Eran.-I am come as I promised. 'Tis yours to adopt one of two alternatives, and either furnish a solution of my difficulties, or assent to what I and my friends lay down.
Orth.-I accept your challenge, for I think it right and fair. But we must first recall to mind at what point we left off our discourse yesterday, and what was the conclusion of our argument.
Eran.-I will remind you of the end. I remember our agreeing that the divine Word remained immutable, and took flesh, and was not himself changed into flesh.
Orth.-You seem to be content with the points agreed on, for you have faithfully called them to mind.
Eran.-Yes, and I have already said that the man that withstands teachers so many and so great is indubitably out of his mind. I was moreover put to not a little shame to find that Apollinarius used the same terms as the orthodox, although in his books about the incarnation his drift has distinctly been in another direction.
Orth.-Then we affirm that the Divine Word took flesh?
Eran.-We do.
Orth.-And what do we mean by the flesh? A body only, as is the view of Arius and Eunomius, or body and soul?
Eran.-Body and soul.
Orth.-What kind of soul? The reasonable soul, or that which is by some termed the phytic, vegetable,hyperlink that is, vital? for the fable-mongering quackery of the Apollinarians compels us to ask unseemly questions.
Eran.-Does then Apollinarius make a distinction of souls?hyperlink
Orth.-He says that man is composed of three parts, of a body, a vital soul, and further of a reasonable soul, which he terms mind. Holy Scripture on the contrary knows only one, not two souls; and this is plainly taught us by the formation of the first man. For it is written God took dust from the earth and "formed man," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."hyperlink And in the gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."hyperlink
And the very divine Moses when he told the tale of them that came down into Egypt and stated with whom each tribal chief had come in, added, "All the souls that came out of Egypt were seventy-five,"hyperlink reckoning one soul for each immigrant. And the divine apostle at Troas, when all supposed Eutychus to be dead, said "Trouble not yourselves for his soul is in him."hyperlink
Eran.-It is shewn clearly that each man has one soul.
Orth.-But Apollinarius says two; and that the Divine Word took the unreasonable, and that instead of the reasonable, he was made in the flesh. It was on this account that I asked what kind of soul you assert to have been assumed with the body.
Eran.-I say the reasonable. For I follow the Divine Scripture.
Orth.-We agree then that the "form of a servant" assumed by the Divine Word was complete.
Eran.-Yes; complete.
Orth.-And rightly; for since the whole first man became subject to sin, and lost the impression of the Divine Image,hyperlink and the race followed, it results that the Creator, with the intention of renewing the blurred image, assumed the nature in its entirety, and stamped an imprint far better than the first.
Eran.-True. But now I beg you in the first place that the meaning of the terms employed may be made quite clear, that thus our discussion may advance without hindrance, and no investigation of doubtful points intervene to interrupt our conversation.
Orth.-What you say is admirable. Ask now concerning whatever point yon like.
Eran.-What must we call Jesus the Christ? Man?
Orth.-By neither name alone, but by both. For the Divine Man after being made man was named Jesus Christ. "For," it is written, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins,"hyperlink and unto you is born this day in the city of David Christ the Lord.hyperlink Now these are angels' voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,"hyperlink and "all things were made by Him,"hyperlink and "He was life,"hyperlink and "He was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." There are also other similar passages, declaring the divine nature. But after the Incarnation He was named Jesus and Christ.
Eran.-Therefore the Lord Jesus is God only.
Orth.-You hear that the divine Word was made man, and do you call him God only?
Eran.-Since He became mall without being changed, but remained just what He was before, we must call Him just what He was.
Orth.-The divine Word was and is and will be immutable. But when He had taken man's nature He became man. It behoves us therefore to confess both natures, both that which took, and that which was taken.
Eran.-We must name Him by the nobler.
Orth-Man,-I mean man the animal,-is he a simple or a composite being?
Eran.-Composite.
Orth.-Composed of what component parts?
Eran.-Of a body and a soul.
Orth.-And of these natures whether is nobler?
Eran.-Clearly the soul, for it is reasonable and immortal, and has been entrusted with the sovereignty of the animal. But the body is mortal and perishable, and without the soul is unreasonable, and a corpse.
Orth.-Then the divine Scripture ought to have called the animal after its more excellent part.
