orb of the world remains for us. And it was right that these should be the first to bear witness to the truth, since they were the first to embrace the apostolic doctrine. But since you have sharpened your tongues against the firstborn sons of piety, applying them to the whetstone of falsehood, we have assigned them the final place, so that having heard the others first, and then comparing the statements of these with those of the former, you might marvel at the concord of all, and cease your petulance of tongue. ^B Hear, therefore, Flavian, who most wisely held the rudder of the Church of Antioch for a very long time, and made the Churches which he governed victorious over the Arian tempest, as he explains the evangelical saying: "The Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us. He has not been changed into flesh, nor did He cease to be God: but that [the Word] existed from eternity, while this [flesh] occurred by dispensation, He Himself building His own temple, and dwelling in a passible creature."

But if you also desire to hear the ancient Palestinians, lend your ears to the admirable Gelasius, who diligently cultivated the Church of Caesarea. These are his words in a sermon concerning the Lord’s appearance: "Learn the truth from John the fisherman, who says, *And the Word became flesh*, not He Himself changed, but dwelling in us as in a tabernacle. The tabernacle is one thing, and the Word is another; the temple is one thing, and God who dwells in it is another." ^C

ERAN. I marvel greatly at the harmony.

ORTH. But do you not think that John, the great light of the world, who first zealously irrigated the Church of the Antiochenes, and then wisely cultivated the royal city, held to the apostolic rule of faith?

ERAN. I consider this teacher most worthy of admiration.

ORTH. This most excellent man, therefore, interpreted this evangelical passage, and speaks as follows: ^D "So when

^A you hear, *The Word became flesh*, do not be perturbed, nor cast down your mind. For the substance was not changed into flesh—for this is a matter of the uttermost impiety—but remaining what it is, it thus took the form of a servant. For just as when he says, *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us*, he does not mean that his substance, stripping off its own glory, was turned into the substance of a curse (for not even the demons, nor those who are utterly mindless and deprived of their natural common sense, would think this—so great an insanity does the matter involve, along with impiety)—he does not, therefore, say this, but that having received the curse against us, he no longer allows us to be accursed. So also here, he says that he became flesh, not by having changed his substance into flesh, but by assuming it, while that ^B substance remained intact."

But if it is agreeable to you to hear also the shepherd Severian of Gabala, I shall set his interpretation before you as well; you, however, provide the ear. "For the phrase, *The Word became flesh*, does not signify a change of nature, but the assumption of our nature. For if you think 'became' signifies a transformation, if you hear Paul saying, *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us*, will you accept the expression as indicating a change of nature into a curse? Just as, therefore, 'having become a curse' signifies nothing else than that he took upon himself the curse against us, in the same way also, *The Word became flesh and dwelt among us* signifies nothing else than the assumption ^C of flesh."

ERAN. I admire the concord and consensus of these men. For they have all interpreted the evangelical sayings just as if they had come together into one place and had written down their opinion in common.

ORTH. Indeed, mountains and seas separate them from one another by a very great distance, but the distance did not harm their consensus; for all were inspired by the same spiritual grace. I would have brought forward for you the interpretations of those most valiant champions of the truth, Diodore and Theodore, if I had not seen you disposed with a hostile mind towards these men, and had become heirs to the hatred of Apollinaris towards them. For you would have seen them writing in harmony with the others, and having drunk the streams from the divine fountain, having themselves also become conduits of the Spirit. But these I shall pass over, because you have taken up an implacable ^D war against them. I shall show you, however, the most celebrated doctor of the Church, and his sentiment regarding the divine incarnation, so that you may know what he felt concerning the assumed nature. For you have indeed heard

^A of that Ignatius who, through the right hand of the great Peter, received the grace of the episcopate, and after governing the Church of Antioch, obtained the crown of martyrdom; and of Irenaeus, who was a hearer and disciple of Polycarp and a light to the western Gauls; and of Hippolytus and Methodius, pontiffs and martyrs, and others, to whose teachings I shall also add their names.

ERAN. You will present these testimonies to me, as I am most eager for them. ORTH. Hear, then, the men who proclaim apostolic doctrine.

Of Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr

^B From the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Thoroughly and fully persuaded concerning our Lord, who is of the lineage of David according to the flesh, and Son of God according to the divinity and power: who was truly born of a Virgin, baptized by John, so that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, and truly crucified for us in the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch. — By the same, from the same epistle. For what does it profit me if anyone praises me, yet blasphemes my Lord by not confessing Him to be flesh-bearing? He who does not profess this, denies Him completely, being a corpse-bearer. — By the same, from the same epistle. For if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, ^C then I too am bound in appearance. And why, then, have I delivered myself over to death, to the fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near the sword is near to God. I endure all things for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ, so that I may become a fellow-sufferer with Him, He who is the perfect man, whom some in their ignorance deny. — By the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians. For our God, Jesus Christ, was carried in the womb by Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the seed of David indeed, but of the Holy Spirit: who was born and baptized, so that our mortality might be cleansed. — By the same, from the same epistle. If you all individually and collectively meet together in grace by name in one faith, and in one Jesus Christ, according to the flesh of the lineage of David, the Son of man and Son of God. — By the same, from the same ^D epistle. He is one, a physician both fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, life eternal in death, and from Mary

^A and from God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. — By the same, from the Epistle to the Trallians. Stop your ears, therefore, when anyone speaks to you outside of Jesus Christ, who is of the lineage of David, who is of Mary, who was truly born, truly ate and drank, was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and died, while those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth beheld it.

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, from the third book Against Heresies.

Why, moreover, did they add "in the city of David," unless it was to announce that the promise which had been made to David by God—that from the fruit of his loins an eternal king should arise—had been fulfilled, which the Creator of this universe had made? ^B 52 — By the same, from the same book. And when he said, "Hear now, O house of David!" he was signifying that this eternal king, whom God had promised to David that He would raise up from the fruit of his loins, is the very one who was born of the Davidic Virgin. — By the same, from the same book. Therefore, if the first Adam had had a human father and had been procreated from seed, it might not be unreasonable for someone to say that the second Adam was also born of Joseph. But since that one was taken from the earth and formed by God, it was necessary that He who was to ^C recapitulate man in Himself, having been formed by God, should possess the same likeness of generation as that one had. What, then, is the cause for which God did not take dust again, but took pains that the formation should take place from Mary? It is, of course, lest another formation should be made, and another body be what was to be saved, but that the very same one should be recapitulated, the likeness being preserved. Those, therefore, err greatly who say that He took nothing from the Virgin, in order that they may cast off the inheritance of the flesh and reject the ^D likeness. — By the same, from the same book. Since His descent into Mary was also superfluous. For why would He have descended into her, if He was to take nothing from her?

^A For if He had taken nothing from Mary, He would not have accepted the food taken from the earth, by which the body taken from the earth is nourished; nor would He have hungered for forty days, in the same way as Moses and Elijah, when He fasted, since the body was demanding its own sustenance; nor would John His disciple, writing about Him, have said: "Jesus therefore, being wearied with His journey, sat thus" (Joann. iv, 6); nor would David have foretold concerning Him: "And they added to the pain of my wounds" (Ps. lxviii, 26); nor would He have wept at the tomb of Lazarus; nor would He have sweated drops of blood; nor would He have said: "My soul is sorrowful" (Matth. xxvi, 28); nor, finally, when His side was pierced, would blood and water have come out. For all these are tokens of flesh taken from the earth, which He gathered into Himself, saving His own creation. — By the same, from the same book. For just as by the disobedience of the one man who was first fashioned from the earth, the many were made sinners and lost life; so it was fitting that by the obedience of the one man, who was first born of a Virgin, the many should be made righteous and obtain salvation. — By the same, from the same book. "I said, You are all children of the Most High, and gods: but you die like men" (Ps. lxxxi, 6, 7). He says this to those who have not received the gift of adoption, ^B but despise the incarnation of the pure birth of the Word of God, and deprive man of the ascent to God, and show themselves ungrateful to the Word of God who was incarnate for their sake. For to this end did the Word become man, that man, having contained the Word and received adoption, might become a son of God. — By the same, from the same book. The Spirit then having descended for the sake of the foreordained dispensation, and the only-begotten Son of God, who is also the Word of the Father, having come in the fullness of time, having been incarnate in man, and having fulfilled all the human dispensation, our Lord Jesus Christ, being one and the same, as the Lord Himself testifies, and the apostles confess, and the prophets proclaim, all the doctrines of those who have devised ogdoads, and quaternions, and specters, were proven false. ^C — Of Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. From the oration on that which is written: "The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps. xxii, 1). Moreover, the ark was indeed made of incorruptible woods, ^D and...

it signified the Savior. For His incorrupt and uncorrupted tabernacle was proclaimed by this, which felt no decay of sin. For he who has sinned, and is making confession, says: "My wounds have stunk and are corrupt because of my foolishness" (Ps. xxxvii, 6). But the Lord was without sin, being [the human element] from incorruptible woods—that is, from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit—clothed within and without by the Word of God as with the purest gold ^A. From the same, from the discourse on Elkanah and Hannah: "Lead me, O Samuel, to Bethlehem [to bring] the heifer, that you may show the king born of David, and him anointed by the Father as king and priest." — From the same, from the same discourse: "Tell me, O blessed Mary, what was conceived in thy womb, and what was carried in thy virginal womb? For it was the firstborn Word of God, descending to thee from the heavens, and the firstborn man formed in the womb, that the firstborn Word of God might be shown united to the firstborn man." — From the same, from the same discourse: "The second [coming], through the prophets, as through Samuel, recalling and turning back the people from the servitude of the foreigners. The third, however, when He was present Incarnate, having taken up the man from the Virgin, who also, seeing the city, wept over it." — From the same, from the discourse on the beginning of Isaiah: "He compared the world to Egypt, and idolatry to things made by hands, and the ruin and subversion of it to an earthquake. And He calls the Lord the Word; but the light cloud, ^B the purest tabernacle, in which our Lord Jesus Christ seated Himself and entered into the life [of the world] to shake [away] error."

Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr, from the discourse on the martyrs

For martyrdom is so admirable and highly to be desired, that the Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, honoring it, bore witness that He did not count it a robbery to be equal to God, that He might also adorn man, to whom He had descended, with this gift. ^C

Saint Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor

From the interpretation of Psalm xv. But the soul of Jesus experienced both. For it was in the place of human souls, and it lives and exists outside the flesh. Therefore, it is endowed with reason and is of the same substance as the souls of men, just as the flesh is consubstantial with the flesh of men, which came forth from Mary. — From the same, from the book *On the Soul*: "But what will they say, who have looked to the upbringing of the infant, or to the accession of age, or to the progression of times, or to the increase of the body ^D

^A But to pass over in silence the miracles accomplished on earth, let them behold the resurrections of the dead, the symbols of the passion, the marks of the scourges, the weals from the blows, the pierced side, the marks of the nails, the shedding of blood, the signs of death, and, to sum it all up, the very resurrection of his own body." — *From the same, in the same discourse.* "But if any one looks to the generation of the body, he will clearly discover that, having been born in Bethlehem, he was swaddled, and in Egypt he was reared for certain years on account of the treacherous schemes of the cruel Herod, and in Nazareth, having become a man, he grew." — *From the same, from the same discourse.* "For the tabernacle of the Word and of God, through which the blessed Stephen beheld the divine glory, is not the same." — *From the same, from the discourse on the text:* "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways." ^B "If, therefore, the Word took the beginning of his generation from the time when, passing through the maternal womb, he wore the bodily frame, it stands to reason that he was made of a woman. But if the Word and God was from eternity with the Father, and we say that all things were made through him, then he who is, and who is the cause of existence for all created things, was not made of a woman; but he is by nature God, self-sufficient, infinite, and incomprehensible. Yet from a woman he became man, he who was fashioned in the virginal womb by the Holy Spirit." — *From the same, from the same discourse.* "For that pure and undefiled human tabernacle around the Word is properly a temple, in which God visibly dwelt, offering himself to be seen." — *And we say these things not led by probable conjectures; for he who is by nature the Son of God, foretelling the destruction and restoration of this temple, instructs us on this matter without any ambiguity, saying to the bloodthirsty Jews:* "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." — *From the same, from the same discourse.* "When, therefore, the Word, having fashioned the man, wore him, while he moved among men in the body, he invisibly displayed various miracles, and sent forth his apostles as heralds of the eternal kingdom." — *From the same, from the interpretation of Psalm XLIV.* ^{C D} "It is manifest, therefore, if he who anoints designates God, whose throne he called eternal, that he who anoints is clearly God by nature, begotten of God; but he who is anointed received an acquired virtue, being adorned with an excellent temple, from the Divinity dwelling within him."

Of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Confessor

From the defense made for Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria: "I am the vine, you are the branches; my Father is the husbandman." For we are kin to the Lord according to the body; and for this reason he himself said: "I will declare thy name to my brethren." And just as the branches are of the same substance as the vine,

and originate from it, so too we, ^A having bodies of the same kind 6 as the body of the Lord, receive of his fullness, and have that as a root for resurrection and for 7 salvation. And the Father is called the farmer; for he himself cultivated through the Word the vine, which is the Lord’s body [7']. — From the same, from the same treatise. The Lord was called the vine on account of the bodily kinship which he has with us, who are the branches. — From the same, from the greater discourse On the Faith. That which is written, ^B "In the beginning was the Word," openly signifies his divinity; but "The Word was made flesh" shows the Lord’s humanity. — From the same, from the same discourse. And that: "He shall wash his garment in wine," means his body in his own blood, which is the garment of the divinity. — From the same, from the same discourse. For "was" refers to his divinity; but "was made flesh" to his body. The Word was made flesh, not changed into flesh, but bearing flesh; just as if someone were to say, "So-and-so has become an old man," not that he was born that way from the beginning: or, "The soldier has become a veteran," when before he was not such as he has become. ^C John says: "I was in the island of Patmos on the Lord's day," not that he was made or born there, but he said, "I was in Patmos," instead of, "I arrived." Thus also the Word has arrived at flesh, as it is said, "The Word was made flesh." Hear him saying, "I have become like a lost vessel," and, "I have become like a man without help, free among the dead." — From the same, from his letter to Epictetus. Who has ever heard such things? Who has taught them? Who has learned them? "For out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." But whence have these gone forth? What kind of hell vomited these out, ^D that the body taken from Mary should be said to be of the same substance as the divinity of the Word, or that the Word has been changed into flesh, and bones, and hair, and an entire body? And who has heard in the church, or at all among Christians, that God has worn a body by supposition and not by nature? — From the same, from the same letter. But who, hearing that the Word [was] not from Mary, but from his own substance...

fashioned for himself a passible body, would call him who says these things a Christian? And who thought up this forbidden impiety, to the point that it could even come into one’s thoughts to say that he who says the Lord’s body is from Mary no longer thinks of a Trinity, but of a Quaternity in the Godhead? As if for this reason those who are so disposed say that the flesh which the Savior put on from Mary ^A belongs to the substance of the Trinity. And whence, again, did some vomit up an impiety equal to those previously mentioned, so as to say that the body is not more recent than the Godhead of the Word, but has been co-eternal with it always, since it was constituted from the substance of Wisdom? — From the same, from the same letter. The body from Mary, therefore, was human by nature, according to the divine Scriptures, and it was true, because it was of the same nature as ours; for Mary is our sister, since we are all from Adam, and no one would doubt this who remembers what Luke wrote.

Of Saint Basil, Bishop of Caesarea.

Of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus.

and that the flesh came down from heaven and was not from here and from us, let him be anathema. For that passage, "The second man is from heaven," ^A and: "As is the heavenly one, such also are those who are heavenly," and: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man," and whatever else is of this kind, must be understood as being said on account of the union with man, just as it is said that "all things were made through Christ," and "Christ dwells in our hearts,"—which is to be understood not according to that nature of God which falls under the eyes, but according to that which is perceived by the intellect, the terms being commingled just as are the natures.

From the same, out of the same book. ^B Let us see, for what cause they themselves say the Word was made man, or incarnate. For if, in order that God, who otherwise cannot be comprehended, might be comprehended and might associate with men under the veil of flesh, they have adopted this elegant persona and theatrical plot—not to mention that He could have conversed with us otherwise, as in the burning bush, or previously in human form—but if it is in order to lift the condemnation of sin, by taking like to like: just as He had need of flesh on account of flesh that was condemned, and a soul on account of a soul, so also of a mind on account of a mind, which not only fell in Adam but was also previously ill-affected, as physicians are accustomed to say concerning diseases. For that which received the commandment, the same did not keep the commandment: and that which did not keep the commandment, it also admitted the transgression: and that which transgressed, it was this that primarily stood in need of salvation: and that which was in need, this was also assumed. Therefore, the mind was assumed. This now, whether they like it or not, has been demonstrated by geometric necessities and proofs, as they say. ^C But you act similarly, as if when a man's eye was diseased and his foot injured, you were to cure the foot but apply no medicine to the eye; or as if, when a painter had not painted well, you were to correct the painting but overlook the painter as though he had done the work well. But if, being disturbed by these arguments, they take refuge in saying that God could have saved man without a mind, He could surely have done so also without flesh, by will alone, just as He does and has done all other things without the operation of a body. Take away, then, along with the mind, the flesh also, that your folly may be perfect in every respect.

Of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa. From the discourse on Abraham.

^A not a naked Word, but become flesh; not the form of God, but the form of a servant. This, then, is He who said that He could do nothing of Himself. For not to be able pertains to weakness. For just as darkness is set in opposition to light, and death to life, so weakness is set in opposition to power. But Christ is the power of God. The power is not at all powerless. For if power were weak, what would be powerful? When, therefore, the Word declares that He cannot do [something], it is clear that He is not attributing inability to the divinity of the Only-Begotten, but is attesting to the impossibility of our nature's weakness. For the flesh is weak, as it is written: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." — Of the same, from the book *On the Perfection of Life*. But again, the true lawgiver, whose type Moses was, hewed out for Himself from our earth the tables of nature. For marriage did not produce the God-receiving flesh; but He Himself became the stonemason of His own flesh, which was inscribed by the divine finger. For the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. And when this had come to pass, nature again became inviolable, having become immortal through the impressions of the finger. — Of the same, from the book *Against Eunomius*. We say, therefore, that in the ^B passages before this, where it says that wisdom built a house for itself, it is referring obscurely to the construction of the Lord’s flesh. For true wisdom did not dwell in a house belonging to another, but built for itself a dwelling place from the virginal body. — Of the same, from the same work. The Word was before the ages, but the flesh was made in the last times; and no one could, by turning it around, say either that this [flesh] was before the ages, or that the Word was made in the last times. — Of the same, from the same work. The phrase "He created me" (Prov. VIII, 22) is not to be understood as relating to the divine and immortal nature, but, as has been said, regarding that which was assumed out of our created nature according to the dispensation. — Of the same, from the first discourse *On the Beatitudes*. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant." What is more lowly in God than the form of a servant? What is more humble in the King of all than to come into communion with our poverty? Yet, nevertheless, the King of kings and Lord of lords ^C of His own accord put on the form of servitude. ^D

^A

Of Saint Flavian, Bishop of Antioch

From the same, from his discourse on the passage: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." Hear Him saying: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me." Do you not understand, He says, what you read? For I come to you anointed with the Spirit. But it is not the invisible nature that is anointed with the Spirit, but that which is kin to us.

Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium

From the same, from his discourse on the passage: "The Son can do nothing of himself." What sort of Adam was it who disobeyed in heaven? What sort of "protoplast" was formed from a heavenly body, contrary to the first formation? But it was one from the earth who was formed, one from the earth who disobeyed, and one from the earth who was assumed. Therefore, the one from the earth was also saved, so that the rationale of the dispensation might thus appear both true and necessary.

Saint John, Bishop of Constantinople

introduce their own gods into stones and vile pieces of wood, as if into a prison, and think it not shameful to do or to say anything, while they reproach us, saying that God, having prepared a living temple for Himself by the Holy Spirit, through it benefited the world? For if it is shameful for God to dwell in a human body, it is much more so in stone and wood, inasmuch as stone and wood are more dishonorable than man; unless, perhaps, our race seems to them lower than even these senseless materials. They bring down the substance of God even into stones and dogs, and many of the heretics into things even more shameful than these. But we cannot endure even to hear such things. We say this, that Christ took from the virginal womb a pure, holy, and spotless flesh, which had become impenetrable to every sin, and purified His own vessel. — And after a few words: We say this, that when God the Word had constructed a holy temple for Himself, through it He brought the heavenly polity into our life. From the same writer, from the discourse, "That those things which were humbly said and done by Christ were not said and done because of weakness of power, but because of various dispensational reasons." What, then, are the causes why both He Himself and the apostles said many things humbly concerning Him? The first and greatest cause is that, since He had put on flesh, He wished to give assurance, both to those who were then living and to all who came after, that what was seen was not some shadow, nor merely a figure, but the truth of nature. For if, although both He Himself and the apostles said so many humble and human things concerning Him, the devil was nevertheless able to persuade some wretched and miserable men to deny the reason of the dispensation ^B and to dare to say that He did not take on flesh, and to destroy the entire foundation of His humanity: if He had said none of these things, how many would have fallen into this pit!

I have brought forward for you, then, a few out of very many testimonies of the heralds of the truth, so that I might not weary your ears with a multitude. But these are sufficient to show the aim toward which those most praiseworthy men directed their minds. It would be yours, now, to say how the things that have been said appear to you.

ERAN. All have spoken in harmony, and those who have cultivated the land of the West agree with those who have cultivated it toward the rising sun; but I have noticed a great distinction in their words.

ORTH. These men were successors of the divine apostles, and some of them ^D even enjoyed their sacred voice and their admirable company; but the majority...

^A were adorned with the crowns of martyrdom. Does it seem pious to you, then, to move your blasphemous tongue against them? ERAN. I tremble to do that, but I do not approve of this great division. ORTH. But I will provide you with another unexpected remedy. I will bring forward Apollinarius, one of the teachers of your own admirable heresy, and I will show that he understood the words, "The Word became flesh," in no other way than the holy Fathers did. Hear, then, what he wrote about this in his summary book.

Of Apollinarius

ERAN. I did not think that this was the opinion ^D of Apollinarius; for I had conceived other opinions concerning this man. ORTH. Now, therefore, you have learned that not only the prophets and apostles, and the teachers of the world appointed after them, but even Apollinarius, who wrote those heretical trifles, confesses that God the Word is immutable and says that he was not turned into flesh, but that he assumed flesh; and he said this often, as you have heard. Do not, therefore, strive to

you strive to overcome your teacher with blasphemous utterances. "For the disciple is not above his master," the Lord said.

ERAN. I also confess that God the Word is immutable and that He assumed flesh; for to stand against so many and such great witnesses is the height of madness.

ORTH. Do you wish, then, that we should begin the explanation of the remaining questions?

ERAN. Let us defer the examination of these until tomorrow.

ORTH. Let us depart, then, having dissolved the meeting, and let us remember the things upon which we have agreed. ^B

INCONFUSUS. DIALOGUE II. ERANISTES AND ORTHODOXUS.

THE UNCONFUSED (INCONFUSUS). DIALOGUS II. ERANISTES AND ORTHODOX.

ERANISTES. I came, as I promised; but it is necessary for you to do one of two things: either answer the questions or assent to what is said by us. ^C

ORTHODOXUS. I accept the challenge, for I consider it upright and just. But we must first recall to mind where we broke off the discussion yesterday, and what end the disputation had.

ERAN. I will remind you of the end. For I remember that we agreed that God the Word remained immutable, and assumed flesh, and that He was not changed into flesh.

ORTH. You seem to acquiesce in the things you have been taught, which you have truly and faithfully recalled.

ERAN. And I already said before, that he who stands against so many and such teachers is most plainly insane; and Apollinarius did not a little disturb me, teaching the same things as the orthodox, ^D although in his books on the incarnation he followed a contrary path.

ORTH. Do we then say that God the Word assumed flesh?

ERAN. Absolutely.

ORTH. But what do we understand by "flesh"? Merely the body, as it seemed to Arius and Eunomius, or body and soul? ^A ERAN. Body and soul. ORTH. Which soul? The rational one, or that which is called by some vegetating or vital? For the fabulous nonsense of the writings of Apollinaris compels us to inquire into things which we should not. ERAN. Does Apollinaris then posit a distinction between souls? ORTH. He says that man is composed of three things: of a body, of a vital soul, and again of a rational one, which he calls the mind. But Divine Scripture knows one soul, not two; and the formation of the first man teaches us this clearly. "For God," it says, "took dust from the earth, and formed man, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." ^B And indeed, also in the Gospels, the Lord says to the holy disciples: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell." And the most divine Moses, having recorded the number of those who had descended into Egypt, and having said with which head of a family each had entered, added: "All the souls that entered into Egypt were seventy-five," counting one soul for each of those who entered. And the divine Apostle at Troas, when everyone thought that Eutychus was dead, said: "Do not be disturbed, for his soul is in him." ERAN. It has been clearly demonstrated that every man has a single soul. ^C ORTH. But Apollinaris says there are two, and that God the Word assumed that which is devoid of reason; but in place of the rational one, He Himself was in the flesh. For this reason I asked what sort of soul you say has been assumed with the body. ERAN. I say the rational one: for I follow Divine Scripture. ORTH. Do we, then, say that the form of a servant assumed by God the Word was perfect? ERAN. Perfect. ORTH. And deservedly so. For since the first man had become entirely subject to sin, and had lost the characters of the Divine image, ^D and the whole race had followed after its progenitor, it was necessary that the Creator, wishing to renew the obscured image, by assuming the whole nature, should impress upon it characters far better than the former ones. ERAN. These things are indeed true. But I ask that the meanings of the terms be explained to us carefully first.

so that the discussion may proceed without impediment, and no question of ambiguity cast in the middle may interrupt the discourse. ^A

ORTH. You have spoken excellently. Ask, therefore, what you will. ERAN. By what name should we call Jesus Christ? As a man? ORTH. Neither without the other, but both. For God the Word, having become man, was called Jesus Christ. "For you shall call," he says, "his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." And, "Today is born to you Christ the Lord in the city of David." These are the voices of the angels. But before the incarnation, He was named God, and Son of God, and Only-begotten, and Lord, and God the Word, and Creator. For it says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and, "All things were made by him," and, "Life was," and, "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and whatever things are similar to these, and are demonstrative of the divine nature. But after the incarnation, He was called Jesus and Christ. ERAN. Is then Jesus the Lord only God? ORTH. Do you hear of God the Word having become man, and yet call Him only God? ERAN. Since He became man without change, but remained what He was, He ought to be called what He was. ORTH. The God Word was and is and will be immutable; but He became man by taking a human nature. It is fitting, therefore, for us to confess both natures, the One who took, and the one that was taken. ERAN. The naming should be done from the better part. ^C ORTH. That man—I am speaking of the animal—is he simple or composite? ERAN. Composite. ORTH. Of what is he composed? ERAN. Of body and soul. ORTH. And which of these natures is the better? ERAN. It is manifest that the soul is more excellent: for it is endowed with reason, and is immortal, and has been entrusted with the rule of the animal. But the body is mortal and perishable, and when separated from the soul, it is devoid of reason and is a corpse. ORTH. It would therefore have been fitting for divine Scripture to name the animal from the better nature. ERAN. It does so name it. It called those who entered into Egypt souls. For it says, with seventy-five souls Jacob went down into Egypt. ORTH. But has divine Scripture named no one from the body? ERAN. Those who are enslaved to the flesh it calls flesh. ^D "He said,"

^A for He says, "God said: My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh."

ORTH. But did He designate no one as flesh without an accusation? ERAN. I do not remember. ORTH. I will therefore remind you and teach you that He even called the very holy ones flesh. Answer me then: by what name do you call the apostles? Spiritual, or carnal? ERAN. Spiritual, and the leaders and teachers of spiritual things. ORTH. Hear then the divine Paul saying: "But when it pleased Him who set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up ^B to the apostles before me." In accusing the apostles, did he call them such? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. But by naming them from the visible nature, and comparing the human calling with the heavenly calling? ERAN. That is true. ORTH. Therefore, hear also the psalmist David, singing praises to God and saying: "To You shall all flesh come"; and the prophet Isaiah prophesying that "All flesh shall see the salvation of our God." ERAN. It has been clearly demonstrated that divine Scripture applies the name of flesh to human nature even without ^C any accusation. ORTH. And I will show you another thing as well. ERAN. What other thing? ORTH. That even when accusing certain people, divine Scripture uses the name of the soul alone. ERAN. And where will you find this in divine Scripture? ORTH. Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel: "The soul that sins, it shall die." And indeed also through the great Moses He says: "Every soul that shall sin"; and again: "And it shall be that every soul that will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed." And many other ^D such things may be found. ERAN. These things have been demonstrated. ORTH. If, therefore, where there is a natural union, and a connection of created things, and of fellow servants, and of things equal in time, divine Scripture is not accustomed to name this animal from the superior nature alone, but equally from the lesser and from the greater: why do you reproach us for calling Christ the Lord God, and also confessing Him to be man, especially when many things compel us to do so?

ERAN. And what is it that compels you, to call the Savior Christ a man? ORTH. The diverse and altogether contrary dogmas of the heretics. ERAN. And what are these dogmas, and to what are they contrary? ORTH. The dogma of Arius is contrary to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances, while the other confuses the persons. Arius indeed introduces three substances; but Sabellius declares there is one person instead of three. Tell me, therefore, how one ought to heal each malady; whether the same remedy is to be applied to both ailments, or whether that which is suitable for each? ERAN. That which is suitable for each. ORTH. Therefore, we will endeavor to persuade Arius to confess the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we will offer him demonstrations of this from the divine Scripture. ERAN. That must be done. ORTH. But in conversing with Sabellius, we will do the opposite. For we will bring forth no argument regarding the substance, since he also confesses it to be one. ERAN. It is manifest. ORTH. But we will make an effort to heal the opinion in which he suffers. ERAN. By all means. ORTH. And what sort of sickness did we say he suffers? ERAN. We say that he limps regarding the persons. ORTH. Since, therefore, he says there is but one person of the Trinity, we will show him the divine Scripture proclaiming three persons. ERAN. This must be done in this way; but we have abandoned our present subject. ORTH. Not at all. For we are collecting the demonstrations concerning this very thing, and you shall presently learn as much. Tell me, therefore: do you suppose that all the heresies that have existed since Christ was born, confess both the divinity of Christ and His humanity? ERAN. Not at all. ORTH. But [do you suppose] that some confess only the divinity, and others only the humanity? ERAN. That is how the matter stands. ORTH. And others yet [only] a part of the humanity? ERAN. So I think. It behooves us, however, to declare how those who hold these views, and how those who hold others, are designated, so that the matter in question may become more clear. ORTH. I will explain this. Simon, and Menander, and Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the humanity of Christ. But Artemon, and Theodotus, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, and Marcellus, and Photinus have fallen into the exactly opposite blasphemy. For they declare Him to be only a man.

and deny His pre-eternal divinity ^A. Arius, however, and Eunomius call the divinity of the Only-begotten created, and say that He assumed only a body. Apolinarius, furthermore, confesses that the body assumed was animate, but in his writings he deprives it of a rational soul, both in honor and in salvation. Such, then, is the difference among these perverse dogmas. But do you, if you love the truth, tell us: is it fitting to hold any discussion with these men, or should we despise those who are rushing headlong toward the precipice and bid them farewell?