Eran.-It does so call it, for it calls them that came out of Egypt souls. For with seventy-five souls, it says, Israel came down into Egypt.
Orth.-But does the divine Scripture never call any one after the body?
Eran.-It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For "God," it is written, "said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh."hyperlink
Orth.-But without blameno one is called flesh?
Eran.-I do not remember.
Orth.-Then I will remind you, and point out to you that even the very saints are called "flesh." Answer now. What would you call the apostles? Spiritual, or fleshly?
Eran.-Spiritual;-and leaders and teachers of the spiritual.
Orth.-Hear now the holy Paul when he says "But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood neither went I up to them that were apostles before me."hyperlink Does he so style the apostles because he blames them?
Eran.-Certainly not.
Orth.-Is it not that he names them after their visible nature, and comparing the calling which is of men with that which is of heaven?
Eran.-True.
Orth.-Then hear too the psalmist David-"Unto thee shall all flesh come."hyperlink Hear too, the prophet Isaiah foretelling "All flesh shall see the salvation of our God."hyperlink
Eran.-It is made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human nature fromthe flesh without the least blame.
Orth.-I will proceed to give you the yet further proof.
Eran.-What further?
Orth.-The fact that sometimes when giving blame the divine Scripture uses only the name of soul.
Eran.-And where will you find this in holy Scripture?
Orth.-Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel "The sold that sinneth it shall die."hyperlink Moreover through the great Moses He saith "If a soul sin-"hyperlink And again "It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off."hyperlink And many other passages of the same kind may be found.
Eran.-This is plainly proved.
Orth.-In cases, then, where there is a certain natural union, and a combination of created things, and of beings connected by service and by time, it is not the custom of holy Scripture to use a name for this being derived only from the nobler nature; it names it indiscriminately both by the meaner and by the nobler. If so, how can you find fault with us for calling Christ the Lord,man, after confessing Him to be God, when many things combine to compel us to do so?
Eran.-What is there to compel us to call the Saviour Christ, "man"?
Orth.-The diverse and mutually inconsistent opinions of the heretics.
Eran.-What opinions, and contrary to what?
Orth.-That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three.hyperlink Tell me now, how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for both ailments, or for each the proper one?
Eran.-For each the proper one.
Orth.-We shall therefore endeavour to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture.
Eran.-Yes: this ought to be done.
Orth.-But in arguing with Sabellius we shall adopt the opposite course. Concerning the substance we shall advance no argument, for even he acknowledges but one.
Eran.-Plainly.
Orth.-But we shall do our best to cure the unsound part of his doctrine.
Eran.-We say that where he halts is about the hypostases.
Orth.-Since then he asserts there to be one hypostasis of the Trinity, we shall point out to him that the divine Scripture proclaims three hypostases.
Eran.-This is the course to take. But we have wandered from the subject.
Orth.-Not at all. We are collecting proofs of it, as you will learn in a moment. But tell me, do you understand that all the heresies which derive their name from Christ, acknowledge both the Godhead of Christ and His manhood?
Eran.-By no means.
Orth.-Do not some acknowledge the godhead alone, and somethemanhood alone?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-And some but a part of the manhood?
Eran.-I think so. But it will be well for us to lay down the names of the holders of these different opinions, that the point under discussion may be made plainer.
Orth.-I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the humanity of Christ. On the other hand Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus, fell into the diametrically opposite blasphemy; for they preach Christ to be man only, and deny the Godhead which existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the Godhead of the only begotten a created Godhead, and maintain that He assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the assumed body was a livinghyperlink body, but in his work deprives the reasonable soul alike of its honour and of its salvation. This is the contrariety of these corrupt opinions. But do you, with all due love of truth, tell us, must we institute a discussion with these men, or shall we let them go dashed down headlong and howling to their doom?
Eran.-It is inhuman to neglect the sick.
Orth.-Very well; then we must compassionate them, and do our best to heal them.
Eran.-By all means.
Orth.-If then you had scientifically learned how to cure the body, and round you stood many men asking you to cure them, and shewing their various ailments, such as arise from running at tile eyes, injury to the ears, tooth-ache, contraction of tile joints, palsy, bile, or phlegm, what would you have done? Tell me; would you have applied the same treatment to all, or to each that which was appropriate?
Eran.-I should certainly have given to each the appropriate remedy.
Orth.-So by applying cold treatment to the hot, and heating the cold, and loosing the strained, and giving tension to tim loose, and drying the moist, and moistening the dry, you would have driven out the diseases and restored the health which they had expelled.
Eran.-This is the treatment prescribed by medical science, for contraries, it is said, are the remedies of contraries.
Orth.-If you were a gardener, would yon give the same treatment to all plants? or their own to the mulberry and the fig, and so to the pear, to the apple, and to the vine what is fitting to each, and in a word to each plant its own proper culture?
Eran.-It is obvious that each plant requires its own treatment.
Orth.-And if you undertook to be a ship builder, and saw that the mast wanted repair, would you try to mend it in the same way as you would the tiller? or would you give it the proper treatment of a mast?
Eran.-There is no question about these things: everything demands its own treatment, be it plant or limb or gear or tackle.
Orth.-Then is it not monstrous to apply to the body and to things without life to each its own appropriate treatment, and not to keep this rule of treatment in the case of the soul?
Eran.-Most unjust; nay, rather stupid than unrighteous. They who adopt any other method are quite unskilled in the healing art.
Orth.-Then in disputing against each heresy we shall use the appropriate remedy?
Eran.-By all means.
Orth.-And it is fitting treatment to add what is wanting and to remove what issuperfluous?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-In endeavouring then to cure Photinus and Marcellus and their adherents, in order to carry out the rule of treatment, what should we add?
Eran.-The acknowledgment of the Godhead of Christ, for it is this that they lack.
Orth.-But about the manhood we will say nothing to them, for they acknowledge the Lord Christ to be man.
Eran.-You are right.
Orth.-And in arguing with Arius and Eunomius about the incarnation of the only begotten, what should we persuade them to add to their own confession?
Eran.-The assumption of the soul; for they say that the divine Word took only a body.
Orth.-And what does Apollinarius lack to make his teaching accurate about the incarnation?
Eran.-Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess that, with the body, was assumed a reasonable soul.
Orth.-Then shall we dispute with him on this point?
Eran.-Certainly.
Orth.-But under this head what did we assert to be confessed, and what altogether denied, by Marcion, Valentinus, Manes and their adherents?
Eran.-That they admitted their belief in the Godhead of Christ, but do not accept the doctrine of His manhood.
Orth.-We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine incarnationhyperlink a mere appearance.
Eran.-It will be well so to do.
Orth.-We will therefore tell them that it is right to style the Christ not only God, but also man.
Eran.-By all means.
Orth.-And how is it possible for us to induce others to style the Christ `man' while we excuse ourselves from doing so? They will not yield to our persuasion, but on the contrary will convict us of agreeing with them.
Eran.-And how can we, confessing as we do that the divine Word took flesh and a reasonable soul, agree with them?
Orth.-If we confess the fact, why then shun the word?
Eran.-It is right to name the Christ from His nobler qualities.
Orth.-Keep this rule then. Do not speak of Him as crucified, nor yet as risen from the dead, and so on.
Eran.-But these are the names of the sufferings of salvation. Denial of the sufferings implies denial of the salvation.
Orth.-And the name Man is the name of a nature. Not to pronounce the name is to deny the nature: denial of the nature is denial of the sufferings, and denial of the sufferings does away with the salvation.
Eran.-I hold it profitable to acknowledge the assumed nature; but to style the Saviour of the world man is to belittle the glory of the Lord.
Orth.-Do you then deem yourself wiser than Peter and Paul; aye, and than the Saviour Himself? For the Lord said to the Jews "Why do ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard of my Father?"hyperlink And He frequently called Himself Son of Man.
And the meritorious Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says,-"Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you."hyperlink And the blessed Paul, when bringing the message of salvation to the chiefs of the Areopagus, among many other things said this,-
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."hyperlink He then who excuses himself from using the name appointed and preached by the Lord and his Apostles deems himself wiser than even these great instructors, aye, even than the very well-spring of the wisest.
Eran.-They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the greater part of the worldhyperlink has professed the faith.
Orth.-But we have still among us Jews and pagans and of heretics systems innumerable, and to each of these we must give fit and appropriate teaching. But, supposing we were all of one mind, tell me now, what harm is there in calling the Christ both God and man? Do we not behold in Him perfect Godhead, and manhood likewise lacking in nothing?
Eran.-This we have owned again and again.