ERAN. It is a work of inhumanity to neglect those who are sick.

ORTH. It is fitting, therefore, to sympathize with them and to heal them to the best of our ability.

ERAN. Entirely so.

ORTH. If, therefore, you had learned to heal bodies, and many who stood around you were begging you to heal them, displaying diverse illnesses—for example, bloodshot eyes, or wounds of the ears, or pains in the teeth; and some were suffering from tension of the nerves, while others from relaxation; one from an overflow of yellow bile, another of phlegm—tell me, what would you do? Would you prepare one remedy for all, or one suitable for each particular illness?

ERAN. One suitable to each, and apt for expelling the disease. ^B

ORTH. And so, by cooling hot affections, and warming cold ones, and relaxing those that are tense, while strengthening those that are relaxed with firmer medicines, and drying what is moist, and moistening what is dry, you would expel the diseases in this way and bring back the health that had been driven out by them?

ERAN. Thus the law of the medical art prescribes that we should heal. For they say that contraries are the remedies for contraries.

ORTH. But if you were a planter, would you apply the same cultivation to all trees, or would you apply the one suitable to the pomegranate, and that which is proper to the fig, and similarly for the pear and the apple, and [those that are] agreeable to the domestic vine, and, to speak once for all, that which is appropriate to each individual plant?

ERAN. It is manifest that each plant requires its own proper cultivation. ^C

ORTH. And if you were practicing the art of shipbuilding, and saw that the mast needed repair, would you bestow upon it the attention suitable to the helm, or that which is fitting for the mast?

ERAN. These things also are beyond controversy. For everything requires its own proper care: both plants, and the members of the body, and tools, and the parts of a ship.

ORTH. How, then, is it not an absurdity to apply appropriate treatments to the body and to inanimate objects, but not to observe this rule of medicine in the case of souls? ^D

ERAN. It is most unfair, and full not only of injustice but also of folly. For those who act otherwise are unskilled in the art of healing itself.

ORTH. Therefore, when arguing against each heresy, shall we bring the appropriate remedy? ^A ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. And is it appropriate medicine to add what is lacking in part, and in part to remove what is redundant? ERAN. Indeed. ORTH. Then, if we attempt to heal Photinus and Marcellus, and those akin to them, by what addition shall we observe the rule of physicians? ERAN. By the confession of Christ’s divinity; for this is what they lack. ORTH. Regarding his humanity, however, we shall say nothing to them, for they acknowledge that Christ the Lord is a man. ERAN. You speak rightly.

ORTH. But when arguing with Arius and Eunomius ^B concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten, what shall we persuade them to add to their own confession? ERAN. The assumption of the soul; for they say that the God Word assumed only a body. ORTH. And what is lacking in Apollinarius, so that his doctrine concerning the incarnation might be perfect? ERAN. That he should not separate the mind from the soul, but confess that a rational soul was assumed along with the body. ORTH. Shall we then argue with him about this? ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. Now, for Marcion, Valentinus, and Manes, and those who border on them, what did we say they confess in this regard, and what do they utterly deny? ^C ERAN. That they said they believe in the divinity of Christ, but do not accept the doctrine concerning his humanity. ORTH. Therefore, we shall endeavor to persuade them to embrace also the doctrine concerning the human nature, and not to call the divine economy a phantasm. ERAN. It is fitting to do so. ORTH. We shall say, then, to them that it is necessary to call Christ not only God, but also man. ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. And how is it possible for us, who refuse to call Christ man, to enjoin this upon others? For they will not yield to our persuasions, but will refute us by our own opinions. ^D ERAN. And how do we think the same things as them, we who confess that the God Word assumed both flesh and a rational soul? ORTH. If, therefore, we acknowledge the realities, why do we flee from the names? ERAN. It is appropriate to call Christ by the more honorable titles. ORTH. Keep that rule, then, and do not call him crucified, nor raised from the dead, nor whatever else is similar to these.

^A ERAN. These, however, are the names of the saving sufferings: but to deny the sufferings is to do away with salvation itself. ORTH. Yet the name "man" is the name of a nature; and to remain silent about this is to deny the nature. But to deny the nature is to do away with the sufferings: and to do away with these is to make salvation vanish. ERAN. I consider it necessary indeed to know that the nature was assumed; but to call the Savior of the world "man" is to detract from the glory of the Lord. ORTH. Therefore, do you think yourself wiser than Peter and Paul, and than the Savior himself? ^B For the Lord said to the Jews: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from my Father?" And he often called himself the Son of Man. Moreover, Peter, who is worthy of all praise and preaching, addressing the Jewish people, said: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God." And the blessed Paul, when offering the saving proclamation to the leaders of the Areopagus, said among many other things: "God, having overlooked the times of this ignorance, now commands everyone everywhere to repent; because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, having provided faith for all by raising him from the dead." ^C Whoever therefore rejects the name used and proclaimed by the Lord and the Apostles considers himself wiser than the great teachers, and indeed, than the very fountain of the wisest teachers themselves. ERAN. They proposed this doctrine to unbelievers; but now the greatest part of the world has embraced the faith. ORTH. Indeed, there are still Jews, and Gentiles, and countless sects of heretics, and it is necessary to present to each of these a fitting doctrine. But even if we were all of the same mind, tell me, what harm would it do to confess Christ as both God and man? Or do we not behold in him a perfect divinity, and likewise a humanity lacking nothing? ERAN. We have often confessed these things. ORTH. Why then do we now reject what we have often confessed? ERAN. I regard calling Christ "man" as superfluous, especially if a believer is speaking with a believer. ^D ORTH. Do you consider the divine Apostle to be a believer? ERAN. He is the teacher of all believers. ORTH. But do you consider Timothy to be worthy of this designation?

^A ERAN. As his disciple, and as a teacher of others. ORTH. Listen then to the teacher of teachers writing to his most perfect disciple: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all"; and cease your vain babbling, and stop imposing upon us laws concerning divine names. Moreover, the very name of mediator here signifies both divinity and humanity. For if he were only God, he would not be called a mediator; for how could he exercise the office of mediator between us and God if he had nothing of our own? But because as God he is united to the Father, having the same substance, and as man he is joined to us, since he took from us the form of a servant, he is rightly called a mediator, joining within himself things that were separated by the union of the natures—I mean of divinity and humanity. ^B ERAN. Was Moses then not called a mediator, though he was only a man? ORTH. He was a type of the truth; but a type does not possess all things that the truth possesses. Therefore, though he was not God by nature, he was nonetheless called god, so that he might fulfill the type. "For behold," he says, "I have made you a god to Pharaoh"; and immediately he assigned a prophet to him as to a God. "For Aaron," he says, "your brother, shall be your prophet." But the Truth is both God by nature and man by nature. ERAN. And who would call that a type which does not possess the evident characteristics of the archetype? ^C ORTH. It seems you do not call royal images the images of the king? ERAN. By all means. ORTH. And yet they do not possess all that the archetype has. For in the first place, they are inanimate and irrational; then they lack interior limbs, I mean heart, and stomach, and liver, and the others as many as are joined to these. Furthermore, they display the form of the senses, but do not exercise their functions. For they do not hear, nor do they speak, nor do they see; they do not write, nor do they walk, nor do they do anything else that is human; yet they are called royal images. ^D So too Moses is a mediator, and Christ is a mediator; but the one, as an image and type; the other, as the Truth. But that I may demonstrate this to you more clearly by another example, recall what was said concerning Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ERAN. What things? ORTH. Those in which the divine Apostle, comparing the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of Christ, compared Melchisedec in other respects to Christ the Lord; but said that the Lord truly has the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec. ERAN. I think the divine Apostle says it thus

^A “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.” I believe it is of these words that you have spoken.

ORTH. It is of these that I spoke; and I praise you, moreover, that you did not mutilate the passage, but have cited it in its entirety. Tell me, then, do each of these things apply to Melchisedec by nature and in truth?

ERAN. And who would be so bold as to separate what the divine Apostle has joined?

ORTH. You say, then, that these things apply to Melchisedec by nature?

ERAN. I do.

ORTH. Do you say that he was a man, or that he assumed another nature?

ERAN. A man.

ORTH. Begotten or unbegotten?

ERAN. You propose very absurd questions.

ORTH. You are the cause of them, as you are clearly fighting against the truth. Answer, therefore.

ERAN. One is the only unbegotten, God and Father.

ORTH. Do we say, therefore, that Melchisedec is begotten?

ERAN. Begotten.

ORTH. ^C But the account concerning him teaches the opposite. For remember what you just recited: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” How, then, does “without father” and “without mother” fit him? How, too, does “having neither taken a beginning of existence nor being about to have an end” fit him? For these things surpass human nature.

ERAN. These things truly exceed the measures of human nature.

ORTH. What then? Shall we say that the Apostle has spoken falsely?

ERAN. Heaven forbid!

ORTH. How then is it possible both to ascribe the praise of truth to the Apostle, and to apply to Melchisedec things that are above nature?

ERAN. This passage is very obscure, and one that requires an accurate explanation.

ORTH. To those who wish to pay attention, the comprehension of the meaning of these expressions will not be difficult. For when the divine Apostle had said, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” he added, “but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.” And he clearly teaches us,

^A that the Sovereign Christ is the archetype in things that surpass human nature; but he says that Melchizedek is made like unto the Son of God. Let us consider it thus: do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh? ERAN. By no means. ORTH. Why? ERAN. For he was born of the holy Virgin alone. ORTH. Therefore, is he rightly named without father? ERAN. Truly. ORTH. Do you say that he had a mother according to the divine nature? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages. ERAN. It is acknowledged. ^B ORTH. Therefore he is also called without genealogy, as having his generation from the Father as something past telling. "For his generation," says the prophet, "who shall declare?" ERAN. You speak correctly. ORTH. Thus it befits him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for he is without beginning, and without end, and—to speak briefly—eternal, and co-eternal with the Father. ERAN. These things seem so to me as well. But it is necessary to consider next how these things also befit the wonderful Melchizedek. ORTH. As an image and a type. But the image, as we have already said, does not have everything that the archetype has. Therefore, these things befit the Savior by nature and in truth; but the history of the ancient ^C genealogy attributes these things to Melchizedek. For since it taught us the father of the patriarch Abraham, and the father and mother of Isaac, and likewise of Jacob, and of his children, and indeed has shown the genealogy of those who lived long ago, it has neither mentioned the father of Melchizedek, nor his mother, nor has it taught us that his lineage descends from any of the sons of Noah, so that he might become a type of him who is truly without mother and without father. The divine Apostle has taught us to understand this; for in that very passage he has added these things: "And he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises." ^D ERAN. And because Holy Scripture does not mention those who begat him, can he be called without father and without mother? ORTH. If he were truly without father and without mother, he would not be an image, but the truth. But since he does not have these things by nature, but according to the dispensation of Holy Scripture, he shows the type of the truth. ERAN. The image ought to have the characteristics of the archetype. ORTH. Is man called the image of God?

ERAN. He is not the image of God, but was made according to the image of God. ^A ORTH. Hear, then, the Apostle saying: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God." ERAN. Let it be, then, that he is the image of God. ORTH. It was necessary, therefore, according to your argument, that he should possess the evident characteristics of the archetype, and neither be created, nor composite, nor circumscribed. It was necessary, likewise, that he should create something out of nothing; it was necessary to fashion all things by a word and without labor; and, in addition to these, not to be sick, not to suffer pain, not to be angry, not to sin, but to be immortal and incorruptible, and to possess all things that the archetype possesses. ERAN. Man is not in all things the image of God. ORTH. It is true; in whatever respects you grant him to be an image, you will find him at a very great interval falling short of the truth. ERAN. That is admitted. ORTH. Consider, moreover, this point also: the divine Apostle called the Son the image of the Father; for he said: "Who is the image of the invisible God." ERAN. What then? Does the Son not possess everything that the Father has? ORTH. He is not the Father, nor is he without cause, nor is he unbegotten. ERAN. If he possessed those things, he would not be the Son. ORTH. Is the statement I made true, then, that an image does not possess everything that the archetype possesses? ^C ERAN. It is true. ORTH. Thus, therefore, the divine Apostle said that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God. ERAN. Let us grant that he is without father, and without mother, and without genealogy, as you have said; but how are we to understand that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life? ORTH. The divine Moses, in writing the ancient genealogy, taught us how Adam, having reached such and such a number of years, begat Seth, and having lived for so many years, reached the end of his life. Thus he spoke also concerning Seth, and Enos, and the rest. But concerning Melchizedek, he passed over in silence both the beginning of his birth and the end of his life. Wherefore, ^D according to the history, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life; but according to the truth, the only-begotten Son of God neither began to be, nor will he have an end. ERAN. All agree to this. ORTH. In those things, therefore, which befit God and are truly divine, Melchizedek was a type of Christ the Lord; but in the priesthood, which pertains to men more than to God, Christ the Lord became a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. For he also was a priest of the nations, and Christ the Lord for

^A all men offered a most holy and saving sacrifice.

ERAN. We have exhausted many words on this matter.

ORTH. It required even more, as you know; for you said the passage was difficult to understand.

ERAN. Let us return to the proposed discussion.

ORTH. And what was it that was being sought by us?

ERAN. When I was saying that Christ ought not to be called man, but only God, you produced many other testimonies, and especially that apostolic saying which, when writing to Timothy, he placed: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." ^B

ORTH. I recall from where we drifted into this digression. For when I had said that the name of "mediator" signifies the two natures of our Savior, you replied that Moses was also called a mediator, although he was only a man, not God and man. For this reason I was compelled to go through these things, so that I might show that the type does not possess everything that the archetype has. Tell me, therefore, do you agree that the Savior Christ ought also to be called man?

ERAN. I call him God, for he is the Son of God.

ORTH. If you call him God, because you were taught that he is the Son of God, call him also man; for he himself very often called himself the Son of man. ^C

ERAN. The name of "man" does not befit him, as does the name of "God."

ORTH. Because it would not be true, or for some other reason?

ERAN. The name of "God" is a name of nature; but "man" is an appellation of the dispensation.

ORTH. And do we call the dispensation true, or some sort of imaginary and false thing?

ERAN. True.

ORTH. If, therefore, the grace of the dispensation is true, and we call the incarnation of the Word of God a ^D dispensation, then the name of "man" is also true; for having assumed human nature, he was named man.

ERAN. Before the passion he was called man; but after the passion, no longer.

ORTH. And yet, after the passion and the resurrection, the divine Apostle wrote the Epistle to Timothy, in which he called Christ the Savior man. After the passion and the resurrection, writing to the Corinthians, he cries out: "For since by man came death, and by man came also the resurrection of the dead." And teaching more clearly concerning whom he speaks, he added: "For as in Adam all die,"

so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ^A After the passion and the resurrection, the divine Peter, addressing the Jews, called him a man. After his ascension into heaven, the victorious martyr Stephen, while being overwhelmed with stones, said to the Jews: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Let us not, therefore, deem ourselves wiser than the great heralds of the truth.

ERAN. I do not deem myself wiser than the holy teachers, but I do not see the utility of the name.

ORTH. How then would you persuade those who deny the Lord's humanity—I mean the Marcionites and Manichaeans, and others who suffer from this same disease—to embrace the doctrine of the truth, if you do not bring forward these and similar testimonies by which you demonstrate that the Lord Christ is not only God, but also man?

ERAN. Perhaps it is necessary to bring them forward to those people.

ORTH. But why would you not teach the truth of the dogma to the faithful? ^B Or have you forgotten the apostolic law which commands us to be "always ready to give an answer"? Let us consider this example: Does an excellent general fight the enemies alone, shooting and throwing arrows at them and breaking through their ranks, or does he also arm his own soldiers, arrange them, and arouse their spirits to fight bravely?

ERAN. That is what he must do above all.

ORTH. For it is not the role of a general to face dangers himself and stand in the battle line, while letting his soldiers sleep soundly, but to exhort them also to stand in the battle line and maintain their ranks.

ERAN. That is true.

ORTH. The divine Paul does the same. For writing to those who had believed, he said: "Take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to withstand the wiles of the devil." And again: "Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth," and what follows. ^C You should also remember what we said above: that a physician adds the quality that is lacking in nature. For if he finds the cold quality excessive, he adds the warm, and similarly with the others; the Lord did this also.

ERAN. And where will you show that the Lord did this?

ORTH. In the divine Gospels.

ERAN. Show me, then, and fulfill the promise.

ORTH. What did the Jews think the Savior Christ was?

ERAN. A man.

ORTH. But that he was also God, they were entirely ignorant?

ERAN. That is admitted.

ORTH. Hear then what He says to them: "Many (good) works I have shown you from my Father; for which of these do you stone me?" And when they said: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God," ^A He added: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said: You are gods'? If he called those gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not perform the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father in me."

ERAN. By these words which you have just read, you have shown that the Lord demonstrated to the Jews that He was God, not man.

ORTH. For they had no need to learn what they already knew. For they knew that He was man; but that He also existed as God, they did not know. He did the very same thing also in the case of the Pharisees. For, seeing them approaching Him as a common man, He questioned them thus: "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" And when they said, "David's," He added: "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord? For he says," He remarks, "'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand.'" Then He reasons: "If then he is his Lord, how is he his son?"

ERAN. You have brought forward a testimony against yourself. ^B For the Lord openly taught the Pharisees not to call Him the son of David, but the Lord of David. From which it is evident that He wishes to be called God, and not man.

ORTH. You have not, it seems, paid attention to the divine teaching. For He did not forbid Himself to be called the son of David, but He added that it must also be believed that He is the Lord of David. For this is what that clearly teaches: "If then he is his Lord, how is he his son?" For He did not say: "If he is Lord, he is not a son," but, "How is he his son?" as if to say: in one respect He is Lord, and in another He is son. And these things clearly indicate both the divinity and the humanity.

ERAN. There is no need for syllogisms. For the Lord clearly taught that He does not wish to be called the son of David.

ORTH. It was necessary then to teach the blind men, and the Canaanite woman, and indeed the multitudes as well, not to call Him the son of David. For the blind men cried out: ^C "Son of David, have mercy on us!" And the Canaanite: "Son of David, have mercy on me; my daughter is severely demon-possessed!" And the crowd: "Hosanna to the son of David, blessed—"

is he who comes in the name of the Lord." And not only did he not take it ill, but he even praised their faith. For he freed the blind men from their long night and bestowed upon them the faculty of sight. He healed the daughter of the Canaanite woman, who was racked by furies and deranged, and cast out the most wicked demon. And when the chief priests and Pharisees were offended at those who were crying out, "Hosanna to the son of David," he not only did not restrain those who were crying out, but he even confirmed that auspicious acclamation. "Amen, I say to you," he said, "if these were silent, the stones would cry out." ^B

ERANISTES: He tolerated these titles before the resurrection, accommodating himself to the infirmity of those who had not yet perfectly believed; but after the resurrection, these names are superfluous.

ORTHODOX: Where, then, shall we place blessed Paul? Among the perfect, or among the imperfect?

ERANISTES: One should not jest in serious matters.

ORTHODOX: Nor should the reading of the divine oracles be treated with contempt.

ERANISTES: And who is so unhappy as to neglect his own salvation?

ORTHODOX: Answer the question, and you will recognize your ignorance.

ERANISTES: Which question?

ORTHODOX: In what place do we put the divine Apostle?

ERANISTES: It is clear that he is among the most perfect, and is a perfect teacher.

ORTHODOX: At what time did he begin his preaching?

ERANISTES: After the Savior's ascension, and the coming of the Spirit, and the stoning of the martyr Stephen. ^C

ORTHODOX: When he was writing his last epistle to his disciple Timothy near the end of his life, and handing it over to him like a kind of paternal inheritance by testament, he also added this: "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David according to my Gospel." He also recounted the sufferings he underwent for the sake of the Gospel, confirming the truth of the Gospel from them. "In which," he said, "I suffer hardship even unto chains, as a criminal." It would have been easy for me to produce many other testimonies of this kind, but I have considered this to be superfluous.

ERANISTES: You promised to show that the Lord proposes the doctrine which is lacking to those who are in need; you have stated that he taught his divinity to the Pharisees and to the rest of the Jews; but you have not shown that he also discoursed concerning his own flesh. ^D

ORTHODOX: It was most of all superfluous to discourse concerning the flesh which they saw. For it was clearly observed to be eating, and drinking, and working, and sleeping. However, so that I may pass over the many and varied events which preceded the passion: after the resurrection, he showed the apostles, who were disbelieving, not his divinity, but his humanity. "See," he says, "my hands..."

and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39) ^A Behold, we have fulfilled the promise made to you; for we have shown the doctrine concerning the deity to those who were ignorant of it, and we have set it forth for those who did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. Cease, therefore, from contention, and confess the two natures of the Saviour.

ERAN. There were two before the union; but having come together, they formed one nature.

ORTH. When do you say the union took place?

ERAN. I say, immediately at the conception.

ORTH. But do you say that the God Word did not exist before the conception?

ERAN. I say He existed before the ages.

ORTH. And the flesh, was it always with Him?

ERAN. By no means.

ORTH. But do you say it was formed by the Holy Spirit after the angel’s salutation?

ERAN. That is what I think.

ORTH. Therefore, there were not two natures before the union, but only one. ^B For if the deity existed beforehand, but the humanity did not exist at the same time—for it was formed after the angelic salutation, and the union is joined to the formation—then there was one nature before the union, that which always is and exists before the ages. But let us consider this very thing again. Do you think that the incarnation, or the becoming human, is something other than the union?

ERAN. No.

ORTH. For by assuming flesh, He became incarnate.

ERAN. That appears to be so.

ORTH. And is the union joined to the assumption?

ERAN. I say so.

ORTH. There was, therefore, one nature before the incarnation. For if incarnation and union are the same thing, ^C and He became incarnate by taking the human nature, and the form of God took the form of a servant, then there was one divine nature before the union.

ERAN. And how are union and incarnation the same thing?

ORTH. You confessed a moment ago that these names do not differ.

ERAN. You led me astray with your syllogisms.

ORTH. Shall we then, if you please, take up the same argument again?

ERAN. That must be done.

ORTH. Does the incarnation differ from the union ^D according to the nature of the thing?

ERAN. It differs greatly.

ORTH. Explain the forms of this difference fully.

ERAN. The very understanding of the names indicates the distinction. For the incarnation signifies the assumption of the flesh; but the union, the conjunction of things that were separate.

ORTH. Do you say, then, that the incarnation is older than the union? ERAN. Certainly not. 101 ORTH. But that the union occurred at the conception? ERAN. That is what I think. ORTH. Therefore, if there was not even a moment of time intervening between the assumption of the flesh and the union, and if the nature that was assumed did not pre-exist before the assumption and the union (for incarnation and union signify the same thing), then there was truly one nature before the union, or incarnation; but after the union, it is proper to speak of two: the one assuming and the one assumed. ERAN. I say that Christ is of two natures, but I do not say two natures. ORTH. Explain to us how you say "of two natures"—is it like silver gilded with gold, or like the composition of electrum, or like solder smelted from lead and tin? ^B ERAN. I say that this union is similar to none of these. For it is ineffable, and unutterable, and surpasses all understanding. ORTH. I also confess that the manner of the union cannot be comprehended. But I have learned from divine Scripture that each nature remained intact even after the union. ERAN. Where has divine Scripture taught this? ORTH. It is full of this doctrine. ERAN. Produce the proofs for what you say. ORTH. You, for your part, do not acknowledge the properties of each nature? ERAN. Certainly not after the union. ORTH. Let us learn this very thing, then, from divine Scripture. ^C 102 ERAN. I believe in divine Scripture. ORTH. When, therefore, you hear the divine John crying out: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and: “All things were made through him,” and other things of this kind, do you say that the flesh was in the beginning with God, and is God by nature, and made all things, or rather the God Word, who was begotten of the Father before the ages? ERAN. I say that these things befit the God Word; but I do not separate him from the flesh that is united to him. ORTH. We neither separate the flesh from the God Word, nor do we create a union by confusion. ^D ERAN. I know only one nature after the union. ORTH. When did the Evangelists write the Gospels? Before the union, or a long time after the union? ERAN. It is manifest that it was after the union, and after the birth, and the miracles, and the passion, and the resurrection, and the ascension into the heavens, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

ORTH. Listen then to John, who says: “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 through him, and without him was not any thing made,” and what follows; and to Matthew: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” and what follows. And Luke, too, has recorded his genealogy back to Abraham and David. Apply, therefore, these and those to a single nature. But you will not be able; for it is contradictory to be in the beginning, and to be from Abraham, and to have made all things, and to have a created progenitor. ^A

ERAN. By saying these things, you are dividing the only-begotten Son into two persons.

ORTH. I both know and worship one Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ; but I have been taught the difference between the divinity and the humanity. But you, who claim that one nature was formed after the union, apply the beginnings of the Gospels to this one.

ERAN. As it appears, you consider the proposition too difficult and perhaps impossible; let it be simple and easy for you, provided you solve the question for us.

ORTH. Both belong to the Lord Christ, both to be in the beginning, and to have sprung according to the flesh from Abraham and David. ^B

ERAN. You have established that one ought not to speak of one nature after the union; do not, therefore, transgress your own law, by keeping in mind the flesh.

ORTH. Even without making mention of the flesh, it is easy to solve the proposed question, for I apply both to the Savior Christ.

ERAN. I, too, confess that these and those belong to the Lord Christ.

ORTH. But I do so by beholding two natures in him, and assigning to each what is fitting. But if Christ is one nature, how is it possible to adapt opposites to it? For it is contrary to be in the beginning, and to have taken one's beginning from Abraham and David, or rather, to have been born many generations after David. ^C And it is, again, contrary to have made all things, and to have sprung from created things; and to be from God, and to have men as parents. And, finally, it is contrary for that which is eternal to be recent. And just so, let us consider the matter in this way: do we say that God the Word is the creator of all things?

ERAN. We have been taught to believe so from the divine Scripture.

ORTH. And on what day after the creation of heaven and earth have we learned that Adam was formed?

ERAN. The sixth.

ORTH. And from Adam until Abraham, how many generations have passed? ^D

ERAN. Twenty, I suppose.

ORTH. And from Abraham until the Savior

^A of ours, Christ, how many generations does the evangelist Matthew count? ERAN. Forty-two. ORTH. If, therefore, Christ the Lord is one nature, how is it possible that he is both the creator of all things visible and invisible, and yet, after so many generations, was formed by the Holy Spirit in a virgin’s womb? And how is he both the creator of Adam and the son of those descended from Adam? ERAN. I have already said before that both these and those things befit him as God incarnate; for I acknowledge one incarnate nature of the Word. ORTH. Neither do we, good sir, say that the two natures of the Word of God are incarnate. For we know that the nature of the Word of God is one. But we have been taught that the flesh, which he used when he became incarnate, is of a different nature. And I suppose you agree with this as well. Tell me, then, do you say that the incarnation occurred by some change? ERAN. I do not know the manner, but I believe that he became incarnate. ORTH. You dishonestly put forward ignorance, and after the manner of the Pharisees. For they, too, perceiving the force of the Lord’s question and fearing to be convicted, said, “We do not know.” But I declare explicitly that the divine incarnation was free from change. For if he became incarnate by some alteration ^B or change, by no means do the divine names or things befit him after the change. ERAN. We have often confessed that God the Word is immutable. ORTH. He became incarnate, therefore, by assuming flesh. ERAN. It is true. ORTH. The nature of the Word of God that became incarnate is one thing, and the nature of the flesh, which the nature of the divine Word assumed when it became incarnate and became human, is another. ERAN. That is admitted. ORTH. Was he then changed into flesh? ERAN. By no means. ORTH. If, therefore, he was not changed but became incarnate having assumed flesh—and these and those things befit him as God incarnate, as you said a little while ago—the natures were not mingled, but remained pure. For thus understanding, we shall see the agreement of the evangelists. For of the one Only-begotten, Christ the Lord, I say, the one describes his divinity, and the other his humanity. And Christ the Lord himself teaches us to understand in this way, who ^C now calls himself the Son of God, and now the Son of Man; and at one time he honors his mother as having given birth to him, and at another time, as Lord, he rebukes her; and now he accepts those who call him son of David, and now he teaches those who are ignorant that he is not only the son, but also the Lord of David. And he calls Nazareth and Capernaum his country, but cries out again: “Before Abraham was, I am.” You will find the divine ^D [Scripture] full of many such instances.

These things furthermore demonstrate not one nature, but two.

ERAN. Whoever contemplates two natures in Christ divides the one who is the Only-Begotten into two sons.

ORTH. Therefore, he who says that Paul is made of soul and body also makes two Pauls out of one.

ERAN. The example is dissimilar.

ORTH. I know that as well. For here the union is natural, involving things that are contemporaneous, created, and fellow-servants; but in the case of the Master Christ, it is entirely a matter of good pleasure, love for mankind, and grace. Yet even here, though the union is natural, the properties of the natures have remained intact. ^B

ERAN. If the properties of the natures have remained unmixed, how does the soul crave food with the body?

ORTH. The soul does not crave food. For how could it, being immortal and superior to food? But the body, receiving its vital power from the soul, senses its need and desires to obtain what is lacking; in the same way, it longs for rest after labor, sleep after keeping vigil, and similarly for other things. Therefore, immediately after dissolution, since it lacks vital ^C activity, it no longer craves what is lacking, and by not receiving nourishment, it undergoes corruption.

ERAN. Do you see that to thirst, to hunger, and things similar to these belong to the soul?

ORTH. If these things belonged to the soul, it would suffer from hunger and thirst and other such things even after its departure from the body.

ERAN. What, then, do you say are the properties of the soul?

ORTH. That it is rational, simple, immortal, and invisible.

ERAN. And of the body?

ORTH. That it is composite, visible, and mortal.

ERAN. And we say that man is composed of these?

ORTH. We say so.

ERAN. Do we define man, then, as a rational, mortal animal?

ORTH. It is agreed. ^D

ERAN. And do we name him from these and those [attributes]?

ORTH. It is true.

ERAN. Just as, therefore, we do not divide him here, but call the same person both rational and mortal; so too must we do in the case of Christ, and attribute to him both the divine and the human [properties].

ORTH. This is our own argument, even if it has not been fully articulated by you. Consider it, therefore, in this way. When we conduct a discourse concerning the human soul, do we mention only those things that are appropriate to its activity and nature?

ERAN. Only those.

^A ORTH. But when the discussion concerns the whole living being, we safely attribute both these and those things to it. For both the things that are proper to the body and those proper to the soul are appropriate for man. ERAN. You have spoken very well. ORTH. Therefore, in the same way, one should also hold discourse concerning Christ. When we are discussing the natures, we must attribute to each what is fitting, and know which things are peculiar to the divinity and which to the humanity. But when we are speaking of the Person, we must make common the properties of the natures, and attribute to the Savior Christ both these and those, and call the same one both God and man, and Son of God and Son of man, and Son of David and Lord of David, and seed of Abraham and Creator of Abraham, and all other things likewise.

ERAN. That there is one person of Christ, and that both the divine and human things belong to Him, you have said most correctly, and I accept this canon of the faith. But your saying again that when we are discussing the natures, we must attribute to each its own properties, seems to me to dissolve the union; for which reason I do not accept these and such-like arguments.

ORTH. And yet, when we were examining the things concerning the soul and the body, that distinct method of discourse seemed admirable to you, and you immediately followed it with praise. Why then do you not accept the same rule regarding the divinity and humanity of the Lord Christ? Or, do you not equate the divinity and humanity of Christ even to soul and body? But while you grant to the soul and body an unconfused union, do you dare to say that the divinity and humanity of Christ have suffered commixture and confusion?

ERAN. I, for my part, deem the divinity of Christ, and indeed the flesh itself, to be by an infinite and immense measure more precious than soul and body: ^B yet I affirm that there is one nature after the union.

ORTH. And how is it not impious and absurd to say that the soul, when joined to the body, suffers no contagion of confusion, but that the divinity of the Lord of all things was not able to preserve its own nature unconfused, nor to keep the humanity which He assumed within its own limits, but has confused things that cannot be confused, and mixed things that cannot be mixed? For the idea of one nature provides the occasion for this suspicion.

ERAN. To me also, the name of confusion seems to be something to avoid: but I am unwilling to speak of two natures, lest I fall into the duality of sons.

ORTH. But I strive to avoid both precipices—both that of impious confusion and that of impious division. For to me, ^D both are equally wicked, and one

^A must avoid dividing the one Son in two, and one must avoid denying the duality of the natures. Tell me, then, by the truth: if someone from the followers of Arius or Eunomius were to discourse with you, attempting to diminish the Son and to show Him as lesser and inferior to the Father, saying those things which they are accustomed to say, and bringing forward from the divine Scripture: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and: "Now my soul is troubled," and other things of this sort; how would you dissolve his objections? How would you show that from these things the Son is not made lesser, nor is He of another substance, but is begotten from the substance of the Father? ^B ERAN. I would say that the divine Scripture speaks partly theologically, and partly economically, and that what is said economically ought not to be attributed to the theological. ORTH. But he would object that even in the Old Testament, the divine Scripture is accustomed to say many things economically. For such is that: "And Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking," and that: "I will go down and see whether they have performed according to the cry which comes to me, or if not, that I may know," and that: "Now I have known that you fear God," and many other such things. ERAN. To these things I would again reply that the difference between the economies or dispensations is great. For in the Old Testament, the dispensation is of such words, but here it is also of deeds. ORTH. But he would ask, "Of what deeds?" ^C ERAN. But he shall immediately hear: of those which pertain to the incarnation. For the Son of God, having become man, both by words and by deeds, now shows the flesh, now shows the divinity; just as, indeed, in this place He showed the infirmity of both soul and flesh; for the passion of fear belongs to the soul. ORTH. But if responding he should say: "But He did not assume a soul, but a body only, and the divinity, united to the body in place of a soul, undertook all the offices of the soul," by what arguments would you refute the objection? ERAN. By bringing forward proofs from the divine Scripture, and showing that God the Word assumed not only flesh, but also a soul. ORTH. And where in the Scripture shall we find such proofs? ^D ERAN. Have you not heard the Lord saying: "I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it again; I lay it down of myself, that I may take it again," and again: "My soul is now troubled," and again: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death," and that which was spoken by David and interpreted by Peter, that

^A His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. These things and all others of this kind clearly show that it was not only the body, but also the soul that God the Word assumed.

ORTHODOX. You have produced these testimonies most fittingly and candidly. But he will object, saying that even before the incarnation, God, speaking to the Jews, said: "My soul hates your fasts, and your idleness, and your feasts." Then he will reason thus: just as in the Old Testament, even though He did not have a soul, He made mention of a soul, so He has done in this instance too.

ERANISTES. But he shall hear in return that the Holy Scripture, when speaking of God, makes mention also of bodily parts. For, it says: "Incline your ear, and hearken unto me"; and: "Open your eyes, and see"; and: "The mouth of the Lord has spoken these things"; and: "Your hands have made me, and fashioned me"; and ten thousand things of this kind. If, therefore, even after the incarnation, the soul is not to be understood as a soul, then neither is the body to be understood as a body; and the great mystery of the dispensation will be found to be an empty phantom, and there will be no difference between us and Marcion, Valentinus, and Manes, for such are the fables they invent.

ORTHODOX. But if, while we are conversing, someone from the cohort of Apollinaris should suddenly arrive, and ask: "What kind of soul, my good sir, do you say Christ assumed?" what would you answer?

ERANISTES. First, that I acknowledge only one soul of man. Then I would add: "But if you think there are two souls, and you deem one rational and the other irrational, I say that it is the rational one that has been assumed." For you, it seems, possess the irrational one, thinking that our salvation was accomplished imperfectly.

ORTHODOX. And if he should require proofs for what you say?

ERANISTES. I would give them easily, and I would remind him of the evangelical oracles: "The child Jesus grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and the grace of God was upon him." And again: "But Jesus increased in stature, and wisdom, and grace with God and men." And I would say that none of these things befit the Godhead. For the body increases in stature, and the soul in wisdom—not the irrational one, but the rational. Therefore, God the Word assumed a rational soul. ^D

ORTHODOX. You have broken through the three phalanxes of the adversaries most valiantly, my good sir; but you have dissolved that union, and the much-bruited mixing and confusion, not only doubly but triply by your discourse; and you have shown not only the distinction between the Godhead and the humanity, but you have also divided the humanity itself into two

having taught that the soul is one thing, and the body another—so that, according to our argument, we must now conceive not of two, but of three natures of our Savior Jesus Christ.

ERAN. For do you not say that the substance of the soul is some other thing than the nature of the body?

ORTH. Certainly.

ERAN. How, then, did the statement seem absurd to you?

ORTH. Because, while refusing to speak of two, you have confessed three natures.

ERAN. The contest against the adversaries compels one to do this. For in what other way could one argue with those who deny the assumption of the flesh, or of the soul, or of the mind, unless by bringing forward the proofs concerning these from the divine Scripture? Or, again, how would one confute those who are raging and attempting to belittle the divinity of the Only-Begotten, unless by showing that the divine Scripture has spoken of some things theologically and of others economically? ^B

ORTH. This argument is true; it is our own, or rather, it belongs to all who have kept the apostolic rule unshaken. Now you yourself have shown yourself to be a defender of our dogmas.

ERAN. And how do I defend yours, when I do not speak of two sons?

ORTH. When have you heard us affirm two sons?

ERAN. Whoever says two natures, says two sons.

ORTH. You, then, say three sons; for you said three natures.

ERAN. It was not possible to solve the arguments of the adversaries in any other way.

ORTH. Hear this same thing from us too; for we have the same adversaries.

ERAN. But I do not speak of two natures after the union.

ORTH. Yet, after many ways of speaking about the union, you used these very words a short time ago. But, however, instruct us: how do you speak of one nature after the union? Is it that one was made out of both, or that the one remained while the other was destroyed?

ERAN. I say that the divinity remained, but the humanity was absorbed by it.

ORTH. These are the fables of the Gentiles and the trifles of the Manichaeans. ^C I am embarrassed even to bring2 these into the middle of the discussion. For those wrote in their books of the devouring of gods, and these of the daughter of the light. But we turn away from such discourses, not only as impious, but even as exceedingly foolish. For how could the simple and uncompounded nature, which contains all things, which is incomprehensible and uncircumscribed, have absorbed the nature which it assumed? ^D

ERAN. As if the sea were to receive a drop of honey. For that drop immediately vanishes, being mixed with the water of the sea.

ORTH. ^A Between the sea and the drop there is a difference in quantity, though they agree in one quality. For the one is greatest, the other smallest; and the one is sweet, the other salty; yet in other respects a very great affinity can be found. For both have a flowing, liquid, and current nature; and for both to be created and inanimate is likewise common, and both are called body. There is nothing absurd, therefore, in cognate natures undergoing mixture, and the one being caused to vanish by the other. But here the difference is infinite, and so great that no image of truth can be found. I, however, will show you many things that are mixed ^B without being confused, but rather remaining pure. ERAN. And who has ever heard of a mixture made without confusion? ORTH. I will make you confess this yourself. ERAN. If what you are about to say appears true, we will not fight against the truth. ORTH. Answer, then, either by denying or affirming, as the argument seems to you to be. ERAN. I will answer. ORTH. Does the light, when it rises, seem to you to fill all the air, unless someone perhaps remains in underground caves, ^C excluded and devoid of light? ERAN. It seems so to me. ORTH. And that the light spreads through the whole of the air? ERAN. This also seems so to me. ORTH. But does not mixture proceed throughout all the things that are mixed? ERAN. It is true. ORTH. And do we not see and name the illuminated air "light"? ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. But yet, even while the light is present, we perceive a dry quality, and a moist one, and often a cold and a hot one as well. ERAN. We perceive these things. ^D ORTH. But after the withdrawal of the light, the air itself remains in its own nature. ERAN. These things are true. ORTH. Consider, then, also this: does iron, when brought into contact with fire, become red-hot? ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. And does the fire penetrate through the entirety of its substance? ERAN. Yes. ORTH. How, then, does this supreme union and this mixture, which penetrates through the whole, not change the nature of the iron? ERAN. Indeed, it changes it completely. For it is no longer considered iron, but fire; and what is more, it even possesses the power of fire. ORTH. Does the smith, then, no longer call it iron, nor place it upon the anvil, nor bring the hammer down upon it?

ERAN. These things are conceded. ORTH. The communion of fire, then, did not destroy the nature of the iron. If, therefore, it is possible to find an unconfused mixture in bodies, it is evident madness to conceive of a confusion in a nature that cannot be corrupted or changed, and of the destruction of the nature that was assumed; and this, too, when it was assumed for the benefit of our race. ^A ERAN. We do not speak of the destruction of the nature that was assumed, but of its change into the substance of the Divinity. ORTH. Does the human race, then, no longer possess its former circumscription? ERAN. By no means. ORTH. When, then, did it receive this change? ERAN. After the supreme union. ORTH. And when do you say this took place? ERAN. As I have said many times, at the conception. ORTH. And yet, after the conception, there was a fetus in the womb, and when born it was called an infant, and was worshipped by the shepherds, and likewise it also became a child, and was so called by the angel. Do you know these things, or do you imagine that we are inventing ^B fables? ERAN. The history of the divine Gospels teaches these things, and it is impossible to contradict it. ORTH. Let us consider, then, what comes next. Do we not confess that the Lord was circumcised? ERAN. We confess it. ORTH. Whose circumcision was it, then? That of the flesh, or of the Divinity? ERAN. That of the flesh. ORTH. And to whom does growing and increasing in stature and wisdom belong? ERAN. It is clear that none of these things befits the Divinity. ORTH. Therefore, neither does it befit Him to hunger and thirst? ERAN. By no means. ORTH. Nor yet to walk, and to grow weary, and to sleep, and other things of this sort, to speak briefly? ERAN. Certainly not. ^C ORTH. If, therefore, the union took place at the conception, and all these things occurred after the conception and the birth, then humanity did not in any way lose its own nature after the union. ERAN. I did not define it accurately. For after the resurrection from the dead, the flesh received the change into the nature of the Divinity. ORTH. Then nothing that makes its nature manifest remained in it after the resurrection? ERAN. If it remained, the divine change did not occur. ORTH. How, then, did He show His hands and His feet to the incredulous disciples? ERAN. Even as He entered while the doors were shut. ORTH. But He did enter, while the doors were ^D shut, just as He came forth from the womb while the Virgin’s seals remained intact,

^A and just as He walked upon the sea. Yet according to your argument, the change of nature had not yet taken place.

ERAN. The Lord showed the apostles His hands, as He wrestled with Jacob.

ORTH. But the Lord does not allow us to think thus. For when the disciples suspected that they were seeing a spirit, the Lord cast away this suspicion and demonstrated the nature of the flesh. "For why," He says, "are you troubled, and why do thoughts ascend in your hearts? Look at My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having." And observe the accuracy of the expression. For He did not say that He *was* flesh and bones, but that He *had* flesh and bones, in order to show that the thing which possesses is one thing by nature, and the thing which is possessed is another. For just as that which assumed is one thing, and that which was assumed is another, yet Christ is considered to be one out of both; so ^B that which possesses differs greatly from that which is possessed, yet it does not divide into two persons Him who is understood in these things. However, while the disciples were still doubting, the Lord asked for food and, having taken it, ate—neither consuming the food by a deceptive appearance nor satisfying ^C any need of the body.

ERAN. But it is necessary to accept one of two things. Either He partook of it because He was in need, or, not being in need, He seemed to eat but did not actually partake of food.

ORTH. The body, having become immortal, had no need of food. For concerning those who rise again, the Lord said: "There they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels." That He did, however, partake of food, the apostles are witnesses. For blessed Luke said in the prologue to the Acts that "eating with the apostles, the Lord commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." And the most divine Peter said more clearly: "We who ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead." For since it is characteristic of those who are in this present life to eat, the Lord necessarily demonstrated the resurrection of the flesh to those who did not believe it to be true by means of eating and drinking. He did the same also in the case of Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus; for having raised her, He commanded that food be given to her, and He had Lazarus reclining with Him, thus demonstrating the truth of His resurrection.

ERAN. If we concede that the Lord truly ate, let us also concede that all men take food after the resurrection.

ORTH. Things done by the Savior for the sake of ^D a certain dispensation are not a rule and definition of nature; for He also arranged certain other things which will not happen at all to those who return to life.

^A ERAN. What are these? ORTH. Will the bodies of those who rise again not become incorruptible and immortal? ERAN. The divine Paul instructed us thus: “It is sown,” he says, “in corruption, it is raised

in incorruption; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body,” and he adds, “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” ^A ERAN. Certainly: for these things happen to the body, and they also cease to happen. ORTH. Therefore, corruption and death must be called accidents, not substances: for they come and go. ERAN. They must be so called. ORTH. Therefore, even the bodies of men, when they rise again, are indeed delivered from corruption and from death, yet they do not lose their own nature. ERAN. You speak truly. ORTH. Therefore, the Lord’s body also rose again incorruptible, and impassible, and immortal, and glorified with divine glory, and it is worshipped by the heavenly powers: yet it is still a body, possessing its original circumscription. ERAN. In these things, you seem to speak what is plausible: but after the ascension into the heavens, I do not think you will say that it was not changed into the nature of the divinity. ORTH. I for one would not say so, being persuaded by human reasonings. ^B For I am not so bold as to say anything that the divine Scripture passes over in silence. I have heard, however, the divine Paul crying out, that “God has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained; he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” I have learned also from the holy angels, that he will come in the same way as the disciples saw him going into heaven. But they saw a circumscribed nature, not an uncircumscribed one. I have heard also the Lord himself saying: “You will see the Son of Man coming ^C on the clouds of heaven.” And I know that what is seen by men is circumscribed. For the nature that is not circumscribed is invisible. Moreover, that he will sit on the throne of glory, and set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on the left, implies circumscription. ERAN. Therefore, he was not even uncircumscribed before the incarnation. For the prophet saw him being surrounded by the Seraphim. ORTH. The prophet did not see the very substance of God, but a certain vision accommodated to his own perception. But after the resurrection, all will see that very visible nature of the Judge. ERAN. You who promised to say nothing without evidence, ^D are proposing your own thoughts to us. ORTH. I have learned these things from the divine Scripture. For I heard the prophet Zechariah saying: “They shall look on him whom they pierced.” And how would the outcome of the prophecy follow, if those who crucified him do not recognize the nature which they crucified? I heard also the glorious martyr Stephen shouting: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But he saw the visible, not the invisible nature.

^A ERAN. These things are written thus. But I do not think that you can show that the body, after the ascension into the heavens, is spoken of by men inspired by the Spirit as a body.

ORTH. The things already said are abundantly indicative of the body; for that which is seen is a body. I will show, however, that the body of the Lord is called a body even after the ascension. Hear, then, the Apostle teaching: “For our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned ^B like unto his glorious body.” It has not, therefore, been changed into another nature, but has remained a body, though filled with divine glory and sending forth rays of light; to that [body] the bodies of the saints will be fashioned like. But if that [body] were changed into another nature, then these [bodies] also will be changed in like manner; for they will be fashioned like unto it. But if the bodies of the saints preserve the character of nature, then the Lord’s body also, in the same way, possesses its own substance immutable.

ERAN. Will the bodies of the saints then be equal to the Lord’s body?

ORTH. They will indeed be partakers of incorruptibility and immortality. They will also come into communion with glory, as the Apostle says: “If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” But in quantity ^C there is a great difference to be found, and as much as there is between the sun and the stars, or rather as much as there is between the Lord and the servants, and between the illuminator and the illuminated. Yet he has imparted his own names to the servants; he who is called light, called the saints light: “For you,” he says, “are the light of the world.” And he who is named the Sun of righteousness says concerning his servants: “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun.” Therefore, it is according to quality, not according to quantity, that the bodies of the saints will be fashioned like unto the Lord’s body. Behold, I have clearly shown you what you requested of us. But if it seems good to you, we shall consider this in another way also.

ERAN. It is necessary to move every stone, according to the proverb, in order to find the truth, especially when the question is about divine dogmas.

ORTH. Say then, the mystical symbols offered to God by the ^D priests, symbols of what things are they?

ERAN. Of the Lord’s body and blood.

ORTH. Of a real body, or not of a real one?

ERAN. Of a real one.

ORTH. Excellent; for it is necessary that the archetype of the image should exist. For painters also imitate nature and paint images of the things that are seen.

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. If, therefore, the divine mysteries represent a true body, then the Lord’s body is also now

^A a body, not changed into the nature of divinity, but filled with divine glory.

ERAN. You have introduced the discussion of the divine mysteries at an opportune time; for from this I will show you the transformation of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer, then, my questions.

ORTH. I will answer.

ERAN. What do you call the gift that is offered before the priest’s invocation?

ORTH. It should not be said clearly, for it is likely that some who are not initiated in the mysteries are present.

ERAN. Let the answer be enigmatic.

ORTH. Food made from such seeds.

ERAN. And how do we name the other symbol?

ORTH. This, too, is a common name, signifying a type of drink.

ERAN. But after the sanctification, how do you call these?

ORTH. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.

ERAN. And do you believe that you partake of the body of Christ and of his blood?

ORTH. So I believe.

ERAN. Just as, therefore, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, but after the invocation they are changed and become something else, so the Lord’s body after the ascension was changed into the divine substance.

ORTH. You are caught in the nets which you yourself have woven. For even after the sanctification the mystical symbols do not depart ^B from their own nature; for they remain in their former substance, and figure, and form, and are visible and tangible, just as they were also before. Yet they are understood as that which they have become, and are believed and worshipped, as being those same things which they are believed to be. Compare, therefore, the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness. For it is necessary that the type be like the truth. For that body indeed possesses its former form, and figure, and circumference, and, to speak once for all, the substance of a body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal, and superior to corruption, and has been granted a seat at the right hand, and is worshipped by all creation, as being called the body of the Lord of nature.

ERAN. And yet the mystical symbol changes its former appellation: for it is no longer named what it was called before, but is addressed as body. It is necessary, therefore, that the truth also be called God, and not body.

ORTH. You seem to me to be ignorant. For it is called not only body, but also the bread of life. The Lord himself used this appellation, and we call the body itself the divine body, and life-giving, and Lordly, and ^C belonging to the Lord, teaching that it is not that of any common man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, who

God is both God and man. For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. ^A

ERAN. You have spoken many words regarding this, but I follow the saints who have flourished in the Churches. Show me, therefore, those who, after the union, distinguish the natures by reason.

ORTH. I will read to you their own labors; and you, I well know, will marvel at the frequency of the distinction which they have inserted into their writings while contending against impious heresies. Listen, therefore, to those whose testimonies I have already brought before you, stating these things openly and explicitly.

Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr.

From the epistle to the Smyrnaeans: "For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them: 'Take, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal demon.' And immediately they touched Him and believed."

By the same, from the same epistle: "But after the resurrection, He also ate and drank with them as one who shares in flesh, although spiritually united to the Father." ^B

Of Irenaeus, the ancient bishop of Lugdunum.

From the third book against heresies: "He united, therefore, as we said before, man to God. For if man had not conquered the adversary of man, the enemy would not have been justly conquered; and again, if God had not bestowed salvation, we would not have it firmly; and if man had not been united to God, he could not have been partaker of incorruptibility. For it behooved the mediator of God and men, by His own affinity to both, to bring both into friendship and harmony, and to present man to God, and to make God known to men."

By the same, from a book of the same work: "Therefore, again, in the Epistle, he says: 'Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,' recognizing one and the same Jesus Christ, to whom the gates of heaven were opened because of His carnal assumption, who also will come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father."

By the same, from the fourth book: "As Isaiah says: 'The children of Jacob shall sprout, and Israel shall blossom, and the whole world shall be filled with His fruit.' ^C Since, therefore, His fruit has been scattered throughout the whole world, those who once indeed brought forth good fruits (for from them according to the flesh Christ and the apostles proceeded) have rightly been left behind and removed from the midst, while now to ^D

^A them they are no longer fit for bearing fruit. — By the same, from the same book. He also judges the Ebionites: How can they be saved, if it was not God who wrought their salvation upon earth? Or how can man pass into God, if God had not passed into man? — By the same, from the same book. Those who preached the Emmanuel born of the Virgin were revealing the union of the Word of God with His creature. — By the same, from the same work. For these things did not happen in opinion only, but in truth. Otherwise, if He offered only the appearance of a man, while not being man, surely neither that which He truly was, that is, the Spirit of God, would remain (for the spirit cannot be discerned by the eyes), nor was there any truth in Him, since He was not what He appeared to be. But it has been stated by us above that Abraham and the remaining prophets saw Him through prophecy, in that they were prophesying by vision what was to be. If, therefore, He appeared such, even now, when He was not what He appeared to be, then a kind of prophetic vision happened to men, and another of His advents must be awaited, in which He shall be such as He is now seen in the prophetic manner. We have demonstrated, moreover, that it makes no difference whether one says He appeared in opinion, or that He took nothing from Mary. For He would not have truly had flesh and blood, by which He redeemed us, unless He had recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of Adam. Therefore, the followers of Valentinus are vain and foolish for teaching this, in order to cast out the life of the flesh. ^C

Of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr

From the discourse on the distribution of the talents. One might say that these men, and those who think otherwise, are neighbors, in that they err similarly. For they either confess that Christ, in life, appeared as a mere man, denying the talent of His divinity; or, confessing Him to be God, they deny again the man, teaching that He deluded the eyes of those looking at Him with a fallacious appearance, as if a man, while He did not bear a man, but was rather some empty, phantasmal specter, just as Marcion, and Valentinus, and the Gnostics, tearing the Word away from the flesh, cast off the one talent, that is, the incarnation. — By the same, from the epistle to a certain queen. He calls Him, therefore, the first fruits of them that are asleep, as the firstborn of the dead. Who, rising again, and wishing to show that this which had been raised was the very same which had also been dying, while the disciples were doubting, called Thomas and said: "Draw near, handle, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones ^D

as you see that I have."

^A From the same, from the discourse on Helcana and Anna: Therefore, the three seasons of the year foreshadowed the Savior himself, so that he might fulfill the mysteries that had been predicted concerning him. At the Pascha, that he might show himself as the one about to be sacrificed as a lamb, and be revealed as the true Pascha, as the Apostle says: "For our Pascha, Christ our God, hath been sacrificed for us." At Pentecost, that he might signify the kingdom of the heavens, he himself being the first to ascend into the heavens, and offering man as a gift to God.

From the same, from the discourse on the Great Canticle: He who brought up from the lowest depths of Hades the first-formed man, whom he had created from the earth and who had fallen and was held fast in the bonds of death; he who descended from above and raised the one below to the heights above; he who was the evangelist of the dead, the redeemer of souls, and became the resurrection of the buried ones, this was he who ^B became the helper of the man who had been defeated, being essentially similar to him, the first-born Word visiting in the Virgin the first-formed Adam; the spiritual seeking in the womb the man of dust; the ever-living one seeking the one who died through disobedience; the heavenly calling the earthly to the things above; the noble-born wishing to grant liberty to the slave through his own obedience; he who transformed into an adamant the man who had been dissolved into earth and become food for the serpent, and by hanging this man upon the wood, declared him Lord over the victor, and thus through the wood is found to be the victor.

From the same, from the same discourse: For those who do not now recognize the Son of God as having been made flesh will recognize him when he comes as judge in glory, whom they now treat with contumely in his inglorious body.

From the same, from the same discourse: For the apostles, having come to the monument on the third day, did not find the body of Jesus, in the same way that the children of Israel, climbing the mountain, sought the tomb of Moses and did not find it.

^C From the same, from the interpretation of the second Psalm: This one, who came into the world, was manifest as God and man. And indeed, that he was man is easily understood, when he hungers and grows weary, and being weary thirsts, and fearing flees, and praying is sorrowful, and sleeps upon a pillow, and deprecates the cup of passion, and in agony sweats, and by an angel is strengthened, and by Judas is betrayed, and is treated with contumely by Caiaphas, and by Herod is despised, and by Pilate is scourged, and by the soldiers is mocked, and by the Jews is fastened to the wood, and crying to the Father commits his spirit, and bowing his head expires, and is pierced in the side with a lance, and wrapped in a linen shroud is placed in a monument, and on the third day is ^D raised by the Father. But his divine nature can be seen just as distinctly, when he is worshipped by angels, and is viewed by shepherds, and is awaited by Simeon, and is adorned by the testimony of Anna, and is sought by the Magi, and is indicated by a star, and makes wine from water at the marriage feast, and rebukes the sea agitated by the force of the winds,

and walks upon the sea, and causes the man blind from birth to see, and raises Lazarus dead for four days, and performs various miracles, and forgives sins, and gives authority to his disciples to forgive them. — *By the same, from the interpretation of Psalm XXIII.* He comes to the heavenly gates, angels accompany him, and the gates of heaven are closed. For he has not yet ascended to the heavens: now for the first time the flesh is seen ascending by the heavenly powers. It is said, therefore, to the powers by the angels who run before the Savior and Lord: "Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you eternal gates, and the King of Glory shall enter." ^B

Saint Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch and Confessor. On the inscriptions of the titles.

^A who shall change the body of our lowliness, that it may be made conformable to the body of his glory" (Phil. iii, 20, 21). But if, while transforming the lowly body of men, he makes it conformable to his own body, the calumny of our adversaries is proven entirely empty from every point of view.

Of the same, from the same discourse. But even as the man born from the Virgin is said to have been born of a woman, so also he is written to have been "born under the law" (Galat. iv, 4), because he proceeded, as it were, through the legal precepts at times; as when his parents hastened with ready zeal to circumcise the child himself on the eighth day, as the evangelist Luke relates: ^B "And afterwards they brought him into the temple, to present him to the Lord, performing the offerings of purification, to give a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons" (Luc. ii, 22-24). If, therefore, the gifts of purification were offered according to the law on his behalf, and he underwent the circumcision of the eighth day, for this cause it is not without reason written that he was made under the law. Yet the Word was not subject to the law, as the sycophants imagine, since he himself is the Law; nor did God have need of purifying sacrifices, who cleanses and sanctifies all things by his will alone. But although he bore the human organ he had assumed from the Virgin, and was made under the law, having been purified according to the custom of the firstborn, he underwent these ceremonies not because he himself needed this remedy, but that he might redeem from the servitude of the law those who had been sold into the condemnation of the curse.

Of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

From the second discourse against the heresies. And just as we would not have been delivered from sin and from the curse, had the human flesh which the Word put on not been natural (for we would have had nothing in common with what was foreign), so too man would not have been deified had the Word, who became flesh, not been by nature from the Father, and his true and proper Word. For this reason such a conjunction took place, that he who is God by nature might be conjoined to him who is man by nature, ^C and that his salvation and deification might be secure. Therefore, let those who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father, and proper to his substance, also deny that he took true and human flesh from Mary the Virgin.

Of the same, from the letter to Epictetus. If, because it is written and said in the Scriptures that the Savior's body is from Mary and human, they think that a quaternity is spoken of instead of a Trinity, as though an addition were made on account of the body, they greatly err, making the creature equal to the Creator, and imagining that the divinity can be increased by an addition. And they are ignorant that not as to the divinity

^A did the Word become flesh, but so that the flesh might rise again; nor did the Word come forth from Mary so that He might be improved, but so that the human race might be redeemed. How then do they think that the body, which was redeemed and vivified by the Word, makes an addition to the divinity of the Word who vivified it?

— From the same, from the same epistle.