Orth.-Why then deny what we have again and again owned?
Eran.-I hold it unnecessary to call the Christ `man,'-especially when believer is conversing with believer.
Orth.-Do you consider the divine Apostle a believer?
Eran.-Yes: a teacher of all believers.
Orth.-And do youdeem Timothy worthy of being so styled?
Eran.-Yes: both as a disciple of the Apostle, and as a teacher of the rest.
Orth.-Very well: then hear the teacher of teachers writing to his very perfect disciple. "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."hyperlink Do stop your idle prating, and laying down the law about divine names. Moreover in this passage that very name `mediator' stands indicative both of Godhead and of manhood. He is called a mediator because He does not exist as God alone; for how, if He had had nothing of our nature could He have mediated between us and God? But since as God He is joined with God as having the same substance, and as man with us, because from us He took the form of a servant, He is properly termed a mediator, uniting in Himself distinct qualities by the unity of natures of Godhead, I mean, and of manhood.hyperlink
Eran.-But was not Moses called a mediator, though only a man?hyperlink
Orth.-He was a type of the reality: but the type has not all the qualities of the reality. Wherefore though Moses was not by nature God, yet, to fulfil the type, he was called a god. For He says "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh."hyperlink And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to God, for "Aaron thy brother," He says, "shall be thy Prophet."hyperlink But the reality is by nature God, and by nature man.
Eran.-But who would call one not having the distinct characteristics of the archetype, a type?
Orth.-The imperial images, it seems, you do not call images of the emperor
Eran.-Yes, I do.
Orth.-Yet they have not all the characteristics which their archetype has. For in the first place they have neither life nor reason: secondly they have no inner organs, heart, I mean, and belly and liver and the adjacent parts. Further they present the appearance of the organs of sense, but perform none of their functions, for they neither hear, nor speak, nor see; they cannot write; they cannot walk, nor perform any other human action; and yet they are called imperial statues. In this sense Moses was a mediator and Christ was a mediator; but the former as an image and type and the latter as reality. But that I may make this point clearer to you from yet another authority, call to mind the words used of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Eran.-What words?
Orth.-Those in which the divine Apostle comparing the Levitical priesthood with that of the Christ likens Melchisedec in other respects to the Lord Christ, and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec.hyperlink
Eran.-I think the words of the divine Apostle are as follows;-"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 descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest continually."hyperlink I presume you spoke of this passage.
Orth.-Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not mutilating it, but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of these points fit Melchisedec in nature and reality?
Eran.-Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine apostle has asserted it?
Orth.-Then you say that all this fits Melchisedec by nature?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-Do you say that he was a man, or assumed some other nature?
Eran.-A man.
Orth.-Begotten or unbegotten?
Eran.-You are asking very absurd questions.
Orth.-The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth. Answer then.
Eran.-There is one only unbegotten, who is God and Father.
Orth.-Then we assert that Melchisedec was begotten?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words which you quoted a moment ago, "Without father without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." How then do the words "Without father and without mother" fit him; and how the statement that he neither received beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends humanity?
Eran.-These things do in fact overstep the limits of human nature.
Orth.-Then shall we say that the Apostle told lies?
Eran.-God forbid.
Orth.-How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the Apostle, and apply the supernatural to Melchisedec?
Eran.-The passage is a very difficult one, and requires much explanation.
Orth.-For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life," the divine Apostle adds "made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually."hyperlink Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchisedec in things concerningthe human nature. And he speaks of Melchisedec as "made like unto the Son of God." Now let us examine the point in this manner;-do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh?
Eran.-Certainly not.
Orth.-Why?
Eran.-He was born of the holy Virgin alone.
Orth.-He is therefore properly styled "without father"?
Eran.-True.
Orth.-Do you say that according to the divine Nature He had a mother?hyperlink
Eran.-Certainly not.
Orth.-For He was begotten of the Father alone before the ages?
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-And yet, as the generation He has of the Father is ineffable, He is spoken of as "without descent." "Who" says the prophet "shall declare His generation?"hyperlink
Eran.-You are right.
Orth.-Thus it becomes Him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for He is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.
Eran.-This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchisedec.
Orth.-As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Saviour these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchisedec. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and in like manner of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, of Melchisedec it records neither the father nor the mother, nor does it teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah's sons, to the end that he may be a type of Him who is in reality without father, and without mother. And this is what the divine Apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises."hyperlink
Eran.-Then, since Holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother?