Let them hear that if the Word were a creature, He would not have assumed a created body in order to vivify it. For what help can creatures receive from a creature, if that creature itself also is in need of salvation? But because the Word, being Creator, was Himself the maker of all creatures, for this reason He Himself took to Himself a created ^B body at the consummation of the ages, so that He might renew it and re-create it as its Creator.

— From the greater discourse on the faith.

We have added these remarks concerning the text: “Sit at My right hand,” because they were spoken regarding the body of the Lord. For if, “I fill heaven and earth, says the Lord,” as Jeremiah says, and God contains all things, but is contained by none, on what throne does He sit? Therefore, it is the body to which He says: “Sit at My right hand,” of which the devil, along with the wicked powers, the Jews, and the Gentiles, also became an enemy. Through which body He became ^C and was named High Priest and Apostle, through which He handed down to us the mystery, saying: “This is My body which is broken for you,” and: “The blood of the New Testament (not of the old), which is poured out for you.” But the Godhead has neither body nor blood; rather, the man whom He assumed from Mary was the cause of these things, of whom the apostles said: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God.”

— From the same, from the tome against the Arians.

And when He says: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name,” He is speaking ^D of the temple of His body, not of the Godhead. For the Most High is not exalted, but the flesh of the Most High is exalted, and to the flesh of the Most High He gave the name which is above every name. And the Word of God did not obtain the title of God by grace, but His flesh, together with Him, was divinized.

— From the same, from the same discourse.

And when He says: “The Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because Jesus was not yet glorified,” He speaks of His flesh not yet being glorified. For the Lord of glory is not glorified; rather, the flesh of the Lord of glory became itself glorious by the glory of the Lord.

ascending with Him into heaven. Whence he says, and the spirit of adoption was not yet in men, because the first-fruits accepted from among men had not yet ascended into heaven. Whatever, therefore, the Scripture says, namely that the Son has received and has been glorified, it states on account of His humanity, not on account of His divinity. ^B Likewise, from the same discourse. So this is the true God, both before He became man and after He became the mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, united to the Father according to the Spirit, but to us according to the flesh, who interceded between God and men, who is not only man but also God. ^C Of Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan. In the exposition of the faith. We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without beginning before all ages according to His divinity; and in the last days, the same one incarnate of the holy Virgin Mary, and having assumed a perfect man consisting of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity. For the union of two perfect natures has been made ineffably. Therefore, we confess one Christ, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, knowing that as one who is coeternal with His own Father according to divinity, according to which He is also the creator of all things, He deigned, after the assent of the holy Virgin when she said to the angel: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word,” ^D ineffably to build for Himself a temple from her, and to unite this to Himself from the very conception; not a body brought down from heaven coeternal with His own substance, but one taken from the mass of our substance—that is, from the Virgin—and united to Himself. The God Word was not turned into flesh, nor did He appear as a phantom; but, keeping His own substance without change or alteration, He united to Himself the first-fruits of our nature which He had assumed. The God Word did not receive a beginning from the Virgin, but being coeternal with His own Father, He deigned out of His great goodness to unite to Himself the first-fruits of our nature, not being mingled, but appearing as one and the same in both substances, as it is written: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” For Christ God is destroyed according to my substance, which He assumed; and the same One raises the destroyed temple according to His divine substan-

substance, in accordance with which He is also the creator of all things. Never, after the union which He deigned to unite to Himself from the very conception, did He depart from His own temple, nor could He depart because of His ineffable kindness. But the same One is both passible and impassible: passible according to His humanity, impassible according to His divinity. For “See,” He says, “see me, that I am He, and I do not change.” Having therefore raised His own temple, God the Word, and having in it worked the resurrection and renewal of our nature, and having shown this to His disciples, He said, “Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me (not to be, but) to have;” so that by considering both the One who has and that which is had, you may understand that it was not a mixing, nor a conversion, nor an alteration, but a union that took place. For this reason He also showed the marks of the nails and the thrust of the spear, and ate before the disciples, so that by every means He might convince them of the resurrection of our nature renewed in Him. And because, according to the blessed substance of the divinity, He is immutable, unalterable, impassible, immortal, and wanting nothing, He allowed all the sufferings to be inflicted by permission upon His own temple, and raised this by His own power, and through His own temple He accomplished the perfect renewal of our nature. But those who say ^C that Christ is a mere man, or that God the Word is subject to passion, or that He was turned into flesh, or that He had a body consubstantial with Himself, or brought it from heaven, or that it was a phantom; or those who say that mortal God the Word had need of being raised by the Father, or that He assumed an inanimate body, or a man without a mind, or that the two natures of Christ were confused by commixture into one nature, and who do not confess that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are two natures inconfusedly, yet one person, inasmuch as there is one Christ, one Son—these the catholic and apostolic Church strikes with anathema. ^D —Of the same. If, therefore, the flesh of all, and in Christ, was subject to injury, how do you say that it is of the same substance as the divinity? For if the Word and the flesh, which has its nature from the earth, are of one substance, why should the Word and the soul, which He assumed perfect (as human), not be asserted to be of one substance? But the Word is of one substance with God, according to the Father's profession and the Lord’s own assertion, who says: “I and the Father are one.” Therefore, the Father is proclaimed to be of one substance with the (earthly) body. And do you still feel indignation at the Arians, because they say the Son of God is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of one substance with the creatures, themselves saying that the Father is of the same substance as the creatures? Of the same—

^A *From the same, from the letter to the Emperor Gratian.* Let us observe the distinction between divinity and flesh. ^B One is the Son of God who answers to both, since in Him are both natures. The same One speaks, yet not always in one way, but in a different mode. Pay attention to Him: at one moment He utters the glory of God, at another the passions of man. As God He speaks things divine, since He is the Word; as man He speaks the lowly things, since He speaks in my substance. *From the same, from the same work.* Whence that which was read, that the Lord of glory was crucified, let us not think that He was crucified in His own glory. But because this [Person] is God and man—God according to the divinity, and man according to the assumption of the flesh—Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, is said to have been crucified. For He participates in both natures, that is, the human and the divine. For in the nature of man He endured the passion, so that the One who suffered is called, indivisibly, both Lord of glory and Son of man, as it is written: “He who descended from heaven.” ^C *Likewise from the same.* Let, therefore, empty questions about words be silent. For the kingdom of God, as it is written, is not in the persuasion of words, but in the demonstration of power. Let us observe the difference between the flesh and the divinity. For there is one Son of God; the same One speaks for both, since each nature is in Him. Yet even if He Himself speaks, He does not speak in one way always. For you see in Him, at one time, the glory of God, at another, the passion of man. As God He speaks things divine, since He is the Word; as man He speaks the human things, since He was speaking in this nature. *From the same, from the discourse concerning the Incarnation of the Lord against the Apollinarians.* But while we were refuting these men, others sprang up, saying that both the body of Christ and His divinity are of one nature. What hell vomited forth such a blasphemy? For the Arians are by now ^D more tolerable, whose unbelief gains strength through these men, since they have attempted to say that the Lord's divinity and flesh are of one substance.

^A And this man also frequently reminds me that he adheres to the exposition of the Council of Nicaea. But in that tractate our fathers did say, not that the flesh, but that the Word of God is of one substance with the Father; and they confessed that the Word indeed proceeded from the Father’s substance, but the flesh was from the Virgin. How, therefore, is the name of the Nicene Council put forward, and new things introduced which our ancestors never conceived of? — Of the same, against Apollinarius. Do not, therefore, also attempt to interpret according to nature that which is beyond the nature of the divinity. For even if you believe that true flesh was assumed by Christ, and offer the body to be transformed ^B upon the altars, nevertheless, do not fail to distinguish the nature of the divinity and of the body; and it is said to you: *If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, you have sinned; be still.* For *divide* what is mine, divide what is the Word’s. For I did not have what was His, and He did not have what was mine. He assumed what was mine, that He might impart what was His own. He assumed, not that He might confuse, but that He might fulfill. — Of the same, after a few words. Let those, therefore, cease to say that the nature of the Word has been changed into the nature of the flesh, lest it appear that, having been changed, the nature of the Word has simultaneously become subject to the passions ^C of the body. For that which assumes is one thing, and that which is assumed is another. *Power came upon the Virgin*, as the angel says to her: *For the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.* But the thing born was out of the body of the Virgin; and for this reason, the descent was divine, but the conception was human. Therefore, the nature of the body and the nature of the divinity could not be the same. Of Saint Basil, Bishop of Caesarea. From the discourse on thanksgiving. Wherefore, having wept for his friend, he himself showed participation in human nature, and delivered us from excess in both directions, allowing us neither to be broken too softly by adverse events, nor to be without sense regarding painful ones. Just as, therefore, the Lord hungered, having consumed solid food, and thirsted ^D since the moisture in the body...

was consumed; and grew weary, from the muscles and nerves being overstrained by the journey; not that the divinity was pressed by the labor, but that the body received the symptoms which naturally follow from its nature; so also He received the tear, permitting that to happen to the flesh which was natural to it.

— Of the same, against Eunomius. For I claim that "to be in the form of God" is the same as "to be in the substance of God." For just as "to have taken the form of a servant" signifies that the Lord has come into the substance of human nature, so if anyone says "to be in the form of God," he attributes to Him the property of the divine substance. ^A

Of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus.

From the discourse on the New Sunday. He will come again with his glorious presence, to judge the living and the dead, no longer indeed with flesh, yet not bodiless, but in a form of body far more divine, just as He Himself knows, so that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, and remain God, free from density. ^B

— Of the same, from the epistle to Cledonius. There are indeed two natures, God and man, just as there are soul and body; but they are not two sons. For here there are not two men, even if Paul so speaks, when he calls them the inner man and the outer man. And, to speak briefly, those from which the Savior is are one thing and another, since the visible is not the same as the invisible, nor the timeless the same as that subject to time; yet He is not "one" and "another"—God forbid! ^C

— Of the same, from the prior exposition to Cledonius. If anyone says that He has now put aside the flesh, and that the divinity is bare of a body, and not that He both is and will come with the assumed part, may he not see the glory of the coming. ^D For where is the body now, if not with Him who assumed it? For it has not been deposited in the sun according to the ravings of the Manichaeans, so that it might be honored through contumely; nor has it been diffused into the air and dissolved, like the nature of a voice, or the nature of an odor, or the course of a bolt of lightning which does not stand still. And where, then, is the being touched after the resurrection, in which He will one day be seen by those who pierced Him? For divinity by itself is invisible.

— Of the same, from the second discourse on the Son. For insofar as He is the Word, He was neither obedient nor disobedient; for these are things for those who are subject, and

^A worthy of judgment. But as the form of a servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, and takes on the form of one who is foreign, bearing me entirely within Himself with my infirmities, that He might consume in Himself the worse part, as fire consumes wax or the sun the vapor of the earth. — Of the same, from the discourse on the Theophany. Since, therefore, He came forth from the Virgin with the assumption [of the body], made from two things contrary to each other, flesh and spirit, of which the one was assumed into God, while the other provided the grace of divinity. — Of the same, after a few words. He was indeed sent, but as man. For His nature was twofold; hence, indeed, He also grew weary, and hungered, and thirsted, and was overwhelmed by anguish, and shed tears, according to the law of a human body. — Of the same, in the second discourse on the Son. ^B But He might be called God, not of the Word, but of the visible nature. For how could He be God of the God who is primarily so? Just as the Father is not [the Father] of that which is seen, but of the Word. For He was twofold. Wherefore, the one is applied primarily to both, the other not primarily, but contrariwise in regard to us. For He is our God primarily, but not primarily our Father. And ^C this is what causes the heretics their error, the joining together of names. A sign of this, moreover, is that when natures are distinguished in the mind and by thought, the names are also distinguished. Hear Paul saying: «That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,» ^D of Christ indeed God, but of glory the Father. For even if both are one, they are not one by nature, but one by conjunction. What could be clearer than this? Fifth, let it be said, that He Himself received life, or judgment, or the inheritance of the nations, or authority over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or all such things. And these are of His humanity. — Of the same, from the same discourse. «For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, man Christ Jesus.» For He still intercedes as a man even now for my salvation, regarding the fact that He is with the body which He assumed, until He might make me God, by the power of the

incarnation, even if He is no longer known according to the flesh—I mean the carnal passions—and without our sin. ^B

Of the same, from the same discourse. Is it not manifest to all that He knows as God, but says that He is ignorant as man, if one separates that which is apparent from that which is understood? For the fact that the appellation of the Son is absolute and without relation, with no addition of whose Son He is, provides an opportunity for thinking this. Therefore, taking this ignorance in a more pious sense, we judge that it should be ascribed to His humanity, not to His divinity.

Of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa

Of the same, from the same discourse. If the soul of man, joined to the body by the necessity of nature, moves freely everywhere, what necessity compels us to say that the divinity is enclosed in the nature of the flesh?

Of the same, from the same discourse. What hinders us from recognizing a certain union and approximation of the divine nature to the human, and also from maintaining a thought worthy of God in that approximation, while believing that the divinity is outside of all circumscription, even if it is in men?

Of the same, from the discourse against Eunomius. If the one born of Mary talks with brothers, but the Only-Begotten has no brothers—for how could the name of "Only-Begotten" be preserved among brothers?—and He who said, "God is a Spirit" (John iv. 24), says to the disciples, "Handle me" (Luke xxiv. 39), it is to show that only the human nature can be touched, but the divine nature cannot be touched. And He who said, "I am going" (John xiv. 28), signifies a local migration; but He who encompasses all things, in whom, as the Apostle says, all things were created, and in whom all things consist (Col. i. 16), has nothing among existing things outside of Himself, to which He might come by any motion or transition. ^D

Of the same, from the same discourse. "Exalted by the right hand of God" (Acts ii. 33). Who, then, was exalted? The humble one, or the Most High? And what is the humble, if not the human? And what, other than God, is the Most High? But truly, God does not need exaltation, being the Most High. Therefore, the Apostle says that the human nature was exalted: exalted, indeed, in that it became Lord and Christ. Therefore, not the eternal existence of the Lord by this word,

but the transformation of the humble to the exalted, which has come to pass at the right hand of God, does the Apostle signify. For through this word the mystery of piety is clarified. ^A For by saying, "Having been exalted by the right hand of God," he openly reveals the ineffable economy of the mystery, namely, that the right hand of God, which is the creative power of all things, which is the Lord through whom all things came to be, and without whom nothing of the things that have come to be has subsisted, this same (right hand) brought the man united to it up to its own height through the union.

Of Saint Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.

From the discourse on: "My Father is greater than I." ^B Distinguish now between the natures, the one of God, and the other of man. For neither did God, falling away, become man, nor did man, by progressing, become God.

From the same, from the discourse on: "The Son can do nothing of himself." For after the resurrection the Lord demonstrates both things: both that the body is not such [i.e., not of a different nature], and that the very same body has risen. Call the history to mind. The disciples were gathered together after the passion and the resurrection, and though the doors were shut, the Lord stood in their midst—a thing He had never done before the passion. ^C But could not Christ have done this also before? For all things are possible for God. But He did not do it before the passion, lest you should think the economy was a vision or an opinion; lest you should judge Christ’s flesh to be spiritual, or to have come down from the heavens, or to be of a different substance and diverse from our flesh. For some, imagining all these things and thinking that they are honoring the Lord through them, are unaware that, under the pretext of giving thanks, they are treating Him with contumely and accusing the truth of falsehood, not to mention that falsehood is altogether alien to reason. For if He assumed a different body, what does it have to do with mine, which is in need of salvation? ^D If He brought down flesh from the heavens, what does it have to do with my flesh, which was taken from the earth?

From the same, from the same discourse. For this reason, therefore, not before the passion, but after the passion, the Lord stood in the midst of the disciples with the doors shut, so that you might know that your animal body, which was sown, will also rise again as a spiritual body. But lest you should think again that what rose was something else, when Thomas did not believe in the resurrection, He shows him the prints of the nails, He shows him the marks of the wounds. Could He not have healed Himself, and that too after the resurrection, He who had healed everyone even before the resurrection? But by the fact that He showed the prints of the nails, He proves that it is that very same (body); but by the fact that He entered while the doors were shut, He shows that it is not of such a kind. This He did so that he might fulfill

the manner of the dispensation, having raised up what was dead; but not of such a kind, that it might not again fall prey to corruption, nor again undergo death.

Of the blessed Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. From the things written against Origen.

Neither is it changed into the nature of divinity because of our likeness, into which He has shared, nor is His divinity turned into our likeness. For He remains God, as He was from the beginning; and He remains, also keeping our substance within Himself.

Of the same, from the same work.

But, truly, not ceasing to blaspheme again, he slanders the Son of God and uses these words: "Just as the Son and the Father are one, so the soul which the Son took, and He Himself, are one"—not knowing that the Son and the Father are one because of the one substance and same divinity, whereas the soul and the Son have a substance and nature different from one another. For if, just as the Father and the Son are one, so the soul of the Son and the Son are one, then the Father and the soul will also be one, and the soul of the Son will one day say: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." But this is not so, God forbid! For the Son and the Father are one, because there are not diverse qualities; but the soul and the Son differ both in nature and in substance, since it also was made by Him, possessing the same substance as we do. For if, in the way that the Father and the Son are one, in this way the soul and the Son are one, according to Origen, then the soul will be, like the Son, "the radiance of the glory of God and the express image of His substance." But this is impossible; it is impossible, therefore, that the Son and His soul be one, just as He and the Father are one. ^A And what will he do, falling into contradiction with himself again? For he writes thus: "For surely the soul that was troubled and sorrowful was the Only-Begotten and the Firstborn of every creature." For God the Word, as being more excellent than the soul, the Son Himself says: "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up." If, therefore, the Son is more excellent than His own soul, as it is confessed that He is more excellent, how is His soul equal to God, and in His form? For we say that it is that which "emptied itself and took the form of a servant." ^B By the excesses of his impieties, he became more notorious than the other heretics, as we have remarked. For if the Word exists in the form of God and is equal to God, and if he thinks the soul of the Savior exists in the form of God and is equal to God—having dared to write thus—how is that which is equal more excellent? For those natures that are inferior bear witness to the excellence of those things which are above them.

Of Saint John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople. From a discourse delivered in the Great Church.

And we say that the form of a servant was assumed by the Son...

^A of God, not because of weakness of power, but because of His ineffable love for mankind. For your Master raised up a man into heaven, but you do not even allow him a place in the market. And why do I say into heaven? He seated him upon a royal throne, but you even drive him out of the city. — Of the same, on the beginning of Psalm XLI. Paul does not cease to this very day saying: “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” And he did not stop there, but having taken the firstfruits from your nature, he seated them above all rule and authority and power and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the age to come. What could be equal to this honor? The firstfruits of our race, which has offended in so many ways and been afflicted with ignominy, sits in such high ^B exaltation and enjoys such great honor. — Of the same, on the division of languages. For consider what it is to see our nature carried above the Cherubim, and all the angelic power poured around it. Consider also the wisdom of Paul, how many names he seeks out, so that he might set forth the love of Christ toward us. For he did not say simply grace, nor simply riches, but the surpassing riches of grace in kindness. — Of the same, from a dogmatic discourse, that the things said and done humbly by Christ were not said and done because of weakness of power, but because of various reasons of dispensation. And after the resurrection, seeing the disciple unbelieving, He did not refuse to show him both the wounds and the mark of the nails, and to submit the scars to the touch of his hand, and said: “Search and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones.” And for this reason He did not take upon Himself a man of perfect age from the beginning, but endured both to be conceived, and to be born, and to be nourished with milk, and to tarry upon the earth for such a length of time, so that by the duration of time, and by all other means, $\llbracket$C$\rrbracket$ He might confirm this very fact. — Of the same, to those who say that demons govern human affairs. Nothing was more worthless than man, and nothing has become more glorious than man. He was the lowest part of the rational creation. But the feet have become the head, and were carried up to the royal throne through the firstfruits. For as some generous and magnificent man, seeing someone who has escaped from a shipwreck, and having been able to save only his naked body from the waves, receives him with open hands, clothes him in a splendid robe, and conducts him to the highest degree of honor: so God dealt with our nature. Man had lost everything he possessed—freedom, communion with God, the dwelling in paradise, a life exempt from calamity—and had departed from there naked, as if from a shipwreck. But God, receiving him, immediately clothed him, and gradually led him by the hand ^D

is in heaven. — *By the same, from the same oration*. But God compensated for the loss with greater gain, and raised up our nature to the royal throne. And Paul cries out, saying: "He raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places" ^A. — *By the same, concerning those who fast for the first Pascha*. He opened the heavens, and from enemies made us friends, and brought them into heaven, and placed our nature at the right hand of the throne, and provided us with countless other good things. — *By the same, from the oration on the Ascension*. To this distance and height, therefore, He led our nature. See where it was placed below, and to what height it ascended. Man could not descend lower than where he descended, nor ascend higher than where He raised him up again. — *By the same, from the interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians*. According to His good pleasure, he says, which He intended in Him, that is to say: what He desired, this He was bringing to birth, so to speak, to declare to us the mystery. And what is this? That He wills to place man on high, which indeed has also come to pass. — *By the same, from the same interpretation*. Concerning this, He speaks of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of God the Word. — *By the same, from the same interpretation*. "And when we were dead in trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ" ^B. And again Christ is the middle point, and the matter is worthy of faith. For if the first-fruits live, we too shall live: He made both Him and us alive. You see that all things have been said concerning that which is according to the flesh. — *By the same, from the Gospel according to John*. For why does he add: "And He dwelt among us?" ^C as if to say: ^D Do not suspect anything absurd from that which I said, "it was done." For I did not speak of a conversion of that immutable nature, but, as it were, of a dwelling and inhabitation in a tabernacle. Now, the one inhabiting a tabernacle is not the same as the tabernacle, but the one dwells in the other: otherwise, it would not be an inhabitation of a tabernacle. For nothing dwells in itself. I said "the other" according to substance. For by union and conjunction, God the Word and flesh are one, not by there being confusion or destruction of substances, but by a certain ineffable and inexplicable union. — *By the same, from the Gospel according to Matthew*. And just as if someone, standing in the space between two persons separated from each other, reaching out both his hands on either side, should join those he has grasped, so also did He Himself, joining the Old Testament to the New, and His divine nature to our human nature. — *By the same, on the Ascension of Christ*. For just as when, with two parties at variance with each other and beginning to fight, someone else comes into the middle as a mediator, puts an end to the fighting of the contenders and dis-

^A disaccord; so too did Christ. God was angry at us, and we were despising His wrath, turning away from the benevolent Master; but Christ, placing Himself in the middle, brought both natures into friendship and Himself endured the punishment hanging over us from the Father. — By the same, from the same discourse. He therefore offered the first-fruits of our nature to the Father, and the Father Himself admired the gift, both because of the supreme dignity of the one who offered it, and because of the singular excellence of the gift offered. For He received it with His own hands and made it a partner of His own throne, and more than that, He enthroned it at His own right hand. Let us therefore recognize who that is who heard: "Sit at my right hand," and what that nature is, to which He said: "You are earth, and to earth you shall return." — By the same, after a few words. With what discourse shall I use, with what words shall I speak, I know not. Nature, which is fragile, nature, which is lowly and despised, which had been declared the lowest of all, has conquered all, has surpassed all. Today it has been deemed worthy to become higher than all; today it has received what ^B for a long time angels desired; today archangels have been able to be spectators of long-desired things, and have contemplated our nature shining upon the throne of the King with the glory of immortality.

Saint Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, from the Gospel according to Luke

In all things the Lord delineates for us the character of piety, and reveals in various ways to our nature the paths of salvation; ^C and He provides us with many manifest proofs of His bodily advent and of the divinity operating through the body. For He wished to make us certain of both natures. — By the same, on the Theophania. "Who shall truly speak the powers of the Lord, and make heard all His praises?" Who could explain in speech the greatness of the benefit towards us? Human nature is joined to divinity, both natures remaining in their own state.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. From the fourth catechetical discourse, on the ten dogmas. On the birth from the Virgin.

Believe, also, that this only-begotten Son of God for the sake of our sins ^D descended from the heavens to the earth, having taken upon Himself this nature of ours, subject to like passions,

^A and having been born of the holy Virgin and the holy Spirit, the incarnation having come about not by opinion and phantasy, but in truth; nor as though passing through the Virgin as through a pipe, but having been truly incarnate of her, eating as we do in truth, and 68 being truly nourished with milk from her. For if the incarnation were a phantasy, salvation would also be a phantasy. Christ was therefore twofold: man, as he was seen; God, as he was not seen; eating, as a man, truly as we do (for He had the affection of the flesh like us); yet feeding the five thousand from five loaves, as God; dying, as a man, truly; yet raising the dead of four days, as God; sleeping in the boat, as a man, 70 and walking upon the waters, as God.

Antiochi episcopi Ptolemaidis. Do not confound the natures, and you will not falter concerning the dispensation.

Of Saint Hilary, bishop and confessor, in the ninth book on the faith. He truly does not know his own life who does not know Jesus Christ as true God, and in the same way as true man. For the matter is of the same danger, whether we deny Christ Jesus, or the Spirit God, or the flesh of our own body. “Everyone therefore who shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” ^C These things the Word made flesh was saying, and the man Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, was teaching, being Himself the mediator for the salvation of the Church in that very mystery, by which He mediated between God and men; being one, the combination [of both], of the natures united into this very thing, existing the same through each nature. Yet so [united] that in each he lacks neither, lest perchance by being born man he cease to be God, or again by remaining God he not be man. This, therefore, is the blessedness of the true faith in men: to preach God and man, to confess Word and flesh, and neither be ignorant that God is man, nor fail to know that the flesh is the Word. ^D Of the same, in the same book. The only-begotten God, therefore, born man from the Virgin, and at the fullness of time, being about to advance in Himself the man into God, kept this order in all the evangelical words, that He might teach Himself to be believed as the Son of God, and admonish that He be preached as the Son of man, speaking and acting as man all things that are of God, then speaking and acting as God all things that are of man: so, however, that in that very thing the generation of both

and man. Hence, therefore, an occasion for deceiving the simpler and the ignorant arises for heretics, so that they falsely claim that the things spoken by him according to his humanity were said out of the weakness of his divine nature, and because it is one and the same who speaks all the things that he spoke, they contend that he said everything about himself. And indeed, we do not deny that all his words belong to his own nature. But if Christ is one, both man and God, and neither was he first man then God, nor was he then man and not also God, nor after the man is he not in God entirely man and entirely God, it is necessary that the mystery of his words be one and the same, which is also the case with his birth. And when, according to the time, you distinguish the man from God in him, then distinguish also the words of God and of the man. And whenever you confess both God and man, distinguish in time the words of God and of the man. But when you understand the time as being from God and man, and again of the man in general, and of God in general, understand it accordingly. If any such thing has been spoken in order to signify what pertains to that time, adapt the words spoken to that time. And since God before the man is one thing, and man and God again is another, and after the man and God is yet another—entire man and entire God—do not confuse with what is said and what has happened the mystery of the dispensation. For it is necessary, according to the quality of the genera and natures, that his discourse should have been one thing when the mystery had not yet been brought about by the birth of the man, another while he was still approaching death, and another when he had already attained to eternity. Having therefore shown all these things, as Christ Jesus, even having been born a man of our body, he spoke according to the custom of our nature, by virtue of his being God. For even if in the birth, and in the passion, and in the death he accomplished the actions of our nature, nevertheless he performed all these things by the power of his own nature.

From the same, in the same book

^A From the most holy bishop Augustine, from the letter to Volusianus. Now this mediator between God and men has appeared, so that in the unity of his person he might join together both natures, and ennoble the things that are familiar with the unfamiliar, and temper the unfamiliar with the things that are familiar.

From the same, in his exposition of the Gospel of John. What then, O heretic? Since Christ is both God and man, and he speaks as a man, do you slander God? He commends the human nature in himself, but you dare to deform the divine nature in him.

From the same, from the book on the exposition of the faith. For it is our part to believe, but his to know: and thus God the Word himself, since he has taken up whatever is of man, is man; and he who is the man assumed, since he has taken up the entirety of what is God, is nothing other than what God is. Nor yet, because he is said to be incarnate and mixed, must it be thought that his substance is diminished. God knows how to mingle himself without his own corruption and destruction, and he is truly mingled; but he knows how to take up into himself in such a way that no addition accrues to him. As he himself knows, he has poured himself out entirely, in such a way that no diminution happened to him. Let us not therefore, ^B judging from our own weakness and conjecturing from the doctrines of sensible experience, think that God and man are commingled in the manner of those creatures that are equally mixed among themselves, nor that the Word was confounded with the flesh, and that as it were some one body was made from them. God forbid that we should believe this, lest perhaps, by the manner of those things which are confounded, we think that two natures have been brought into one substance. For such a mixture is the corruption and destruction of each part. But God is containing, yet not contained; searching, yet not explored; filling, yet not filled; existing everywhere as a whole, and proceeding through the whole at once; that he might infuse his power, as being merciful, he was mixed with human nature, yet human nature was not mixed with the divine.

^C

Severian, bishop of Gabala, on the nativity of Christ.

the flesh, but not seen according to the spirit; contained according to the body, but impossible to contain according to the Word.

From the letter of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, to Eupsychius

What, then, was it most wise to accomplish? Through the intervention of the assumed flesh and the union of the Word of God with the man born of Mary, both results follow: that Christ, who was united from both [natures], while disposing things by his divinity, remained in the dignity of his own impassible nature; and, by engaging with death in the flesh, he taught the nature of the flesh, which is akin to his own, both to despise death through [his own] death, and at the same time to have the laws of the New Testament confirmed by his death.

From the letter of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to Nestorius

^BAnd although the natures which have been brought together into true unity are different, yet from both there is one God and Son; not as if the difference of the natures had been removed on account of the union.

From the same, from the letter to the Easterns

For a union of two natures has taken place; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this concept of the inconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because the Word of God was incarnate and made man, and from the very conception united to himself the temple taken from her.

From the same

For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even if the difference of the natures from which we say the ineffable union has been effected is not ignored.

From the same

Praising, therefore, as I have said, the mode of the incarnation, we see that two natures have come together with one another in an inseparable union, without confusion and without division. For flesh is flesh, and not divinity, even if it has become the flesh of God. Similarly, also, the Word is God, and not flesh, even if he has made the flesh his own by way of dispensation.

From the same, in his exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

For even if they are understood to be different and unequal to one another—the natures, I mean, of flesh and of God—that have run together into unity, nevertheless he who consists of both is made one Son.

From the same, in the exposition of the same Epistle

Even if the only-begotten Word of God might be said to be united to the flesh ^C personally, we do not say that any confusion of the natures with one another has taken place, but rather that each remains what it is.

From the same, from the Scholia

He has been called man, although being God by nature, he who is the Word of God the Father, born from the Virgin, since he has partaken of blood and flesh in like manner to us. For he appeared thus to those on earth, by way of dispensation.

^A and not having left behind what he was, but having come to be in the assumption of our humanity, which is perfect according to its own rationale. — *Of the same, concerning the incarnation.* Therefore, he is one and the same before the incarnation, true God, and in his humanity remained what he was, and is, and shall be. One must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into man separately and into God separately; but we say that Christ Jesus is one and the same, knowing the difference of the natures, and keeping them unconfused with one another. — *Of the same, after other remarks.* For it is understood absolutely as one thing dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in the humanity, and not having suffered a commingling, or any pouring out, or transformation into that which it was not. For that which is said to dwell in another does not itself become that in which it dwells, but rather one thing is understood in another. And yet, in the nature of the Word and of the humanity, the difference of the natures indicates to us only the difference. For Christ is understood to be one from both. Therefore, having observed very well the unconfused [union], he says that he who became flesh and was incarnated has tabernacled among us. ^B You have heard, O good man, the great luminaries of the world, and you have seen the rays of their teaching; and you have learned accurately that they demonstrated the union of divinity and humanity to be unconfused, not only after his birth, but also after the saving passion, the resurrection, and the ascension.

ERAN. I did not imagine that they distinguished the natures after the union, but I have discovered an almost infinite distinction.

ORTH. It is mad and reckless to move one's tongue against those noble leaders of the faith. But in order that you may know that Apollinarius also says that the union took place without confusion, I shall also set before you his words. Hear then his own utterance.

Of Apollinarius, from his 'Compendium'

The things of God and of the body are therefore united, the adorable Creator, who is eternal wisdom and power—these are from the divinity; the son of Mary, born in the final time, worshipping God, progressing in wisdom, strengthened in power—these are from the body. The passion indeed for sin, and the curse, has come forth, and it will not pass away, ^D nor will it be changed into an incorporeal state. — And again, after a few words: Men are consubstantial with brute animals according to the irrational body, but they are of another substance insofar as they are endowed with reason. So also God, being consubstantial with men according to the flesh, is of another substance

insofar as He is the Word and man. ^B And elsewhere he says thus: "The qualities of things being mingled are mingled, they do not perish. So that some things are also separated from the mingled things, just as wine from water. Nor is the commixture with the body like that of bodies with bodies; but it possesses also that which is unmixed, so that also, according to what is required at any time, the operation of the divinity may either be distinct, or be admixed, as happened during the fast of the Lord. For when the divinity was admixed, because it is in need of nothing, hunger was warded off; but when it did not set its own lack of need against the lack, hunger arose for the destruction of the devil. And if the commixture of bodies is in no way changed, how much more so that of the divinity?" — And in another place he says these things: "If the commixture with iron, which makes the iron itself fire, so that it does the things that are of fire, does not change its nature, neither is the union of God with the body a change of the body, even if the body offers divine operations to those who are able to touch it." To these he immediately adds: "If a man has both soul and body, and these remain in union, how much more does Christ, having the divinity with the body, have both remaining and unconfused." — And again, after a few words: "For the human nature participates, as far as it can receive, in the divine operation; but the one is one thing, as the least in comparison to the greatest: and man is indeed a servant of God, but God is not a servant of man, nor of Himself. And the one is a creature of God, but the other is a creature neither of man, nor of Himself." — And a little later: "If anyone understands that saying regarding Christ according to the divinity: 'What He sees the Father doing, He also does', and not according to the flesh, according to which He who is incarnate differs from the Father who is not incarnate, he divides two divine operations: but they are not divided; he does not, therefore, speak of the divinity." — ^C Then again he set down these things as well: "Just as man is not devoid of reason because of the joining of the part endowed with reason to the one which lacks reason, so neither is the Savior a creature, even if the creature is joined to the uncreated God." — To these he also adds this: "That which does not fall under sight, and is coupled with a body which is visible, and through this is beheld, remains nonetheless invisible; but it remains also uncompounded, insofar as it is not circumscribed together with the body. And the body, remaining in its own measure, receives the union with God according to its being vivified, and does not vivify that which is vivified." — And a little later he says thus again: "If not even the conjunction of the soul with the body, although they have grown together from the beginning, makes it visible on account of the body, nor does it induce other properties of the body, so that it can be cut and diminished: how much more is God, who does not have the same nature as the body, united to the body immutably! ^D But if the body of man remains in its own nature, and that, too, being animated, [...]"

^A he contradicts himself who confesses that soul and body are constituted as one by Scripture, while asserting that such an union of the Word with the body is a mutation, a thing not even observed in the soul. Hear him again crying out clearly: "If they are impious who say that the flesh of the Lord does not remain, much more are they who do not confess that it was incarnate at all." And in his little treatise on the incarnation he wrote these things again: "The text, 'Sit at my right hand' (Ps. CIX, 1), he says as to a man; for it was not said to the one who always sits upon the throne of glory, in so far as he is God the Word, after his ascension from the earth; but to him who was now exalted into heavenly glory in so far as he is man, as the apostles say: 'For David did not ascend into heaven; yet he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand' (Act. II, 34)." The command is human, giving a beginning to the session; but the dignity is divine, to sit with God, to whom thousands of thousands minister, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand by (Dan. VII, 10). And a little later ^B: "For he does not subject his enemies as God, but as man; so that the same person is seen to be both God and man." That it is said as to a man, "Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet" (Act. II, 35), Paul teaches, calling this his own achievement, according to his divinity, that is to say: "According to the nature of his operation, by which he is also able to subject all things to himself" (Phil. III, 21). Behold in one person the divinity and humanity are inseparable. And after a few words: "Glorify me (Father) with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was" (Joan. XVII, 5). The "glorify me," he says as man; but that he possessed glory before the ages, he reveals as God. And again after a few words: "But let us not cast down our hearts, thinking the worship of the Son of God to be lowly, even in human likeness; but as when we honor some king, though he appears in a cheap garment, with royal honor, especially when we see the garment itself also glorified, as was fitting for the body of God and the Savior of the world, and the seed of eternal life, and the instrument ^C of divine operations, and the destroyer of all wickedness, and the slayer of death, and the prince of the resurrection. For even if he had his nature from men, yet he had life from God, and power from heaven, and divine virtue." And after a few words: "Wherefore we worship the body as the Word, we are partakers of the body as of the spirit."

Behold, the one who first introduced the mixing of natures is shown openly using the distinction. He called the body a garment, and a creature, and an instrument. Indeed, he even named him a servant, which none of us ever dared to say. He said, moreover, that he was deemed worthy of the session at the right hand, ^D

[...and yet he] is according to the flesh, he is of a different substance insofar as he is Word and man. And elsewhere he says thus: "The qualities of mixed things are blended, they do not perish. Whence it happens that some things are also separated from what is mixed, as wine from water. Nor is the commixture with the body such as that of bodies with bodies; but, having also what is unmixed, so that as the need requires at any time, the operation of the divinity either exists by itself or is commingled, just as happened in the fast of the Lord. For while the divinity was commingled according to that which stands in need of nothing, hunger was warded off; but when it did not oppose to the indigence ^A that which is in need of nothing, hunger arose for the destruction of the devil. But if the mixture of bodies is not changed, how much rather that of the divinity?" And in another place he speaks these things: "If the commixture with iron, which demonstrates the iron itself to be fire, so that it performs the things that are of fire, does not change its nature, neither is the union of God with the body a change of the body, even though the body provides divine operations to those who can reach them." To these he immediately adds: "If a man has both a soul and a body, and these remain while being in unity, much more does Christ, having divinity with a body, have both remaining and unconfused." And again after a few words: "For the human nature is a participant, as far as it is able to attain, of the divine operation; but it is another thing, as the least in comparison with the greatest. And the man is indeed a servant of God, but God is not a servant of man, nor of himself. And the former is a creation of God, but the latter is a creation ^B neither of man, nor of himself." And after a few words: "If one understands the saying, 'What he sees the Father doing, he also does,' according to divinity, and not according to the flesh, according to which he who became incarnate differs from the Father who did not become incarnate, he divides two divine operations; but they are not divided: he does not therefore speak of divinity." Then again he placed these things as well: "Just as a man is not irrational because the rational part is joined to that which lacks reason, so neither is the Savior a creature, although a creature is joined to the uncreated God." To these he also adds these: "That which does not fall under sight, and has been joined with a body which is visible, and through this is seen, remains nonetheless invisible; but it remains also uncompounded, insofar as it is not circumscribed along with the body. And the body, remaining in its own measure, ^C receives the union with God and is vivified, and does not vivify that which vivifies." And after a few words he says thus again: "If not even the conjunction of the soul with the body—although from the beginning they have coalesced into one—makes the soul visible because of the body, nor changes it into the other properties of the body, so that it might be cut and diminished; how much more does God, who does not have the same nature as the body, unite himselfly to the body unchangeably! But if the body of man remains in its own nature, and that, too, being ensouled, neither in the case of Christ did the mixture change the body so as to be no body." And after many things ^D he placed these things again. [original-script column: see facsimile]

^A He who confesses soul and body as being established by Scripture as one, fights against himself, claiming that such a union of the Word with the body is a change, which is not even observed in the case of the soul. Hear him again crying out expressly: "If those are impious who say that the flesh of the Lord does not remain, much more are those who do not confess that He was even incarnate at all." And in the little treatise on the incarnation, he again wrote these things: "The 'Sit at My right hand' He says as to a man; for it was not said to Him who always sits on the throne of glory, insofar as He is God the Word, after His ascension from the earth; but to Him who now was exalted into the heavenly glory insofar as He is man, as the apostles say: 'For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand.'" The command is human, giving a beginning to the session; but the dignity is divine, to sit together with God, whom thousands of thousands serve, and ten thousand times ten thousand attend. — And after a little: He does not subject the enemies as to God, but as to man; so that the same is seen to be both God and man. And that it is said as to man, "Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet," Paul teaches, mentioning His achievement, according to His divinity, of course: "According to the nature of the operation, according to His being able also to subject all things to Himself." See inseparably in one person divinity and humanity. — And after a few words: ^B "Glorify Me, You, with Yourself with the glory which I had before the world was, with You." For "glorify" He says as a man; but having the glory before the ages He reveals as God. — And again after a little: "But let us not be cast down, thinking the adoration of the Son of God is lowly, even with the human likeness; but as treating some king, even if he appears in cheap clothing, with kingly glory, especially when we see the very garment itself glorified, as was fitting for the body of God and Saviour of the world, and for the seed of eternal life, and for the instrument of divine energies, and for the destroyer of every vice, and for the subverter of death, and for the author of the resurrection. For even if He had His nature from men, yet He had life from God, and power from heaven, and divine virtue." And after a little: "Whence we worship the body, as the Word; we partake of the body, as [we partake] of the Spirit." ^C Behold for you, the one who first introduced the mingling of natures has been shown openly to use the distinction. This man called the body a garment, and a creature, and an instrument. And indeed, he even named Him a servant, which none of us ever dared to say. This he also said was deemed worthy of the session at the right hand,

^A ORTH. Death, then, is the punishment of those who have sinned. ERAN. It is acknowledged. ORTH. Why, then, when both soul and body have sinned, does the body alone endure the punishment of death? ERAN. For it was the body that looked upon the tree in an evil manner, and stretched forth its hands, and plucked the forbidden fruit; and it was this same mouth that crushed it with its teeth and ground it with its molars. Then, having been received by the throat, it was passed into the belly, and the belly, having transformed it, passed it on to the liver. The liver converted what it received into the nature of blood and delivered it to the vena cava; this delivered it to those that are contiguous, and these, through others, to the whole body; and in this way the robbery of the forbidden food spread throughout the entire body. Justly, therefore, did the body alone sustain the punishment for sin. ORTH. You have discoursed like a physicist ^B concerning nourishment, detailing through how many parts it proceeds, and how many changes it undergoes, before it is finally converted into the nature of the body. But you were unwilling to consider that, without the soul, the body accomplishes none of the things that have been mentioned. For, when abandoned by the soul conjoined to it, it lies breathless, voiceless, and motionless; and neither does the eye see good or evil, nor do the ears perceive the sound of voices, nor are the hands moved, nor do the feet walk; but it is like an instrument deprived of a musician. How then did you say that only the body sinned, which, without the soul, is not even able to breathe at all? ERAN. The body indeed receives life from the soul, but it procures for the soul the damning possession of sin. ORTH. How, and in what manner? ERAN. Through the eyes it causes it to see in an evil manner, and through the ears to hear what is not profitable, and through the tongue to utter what is harmful, ^C and through other members to do what is unlawful. ORTH. Then, as it appears, the deaf and those deprived of sight and other members are to be accounted blessed. For the souls of these do not partake of the malice of the body. Why then, O most wise one, did you mention the blameworthy ministries of the body, yet omit those which are worthy of praise? For it is possible to look in a loving and humane manner, to shed tears of compunction, to hear divine oracles, to lend an ear to the needy, to celebrate the Creator with the tongue, to teach one's neighbor what is necessary, to stretch forth hands for mercy, and, to speak summarily, ^D to use the members of the body for the acquisition of every virtue. ERAN. These things are true. ORTH. Therefore, it is common to both soul and body both to keep the laws and to transgress them. ERAN. It is common.

ORTH. It seems to me that the soul takes the lead in both, since it utilizes reasoning before the body. ^A ERAN. In what sense do you say this? ORTH. Because the mind first sketches out virtue or vice, and then fashions and expresses it, utilizing the parts of the body as instruments, and utilizing colors and materials accommodated to either. ERAN. It seems so. ORTH. If, therefore, it sins together with the body, or rather, initiates the sin—for the steering and governing of the animal was entrusted to it—why then, being a partner in the sin, is it not also a partner in the punishment? ERAN. And how was it possible for the immortal to partake of death? ORTH. It was just, however, that it which was a partner in the transgression should partake of the chastisement. ERAN. It is just. ORTH. And yet it did not partake [of it]. ^B ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. But in the life to come, it will be delivered into hell together with the body. ERAN. Thus He has said: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." ORTH. Therefore, in this life it has escaped death, as it is immortal; but in that life it will pay the penalty, not by undergoing death, but by suffering punishments while in life. ERAN. Divine Scripture also teaches this. ORTH. It is impossible, therefore, for an immortal nature to undergo death. ERAN. So it has appeared. ^C ORTH. How, then, do you say that God the Word tasted death? For if, where a created thing is immortal, it has been shown impossible for it to become mortal, how is it possible for Him who is uncreated and eternally immortal, the Creator of mortal and immortal natures, to partake of death? ERAN. We too know that His nature is immortal, but we say that He endured death in the flesh. ORTH. But we have explicitly demonstrated that it is in no way possible for that which is by nature immortal to partake of death. For not even the soul, ^D created and conjoined with the body, and even if it partook of the sin together with it, partook of death together with it, precisely because of the immortality of its nature alone. Let us consider this same thing in another way. ERAN. Nothing prevents us from leaving no stone unturned in order to find the truth. ORTH. Let us examine it in this way, then. Do we say that some are teachers of virtue and vice, and some are their students? ERAN. We do. ORTH. And do we say that the teacher of virtue is worthy of greater rewards?

^A ERAN. By all means. ORTH. And likewise, is the teacher of vice worthy of double and triple punishment? ERAN. It is true. ORTH. In which portion, then, must the devil be classed? Do we say he is a teacher or a student? ERAN. A teacher of teachers, rather. For he himself is both the father and teacher of all wickedness. ORTH. And who, then, among men were the first to become his students? ERAN. Adam and Eve. ORTH. And upon whom was the sentence of death passed? ERAN. Upon Adam and all his offspring. ORTH. The students, then, paid the penalty for what they had been evilly taught; but shall we say that the teacher, whom we just now said was worthy of double and triple ^B punishment, has escaped that punishment? ERAN. It seems so. ORTH. And yet, although these things have happened in this way, we both know and name the judge as just. ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. Why, then, being just, did he not exact from him an account 182 for his wicked teaching? ERAN. He prepared for him the unquenchable flame of Gehenna. "Depart," He says, "you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels." And he is not joined with the students in death here, because he possesses an immortal nature. ORTH. So, those who have committed the greatest crimes cannot receive the death penalty if they possess an immortal nature? ^C ERAN. It is admitted. ORTH. If, therefore, even the inventor and master of wickedness himself has not undergone death because of the immortality of his nature, how do you not shudder to say that the fount of immortality and justice died? ERAN. If we said that He suffered the passion against His will, the accusation made against us by you would have a just pretext. But since the passion is declared by us to be spontaneous, and death voluntary, it is not for you to accuse us, but rather to praise the magnitude of His love for mankind. For He suffered because He willed it, and of His own accord He underwent death. ORTH. You are apparently utterly ignorant of the divine nature. For the Lord God desires nothing that is not consistent with His own nature, but He is able to do all things that He desires. And He desires only those things that are appropriate and fitting for His own nature. ERAN. We have learned that all things are possible for God. ORTH. By speaking indefinitely, ^D you include in your statement even those things that pertain to the portion of the devil. For he who

^A absolutely says all things, at once includes both the good and their opposites. ERAN. Did, then, the noble Job not speak absolutely? «I know that You can do all things, and that nothing is impossible for You [.]» ORTH. If you were to read what was said previously by the righteous man, you would easily find the goal of these words from those. For he spoke thus: «Remember that You formed me as clay, and into earth You return me? Or did You not milk me like milk, and curdle me like cheese? Skin and flesh You clothed me, and with bones and sinews You knitted me together; and life and mercy You placed with me, and Your visitation preserved my spirit.» After these he adds, «Having these in myself, I know that You can do all things, and nothing is impossible for You.» Did he then mean that whatever corresponds to these also befits the incorruptible nature, the God of all? ^B ERAN. Nothing is impossible for the omnipotent God. ORTH. Therefore, it is also possible for the omnipotent God to sin, according to your definition. ERAN. No way. ORTH. Why? ERAN. Because He does not will it. ORTH. And for the sake of what does He not will it? ERAN. Because sin is foreign to that nature. ORTH. Many things, then, He cannot do; for there are many kinds of transgressions. ERAN. God neither wills nor is able to do any such things. ORTH. Nor, indeed, those things that are contrary to the divine ^C nature. ERAN. Which are these? ORTH. Such as the fact that we have been taught that God is an intelligible and true light. ERAN. It is true. ORTH. But we would not say that He either willed or could become darkness. ERAN. No way. ORTH. Again, the divine Scripture says His nature is invisible. ERAN. So it says. ORTH. But we would not say that it could ever become visible. ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. Nor, indeed, comprehensible. ERAN. No, indeed. ORTH. For He is incomprehensible, and altogether ^D unreachable. ERAN. You speak truly. ORTH. Therefore, neither can He who is become that which is not. ERAN. Far be it! ORTH. Nor can the Father be the Son. ERAN. That is one of the impossibilities. ORTH. Nor, then, can the unbegotten be begotten.

^A ERAN. All these are impossible. ORTH. We find many other things of this kind that are likewise impossible. For neither shall that which is eternal be under time, nor that which is uncreated be created and made, nor that which is infinite be finite, and whatever things are like to these. ERAN. None of these is possible. ORTH. We have therefore found many things that are impossible for the omnipotent God. ERAN. Truly. ORTH. But the inability to do any of these things is a sign of infinite power, not of weakness; whereas the ability to do them would be a sign of impotence, not of power. ERAN. In what sense do you say this? ^B ORTH. Because each of these things declares that God is immutable and exempt from all alteration. For that he who is good cannot become evil signifies the excellence of his goodness; and that he who is just can never become unjust, nor the truthful man a liar, demonstrates that truth and justice are steady and firm in him. Thus the true light cannot become darkness, nor can he who is, not be. For he possesses existence perpetually, and the light is subject to no mutation. If you consider all other things in this way also, you will find that "to be unable" denotes supreme power. The divine Apostle likewise understood and declared that such things are impossible for God. For, writing to the Hebrews, he says: ^C "That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong consolation." By this impossibility, he does not demonstrate weakness, but shows that it is exceedingly powerful. For he says that he is so true that it is impossible for a lie ever to be in him. The power of truth is therefore signified by the mention of the impossible. And writing to the blessed Timothy, he added these words: "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." Again, therefore, the "he cannot" is a demonstration of infinite power. For even if all men should deny him, he says, he is still God, and does not depart from his own nature. ^D For he possesses an existence alien to destruction. This, then, is what he means by "He cannot deny himself." Consequently, this impossibility signifies an exuberance of power to turn towards the worse. ERAN. These things are true and consonant with the divine Scriptures. ORTH. If, then, there are many things impossible for God, and those...

^A which are repugnant to his own nature are indeed omitted, why is it that you, while leaving aside all other things which belong to [his] nature—such as being good, just, true, invisible, incomprehensible, uncircumscribed, eternal, and all the other things we say are in God—you say that only immortality and impassibility are mutable, and you concede to them the possibility of change, and assign to God a power which testifies to weakness?

ERAN. This we have learned from the divine Scripture. For the divine John cries out: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son." And the divinely inspired Paul says: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved in his life."

ORTH. These things are true, for they are divine oracles. But remember the things we have often confessed.

ERAN. Of what things do you speak?

ORTH. That we confessed that the Son of God, God the Word, did not appear incorporeal, but had taken upon himself a perfect human nature.

ERAN. We have confessed these things.

ORTH. If, therefore, he took on a human body and soul, it is for this reason that he was also called the Son of Man.

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. Then the Lord Jesus Christ is also truly our God; for of these natures, the one he always had, and the other he truly assumed.

ERAN. These things are beyond controversy.

ORTH. Therefore, as man he endured the passion; as God, he remained beyond passion.

ERAN. How, then, does the divine Scripture say the Son of God has suffered?

ORTH. Because the body which suffered was his own body. Let us consider the matter in this way. When we hear the divine Scripture saying, "It came to pass after Isaac had grown old, his eyes were dimmed so that he could not see," where does our mind turn, and to what does it apply itself? To the soul of Isaac, or to the body?

ERAN. Obviously, to the body.

ORTH. Do we then surmise that the soul also partook of the affliction of blindness?

ERAN. By no means.

ORTH. But we say that only the body was deprived of the power of sight.

ERAN. That is what we say.

ORTH. And again, ^D when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos: "Seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah," and indeed also Saul inquiring, "Where is the house of the Seer?", we do not suspect anything corporeal.

ERAN. Certainly not.

ORTH. And yet the names associated with the organ of sight ^A signify its health. ERAN. That is true. ORTH. We know, however, that the operation of the Spirit, granted to purer souls, conveys the prophetic grace, and this [grace] makes them see even things that are hidden; and it is due to their seeing these things that it has brought about that they are called "seers" and "beholders." ERAN. You speak the truth. ORTH. Therefore, let us look into this as well. ERAN. What is that? ORTH. When we hear the history of the holy Gospels, which relates that they brought to God a paralytic lying on a bed, do we say that this was a loosening of the parts of the soul, or of the body? ERAN. Of the body, without a doubt. ORTH. But when we are reading the Epistle to the Hebrews and come upon that passage where the Apostle says: "Therefore, lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed," shall we say that ^B the divine Apostle was speaking of the parts of the body? ERAN. By no means. ORTH. Shall we not say that he wished to remove the languor and cowardice of the soul, and to incite the disciples to courage? ERAN. Certainly. ORTH. But we do not find these things distinguished in the holy Scripture. For it describes the blindness of Isaac without making mention of the body, but says simply that Isaac was blind. Nor, when it calls the prophets "beholders" and "seers," did it say that their souls see and behold secret things, but it mentioned the persons themselves. ERAN. That is how the matter stands. ORTH. Nor did it show the paralytic's body to be "loosened," but named the man a paralytic. ERAN. True. ORTH. Nor did the divine Apostle mention the souls by name when he wished to strengthen and excite them. ERAN. Indeed he did not. ORTH. But we, inspecting the meaning of the words, discern what things are proper to the soul and what are proper to the body. ERAN. And we do so appropriately; for God made us ^C as rational beings. ORTH. Let us, therefore, use this rational faculty concerning our Creator and Savior, and let us recognize what pertains to His divinity, and what pertains to His humanity. ERAN. But if we do this, we shall dissolve that supreme union. ^D

ORTH. And yet, when we did this in the case of Isaac, and of the prophets, and of the paralytic, and of others, we did not dissolve the natural union of soul and body, nor did we separate the souls from their proper bodies, but by reason alone we distinguished what is proper to the soul and what is proper to the body. How then is it not absurd, that while we do this with regard to souls and bodies, we refuse to do the same in the case of our Savior, and instead confuse the natures, whose difference is not as great as that between soul and body, but as great as that between the temporal and the eternal, between the creature and the Creator? ^A

ERAN. Holy Scripture says that the Son of God has undergone the passion.

ORTH. We do not say that any other has suffered; yet we know, having been taught by divine Scripture, that the nature of the divinity is impassible. Since then we hear of both impassibility and passion, and of the union of the humanity and the divinity, we say that the passion belongs to the passible body, and we confess that the impassible nature has remained free from the passion. ^B

ERAN. The body, therefore, has provided us with salvation.

ORTH. Not the body of a mere man, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. But if this seems small and vile to you, how do you deem its symbol to be venerable and saving? ^C And whose symbol is to be worshipped and is saving, how can the archetype itself be despised and belittled?

ERAN. I do not consider the body vile, but I cannot endure to sever it from the divinity.

ORTH. Neither do we, my good friend, divide the union, but we observe the properties of the natures. And you, surely, will soon agree with this.

ERAN. You speak these things prophetically.

ORTH. Not prophetically, but because I have perceived the power of the truth. But answer me this as well, since I am questioning you: When you hear the Lord saying, "I and the Father are one," and, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," do you say that these things are proper to the flesh, or to the divinity?

ERAN. And how is it possible for the flesh and the Father to be one in substance? ^D

ORTH. Therefore, these things are indicative of the divinity.

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. And what of the statement, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," and similar things?

ERAN. I acknowledge it.

ORTH. But when, on the other hand, the divine Scripture says, "Jesus therefore, being wearied from his journey, was sitting thus by the well," whose must we assume the weariness to be—that of the divinity, or of the body?

ERAN. I do not dare to divide what is united.

ORTH. To the divine nature, then, as it appears, you attribute the weariness?

^A ERAN. That is how it seems to me.

ORTH. But you contradict the prophet plainly when he cries: "He shall not hunger, nor shall he labor, and there is no searching of his wisdom, who gives strength to those who hunger, and sorrow to those who do not suffer." And after a few words: "But they who wait for me shall change their strength, they shall sprout wings like an eagle; they shall run, and shall not be weary; they shall walk, and shall not hunger." How then could He who bestows what is free from need and free from toil upon others, Himself endure the passion of toil, and of thirst, and of hunger?

ERAN. I have often said that, as God, He is impassible and lacking in nothing; but after the incarnation, He endured sufferings.

ORTH. Does He receive the sufferings in His divinity, or does He allow them to the passible nature so that it might sustain the sufferings according to its own nature, and by suffering proclaim that what appeared was not a phantasy but was truly taken from human nature? Let us consider it thus: do we say that the divine nature is uncircumscribed?

ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. And the uncircumscribed nature is not circumscribed by anything.

ERAN. Assuredly not.

ORTH. It has no need, therefore, of transition, since it is everywhere.

ERAN. That is true.

ORTH. And that which does not need transition, does not need walking.

ERAN. It seems so.

ORTH. And that which does not walk, does not become weary.

ERAN. Not at all.

ORTH. The divine nature, therefore, is not weary, being uncircumscribed and having no need of walking.

ERAN. But the divine Scripture narrates that Jesus was weary, and Jesus is God: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."

ORTH. Since, therefore, the holy Scripture says that He was weary and that He does not grow weary, we must consider how this, and how that, can be fitted to the one person.

ERAN. You show me; for you are the one who brings forward these words of division to us.

ORTH. I think it is easy even for a Barbarian to discern this, that since the union of the dissimilar natures has been granted, the person of Christ indeed receives both the one and the other because of the union, but the fitting characteristics are attributed to each nature: on the one hand, to the uncircumscribed, that it is untiring; and on the other hand, to that which transitions and walks, that it is subject to fatigue. For walking is the property of feet, and being stretched taut with great labor is the property of nerves.

ERAN. It is confessed that these are bodily affections.

^A ORTH. True, then, is that prediction which I brought forward, and you ridiculed. For see, you have pointed out to us what things are appropriate to the humanity, and what to the divinity. ERAN. But I did not divide the One into two sons. ORTH. Nor do we do this, my friend; but looking to the difference of the natures, we consider what is seemly for the divinity, and what is appropriate to the body. ERAN. The divine Scripture did not teach us to distinguish in this way, but said that the Son of God died. For so the Apostle said: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." And he said that the Lord was raised from the dead: "For God," he says, "also raised the Lord."

^B ORTH. When, therefore, the divine Scripture says: "But pious men cared for Stephen and made a great lamentation over him," would anyone say that the soul was consigned to burial along with the body? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. And when you hear the patriarch Jacob saying: "Bury me with my fathers," do you conjecture that these things were said about the body or about the soul? ERAN. It is clear that it is about the body. ORTH. Read also what follows. ERAN. "There they buried Abraham, and Sarah his wife"; and: "There they buried Isaac, and Rebekah his wife"; and: "There they buried Leah."

^C ORTH. Nor in these things which you have now read did the divine Scripture make mention of the body, but used names that signify soul and body together. We, however, rightly divide them, and say that the souls are indeed immortal, but only the bodies of the patriarchs were deposited in the double cave. ERAN. It is true. ORTH. And when we hear the history of the Acts narrating that Herod killed James the brother of John with a sword, we certainly will not suppose that the soul also died. ERAN. For how could we, remembering the Lord's exhortation, saying: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul?"

^D ORTH. Does it not seem to you impious and absurd, when hearing human names, not always to understand soul and body together, nor, when Scripture speaks of death and burial, to include the soul in your thought along with the body, but to think that these apply only to the body, and to [ignore] the immortality of the soul [as taught] by the Lord's teaching?