Orth.-If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the Divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality.
Eran.-The type must have the character of the archetype.
Orth.-Is man called an image of God?
Eran.-Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God.hyperlink
Orth.-Listen then to the Apostle. He says: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."hyperlink
Eran.-Granted, then, that he is an image of God.
Orth.-According to your argument then he must needs have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded, and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype.
Eran.-Man is not an image of God in every respect.
Orth.-Though truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by awide interval from the reality.
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says "Who is the image of the invisible God?"hyperlink
Eran.-What then; has not the Son all the qualities of the Father?
Orth.-He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten.
Eran.-If He were He would not be Son.
Orth.-Then does not what I said hold good; the image has not all the qualities of the archetype?
Eran.-True.
Orth.-Thus too the divine Apostle said that Melchisedec is made like unto the Son of God.hyperlink
Eran.-Suppose we grant that he is without Father and without Mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?
Orth.-The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth,hyperlink and when he had lived so many years he ended his life.hyperlink So too he writes of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest, but of Melchisedec he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end.
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchisedec is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec.hyperlink For Melchisedec was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ for all men has made the right holy offering of salvation.
Eran.-We have spent many words on this matter.
Orth.-Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one.
Eran.-Let us return to the question before us.
Orth.-What was the question?
Eran.-On my remarking that Christ must not be called man, but only God, you yourself besides many other testimonies adduced also the well known words of the Apostle which he has used in his epistle Timothy-"One God, one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time."hyperlink
Orth.-I remember from what point we diverged into this digression. It was when I had said that the name of mediator exhibits the two natures of the Saviour, and you said that Moses was called a mediator though he was only a man and not God and man. was therefore under the necessity of following up these points to show that the type has not all the qualities of the archetype. Tell me, then, whether you allow that the Saviour ought also to be called man.
Eran.-I call Him God, for He is God's Son.
Orth.-If you call him God, because you have learnt that he is God's Son, call him also man, for he often called Himself "Son of Man."
Eran.-The name man does not apply to Him in the same way as the name God.
Orth.-As not really belonging to Him or for some other reason?
Eran.-God is his name by nature; man is the designation of the Incarnation.hyperlink
Orth.-But are we to look on the Incarnation as real, or as something imaginary and false?
Eran.-As real.
Orth.-If then the grace of the Incarnation is real, and what we call Incarnation is the divine Word's being made man, then the name man is real; for after taking man's nature He is called man.
Eran.-Before His passion He was styled man, but afterward He was no longer so styled.
Orth.-But it was after the Passion and the Resurrection that the divine Apostle wrote the Epistle to Timothy wherein he speaks of the Saviour Christ as man,hyperlink and writing after the Passion and the Resurrection to the Corinthians he exclaims "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."hyperlink And in order to make his meaning clear he adds, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."hyperlink And after the Passion and the Resurrection the divine Peter, in his address to the Jews, called Him man.hyperlink And after His being taken up into heaven, Stephen the victorious, amid the storm of stones, said to the Jews, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."hyperlink Are we to suppose ourselves wiser than the illustrious heralds of the truth?
Eran.-I do not suppose thyself wiser than the holy doctors, but I fail to find the use of the name.
Orth.-How then could you persuade them that deny the incarnation of the Lord, Marcionists, I mean, and Manichees, and all the rest who are thus unsound, to accept the teaching of the truth, unless you adduce these and similar proofs with the object of shewing that the Lord Christ is not God only but also man?
Eran.-Perhaps it is necessary to adduce them.
Orth.-Why not then teach the faithful the reality of the doctrine? Are you forgetful of the apostolic precept enjoining us to be "ready to give an answer."hyperlink Now let us look at the matter in this light. Does the best general engage the enemy, attack with arrows and javelins, and endeavour to break their column all alone, or does he also arm his men, and marshal them, and rouse their hearts to play the man?
Eran.-He ought rather to do this latter.
Orth.-Yes; for it is not the part of a general to expose his own life, and take his place in the ranks, and let his men go fast asleep, but rather to keep them awake for their work at their post.
Eran.-True.