But when hearing of the passion of the Son of God, not to do the same, but to make no mention of the body, to which the passion is appropriate, and to pronounce the divine nature, which is impassible, immutable, and immortal, as mortal and passible by the Word, and this while knowing that if the nature of the Word of God were capable of suffering, the assumption of the body would be superfluous? ^A

ERAN. We have learned from Holy Scripture that the Son of God has suffered.

ORTH. But the divine Apostle interprets the passion and demonstrates the nature that has suffered.

ERAN. Then show this as quickly as possible, and resolve the dispute.

ORTH. Are you ignorant of that passage in the Epistle written to the Hebrews, where the divine Apostle says: "For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, ^B saying: I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the church I will praise thee; and again: Behold I and my children, whom God hath given me."

ERAN. I know these, but there is nothing in them of what you promised you would show.

ORTH. Truly, even these things declare what I promised to show. For the name of brotherhood signifies kinship, and the assumed nature brought about this kinship; but the assumption openly declares the impassibility of the Godhead. But in order to teach you this more clearly, read what follows. ^C

ERAN. "Forasmuch therefore as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise partook of the same: that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to slavery."

ORTH. I think these do not need explanation; for they clearly teach the mystery of the dispensation.

ERAN. I have seen nothing in these of what you had undertaken to show. ^D

ORTH. And yet the divine Apostle has explicitly taught that the Creator, having compassion on the nature of men, not only [seeing it] bitterly snatched away by death, but also enslaved to it throughout all of life, procured resurrection for bodies through the body, and through a mortal nature destroyed the power of death. For since He Himself had an immortal nature, He justly wished to abolish the empire of death, having taken the firstfruits from those who were subject to death; and having kept these immaculate and untouched by sin, He permits death to snatch these also, and to satisfy his insatiable greed; but on account of the [great] injury of that one against these, He also frees others from his unjust tyranny.

For, by raising up the first-fruits which were unjustly swallowed, He will cause the [whole] race to follow it. Compare this explanation with the apostolic words, and you will see the impassibility of the Godhead. ^A

ERANISTES: Nothing in the words read out has been demonstrated regarding the divine impassibility.

ORTHODOX: Does not the statement of the divine Apostle, that for this reason He became a partaker of flesh and blood with the children, so that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, clearly declare the impassibility of the Godhead and the passibility of the flesh? And does it not show that, since the divine nature could not suffer, He took that which could suffer, and through it destroyed the power of the devil? ^B

ERANISTES: How did He destroy the power of the devil and the dominion of death through the flesh?

ORTHODOX: With what weapons did the devil originally use to enslave the nature of men?

ERANISTES: Through sin, he took captive him who had been constituted a citizen of paradise.

ORTHODOX: And what penalty did God ordain for the transgression of the commandment?

ERANISTES: Death.

ORTHODOX: Therefore, sin is the mother of death, and the devil is its father.

ERANISTES: That is true.

ORTHODOX: By this, therefore, the nature of men was being warred against. For this, enslaving those who obeyed it, both led them to the most wicked father and handed them over to the most bitter offspring. ^C

ERANISTES: That is evident.

ORTHODOX: Justly, therefore, the Creator, wishing to destroy both powers, assumed the nature which was being warred against by them; and having kept it untouched by any sin, He rendered it free from the tyranny of the devil, and through it destroyed the power of the devil. For since death was the punishment of those who had sinned, but death had snatched the Lord’s body—which had no stain of sin—contrary to the divine law, He first raised up that which was unjustly detained, and then promised deliverance also to those who were justly detained. ^D

ERANISTES: And how does it seem just to you that bodies, which were justly delivered to death, should share in the resurrection along with that which was detained contrary to law?

ORTHODOX: But to you, how does it seem just that, when Adam had transgressed the commandment, his descendants should follow their forefather?

ERANISTES: Even if the race did not share in that transgression, yet it committed other sins, and for this reason it underwent death.

ORTHODOX: And yet, not only sinners, but also the just, and patriarchs, and prophets, and apostles, and those who have shone forth in various kinds of virtue, have fallen into the snares of death.

ERANISTES: For how was it possible for those who had sprouted from mortal parents to remain immortal? For Adam,

^A after the transgression and the divine sentence, being subjected to the empire of death, knew his wife and was called a father. Being mortal, therefore, he became the father of mortals. Rightly, then, do all who have received a mortal nature follow their forefather.

ORTHODOX: You have excellently shown us the cause why we are partakers of death. Therefore, this same reasoning must be granted regarding the resurrection. For it is fitting that the remedy should correspond to the disease. For just as when the prince of the race was condemned, the whole race was condemned with him, so when the Savior had undone the curse, nature also recovered its freedom. And just as all those who were sharers of the same nature followed Adam as he descended into the netherworld, so when Christ the Lord rises, the whole nature of men will be a partaker of the renewal of life. ^B

ERANISTES: The dogmas of the Church must be proposed demonstratively, not merely affirmatively. Show, therefore, that the holy Scripture teaches these things.

ORTHODOX: Hear the Apostle writing to the Romans, and through them teaching all men these ^C things: "For if by the transgression of one many are dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many; and not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by one unto condemnation, but the grace of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." And again: "Therefore as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners; so also ^D by the obedience of one, many shall be made just." And speaking to the Corinthians about the resurrection, he reveals to them in summary the mystery of the dispensation, and says: "But now Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep: for by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." Behold, I have brought you proofs from the divine oracles. See, therefore, the things of Christ compared with the things of Adam: the medicine with the disease, the remedy with the wound, the riches of righteousness with sin, the blessing with the curse, the remission with the condemnation, the observance with the transgression, the life with death, the kingdom with the netherworld, Christ with Adam, the man with man. Although Christ the Lord is not only man, but also the eternal God; yet the divine Apostle named him according to the assumed nature, because it was according to this that he compared him to Adam (when

regarding these things, he speaks of what belongs to his nature). ^A

ERAN. You have spoken many words concerning this, and you have fortified them with testimonies from the Scriptures. If, therefore, the passion is truly of the flesh, how does the divine Apostle cry out, praising God’s love for mankind: “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all”? Which Son does he say was given up?

ORTH. Speak well, man. For there is one Son of God; for which reason he is called the Only-Begotten.

ERAN. If, therefore, there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle called him his own Son.

ORTH. True.

ERAN. He says, therefore, that he was the one given up.

ORTH. Yes, he, but not as incorporeal, as we have often confessed.

ERAN. We have often confessed that he assumed a body and a soul.

ORTH. Therefore, the Apostle has spoken concerning those things that pertain to the body.

ERAN. Most clearly does the Apostle cry out: “He who did not spare his own Son.”

ORTH. When, therefore, you hear God saying to Abraham: “Because you did not spare your beloved son for me,” do you say ^B that Isaac was slaughtered?

ERAN. Certainly not.

ORTH. And yet God said, “You did not spare,” and the God of all is truthful.

ERAN. That word “you did not spare” is attributed to the readiness of Abraham; for he was impelled to sacrifice the boy, but God prevented it. I said this, not separating the divinity, ^C but recounting the things that belong to the humanity.

ORTH. Just as, therefore, in the account of Abraham you did not stick to the letter, but opening it up, you clarified the meaning, so also examine the purpose of the apostolic statement. For you will see that it is not the divine nature—which is in no way subject to being spared—but the flesh, which was fastened to the wood, that is the one whom God did not spare. And it is easy to perceive the truth even in the type. Does the sacrifice of Abraham seem to you to have been a type of the sacrifice offered for the world?

ERAN. Not entirely; for I do not establish as the rule of doctrine those things ^D that are said in a eulogistic manner in the churches.

ORTH. It would be most fitting to follow the teachers of the Church. But since you oppose these, it is not right that you...

but indeed, hear the Savior Himself saying to the Jews: "Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad"; and consider how the Lord calls His passion a day. ^A

ERAN. I accept the Lord’s testimony, and I believe in the figure.

ORTH. Compare, then, the figure with the truth, and you will see also in the figure the impassibility of the Godhead. For the Father is here just as He is there, and the beloved Son likewise is here just as He is there, and each one carries the material for the sacrifice. For the one carried the wood, while the other carried the cross upon his shoulders. They also say that the summit of the mountain was adorned by the performance of each of the sacrifices; the number of days and nights ^B corresponds, as does the resurrection after them. For Isaac, having been sacrificed by the most ready will of his father from the day that the munificent God commanded this to be done, lived again on the third day in a figure at the command of the lover of mankind; and a ram was seen caught in a thicket, showing the image of the cross, and it was sacrificed in place of the boy. If these are figures of the truth, and in the figure the Only-begotten did not endure the slaughter, but a ram was substituted and was offered on the altar and fulfilled the mystery of the sacrifice, why do you not here also assign the passion to the flesh, and proclaim the impassibility of the Godhead?

ERAN. You also, ^C when discussing this figure, said that Isaac lived again at the divine voice. We act, therefore, in no absurd way if, by adapting the truth to the figure, we proclaim that God the Word suffered and lived again.

ORTH. I have often said that it is impossible for an image to possess everything which the archetype possesses. And it is easy to learn this from what follows. For Isaac and the ram, as pertains to the difference of their natures, are in agreement with the image, but according to the division of the separated hypostases, they are no longer so. For we preach such a union of the Godhead and the manhood that we understand one indivisible person, and we acknowledge ^D the same to be God and man, visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed; and all other things which indicate the Godhead and the manhood, we accommodate to the one Person. Since, therefore, it was not possible for the resurrection to be represented in the ram, as it is devoid of reason and lacks the divine image, they divide between them the figure of the mystery of the dispensation, and the one shows the image of the death, while the other shows the image of the resurrection. We find this same thing also in the Mosaic sacrifices. For in them, too, it is permitted to see the figure of the saving passion outlined.

ERAN. And what Mosaic sacrifice outlines the truth?

^A ORTH. The whole of the Old Testament, I might almost say, is a figure of the New; and for this reason the divine Apostle says expressly: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come"; and again: "Now all these things happened unto them in a figure." But the sheep sacrificed in Egypt, and the red heifer which was burned outside the camp, most evidently show the image of the archetype. Mentioning this too, the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews added: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." But I will say nothing of these for the present; I shall only mention that sacrifice in which two goats were offered, one of which was slaughtered, while the other was sent away. For these pre-outline the image of the two natures of the Savior: the one sent away, [the image] of the impassible divinity; the one slaughtered, [the image] of the passible humanity. ^B ERAN. Does it not seem blasphemous to you to compare the Lord to goats? ORTH. Which do you consider more to be shunned and held in greater hatred, a serpent or a goat? ERAN. It is manifest that the serpent is more worthy of hatred. For it harms those who approach it, and often hurts even those who have done no wrong at all; but the goat is of the number of those things which are clean, and which, according to the Law, it is permitted to eat. ORTH. Listen, then, to the Lord comparing His saving passion to the bronze serpent: "As," He says, "Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." If, then, the bronze serpent fulfilled the type of the crucified body, what absurdity do we commit in comparing the sacrifice of the goats to the saving passion? ERAN. Because John called the Lord a lamb, and Isaiah likewise [called Him] a lamb and a sheep. ORTH. But the blessed Paul calls Him sin and a curse. Therefore, as a curse, He fulfills the type of the accursed serpent; and as sin, He shows the image of the sacrifice of the goats. For for sin, according to the Law, not a lamb, but a goat from the goats was offered. For this reason, also, the Lord in the Gospels likened the righteous to lambs, but sinners to kids. Since, therefore, He was about to endure the passion not only for the righteous but also for sinners, He rightly prefigures His own sacrifice through lambs and goats. ^C ERAN. But the type of the two goats encourages us to understand two persons. ^D

^A ORTH. It was not possible for both to be prefigured in a single goat at the same time: both the passibility of the humanity and the impassibility of the divinity. For if this one had been slain, it would not have shown the living nature. For this reason, two were taken to reveal the two natures. And one might learn the same thing from another sacrifice. ERAN. Which one? ORTH. Where the Lawgiver commands two clean birds to be offered, and one is indeed slain, but the other, dipped in the blood of the one that was slain, is set free. For here too we see the type of the divinity and the humanity—the one being sacrificed, the other taking upon itself the passion. ERAN. You have brought forward many types for us; but I do not accept enigmatic discourses. ORTH. And yet the divine Apostle even says that histories are types, and he called Hagar a type of the Old Testament, and compared Sarah ^B to the heavenly Jerusalem, and said Ishmael was a type of Israel, and Isaac of the new people. Therefore, accuse also the great trumpet of the Spirit, because he has proposed enigmatic discourses to us all. ERAN. Even if you should add a thousand other discourses, you will not persuade me to divide the passion. For I heard the angel who said to those with Mary: "Come, see the place where the Lord lay." ORTH. This is what we also are accustomed to do. For we even call the part by a common name. For when we enter the holy sanctuaries of the apostles, or prophets, or martyrs, we ask: "Who is lying in the casket?" And those who know the truth respond by saying, perhaps, either the apostle Thomas, or John the Baptist, or Stephen, the champion ^C of the martyrs, or someone else among the holy ones, even though sometimes only very small relics are lying there. But no one, when hearing these common names which signify both soul and body together, will suppose that souls are also enclosed in the caskets, but he knows that only the bodies are in the caskets, or indeed only small particles of the bodies are laid therein. This very same thing that saintly angel also did, by calling the body by the name of the person. ERAN. And whence will you show that the angel spoke to the women about the Lord’s body? ORTH. First, the tomb itself is sufficient to solve the question. For neither is a soul committed to a tomb, nor certainly the divinity, which is the uncircumscribed nature; for ^D tombs are constructed for bodies. Furthermore, the divine Scripture clearly teaches this. For the inspired Matthew narrates it in this manner: When however

^A evening had come, there came a certain rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself also had been a disciple of Jesus. He approached Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be given back. And Joseph, having taken the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new monument, which he had hewn out in the rock, and having rolled a great stone to the door of the monument, he departed. See how many times he made mention of the body, so that he might stop the mouths of those blaspheming the divinity. The most blessed Mark has done the same; and I shall also recite what he has narrated. For when evening had come, he says, because it was Preparation, which is the day before the Sabbath, there came Joseph from Arimathea, an honorable councilor, who was himself also awaiting the kingdom of God, and having dared, he entered to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate wondered if he had already died, and having called the centurion, he asked how long ago he had died; and having learned it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And Joseph, having bought a linen cloth, and having taken Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and placed Him in a monument, and the things that follow. Admire, therefore, by perceiving the agreement, and how the name of "body" is consistently and continuously repeated. The most praiseworthy Luke also narrated similarly, that Joseph asked for the body, and having received it, he performed the proper rites. ^B The most divine John has also added other things: For Joseph from Arimathea asked Pi- late, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one because of the fear of the Jews, so that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate permitted it. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus also came, he who had previously come to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the custom for the Jews to bury. Now there was in the place where He was crucified a garden, and in the garden a new monument, in which no one had yet been laid. There, therefore, because of the Preparation of the Jews, because the monument was close by, they placed Jesus. See, therefore, how many times he made mention of the body, and showed that this was nailed to the cross, and this Joseph asked from Pilate, and this he took down from the tree, and this they wrapped in the linen cloths with the myrrh and the aloes; then he placed the name of the person, and said that Jesus was placed in the monument. On account of this, the angel also said: "Come, see ^C where the Lord was lying," calling the body by the common name. For so we too are accustomed to speak: "In this place such-and-such a person was buried," and we do not say, "the body of such-and-such a person," but "such-and-such a person." But every person of sound mind knows that we are speaking of the body. Thus also, Holy Scripture is accustomed to speak. Mor-

^A For it says, "Aaron died, and they buried him in Mount Hor," and "Samuel died, and they buried him in Arimathea." And ten thousand such things. This custom the divine Apostle has observed, when mentioning the Lord’s death. "For I delivered to you," he says, "in the first place that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He has risen on the third day according to the Scriptures," and what follows.

ERAN. In what you have just read, the Apostle does not make mention of a body, but of our common Savior, Christ. You have therefore brought forward testimony against yourself, and have pierced yourself with your own weapons.

ORTH. You have forgotten, it seems, very quickly, that long discourse of mine in which I demonstrated that often the body is called by the names of the persons. The divine Apostle has done this same thing now, and this is easy to discern from the text itself. Let us consider it in this way: for what reason did that divine man write these things to the Corinthians?

ERAN. Certain men had deceived them, saying that there is no resurrection of bodies. Having learned this, therefore, the teacher of the world spoke to them about the resurrection of bodies.

ORTH. But why, desiring to demonstrate the resurrection of bodies, did he bring the Lord’s resurrection into the middle?

ERAN. As a thing sufficient to declare the resurrection of us all.

ORTH. But what likeness does it have ^C to the death of others, so that by His resurrection you should prove the resurrection of all?

ERAN. For this reason the only-begotten Son of God became man, and suffered, and tasted death, so that He might destroy death. Having risen, therefore, by His own resurrection He proclaims the resurrection of all men.

ORTH. And who, upon hearing of the resurrection of God, would believe that the resurrection of all men will be similar to it? For the dissimilarity of the natures does not allow us to believe the statement about the resurrection. For He is God, but these are men; and there is a vast distance between God and men. For these are mortal and perishable, and likened to grass and flowers; but He is omnipotent.

ERAN. But the God Word, having become man, ^D had a body, and through this He showed [His] likeness to men.

ORTH. Therefore, the suffering, and the death, and the resurrection belong entirely to the body. And the divine Apostle, demonstrating this from another source, promises the restoration of life to all; and to those who believed in the Savior's resurrection, but considered the common resurrection of all a myth

he ^A loudly cried out, saying: "Now if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." And from the fact that had occurred, he confirms what would come to pass; and from what is not believed, he rejects what is believed. For if that, he says, appears impossible to you, then this too must surely be false. But if this is true and appears credible, then that also should likewise be thought credible. For the resurrection of the body is preached here as well, and this is called the first-fruits of those. This he said ^B definitively after many previous logical arguments: "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, also by man came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." And not only did he confirm the argument concerning the resurrection, but he also revealed the mystery of the dispensation. For this reason he also called Christ a man, so that he might show the cure to be appropriate to the disease.

ERAN. Is Christ then only a man?

ORTH. Far from it! For we have often said the contrary, that he is not only man, but also ^C eternal God. He suffered, however, as man, not as God. And the divine Apostle clearly taught us this, saying: "For since by man came death, and by man the resurrection of the dead." And writing to the Thessalonians, from the resurrection of our Savior he confirms the argument concerning the general resurrection. "For if we believe," he says, "that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who sleep in Jesus."

ERAN. The Apostle indeed demonstrated the general resurrection through the Lord’s resurrection. And it is clear that here, too, it was a body that died and rose again. For he would not have attempted to demonstrate the ^D resurrection of all through this, unless there were a kinship of substance between them. But I will not allow the suffering to be attributed to the human nature alone; rather, it seems consistent to me to say that God the Word died in the flesh.

ORTH. We have often shown that what is by nature immortal can in no way die. If, therefore, he has died, then he is not immortal. But how great are the dangers in such blasphemous words!

ERAN. By nature he is immortal, but having become man, he hath suffered.

ORTH. Therefore he underwent change. For how otherwise, being immortal, did he receive death? But we have agreed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable.

^A

ERAN. The divine Peter hath said: "Christ, therefore, having suffered for us in the flesh."

ORTH. Our own discourse also agrees with this, for we have learned the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.

ERAN. Why, therefore, do you not say that God the Word suffered in the flesh?

ORTH. Because we do not find this expression in the divine Scripture.

ERAN. And yet I just brought forward such an utterance of the great Peter.

ORTH. You are ignorant, it seems, of the difference between names.

ERAN. What names? Does it not seem to you that God the Word is Christ the Lord? ^B

ORTH. The name "Christ," in our Lord and Savior, signifies the Word made man; "Emmanuel," "God with us," signifies God and man. But "God the Word," if stated in this way, designates the simple nature, prior to the world, superior to time, and incorporeal. For which reason the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the holy apostles, nowhere attributed passion or death to this appellation.

ERAN. If it attributes passion to Christ, and God the Word, having assumed human nature, was named Christ, then he who says that God the Word suffered in the flesh does nothing absurd, I think.

ORTH. That is a most audacious and very ^C reckless attempt. Let us set forth the argument in this way: The divine Scripture says that God the Word is from God and the Father.

ERAN. You speak the truth.

ORTH. And it teaches that the Holy Spirit is likewise from God.

ERAN. That is admitted.

ORTH. But it calls God the Word the only-begotten Son.

ERAN. It does so call him.

ORTH. But it never calls the Holy Spirit by that name.

ERAN. Never.

ORTH. And yet he, too, has his substance from the Father and God. ^D

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. Since, therefore, we confess that both the Son and the Spirit are from God and the Father, would you ever dare to call the Holy Spirit the Son?

ERAN. By no means.

ORTH. For what reason?

ERAN. Because I do not find this name in the divine Scripture.

ORTH. But [do you find it called] begotten?

^A ERAN. Not even that. ORTH. And what would be the fitting name for that which is neither begotten nor created? ERAN. We call it uncreated and unbegotten. ORTH. We say that the Holy Spirit is neither created nor begotten. ERAN. By no means. ORTH. Would you then dare to call the Holy Spirit unbegotten? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. And why do you not call him unbegotten, who is by nature uncreated and in no way begotten? ERAN. Because I have not learned this from the divine Scripture, and I am very fearful of saying things passed over in silence by it. ORTH. Preserve for us, my good man, this same piety ^B also in the matter of the saving passion; and whatever divine names holy Scripture has left free from the passion, leave them so yourself, and do not attribute the passion to them. ERAN. And what are these? ORTH. Nowhere has [Scripture] joined the passion to the title of God. ERAN. Nor do I say that God the Word suffered without a body, but I say that He suffered in the flesh. ORTH. You are therefore speaking of the mode of the passion, not of impassibility. But no one would say this even concerning a human soul. For who, unless he were completely delirious, would say that Paul's soul died in the flesh? For this could never be said even of some great criminal. ^C For the souls even of the wicked are immortal. Indeed, we say that such-and-such a murderer has been put to death, but no one would say that his soul was slaughtered in the flesh. But if we proclaim that the souls of murderers and tomb-robbers are free from death, it is surely much more just to recognize as immortal the soul of our Savior, inasmuch as it has tasted of sin least of all. For if those who have sinned most grievously have escaped the experience of death on account of their nature, how, having an immortal nature and having received no stain of sin, would that ^D soul have received the hook of death? ERAN. You have brought these long arguments to us in vain. For we confess that the Savior's soul is immortal. ORTH. What punishment, then, would you not be worthy of—you who say that the soul, which has a created nature, is immortal, while you construct for the divine substance of the Word a mortal nature? And, while you do not say that the Savior's soul tasted of death in the flesh, you dare to say that God the Word Himself, the Creator of all things, suffered the passion?

ERAN. We say that He suffered impassibly. ^A

ORTH. And who, being in his right mind, could endure these ridiculous linguistic riddles? For no one has ever heard of an "impassible passion," nor of an "immortal death." For that which is impassible does not suffer, and that which has suffered cannot remain impassible. We, however, hear the divine Paul crying out: "Who only has immortality, dwelling in light which no man can approach." ^B

ERAN. Why then do we say that the invisible powers, and the souls of men, and even the demons themselves are immortal?

ORTH. We do say so. But God is immortal in the proper sense; for He is immortal by essence, not by participation; for He did not receive immortality from another. But to the angels, and to the others whom you just mentioned, He Himself has granted immortality. If, therefore, the divine Paul calls Him immortal and says that He alone has immortality, how do you attribute the passion of death to Him?

ERAN. We say that after the incarnation He tasted of death.

ORTH. But we have often confessed that He is immutable. If, however, being previously immortal, He later endured death through the flesh, then a change must have preceded His death, and His life must have failed for three days and as many nights; and what degree of impiety is lacking in one who says these things? For I think it is not even safe for those who contend against impiety to utter these things with the tongue.

ERAN. Cease accusing us of impiety. For we do not say that the divine nature suffered, but the human; yet we do say that the divine suffered along with the body.

ORTH. What do you mean by "suffered along with"? Do you mean that when the nails were fixed into the body, the divine nature felt the sensation of pain?

ERAN. Yes, precisely.

ORTH. Both now and in our previous disputations we have shown that not even the soul participates in all things that pertain to the body; but the body, receiving its vital power, has the sensation of passions through the soul. But even if we concede that the soul suffers along with the body, we will nonetheless find the divine nature to be impassible. For it was not joined to the body in place of a soul. Or do you not agree that He assumed a soul?

ERAN. I have confessed it often.

ORTH. And a rational soul?

ERAN. By all means.

ORTH. If, therefore, He assumed a soul along with the body, and we have conceded that the soul suffers along with the body, then the soul suffered, not the divinity along with the body; it suffered, receiving the pains as is natural through the body. Yet, while someone might perhaps say that the soul suffers along with the body, to say that it dies along with it...

^A is in no way possible; for it has been allotted an immortal nature. Therefore the Lord also said: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matt. X, 28). If, therefore, we do not say that even the Savior’s soul had a share of death with the body, how could anyone accept your daring blasphemy, which dares to say that the divine nature had a share in death? Especially when the Lord shows now the body being offered, now the soul being troubled.

ERAN. And where did the Lord show the body being offered? Or will you again put forward to us that well-worn testimony of yours: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John II, 19)? And will you, with overbearing pride, provide us with the ^B evangelist saying: "But he was speaking about the temple of his body; and when he was raised from the dead, his disciples realized that Jesus had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which the Lord had spoken" (John II, 21-22)?

ORTH. If you are so greatly offended by the divine utterances that proclaim the great mystery of the Dispensation, why do you not, following the example of Marcion, Valentinus, and Manes, delete such passages? For they did exactly this. But if this seems a daring and impious deed, do not mock the words of the Master, but follow the Apostles, who, after the resurrection, believed that the Godhead had raised up the temple which the Jews had destroyed.

ERAN. If you have a solid testimony, cease speaking abusively and fulfill your promise.

ORTH. You surely remember those ^C evangelical sayings in which the Lord compared the manna with the true food.

ERAN. I remember.

ORTH. In that passage, having discoursed at length concerning the bread of life, he added these words: "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John VI, 51). And it is possible to see in these words both the generosity of the Godhead and the gift of the flesh.

ERAN. One testimony is not enough to resolve the dispute.

ORTH. The Ethiopian eunuch did not read many Scriptures, but having found one prophetic testimony, he was led by it to salvation (Acts VIII, 30 ff). Yet for you, all the apostles and prophets, and those who after them became the heralds of the truth, ^D are not enough to persuade you. But nevertheless, I will also bring forward other testimonies to you concerning the Master’s body. You surely know that passage of the evangelical history where, having eaten the Passover with the disciples, he showed the end of the typical lamb and taught what the body of that shadow is.

ERAN. I know this history.

ORTH. Then recall to mind what the Lord said and what he broke, and what he called the thing he had taken.

^A ERAN. For the sake of the uninitiated, I shall speak more mystically. Having taken and broken it, and distributed it to the disciples, he said: "This is my body which is given for you," or "broken," according to the Apostle; and again, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for many." ORTH. He did not, therefore, make mention of divinity, but showed the type of the Passion? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. But of body and blood? ERAN. It is true. ORTH. The body, then, was nailed to the cross? ERAN. It seems so. ORTH. Come, let us examine this too. When, after the resurrection, the doors being shut, the Lord entered to the holy disciples, and saw them struck with fear, in what manner did he dispel their fear, and instill faith in place of fear? ERAN. He said to them: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have." ORTH. Therefore, he showed the body to those who did not believe? ERAN. It is clear. ^B ORTH. The body, therefore, has risen? ERAN. It appears so. ORTH. And that which rose, this surely had died? ERAN. It is consistent. ORTH. And that which died, this also was nailed to the cross? ERAN. It is necessary. ORTH. The body, therefore, has suffered, as you yourself acknowledge. ERAN. The series of arguments compels one to say this. ORTH. But let us consider the matter in this way as well. I shall ask, and do you answer out of a love for the truth. ERAN. I will answer. ORTH. When the Holy Spirit came to the apostles, and that marvelous sight and sound gathered many thousands of men to that house, who of the apostles, being the first to preach the sermon, spoke then concerning the Lord's resurrection? ^C ERAN. He brought forward divine David, and said that he had received promises from the God of all, that Christ the Lord would sprout from the fruit of his loins; and believing these, he prophetically foresaw his resurrection, and clearly said that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. ^D

^A ORTH. Of these, therefore, is the resurrection. ERAN. And how could anyone of sound mind speak of the resurrection of a soul that has not died? ORTH. You who attribute passion, death, and resurrection to the immutable and uncircumscribed Godhead, how is it that you all of a sudden appear to us to be of sound mind, so as to refuse to apply the name of "resurrection" to the soul? ERAN. Because the name "resurrection" is appropriate for that which has fallen. ORTH. But the body does not attain resurrection without the soul; rather, renewed by the divine will and joined to its yoke-fellow, it receives life. Did not the Master raise Lazarus in this way? ERAN. It is manifest that it is not the body alone that rises. ^B ORTH. The divine Ezekiel teaches more clearly. For he shows how God commanded the bones to come together, and how each of them received its own proper articulation, and how he produced nerves, and veins, and arteries, and the flesh interwoven among these, and the skin as the covering for all these, and then commanded the souls to return to their own bodies. ERAN. These things are true. ORTH. Yet the Lord’s body did not undergo this corruption, but remained unharmed and received its own soul on the third day. ERAN. That is admitted. ORTH. Therefore, the passion belongs to those to whom the death also belongs? ERAN. By all means. ^C ORTH. And when the great Peter and the divine David made mention of the resurrection, did they not say that the soul was not left in Hades, and that the body did not undergo corruption? ERAN. That is what they said. ORTH. Therefore the Godhead did not undergo death, but the body did, through the separation of the soul. ERAN. I will not endure these absurd statements. ORTH. Then you are at variance with your own words; for these are indeed yours, which you have called absurd. ERAN. You are slandering me entirely; for none of these statements are mine. ORTH. When someone asks what animal is at once rational and mortal, and someone answers and says, "Man," which one would you call the interpreter of the statement: the one who asks, or the one who answers? ERAN. The one who answers. ORTH. Then I rightly said that these statements were yours; for you, surely, by answering, and by rejecting some things while agreeing to others, were confirming the statements. ERAN. Therefore, I will not answer anymore, but will only ask. You, however, must answer. ORTH. I will answer.

ERAN. Why then do you speak regarding that Apostolic expression: "For if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"? ^A For here He mentioned neither body nor soul.

ORTH. Therefore, the word "flesh" should not be added here either; this is your invention, and a device devised by you against the divinity of the Word; rather, the passion is to be attributed to the naked divinity of the Word.

ERAN. By no means; for He suffered in the flesh; but the incorporeal nature cannot suffer by itself.

ORTH. But nothing ought to be added to the words of the Apostles.

ERAN. It is not absurd if one who knows the purpose of the Apostle supplies what is missing.

ORTH. To add anything to divine things is insane and rash. But to unfold what is written and to reveal the hidden meaning is holy and pious.

ERAN. You have spoken rightly.

ORTH. Then we would not be doing anything absurd or impious if we also were to investigate the mind of those things which are written.

ERAN. Certainly not.

ORTH. Let us, therefore, investigate together that which appears to be hidden.

ERAN. By all means.

ORTH. The great Paul called the divine James the brother of the Lord.

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. How, then, shall we understand him to be a brother? By relationship of divinity, or of humanity?

ERAN. I will not endure that the united natures be divided.

ORTH. But yet you have divided them many times in the previous examinations. And you will do this very same thing now. Tell me, do you call the Only-begotten God the Word a Son?

ERAN. I call Him so.

ORTH. Does "Only-begotten" signify the only son?

ERAN. Indeed.

ORTH. Furthermore, does the Only-begotten not have a brother?

ERAN. He does not have one; for if He had a brother, He would not be called Only-begotten.

ORTH. Therefore, they have falsely called James the brother of the Lord. For the Lord is Only-begotten, and the Only-begotten does not have a brother.

ERAN. But the Lord is not incorporeal, so that the heralds of the truth would only say things pertaining to the divinity.

ORTH. How then can you show the word of the Apostle to be true?

ERAN. By saying that this man attained to a relationship with the Lord according to the flesh. ^D

^A ORTH. Behold, you have again introduced to us the distinction which you yourselves accuse. ERAN. It was not possible to show the relationship otherwise. ORTH. Do not, then, accuse those who cannot explain such things in any other way. ERAN. You are leading the discussion to other matters, wishing to avoid the point at issue. ORTH. By no means, my good friend; for by the things that have been examined, that point also will be resolved. And consider it in this way: when you heard that James was the brother of the Lord, did you not say that the relationship belonged, not to the divinity, but to the flesh? ERAN. I did say so. ORTH. Then here, too, when you hear of the suffering of the cross, assign it to the flesh. ERAN. The Apostle Paul called the Lord of glory the one who was crucified. ORTH. And the same Apostle called James the brother of the Lord. Yet the Lord is the same in both cases. If, therefore, you are acting correctly in attributing the relationship to the flesh, then the suffering too must surely be assigned to it. For it is most absurd to think of the relationship by way of a division, but to attribute the suffering without a division. ERAN. I agree with the Apostle, who calls the Lord of glory the one crucified. ORTH. And I too agree and believe that He is the Lord of glory; for it was not the body of some ordinary man, but of the Lord of glory, that was fastened to the wood. Yet one must know that the union makes the names common. But consider it thus: do you say that the flesh of the Lord has descended from the heavens? ERAN. Certainly not. ORTH. But that it was formed in the womb of the Virgin? ERAN. So I say. ORTH. How, then, does the Lord say: "If then you see ^B the Son of Man ascending where He was before," and again: "No one has ascended into heaven unless He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven"? ERAN. He is not speaking of the flesh, but of the divinity. ORTH. But the divinity is from God and Father. How, then, does He call Him the Son of Man? ERAN. The things that are proper to the natures have become common to the Person. For the same One, because of the union, is both Son of Man and Son of God, both eternal and temporal, both Son of David and Lord of David, and other things of this kind likewise. ORTH. Most correctly. Yet one must also know that the communion of names has not caused a confusion of the natures. For this is precisely why we seek to distinguish how He is the Son of God, how ^C on the other hand the same One is the Son of Man, and how the same One [is] yesterday, today, and ^D

forever; and by the pious distinction of the Word we find that even opposites are in accordance.

ERAN. You have spoken rightly.

ORTH. Just as, therefore, you said that the divine nature descended from the heavens, and yet you said it was called the Son of Man on account of the union, so it is fitting to say that the flesh was affixed to the wood, but to confess that the divine nature was in no way separated from it, neither on the cross nor in the tomb, receiving no passion therefrom; for it is not its nature to suffer, nor indeed to die, but it possesses an immortal and impassible substance. Thus he also called the Crucified One the "Lord of glory," attributing the name of the impassible nature to the passible one, because it was His body.

Let us examine this further. The divine Apostle said: "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." They crucified, therefore, the nature they knew, not that which they were utterly ignorant of. But if they had known what they were ignorant of, they would not have crucified what they did know. Because they were ignorant of the divine, they crucified the human. Or have you not heard them saying: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God"? ^B By these things they show that they recognized the nature which they saw, but were completely ignorant of the invisible one. And if they had known that one also, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

ERAN. These things have a shred of plausibility. But the doctrine of the faith of the Fathers who assembled at Nicaea affirms that the Only-begotten himself, true God, consubstantial with the Father, suffered and was crucified.

ORTH. It appears you have forgotten the things you have often confessed.

ERAN. Which ones?

ORTH. That after the union, holy Scripture attributes both the sublime and the lowly things to one person. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the fact that when the most celebrated Fathers had first said "incarnate, made man," then they subjoined "suffered, was crucified," and having first shown the nature capable of passion, only then did they add the mention of the passion.

ERAN. The Fathers said that the Son of God, who is light from light, and from the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.

ORTH. I have often said that one person receives both the divine and the human. ^C For this reason, the thrice-blessed Fathers, after they had taught how one must believe in the Father, and having passed on to the person of the Son, did not say immediately, "And in the Son of God"—although it was very logical, when they had spoken of God the Father, to place the name of the Son immediately—but they wished to hand down to us the doctrine of both the theology and the dispensation at once, lest one person be thought to be of the divinity and another of the humanity. And for this reason they subjoined to those things which had been said about the Father, how one must also believe in the Lord ^D

Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But after the incarnation, the God Word was called Christ. This name, therefore, receives everything, both that which is proper to the divinity and that which is proper to the humanity. ^A Nevertheless, we recognize which things belong to this nature and which to that; and this is easy to learn even from the creed of the faith itself. For to which, tell me, do you attribute that which is "from the substance of the Father"? To the divinity, or to the nature that was fashioned from the seed of David?

ERAN. It is clear that to the divinity.

ORTH. But "true God from true God," whose property do you say that is: the divinity’s, or the humanity’s?

ERAN. The divinity’s.

ORTH. Therefore, it is also consubstantial with the Father—not the flesh, nor indeed the soul; for these are created—but the divinity, which fashioned all things?

ERAN. It is true.

ORTH. Thus, therefore, when those who hear of the passion and the cross ^B must acknowledge the nature that received the passion, and not attribute it to the impassible, but to that which was assumed for this very reason. For that the praiseworthy Fathers also confessed the divine nature to be impassible, and assigned the passion to the flesh, the conclusion of the faith bears witness; it is as follows: "But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not,' and 'Before he was begotten he was not,' and that 'he was made from non-existence,' or who assert that the Son of God is mutable or alterable from some other hypostasis or substance, these the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church anathematizes." Observe, ^C therefore, what sort of punishment they have threatened against those who attribute the passion to the divine nature.

ERAN. The discourse there is for them about turning and alteration.

ORTH. But what is the passion, other than turning and alteration? For if, being impassible before the incarnation, he suffered after the incarnation, he suffered having undergone turning, it must be said; and if, being immortal before the assumption of humanity, he tasted death—according to your teaching—after the assumption of humanity, he was altogether changed, having become mortal from immoral. But the most praiseworthy Fathers drive such words, and their authors, from the sacred enclosures, ^D and cut them off like putrid limbs from the healthy body. For which reason, we exhort you to fear the punishment and to detest the blasphemy. Moreover, I will show you that the holy Fathers held these same views which are to be set forth by us in their writings. Some of them took part in that admirable council, some flourished in the Churches after them, and some illuminated the world long before them. But neither the difference of times, nor the diversity of tongues, disturbed their harmony; but they are like a lyre, which has many and diverse strings, but emits one all-harmonious sound.

ERAN. You will be bringing me an agreeable and much-desired discourse; for such doctrine is irrefutable, and most profitable. ^A

ORTH. Open your ears, then, and receive the streams of the spiritual fountains.

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr. From the letter to the Smyrnaeans.

They (the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness raised up.

St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon. From the third book against heresies. ^B It is manifest, therefore, that Paul knows no other Christ than this one alone, who suffered, and was buried, and rose again, and was born, whom he also calls man. For when he had said: "If Christ is preached that He has risen from the dead," he adds, rendering the reason for His incarnation: "For since by man came death, and by man came the resurrection of the dead." And everywhere, speaking of the passion of our Lord, and His humanity, and His death, he has used the name of Christ, as when he says: "Do not let your food cause him to perish, for whom Christ died." ^C And again: "But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been made near by the blood of Christ." And again: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."

— From the same, from the same book. Just as He was man so that He might be tempted, so also was He the Word so that He might be glorified; the Word being at rest when He was tempted, and crucified, and was dying; but ^D standing by the man when he was overcoming, and enduring, and showing kindness, and rising again, and being assumed into heaven.

— From the same, from the fifth book of the same work. Since the Lord therefore has redeemed us by His own blood, and has given His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh.

St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. From the letter to a certain queen. He calls Him therefore the first-fruits of those who sleep, as being the first-born from the dead. Who, having risen, and wishing to show

that this was what was risen which was also dying, the disciples doubting, he called Thomas and said: “Come, handle and see, that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me having.” ^A — Of the same, from the same letter. Calling Him the first-fruits, he confirmed what was said by us with his testimony, that the Savior, taking flesh from the same mass, raised it up, making it the first-fruits of the flesh of the righteous, so that all of us who have believed, in the hope of the One risen, might await a sure resurrection. — Of the same, from the discourse on the two thieves. The body of the Lord provided both to the world, the sacred blood and the holy water. — Of the same, from the same discourse. And although the body was dead according to human fashion, it possesses great power of life within it. For what does not flow from dead bodies, these were poured out from it, blood and water, so that we might know how great the power is that dwelt in the body towards life, so that it might not even appear dead, like the others, to us, but [that it might be able] to pour forth the causes of life. — Of the same, from the same discourse. ^B And the bone of the holy Lamb is not broken, the figure showing that the passion does not touch the power; for the bones are the power of the body.

Of the holy Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch and Confessor.

From the book *On the Soul*. Their impious calumny can be refuted in few words; for it is so especially if, for the sake of the salvation of men, He did not voluntarily give up His own body to the slaughter of death. First, they attribute great weakness to Him, in that He could not restrain the onslaught of His enemies. — Of the same, from the same book. But why do they make much of showing that Christ assumed an inanimate body, inventing earthly deceptions? ^C So that if they could corrupt some, who define these things as being so, then, by attributing the mutations of the affections to the divine Spirit, they might easily persuade them that what is mutable is not born from an immutable nature. — Of the same, from the discourse on that: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways.” For the man who had died rose again on the third day, and when Mary was eager to touch His holy limbs, He answered, forbidding her and crying out: “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and say to them: I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your God.” The “I have not yet ascended to my Father”—the Word did not say this, and the God who moves from heaven, and who dwells in the bosom of the Father, ^D nor that Wisdom which contains all created things: but He Himself, who was composed of diverse members, the man brought this forth: He who had risen from the dead, and not yet after appeared to the Father.

but was reserving for Himself the first-fruits of His progression. ^B By the same. From the same discourse. He clearly names that man who was crucified the Lord of Glory, writing thus since He manifested Him as both Lord and Christ, as the apostles proclaim with one voice to the people of Israel: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36). He made the Jesus who suffered Lord, and not the Wisdom, nor the Word, who from all antiquity has the right of dominion, but Him who was lifted up on high, and stretched out His hands upon the cross. By the same. From the same discourse. For if He is incorporeal, He is neither subject to the touch of hands, nor is He perceived by the sense of the eyes; He does not receive wounds, He is not fastened with nails, He does not partake of death, He is neither covered by the earth, nor enclosed in a sepulcher, nor does He rise from a monument. By the same. From the same discourse. "No man taketh my life from me: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John 10:18). If, then, as God, He had power over both, He indeed permitted them—in their thoughtless desire—to destroy the temple, but by rising again, He restored it more illustriously. For it has been demonstrated by the most certain testimonies that He Himself by His own power raised up His own renovated dwelling. The magnificent works of the Son are also to be ascribed to the most divine Father. For the Son does not work without the Father, according to the invincible declarations of the sacred Scriptures. Hence it is that the most divine Begetter is sometimes said to have raised the Son from the dead, while at other times the Son promises that He will raise His own temple. If, therefore, from the things that have been set forth thus far, it has been shown that the divine Spirit ^C of Christ is impassible, the impious rely in vain upon the apostolic decrees. For if Paul said that the Lord of Glory was crucified, clearly looking to the man, one ought not on that account to attribute passion to the divinity. Why, then, do they conjoin these things, saying that Christ was crucified out of weakness? By the same. From the same discourse. But if some species of weakness were to be attributed to Him, one might reasonably say that these things should be assigned to the man, and not to the fullness of the divinity, or to the dignity of the highest wisdom, or to Him who, according to Paul, is God over all. By the same. From the same discourse. This, indeed, is the mode of weakness through which, according to Paul, He is written to have come to death. For the man who dwells together with the divine Spirit lives by the power of God: since it has been shown from the preceding decrees that He who is believed to be in Him is the power of the Most High. By the same. From the same discourse. If, having entered the Virgin's womb, He did not diminish His power, nor was the spirit defiled when the body was fixed to the wood of the cross. For the body hung ^D upon the cross on high, but the divine Spirit of Wisdom was both dwelling within the body, and in the heavenly

^A seats, and was containing the whole earth, and was ruling over the depths, and was searching out and judging the souls of each one, and was doing all things at once, as God is accustomed to do. For the supreme Wisdom is not confined and contained within bodily masses, just as materials of wet and dry things are locked inside vessels, and are contained by them rather than containing their containers. But being a divine and ineffable power, it encompasses both the innermost and outermost parts of the temple and gives them strength, and extending thence beyond them, it holds and contains all masses at once. — By the same, from the same discourse. If the sun, which is a visible body and perceptible to the senses, enduring such and so many insults everywhere in the world, changes not its order, and feels no blow, small or great, do we imagine that the incorporeal Wisdom is defiled and changes its nature, if its temple is nailed to a cross, or undergoes dissolution, or sustains wounds, or admits corruption? But the temple indeed suffers, yet the essence, void of stain, preserves its dignity unpolluted in every respect. — By the same, on the inscriptions of the steps. The Father does not receive acquired glory, being perfect, infinite, and beyond all comprehension of the mind, since He lacks no beauty and is alien to all insult. But neither does His Word, who is God begotten of Him, through whom the angels were made, and the heavens, and the immense expanses of the earth, and all, to sum up in few words, the materials and forms of creatures: but the man Christ, being raised from the dead, is exalted and glorified, while his adversaries openly bring disgrace upon themselves. — By the same, from the same discourse. But those who had conceived hatred against him through envy, and had marched against him in hostile array, are scattered, when the Word and God Himself gloriously raised up His own temple. — By the same, from the interpretation of Psalm XCII. Finally, therefore, the prophet Isaiah, tracing the footprints of his passions, adds this also among other things with a louder voice: "And we saw him, and he had no form nor beauty: but his form was despised and deformed beyond the sons of men." Then, openly showing that the forms and affections of indecency are to be referred to the man, not to the God, he soon adds again: "A man affected by a blow, and knowing how to bear infirmity." — By the same, from the same discourse. He, therefore, is this same one, who after the insults was seen without form or beauty, and then again, by a change, put on splendor. For ^D the God dwelling in him was not led to death like a lamb, and slaughtered after the manner of a sheep, being by nature invisible.

^A Of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Confessor.

*From the Epistle to Epictetus.* Who has advanced to such a point of impiety as to say and at the same time believe that the Godhead itself, which is consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect from being perfect? And that what was nailed to the wood was not the body, but the very creative substance of Wisdom?

*Of the same, from the same work.* For what the humanity of the Word suffered, the Word, being joined to it, referred to himself, so that we might be able to become partakers of the Godhead of the Word. And it was a paradox that the same one was both suffering and not suffering: suffering, because his own body was suffering, and he was in the one who was suffering; but not suffering, because, being God by nature, the Word is impassible. And he himself, the incorporeal, was in the passible body, while the body had within itself the impassible Word, which removed the infirmities of its body. ^B

*Of the same, from the same epistle.* For being God and Lord of glory, he was in a body that was ignominiously crucified. But the body was indeed suffering, being pierced on the wood, and blood and water flowed from its side; yet, being the temple of the Word, it was full of the Godhead. Therefore, the sun, seeing its own Creator enduring suffering in an insulted body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself, having a mortal nature, rose again above its own nature on account of the Word dwelling in it, and the natural corruption in it ceased; and having been clothed with the Word, who is above man, it became incorruptible.

*Of the same, from the Greater Discourse on the Faith.* Was it a man that was raised from the dead, or God? Peter the Apostle, who knows better than we do, interprets this and says: "Having taken him down from the tree, they laid him in a tomb, but God raised him from the dead." ^C The dead body of Jesus, therefore, which was taken down from the tree and laid in a tomb and buried by the labors of Joseph of Arimathea—this the Word raised up, saying: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He who makes all the dead alive also made alive the man taken from Mary, Christ Jesus, whom he had assumed. For if, hanging on the cross, he raised the dead bodies of the saints that had previously dissolved, how much more can he raise the body which he himself wore—the ever-living God the Word—as Paul says: "For the word of God is living and effectual."

*Of the same, from the same oration.* Life, therefore, does not die,

but gives life to the dead. For just as light is not harmed in a dark place, neither can life, when it visits mortal nature, suffer anything. For the divinity of the Word is immutable and unchangeable, as the Lord says in prophecy concerning Himself: "Behold me, for I am and I have not changed."

*Of the same, from the same oration.* The Living One cannot die; rather, He gives life to the dead. He is, therefore, also a fountain of life according to the divinity which He received from the Father; but the man who died, or rather rose from the dead, who also intercedes for us, is He who is from the Virgin Mary, whom the divinity of the Word assumed for our sake.

*Of the same, from the same oration.* It happened that Lazarus died having been ill. But the Lord's man did not die having been ill, nor did he die against his will; but of his own accord he came to the dispensation of death, strengthened by the God Word who dwelt in him, who said: "No one takes my soul from me; I lay it down of my own accord; I have power to lay it down, and again I have power to take it up." The divinity of the Son, therefore, is that which laid down and took up the soul of the man whom He wore. For He assumed the whole man, ^B so that He might both bring him to fullness and with him give life to the dead.

*Of the same, from the oration against the Arians.* When, therefore, the blessed Paul says, "The Father raised His Son from the dead," John tells us that Jesus said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And, he says, He spoke concerning His own body. It is clear, therefore, to those who pay attention, that upon the body being raised, the Son is said by Paul to have been raised from the dead. For the things of His body are said of His person. Thus, therefore, even when he says, "The Father gave life to the Son," it must be understood that life was given to the flesh. For if He Himself is life, how does Life receive life?

*Of the same, from the oration concerning the incarnation.* For the Word, perceiving that the corruption of human beings could not otherwise be dissolved unless by dying, and yet it was not possible for the Word to die, being immortal and the Son of the Father, for this reason He takes to Himself a body capable of dying, so that this, having partaken of the Word who is above all, might be sufficient for death on behalf of all, and because of the Word dwelling within it, it might remain incorruptible, and henceforth for all people corruption might cease by the grace of the resurrection. Whence, as a sacrificial offering ^C and victim free from every stain, by offering to death the body assumed by Himself, He immediately destroyed death for all those who are like Him by a fitting oblation. For since the Word of God was above all, deservedly

^A rendering His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for all, He paid what was owed to death. And thus, the incorruptible Son of God, while being one with all things through that which is similar, deservedly clothed all in incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the corruption which was in death no longer has a place against men, because of the Word who dwells in them through the one body.

Of the same, from the same oration. For this reason, after His most divine proofs through works, He also offered a sacrifice for all, delivering His own temple to death for all, that He might make all absolved and free from the ancient transgression, and might show Himself also to be greater than death, ^B demonstrating His own body to be immortal as the first-fruits of the resurrection of all. For the body, since it also had a common substance—for it was a human body, even if it was constituted by a new miracle from the Virgin alone—was mortal, and in accordance with the condition of similar things, it died; but by the descent of the Word into it, it was no longer corrupted according to its own nature, but because of the indwelling Word of God, it was separated from corruption.

Of the same, from the same oration. Therefore, as I said before, the Word, since it was impossible for Him to die—for He was immortal—assumed to Himself a body that could die, that He might offer it as His own for all, and that He Himself, suffering for all in that He had come into it, might destroy him who held the dominion of death.

Of the same, from the same oration. ^C While the suffering body died according to the nature of bodies, it nevertheless had the pledge of incorruptibility because of the Word inhabiting it. For the Word did not also die when the body was dying; but He Himself was impassible, and incorruptible, and immortal, being as He is the Word of God, and being with the body, He warded off from it the natural corruption of bodies, as the Spirit says to Him: "You will not suffer Your holy one to see corruption."

^D Of Saint Damasus, Bishop of Rome. From his exposition. If anyone says that in the passion of the cross, the Son of God and God suffered pain, and not the flesh with the soul, which the form of a servant—which He assumed for Himself—put on, as the Scripture has said: let him be anathema.

^A Of Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan. From the book *On the Catholic Faith*. There are some who have proceeded to such a height of impiety as to think that the divinity of the Lord was circumcised, and that it became imperfect from being perfect; and that on the wood [of the cross] it was not flesh, but that divine substance, the creator of all things.

Of the same, from the same work. The flesh, therefore, has suffered; but the divinity is exempt from death. The body, by the law of human nature, gave way to suffering. For how can God die, since the soul cannot die? "For do not fear," He says, "those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." If, therefore, the soul cannot be killed, how can the divinity be subject to death?

^B Of Saint Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It is known to everyone who has attended even slightly to the intention of the apostolic expression, that it does not deliver to us a method of theology, but reveals the reasons of the dispensation. "For God made Him—this Jesus whom you crucified—both Lord and Christ," directing the discourse manifestly toward His human nature, which is visible to all.

Of Saint Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus. From the letter to the blessed Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople. The most grievous thing of all in ecclesiastical calamities is the boldness of the Apollinarians; to whom I know not how your Holiness has allowed the privilege of holding assemblies on an equal footing with us.

^C And a little later. Nor is this so grave; but that which is the most grievous of all is that they assert the Only-begotten God Himself, the judge of those who exist, the prince of life, the destroyer of death, to be mortal, and that He endured suffering in His own divinity, and that in that three-day death of the body, the divinity also died together with the body, and thus was again raised from death to life by the Father.

Of the same, from the first exposition to Cledonius. If man is without a soul, this is also what the Arians say, in order to attribute the suffering to the Divinity, as if that which moves the body also suffers.

Of the same, from the discourse on the Son. ^D It remained for us to discuss what is said about His having been commanded, and having kept the commandments, and having done all things that were pleasing to Him; and further, concerning perfection and exaltation, and that He learned obedience from the things which He suffered, and concerning the priesthood, and the offering, and the tradition, and the prayer to Him who [is able to save Him] from death.

and the agony, and the drops [of sweat], and the prayer, and whatever else of this kind there may be—if it were not manifest to all that such names, when applied to the One who suffers, do not signify a nature that is immutable and superior to all passion, but rather hint at the One who is above suffering and [prone to] suffering.] ^A

The Same, from the Discourse on Pascha

«Who is this that comes from Edom,» and from earthly things—or how are the garments of the bloodless and bodiless One red, like those of a wine-presser who has trodden the full winepress? Bring forward the beauty of the stole of the body that suffered, which was adorned by the passion, and illuminated by the divinity, than which nothing is more lovely, nor more beautiful.

Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa

From the Catechetical Oration

And this is the mystery of the divine dispensation concerning man, and of the resurrection from the dead: not to prevent the soul from being separated from the body by death, according to the necessary law of nature, but to reunite them again through the resurrection.

The Same, from the same Oration

For since the flesh that received God was not from elsewhere, but from our own lump, which through the resurrection was exalted with the divinity: just as in our physical body ^B the action of one sense awakens the whole man, united to that part, to perception; so, as if the entire nature were one single living being, the resurrection of one part passes through to the whole, since that which is continuous and united in nature communicates from the part to the whole. What then do we learn that is contrary to probability in this mystery, if the One who stands looks upon the One who has fallen, so as to raise up the one who is lying down?

The Same, from the same Oration

It would also be appropriate in this aspect not to look at one thing while neglecting another, but to acknowledge the human nature in the immortal One, and in the human One to inquire curiously into that which is more divine. ^C

The Same, from the Work Against Eunomius

Neither does human nature bring Lazarus back to life, nor does the impassible power weep for the one laying down; but the tear is proper to the human, while the life is of the One who is truly...

life. Does human poverty feed the thousands, or does the omnipotent power hasten to the fig tree? Who is weary from the journey, and who, ^A without labor, sustains the whole world by His word? What is the radiance of the glory, and what is that which is pierced by the nails? What form is buffeted in the passion, and what is glorified from eternity? These things are manifest, even if no one explains them with words.

Of the same, from the same work. He accuses those who attribute the passion to human nature. Yet he wishes entirely to subject the divinity itself to the passion. For since the opinion is twofold and ambiguous, whether it was the divine or the human that suffered, the rejection of one will be the absolute confirmation of the other. For if they accuse those who observe ^B the passion in human nature, they are entirely praising those who say the divinity of the Son is passible. But that which is constructed from this holds the patronage of their absurd dogma. For if, as they say, the divinity of the Son suffers, while the divinity of the Father remains impassible according to essence, then the impassible nature is surely alien to that which sustains the passion.

Of holy Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.

From the discourse on that which is written: "Amen, amen, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth in him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Whose, then, are the passions? The flesh's. Therefore, if you assign the passions to the flesh, assign to it also the humble sayings; and ^C to whom you ascribe the miracles, attribute the lofty sayings. For God, performing miracles, rightly and deservedly speaks in lofty terms, and terms befitting the works. But the man who suffers rightly speaks in humble terms, and terms congruent with the passions.

Of the same, from the discourse on that which is written: "My Father is greater than I." When, however, you assign the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles to God, it is necessary, even if you are unwilling, to assign the humble words to the man born of Mary, and the lofty and God-befitting words to the Word who was in the beginning. For this is why I sometimes utter lofty sayings ^D and sometimes humble ones: that through the lofty ones I might show the nobility of the indwelling Word, and through the humble ones I might make known the weakness of the humble flesh. Whence, at one time I call myself equal to the Father, and at another I say the Father is greater; not contending with myself, but showing that I am God and man—God by the lofty sayings, and man by the humble ones. But if you wish to know how my Father is greater than I, I spoke from the person of the flesh, and not from the person of the divinity.

Of the same, from the discourse on that which is written: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." Do not, therefore, let the carnal passions...

be attributed to the impassible Word. For I am God and man, O heretic: God, as the miracles guarantee; man, as the passions bear witness. Since, therefore, I am God and man, say who it is that suffered? If God suffered, you have uttered a blasphemy; but if the flesh suffered, why do you not attribute the passion ^A to that which you accuse of fear? For while one suffers, another does not fear, and when a man is being crucified, God is not troubled. — Of the same, from the discourse against the Arians. And that I may not prolong the speech, I ask you a few things, O heretic: Did He who was begotten of God before the ages suffer, or Jesus who was born of David in the latter times? If then the divinity suffered, you have spoken a blasphemy; but if it was the man, as the truth holds, why then do you not attribute the passion to the man? — Of the same, from the discourse on the Son. For when Peter had said that "God has made Him both Lord and Christ," he added: "This Jesus, whom you crucified, God raised Him from the dead." It is not the divinity that was dead, but the man: and He who raised Him is the Word, the power of God, who said in the Gospel: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." So when it is said: "And God made both Lord and Christ Him who was affected by death, and who rose from the dead," it refers to the flesh, and not to the divinity of the Son. — Of the same, from the discourse on the text: "The Son can do nothing of Himself." For He did not have such a nature that His life could be held by death: since the divinity was not dragged into passion; for how could that be possible? But the humanity was renewed towards incorruption. "For it is necessary," he says, "that this mortal should put on immortality, and this corruptible should put on incorruption." Do you see how ^B accurately he speaks? By "this mortal," he pointed it out as if with his finger, so that you might not think the resurrection of the flesh to be something else.

Of Saint Flavian, Bishop of Antioch.

On the Sunday of Easter.

Of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria.

From the Festal Tome.

^A souls [that are] taken away and placed [in the tomb] again, but they perish together with their bodies and dissolve into dust. But the Savior, having separated His soul from His own body at the time of the passion, placed it back into it again when He rose from the dead. Providing us with proof of this, He foretold it through the Psalmist, crying: "You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption" (Ps. XVI, 10; Act. II, 27).

Of the Blessed Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. From his Oration on the Epiphany.

He was bound, He was wounded, He was crucified, He was handled, He bore stripes, He received the scar of the lance. All these things the body born of Mary endured. But no one could harm Him who was begotten of the Father before the ages, for this was not the nature of the Word. For ^B how can anyone hold the Divinity? How can one wound it? How can one make the incorporeal nature bleed? How can one wrap it in the bonds of the sepulcher? Grant, therefore, that you cannot harm [the Divinity], and honor the Divinity, being constrained by the necessity of the argument.

Of Saint John, Bishop of Constantinople.

From the discourse on that passage: "My Father is working until now, and I am working" (Joan. V, 17). "What sign do You show us, that You do these things?" (Joan. II, 18). What, then, does He say? "Destroy this temple," He says, "and in three days I will raise it up" (ibid. 19), speaking of His own body; but they did not understand this. And after a few words: Why did the Evangelist not pass this over, but added the correction, saying: "But He was speaking of the temple of His body" (ibid. 21)? ^C For He did not say, Destroy this body, but "The temple," in order to show God dwelling within. Destroy this temple, which is much more excellent than the Jewish one. For the Jewish temple had the law, but this one had the Lawgiver; that had the letter which kills, but this one has the Spirit which gives life.