Orth.-This is what the divine Paul did, for in writing to them who had made profession of their faith he said, "Take unto you the whole armour of God that ye be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil.hyperlink And again, "Stand therefore with your loins girt about with truth,"hyperlink and so on. Bear in mind too what we have already said, that a physician supplies what nature lacks. Does he find the cold redundant? He supplies the hot, and so on with the rest; and this is what the Lord does.
Eran.-And where will you show that the Lord has done this?
Orth.-In the holy gospels.
Eran.-Show me then and fulfil your promise.
Orth.-What did the Jews consider our Saviour Christ?
Eran.-A man.
Orth.-And that He was also God they were wholly ignorant.
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-Was it not then necessary for the ignorant to learn?
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-Listen to Him then saying to them: "Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?"hyperlink And when they replied: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself God,"hyperlink He added "It is written in your law I said ye are gods. If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my father believe me not ...that I am in the Father and the Father is in me."hyperlink
Footnotes
1 futikoj, of or belonging to futon, or plant; but though futon is opposed to cwon, it is also used of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of physical life, and nothing beyond.
2 cf. p. 132.
3 Gen. ii. 7.
4 Matt. x. 28. of. Luke xii. 4. Luke xii. 5.
5 Gen. xlvi. 20, lxx. In the Hebrew the number is but seventy, including Jacob himself. St. Stephen, as was natural in a Hellonized Jew follows the lxx. (Acts vii. 14.) For the number 75 there were doubtless important traditional authorities known to the lxx.
6 Acts xx. 10.
7 This "lost" must be qualified. The Scriptural doctrine is that the "image of God" though defaced and marred, is not lost or destroyed. After the flood the "image of God" is still quoted as against murder Gen. ix. 6. St. James urges it as a reason against cursing (iv. 9). cf. I. Cor. xi. 7. So the IXth Article declares original sin to be, not the nature, which is good, but the "fault and corruption of the nature of every man;" in short the "image of God," like the figts of God, as David in Browning's "Saul" has it, "a man may waste, desecrate, never quite lose." cf. p. 164 and note.
8 Matt. i. 21.
9 Luke ii. 11. tiktetai is substitued for etexqh, in addition to the omission of "a Saviour which is." In this verse the mss. do not vary.
10 John i. 1.
11 John i. 3.
12 John i. 4.
13 Gen. vi. 3, lxx. and Marg. in R. V.
14 Gal. i. 15-17.
15 Ps. lxv. 2.
16 Is. xl. 5.
17 Ez. xviii. 4 and Ez. xviii. 20.
18 Lev. v. 1.
19 The reference seeing to be a loose combination of Numbers ix. 13. with Deut. xviii. 19.
20 Vide note on page 36.
21 emyuxon.
22 oikonouian. cf. p. 72, note.
23 John viii. 40. Note looseness of citation.
24 Acts ii. 22.
25 Acts xvii. 30, Acts xvii. 31.
26 h oikoumenh means of course the Empire and the adjacent countries, the "orbis veteribus notus."
27 I. Tim. ii. 5, I. Tim. ii. 6.
28 cf. Job ix. 33. "daysman betwixt us that might lay his hand upon us both."
29 Gal. iii. 19. cf. Deut. v. 5.
30 Exodus vii. 1.
31 Ex. vii. 1.
32 Hebrews vi. 20.
33 Hebrews vii. 1, Hebrews vii. 2, Hebrews vii. 3.
34 Heb. vii. 3.
35 The bearing of this on Theodoret's relation to Nestorianism will be observed.
36 Is. liii. 8.
37 Heb. vii. 6.
38 Gen. i. 27.
39 I. Cor. xi. 7.
40 Coloss. 1. 15.
41 Hebrews vii. 3.
42 Gen. iv. 25.
43 Gen. v. 5.
44 Heb. vi. 20.
45 Tim. ii. 5, Tim. ii. 6.
46 oikonomia. Vide p. 72 n.
47 1 Tim ii. 5.
48 1 Cor. xv. 21.
49 1 Cor. xv. 22.
50 Acts ii. 22.
51 Acts vii. 56
52 1 Peter iii. 15.
53 Eph. vi. 11 and Eph. vi. 13, and observe looseness of quotation.
54 Eph. vi. 14.
55 John x. 32.
56 John x. 33.
57 John x. 34, John x. 35, John x. 36, John x. 37, John x. 38. Observe the variation in 34, and the omission in 38.