Of the same, from the oration: "That things which are humbly said and done are not to be referred to the weakness of His power, but to various dispensations." How, then, does He say here, "If it is possible" (Matth. XXVI, 39)? He points out to us the weakness of human nature, which did not wish to be simply torn away from the present life, but resisted and hesitated, because of the love for the present life implanted in it by God from the beginning. For if, after He Himself had said so many and such great things, some dared to say that He did not assume flesh, what would they not have said if nothing of these things had been spoken? ^D

Of the same, from the same oration. See how they even heralded His former age. Ask the heretic, then: Does God fear, and refuse, and hesitate, and is He affected by sadness? And if he should answer, "Yes," depart from him from that moment, and place him down with the devil, or even beneath him: neither...

indeed would he himself dare to say this. And if he should say that none of these things are worthy of God, say: "Then God does not pray either." For apart from these things, another absurdity will arise if these are the words of God. For the words do not signify agony alone, but also two wills, one of the Son and one of the Father, contrary to one another. For to say, "Not as I will, but as Thou [willest]," is to declare this. ^A — *Of the same, from the same discourse.* For if this were said regarding the divinity, a certain contradiction arises, and many absurdities follow from it. But if it is [said] regarding the flesh, what has been said is reasonable, and nothing can be blamed. For the flesh's not wishing to die cannot be condemned: for this is natural. But He Himself exhibited all that is natural, sin alone excepted, and indeed with great abundance, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics. When, therefore, He says: "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and, "Not as I will, but as Thou willest," He shows nothing else but that He has truly been clothed with flesh that fears death. For to fear death, and to shrink from it, and to be in agony, belongs to that [flesh]. Now, therefore, by showing ^B it alone and destitute of its proper operation, He demonstrates its weakness, and also creates faith in the truth of its nature. Sometimes He hides it, because He was not mere man.

*Severianus, Bishop of Gabala.* From the discourse *On the Seals*. The Jews fight against that which is visible, ignoring that which is invisible; and while they crucify the flesh, they do not destroy the divinity. For if, when the letter—which is the clothing of the word—is destroyed, my words do not perish, how could God the Word, the fountain of life, perish together with the flesh? Therefore, the suffering pertains to the body, but the impassibility pertains to the [divine] majesty. ^C Behold, I have shown you those who have cultivated the eastern, and the western, and also the southern and northern parts of the habitable world, condemning your empty heresy, and openly proclaiming the impassibility of the divine nature, and both tongues—I mean the Greek and the Roman—proclaiming a consentient confession regarding divine matters. ^D ERAN. I also marvel at the consensus of these men; I have observed, however, much distinction in their words.

^A ORTH. Do not be annoyed. For vehement contention against adversaries causes people to exceed the limit. This is something that those who cultivate trees are also accustomed to do. For when they see a bent plant, they do not only straighten it to the correct norm, but they also bend it to the other side beyond what is straight, in order that, by a greater inclination in the opposite direction, it may be brought to a correct standing. However, to help you understand that those who struggle to establish this multiform heresy strive even to surpass the ancient heresiarchs by the magnitude of their blasphemies, listen again to the writings of Apollinarius, which proclaim the impassibility of the divine nature and confess that the passion belongs to the body.

Apollinarius. From the book *On the Heads*. "The temple which was destroyed, that is, the body of the One raising it up, said John. For the body is altogether united to Him, and there is no other person alongside them. But if the body of the Lord has been made one with the Lord, the things proper to the body have become His own things because of the body." And again: "For this is the truth, that the conjunction with the body is not a circumscription of the Word, so that He has nothing more than the composition of the body. Therefore, even in death, immortality remains with Him. For if He is above this composition, He is also above the dissolution. But dissolution is death. For He was neither contained by the composition—for otherwise the world would have been emptied—nor, in the dissolution, did He have any deficiency such as follows from dissolution, as is the case for the soul." And again: ^B "Just as the Savior says that the dead come forth from the tombs, even though the souls do not come forth from there; so He says that He Himself would rise from the dead, even though only the body is what rises." And in another similar writing he has written these things: "It is for a man to rise from the dead, but for God to raise. But Christ is both. Therefore He was God and man. If Christ were only man, He would not have brought the dead to life; and if He were only God, He would not have brought some of the dead to life separately from the Father. But Christ is both. Therefore the same one is God and man. If Christ were only man, He would not have saved the world; and if He were only God, He would not have saved it through passion. But Christ is both. Therefore He is God and man. If Christ were only man or only God, He would not be a mediator between men and God." And after a few words: ^C "Flesh, then, is the instrument of life, conforming to the passions according to the divine counsels; and neither the words nor the actions are those of the flesh; and though subjected to the passions as befits the flesh, it dominates the passions, because it is the flesh of God." And after a few words again: "The Son migrated into the world, having taken flesh from the Virgin, which He filled with the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of us all. By delivering death to death, He destroyed death through the resurrection, for the resurrection of us all." And in the little treatise *On the Faith* he says these things: "And since the passions were in the flesh, His power retained its own impassibility." Wherefore the impious ^D

^A is he who ascribes passion to the power. And in the little treatise *On the Incarnation* he writes these things again: "He signifies then the same one, as man indeed risen from the dead, but as God governing the whole creation."

You see for the time being one of the teachers of that vain heresy, openly declaring the impassibility of the Godhead, calling the body a temple, and affirming with all asseveration that the Word of God raised it.

ERAN. I have heard and marveled, and I am very ashamed that our own tenets appeared more worthy of avoidance than the new kind of teaching introduced by this man.

ORTH. I shall, however, produce for you a witness from another heretical fold, who explicitly proclaims the impassibility of the Godhead of the Only-begotten.

ERAN. Whom do you mention?

ORTH. You have perhaps heard of Eusebius the Phoenician, who was bishop of the city of Emesa by Lebanon.

ERAN. I have chanced upon some of his writings, and I found that he follows the dogmas of Arius.

ORTH. He did indeed belong to that faction; nevertheless, even while he attempts to show the Father as greater than the Only-begotten, he declares the Godhead of the One who is declared the lesser to be impassible, and he undertook long and truly wonderful struggles on behalf of this ^B view.

ERAN. Since I am very eager, you will present these words to me as well.

ORTH. I will therefore offer a longer testimony, so that I may satisfy your desire. Listen, then, to the man crying out, and consider him to be speaking to us.

Of Eusebius of Emesa

§8. For what cause does He fear death? Is it lest He should suffer anything from death? For what was death to Him? Was it not the departure of the power from the flesh? For the power did not receive a nail, so that it should be afraid. For if our soul does not suffer the things of the body while being with it—but the eye is blinded, while the mind remains unharmed; the foot is amputated, and the reason does not limp—and nature testifies to this, and the Lord confirms it, saying: ^C “Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul,” if they cannot, not because they do not wish to, but because they are not able, even if they should wish, to cause the soul to suffer the things of the body joined to it; did the One who created the soul and fashioned the body—did He suffer the things of the body, even if He does indeed take upon Himself the passions of the body? But Christ suffered for us, and we do not lie. For “The bread,” he says, “which I will give, is my flesh,” which He gave for us. That which is seized was seized, that which is crucified was crucified. But He who has the power to inhabit and to depart, says:

“Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,” ^A not into the hands of those who apply force that it might depart. I am not contentious, but I abstain from contention; rather, I wish to inquire with gentleness concerning matters in controversy, as with brethren. Is it not true what I say, that the passions of the flesh could not fall upon the Power? I therefore remain silent; let him who wishes say what the Power suffered. Did it fail? Behold the danger. Was it extinguished? Behold the blasphemy. Was it no longer? For this is the death of power. Tell me what is able to grasp that it suffered, and I do not contend. But if you cannot say, why are you angry with me because I do not say? That which you do not have, it did not receive. Drive a nail into a soul, and I will accept it into the Power. But it suffered with it (*compassa est*). Explain to me then, it suffered with it, what is it to suffer with it? For example, the nail is in the flesh, but ^B the pain is in the Power. Let us call this having suffered with it. The Power felt pain, though not struck. For the pain of the passion is always a companion. But if even the body often, with the mind remaining sound, disdains pains because of the strength of the thought, let someone here explain without contention either what it suffered, or what it suffered with. What then? Did Christ not die for us? How did He die? “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” The spirit departed, the body remained, the body remained breathless. Was He not dead then? He died for us. The Shepherd offered the sheep, the Priest offered the victim, He gave Himself for us; and “He who did not spare His own Son, but for us all gave His Son.” ^C I do not reject the words, but I seek the meaning of the words. The Lord says that the bread of God has come down from heaven. And interpreting it—though I cannot speak more plainly on account of the mysteries—He says this: “It is my flesh.” Did the flesh of the Son come down from the heavens? It did not come down from heaven. How then does He say, and indeed interpreting, “The bread of God lives, and has come down from the heavens”? Because the Power which assumed it came down from the heavens; that which the Power has is attributed to the flesh. Therefore, invert it: what the flesh suffers is imputed to the Power. How did Christ suffer for us? He was spat upon, He was struck on the cheek, ^D they placed a crown around His forehead, His hands and feet were dug through. All these were passions of the body, but they are referred to Him who inhabits it. Throw a stone at the image of the emperor; what is said? You have insulted the emperor. Tear the garment of the emperor; what is said? You have risen up against the emperor. Crucify the body of Christ; what is said? Christ died for us. But what need is there of you and me? Let us approach the evangelists. How did you receive from the Lord, how did the Lord die? They read: “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” The spirit [is] above, and the body on the cross for us. He offered

[The rendering of the Latin column, beginning from the conclusion of the previous page:] for us. For he offered the sheep, ^A in whatever way is attributed to it by reason of the body. — *Of the same, from the same book.* He came to save our nature, not to destroy his own. If I say that a camel flies, you immediately think it absurd, because it does not suit its nature; and you do well. If I say that men live in the sea, you do not tolerate it; and you do well; for nature does not permit it. Hence, just as it seems strange to you if I speak of things that recoil from the nature of these things, so, if I were to say that that Power which is before the ages, and incorporeal by its nature, and impassible in dignity, and with the Father, and at the right hand, and in glory—if, I say, I were to state that that incorporeal nature suffers, would you not stop up your ears? If you have not stopped your ears upon hearing these things, I shall stop my heart. Can we do anything to an angel, for instance, wound it with a sword, or rend it at all? Why do I speak of an angel? Can we do so to a soul? A soul does not admit a nail, a soul is not cut, it is not burned. And if you say to me, "Why so?" I say to you, "For so it was created." Are its works impassible, while it itself is passible? I do not reject the dispensation, but I embrace the injuries by which it was affected. Christ died for us, and was crucified. So it is written, so nature admitted; I neither erase the words nor blaspheme the nature. "But these things are not true." Let truer things be said. He who teaches is a benefactor, not a burden; nor is he an enemy, if the one being taught is not ungrateful. Do you have anything good to say? The ears are open with favor. Is there anyone fond of quarreling? Let him exercise his desire in leisure. Could the Jews crucify the Son of God, and punish with death the Power itself? ^C Can the Living One die? The death of such a Power is its own cessation. Our body remains when we are dead. If we were to punish that Power with death, we would reduce it to non-existence. I do not know if you are unable to hear. If the body is dead, the soul is separated and remains: but if the soul were to die, since it is incorporeal, it is no more. A soul that dies is not at all. For the death of those things that are immortal reduces them to the point that they are not. Consider another thing. For I do not even dare to say it. Indeed, we say these things as we understand them; but we are not establishing a law, if anyone is contentious. But one thing I know, that each will receive the fruit from his own thoughts; and each approaches God, and brings forward what he said and thought about Him. For do not imagine that God reads books, or is tortured by remembering those questions: "What did you say?" and "Who heard?" All things are manifest. The Judge sits; Paul, who is here, is brought forward. "You called me a man; you do not have life with me, because you did not know me, and I do not know you." Another approaches: "You said that I am one of those things that were created, you did not know my dignity, I do not know you." Another approaches: "You said that you did not ^D [have]..."

received a body; you have set at naught my grace, and you shall not partake of my immortality." Another approached: "You said that I was not born of a Virgin, in order that I might save the body of the Virgin; you shall not be saved." Each man carries away the fruits of his own opinions ^A concerning the faith. Do you also see another company of your teachers, from whom you thought you had learned that the divinity of the Only-Begotten had suffered—an opinion which this blasphemy abhors, while it proclaims the impassibility of the Godhead and scatters the phalanx of those who dare to attribute passion to it?

ERAN. I have seen, and I have marveled at the contests, and I admire the man for his noble sentiments and thoughts.

ORTH. Then, my good friend, imitate the bees; and, flying in your mind throughout the meadows of Holy Scripture and the most desirable flowers of the highly-praised Fathers, weave for us within yourself the honeycombs of the faith. And if you should find some herb that is not edible or sweet—such as this Apollinarius and Eusebius—but which nevertheless has something useful for the making of honey, it is not ^B improper to take what is useful and leave behind the harmful. For bees, even when they light upon poisonous shrubs, leave behind what is destructive, while they collect what is suitable for themselves. These things, O friend, I advise you according to the law of brotherly love. You will do well if you heed this admonition. But if you do not listen, we shall usurp that apostolic word: "We are clean." For we have set matters1 apart according to the prophet, as we were commanded.

DEMONSTRATIONS BY SYLLOGISMS

THAT GOD THE WORD IS UNCHANGEABLE

1. We have confessed one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and we have agreed by common consent that this is unchangeable. If, therefore, the substance of the Trinity is one, and this is unchangeable, then the Only-Begotten Son is assuredly unchangeable, being one person of the Trinity. And if He is unchangeable, He has not, of course, been changed into flesh, but having assumed flesh, is said to have become flesh.

2. Otherwise. If God the Word, having undergone change into flesh, has become flesh, then He is not unchangeable. For no one of sound mind would call that which is altered unchangeable. ^C But if He is subject to change, then He is not one in essence with the

^A begetter. For how is it possible, given a simple substance, that one part should be mutable and the other immutable? If we were to grant this, we would fall headlong into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. For they declare the Son to be of a different substance.

3. *Otherwise.* If the Son is of the same substance as the Father, but the Son became flesh by undergoing a change into flesh, then His substance is mutable and not immutable. If anyone dared to utter this blasphemy, he would undoubtedly augment it with blasphemy against the Father. For he would necessarily call Him also mutable, as one who shares in the same substance.

4. *Otherwise.* The divine Scriptures testify that God the Word took on flesh, and even a soul. ^B But the most divine evangelist said: "The Word became flesh." It is therefore necessary to do one of two things: either, by admitting a change of the Word into flesh, to reject all divine Scripture, both the Old and the New, as teaching falsehoods; or, by assenting to the divine Scripture, to confess the assumption of the flesh, but to cast away the thought of change, understanding the evangelical statement piously. This must be done, since we confess the nature of God the Word to be immutable, and we possess countless testimonies for the assumption of the flesh.

5. *Otherwise.* That which dwells is different from that which is dwelt in; yet the evangelist called the flesh a tabernacle, and said that God the Word dwelt in it: "For the Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." If He had been changed and become flesh, He would not have dwelt in flesh. But we have learned that He did dwell in flesh. For the same evangelist in another place also called His body a temple. Therefore, one must believe the evangelist who expounds the passage and interprets what seemed ambiguous to some.

6. *Otherwise.* If, when the evangelist wrote, "The Word became flesh," he had added nothing that could remove the ambiguity, the contention about this saying—namely, the obscurity of the words—might perhaps have had a reasonable excuse. But since he immediately added, ^C "And dwelt among us," those who struggle against the truth fight in vain. For the following statement is an explanation of the preceding one.

7. *Otherwise.* The most wise evangelist proclaimed the immutability of God the Word quite clearly. For when he had said, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," he immediately added: "And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." If He had been changed into flesh, as the foolish maintain, He would not have remained what He was. But if, even while covered by flesh, He sent forth the rays of ^D the paternal nobility, He surely maintains an immutable nature.

For that light nothing can dim. For, "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it," as the most divine John says.

^B 8. Otherwise. When the most praised evangelist wished to explain the glory of the Only-Begotten, and found himself unable to fulfill the attempt, he demonstrates it from His communion with the Father. For, he says, it is from that nature. He acts just as if someone, seeing Joseph serving contrary to his rank and ignoring the nobility of his lineage, were to say that Jacob was his father and Abraham his forefather. So, too, this one said that even by dwelling among us, He did not obscure the glory of His nature. "For we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." And if, even when incarnate, it was recognized who He was, He certainly remained what He was, and did not undergo a change into flesh.

9. Otherwise. We have confessed that God the Word assumed not flesh only, but also a soul. Why then did the divine evangelist omit the soul here, and mention only the flesh? Is it not manifest that he demonstrated the visible nature, and through it signified that which is naturally conjoined to it? For, indeed, with the mention of the flesh, the thought of the soul also follows. For when we hear the Prophet saying, "Let all flesh bless His holy name," we do not think that the Prophet is exhorting inanimate bodies, but we believe that the whole man is invited from a part to sing hymns.

^C 10. Otherwise. The words, "And the Word became flesh," are indicative not of change, but of ineffable philanthropy. For the most praised evangelist, having said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and having shown Him to be the Creator of visible and invisible things, and having named Him Life and the True Light, and having set forth other similar things, and having theologized as much as human mind was able to grasp and tongue able to minister to its impulses, he added: "And the Word became flesh," as if astonished and admiring the immensity of His philanthropy; that He who is always, and is God, and has created all things, and is the fount of eternal life and true light, for the sake of the salvation of men, put around Himself the tabernacle of the flesh. But this was thought to be only what appeared. For this reason, he did not mention the soul, but only of the fragile and mortal flesh...

and mortal; but He left the soul as immortal, that He might show the immensity of His goodness.

11. *Otherwise.* The divine Apostle calls the Lord Christ the seed of Abraham. But if this is true, as it certainly is, then the God Word was not changed into flesh, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the teaching of the Apostle himself. ^A

12. *Otherwise.* God swore to David that He would raise up Christ according to the flesh from the fruit of his loins, as both the Prophet said and the great Peter interpreted. But if the God Word was named Christ by being turned into flesh, we shall by no means find the truth of the oath. Yet we have been taught that God is not a liar, but is rather Truth itself. Therefore, the God Word did not undergo a change into flesh, but He took the first-fruits from the seed of David according to the promise. ^B

THAT THE UNION IS INCONFUSED

1. Those who believe that one nature of deity and humanity came to be after the union, destroy by this argument the properties of the natures; but the removal of these is the negation of each nature. For the confusion of the united [elements] does not allow one to understand either flesh as flesh, or God as God. But if the difference of the things united is manifest even after the union, then no confusion has taken place, but the union is inconfused. If this is granted, then the Lord Christ is not one nature, but one Son, showing each nature entire. ^C

2. *Otherwise.* We also say, and they themselves admit, that the union took place in the conception. If, therefore, the union mixed and confused the natures, how is it that the flesh after birth was seen to have nothing new, but exhibited a human form, kept the measure of an infant, was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and sucked the maternal breast? But if these things were not done by fantasy and opinion, then they do not admit fantasy and opinion, as they say; therefore, it was truly a body that was seen. But if this is granted, then the union did not confuse the natures, but each remained pure. ^D

3. *Otherwise.* Those who have composed this varied and multiform heresy sometimes say that the God Word was made flesh, and at other times say that the flesh was changed into the nature of the deity. But either discourse is insipid and vain, and full of falsehood. For if the God Word, as they themselves say, became flesh, why do they name Him God, and this alone, and refuse to name Him man, yet vehemently accuse us, who, while confessing Him to be God, also say that He is man? But if the flesh was changed into the nature of the deity, for what reason do they receive...

^A the antitypes of the body? For the type is superfluous if the truth has been destroyed.

4.

Otherwise.

5.

Otherwise.

6.

Otherwise.

7.

Otherwise.

8.

Otherwise.

God by nature and man; and as God, he encourages those who are in need of courage, while as man, he receives that courage through an angel. Although the Godhead and the ^A Spirit were present as an anointing, neither the united Godhead nor the all-holy Spirit sustained his body or soul at that time, but they entrusted this ministry to an angel, so that they might demonstrate the weakness of both soul and body, and through this weakness, the natures of those who suffer weakness might be shown. And these things happened, clearly, with the divine nature permitting it, so that those of later generations who believe in the assumption of soul and body might be confirmed by these demonstrations, and those who contradict might be refuted by evident testimonies. If, therefore, the union was joined to the conception, and if, according to their argument, the union made one nature out of both natures, how could the properties of the natures have remained intact, and why did the soul struggle with sadness, while the body sweated to the point that bloody drops flowed from the sheer intensity of fear? If this were proper to the body and that to the soul, then one nature of flesh and divinity did not come to be through the union; rather, one Son appeared, showing in himself both the divine and the human.

9. ^B *Aliter.* If, however, they should say that after the resurrection the body underwent a change into the Godhead, one must resist them in this way: for even after the resurrection he was seen to be circumscribed, having hands and feet and the other parts of the body; and he could be touched and seen, having wounds and scars just as before the resurrection. It is necessary, therefore, to say one of two things: either that these members are to be attributed even to the divine nature, if the body, having been changed into the essence of the Godhead, possessed these members; or to confess that the body remained within the bounds of its nature. But the divine nature is simple and uncompounded, while the body is composite and divided into many parts; therefore, it was not changed into the nature of the Godhead, but even after the resurrection, although it is immortal ^C and incorruptible and full of divine glory, it is still a body, retaining its own circumscription.

10. *Aliter.* The Lord, after the resurrection, showed the apostles his hands and feet and the marks of the nails. Then, teaching that what they were beholding was not some phantasm, he added: "A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me having." The body, therefore, was not changed into spirit; for it was flesh, and bones, and hands, and feet. Consequently, even after the resurrection, the body has remained a body.

11. *Aliter.* The divine nature is invisible, but the ^D thrice-blessed Stephen affirmed that he had seen the Lord. Therefore, the body of the Lord remains a body even after the ascension. For this is what the martyr Stephen beheld, since the divine nature is invisible.

12. *Aliter.* If the entire nature of human beings

shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, according to the voice of the Lord himself; ^A but to Moses he said again, "No one shall see my face and live." Both are true; therefore he shall come with the body with which he ascended into heaven. For that is visible, and this is what the angels said to the apostles: "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw him going into heaven." If this is true—as indeed it is true—then the nature of the flesh and of divinity is not one; for the union is inconfuse.

THAT THE DIVINITY OF THE SAVIOR IS IMPATIBLE

1. We have learned to confess the Son to be consubstantial with God and the Father, both from holy Scripture and from the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea. ^B Indeed, nature teaches and holy Scripture proclaims the impatibility of the Father. Therefore, we shall also confess the Son to be impatible. For the unity of substance asserts this thought. When, therefore, we hear holy Scripture proclaiming the cross and death of Christ the Lord, let us say that the suffering is of the flesh. For divinity, being by nature impatible, cannot by any reasoning suffer.

2. Otherwise. "All things that the Father has are mine," ^C said Christ the Lord. But surely, impatibility belongs to all things. If, therefore, he is impatible as God, he has suffered as man; for the divine nature does not admit of suffering.

3. Otherwise. The Lord said: "And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." And again: "I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and am known by my own, and I lay down my life for the sheep." Therefore, the good shepherd gave both body and soul for the sheep that possess soul and body.

4. Otherwise. The nature of men is composed of body and soul. This nature sinned, and required a sacrifice free from every blemish. ^D Therefore, the Creator, having taken a body and a soul, and having kept them untouched by the stains of sin, gave his body for bodies, and his soul for souls. If these things are true—and they are true, for they are the words of Truth itself—then those who attribute suffering to the divine nature are babbling and blaspheming.

5. Otherwise. The blessed Paul called Christ the Lord the firstborn from the dead. But the firstborn surely has the same nature as those of whom he is called firstborn. As man, therefore, he is the firstborn from the dead. For he was the first to loose the pains of death...

and he gave to all the sweet hope of returning to life. That by which he rose, by that same did he suffer. As man, therefore, he suffered, but as God, who is to be marvelled at, he remained impassible.

6. *Otherwise.* The divine Apostle called the Savior Christ the firstfruits of those who are asleep; but firstfruits have a kinship with the whole of which they are the firstfruits. Therefore, he is not called firstfruits in so far as he is God. For what kinship is there between divinity and humanity? The former nature is immortal, but the latter is mortal. Yet such is the nature of those who sleep, of whom Christ has been named the firstfruits. Of this nature, then, is both the death and the resurrection. For we have the resurrection of these as a pledge of the common resurrection.

7. *Otherwise.* The Lord Christ, wishing to persuade the disbelieving apostles that he had risen after having destroyed death, showed them the members of his body—his side, and hands, and feet—and the signs of the passion preserved in them. This, therefore, is what rose; for this is what was clearly shown even to those who did not believe. But it is this which rose that was also buried; and what was buried is that which had died; and what had died is that which had been nailed to the cross. The divine nature, therefore, remained impassible, though united to the body.

8. *Otherwise.* Those who call the Lord's flesh life-giving, by their own words make life itself mortal. They ought to have understood that, because of the life united to it, the flesh itself became life-giving. But if, according to their argument, life is mortal, how can the flesh, which is by nature mortal, but which becomes life-giving because of the life, remain thereafter life-giving?

9. *Otherwise.* God the Word is by nature immortal, while the flesh is by nature mortal. Yet even the flesh, after the passion, has become immortal through its communion with the Word. How, then, is it not absurd to say that the very giver of such immortality participated in death?

10. *Otherwise.* Let those who assert that God the Word suffered in the flesh be asked about the meaning of their statement. And if they should dare to say that when the body was nailed with ^C nails, the divine nature endured the pain, let them learn that the divine nature did not perform the office of a soul. For God the Word had assumed a soul together with the body. But if they turn away from this argument as blasphemous, and should say that the flesh suffered by nature, but that God the Word appropriated the suffering as belonging to his own flesh, they should not use enigmatic and dark speech, but should openly set forth the meaning of their ill-sounding statement. For they will have as supporters of this interpretation those who wish to follow the divine Scripture.

11. *Otherwise.* The divine Peter in the Catholic Epistle says that Christ suffered in the flesh. But he who [claims] that Christ

^A hears this does not think of the Word of God as incorporeal, but as incarnate. The name of Christ, therefore, signifies both natures; but the phrase added to the flesh concerning the passion signifies not both, but that one which has suffered. For he who hears that Christ has suffered in the flesh considers Him, as God, to be impassible, and attributes the passion to the flesh alone. For just as when we hear Him again saying that God swore to David that He would raise up Christ according to the flesh from the fruit of his loins, we do not say that the Word of God took His beginning from the seed of David, but rather the flesh related to David, which the Word of God assumed; so too, it is necessary for one who hears that Christ has suffered in the flesh to recognize the passion of the flesh, while confessing the impassibility of the Godhead.

12. *Otherwise.* Being crucified, the Lord Christ said: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” Now the Arians and Eunomians say that this spirit is the Godhead of the Only-Begotten, for they think that the body He assumed was inanimate. But the heralds of the truth say that the soul is thus named, understanding this from the subsequent words. For the all-wise ^B evangelist immediately added: “And having said this, He expired.” Now Luke narrated the matter in this way; and the blessed Mark likewise used the word “expired.” But the most divine Matthew says: “He gave up the spirit,” and the glorious John: “He handed over the spirit.” All, however, spoke according to human custom. For “to expire,” “to give up,” and “to hand over the spirit” are things we are accustomed to say of those who are dying. Therefore, none of these has any indication of Godhead, but each is ^C indicative of the soul. But even if one were to accept the Arian interpretation of these words, nonetheless, he would still show the immortality of the divine nature. For He commended it to the Father, He did not deliver it to death. If, therefore, even those who deny the assumption of the soul, and say that the Word of God is a creature, and teach that He existed in the body in place of a soul, do not say that He was delivered to death, what forgiveness would those obtain who confess that there is one substance of the Trinity, and leave the soul to its own immortality, but ^D dare shamelessly to affirm that the Word of God, who is of the same substance as the Father, tasted death?

13. *Otherwise.* If Christ is both God and man, as the divine Scripture teaches, and the all-lauded Fathers have continually preached, then as man He suffered, but as God He remained impassible.

14. *Otherwise.* If they confess the assumption of the flesh, and say that it was passible before the resurrection, but preach that the nature of the Godhead is impassible, why, leaving the passible nature, do they assign the passion to the impassible?

15. *Aliter.* If our Savior and Lord nailed our handwriting to the cross, as the divine Apostle says, then he nailed the body. For every human being imprints the stains of his sins upon his body, like letters of a kind. Therefore, for the sake of sinners, he handed over a body free from all sin. ^A

16. *Aliter.* When we say that the body, or the flesh, or the humanity has suffered, we do not separate the divine nature. For just as it was united to [the body] when it was hungry, and thirsty, and weary, and indeed when it was sleeping, and when it was struggling with death—undergoing none of these things itself, but allowing it [the body] to receive the passions of its nature—so too it was united [to it] when it was being crucified, and it allowed the passion to be brought to completion, in order that by the passion it might destroy death. It did not receive pain from the passion, but it adopted the passion as belonging to its own temple and to the flesh that was united to it; on account of which those who have believed are called members of Christ, and he himself is named the head of those who have believed. ^B

[Epigram] Unchanged, unconfused, impassible remains The Word, co-eternal with God the Father, Even if he assumes flesh in the last of days; As Theodoret writes here, Having received Theodoret as a grace from on high. Like a triple-edged whetted sword, May the ungodly be struck by these three arguments. May you be struck, and slaughtered, and fall before me, All you who do not fear to wickedly attach Change, or confusion, or even passion to the Word. And also a cord, as Solomon writes somewhere, Unbreakable, as a triple-braided noose for us, May it be the trinity of these wise arguments.

COMPENDIUM OF HERETICAL FABLES BY THE BLESSED THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS

To the most magnificent and most glorious, and Christ-loving son, Sporacius, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus of the Augustoeuphratesia, sends greetings in the Lord. ^C

The purpose of your magnificence is worthy of praise. For you desire to know what things on either side of the [straight] road have deviated from it...