The Unmixed, Part 1

Eranistes and Orthodoxos.

I have come, as I promised. It is up to you to take one of two courses: either answer my difficulties, or agree with what my friends and I lay down. I accept your challenge, for I think it right and fair. But first we must call to mind where we left off our discussion yesterday, and what conclusion our argument reached. I will remind you how it ended. I remember that we agreed that the divine Word remained unchangeable, and took flesh, and was not himself changed into flesh. You seem content with the points we agreed on, for you have remembered them faithfully. Yes. And I have already said that anyone who stands against so many great teachers is beyond all doubt out of his mind. What is more, I was more than a little ashamed to find that Apollinarius used the same terms as the orthodox, although in his books on the incarnation his drift has plainly gone in another direction. [a] Then we say that the divine Word took flesh? We do. And what do we mean by the flesh? A body only, as Arius and Eunomius hold, or body and soul? [b] Body and soul. What kind of soul? The rational soul, or the one some call the “plant” soul, that is, the soul of mere life? For the fable-mongering humbug of the Apollinarians forces us to ask questions that are hardly fitting. [c] Does Apollinarius, then, distinguish between souls? He says that a human being is made of three parts: a body, a soul that gives life, and in addition a rational soul, which he calls mind. Holy Scripture, on the contrary, knows only one soul, not two. This is plainly taught us by the forming of the first man. For it is written that God took dust from the earth and “formed man,” and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” And in the Gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples, “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.” [d] And the most divine Moses, when he gave the account of those who went down into Egypt and stated with whom each head of a tribe had come in, added, “All the souls that came out of Egypt were seventy-five,” counting one soul for each person who came. And the divine apostle at Troas, when everyone thought Eutychus was dead, said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his soul is in him.” [e] It has been clearly shown that each human being has one soul. But Apollinarius says two. He says that the divine Word took the soul without reason, and that instead of the rational soul he himself was in the flesh. That is why I asked what kind of soul you say was taken along with the body. I say the rational soul. For I follow the divine Scripture. Then we agree that the “form of a servant” taken by the divine Word was complete. [f] Yes, complete. And rightly. For since the whole first man became subject to sin and lost the imprint of the divine image, and the race followed him, it follows that the Creator, intending to renew the blurred image, took the nature in its entirety and stamped on it an imprint far better than the first.

True. But now, first of all, I ask that the meaning of the terms we use be made quite clear. Then our discussion can go forward without hindrance, and no inquiry into doubtful points will come in to interrupt our conversation. Well said. Ask about any point you like. What must we call Jesus the Christ? Man? Neither name alone, but both. For the divine Word, after he was made man, was named Jesus Christ. It is written, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins,” and, “To you is born this day in the city of David, Christ the Lord.” These are the words of angels. But before the incarnation he was named God, Son of God, only Son, 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,” and, “All things were made through him,” and, “He was life,” and, “He was the true light that gives light to every person who comes into the world.” There are other passages like these too, which declare the divine nature. But after the incarnation he was named Jesus and Christ. [g] Then the Lord Jesus is God only. You hear that the divine Word was made man, and do you call him God only? Since he became man without being changed, but remained just what he was before, we must call him just what he was. The divine Word was, and is, and will be unchangeable. But when he had taken human nature, he became man. So we must confess both natures: the one that took and the one that was taken. We must name him by the nobler.

Is a man, and I mean man the living creature, a simple being or a composite one? Composite. Made of what parts? Of a body and a soul. And of these two natures, which is the nobler? Clearly the soul, for it is rational and immortal, and it has been entrusted with the rule of the living creature. But the body is mortal and perishable, and without the soul it is without reason, a corpse. Then divine Scripture ought to have named the living creature after its more excellent part. It does name it so, for it calls those who came out of Egypt souls. With seventy-five souls, it says, Israel went down into Egypt. But does divine Scripture never call anyone after the body? It calls those who are slaves of the flesh, flesh. For it is written, “God said, My spirit shall not remain in these men always, for they are flesh.” [i] But no one is called flesh without being blamed? I do not remember. Then I will remind you, and show you that even the saints themselves are called “flesh.” Now answer me: what would you call the apostles, spiritual or fleshly? Spiritual, and leaders and teachers of the spiritual. Then listen to the holy Paul when he says, “But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not at once confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to those who were apostles before me.” Does he call the apostles this because he is blaming them? [j] Certainly not. Is it not that he names them after their visible nature, comparing the calling that comes from human beings with the calling that comes from heaven? True. Then listen to the psalmist David too: “To you all flesh shall come.” And listen to the prophet Isaiah, foretelling, “All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.” [k] It has been made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human nature from the flesh without the least blame. I will go on to give you still further proof. What further proof? That sometimes, when divine Scripture is laying blame, it uses only the name of the soul. And where will you find this in holy Scripture? Listen to the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel: “The soul that sins shall die.” And through the great Moses he says, “If a soul sins…” And again, “It shall come to pass that every soul that will not listen to that prophet shall be cut off.” And many other passages of the same kind can be found. [l] This has been plainly proved.

So where there is a natural union, a joining of created things, of beings bound together in service and in time, it is not the custom of holy Scripture to name the whole only from the nobler nature. It names it from either one, the lesser as well as the nobler. If so, how can you find fault with us for calling Christ the Lord man, after we have confessed him to be God, when many things combine to force us to do it? [m] What is there that forces us to call Christ the Savior “man”? The varied and contradictory opinions of the heretics. What opinions, and contradicting what? The opinion of Arius against that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances; the other confuses the hypostases. Arius brings in three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three. Now tell me: how ought we to heal both diseases? Must we use the same drug for both ailments, or the proper one for each? [n] The proper one for each. So we will try to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we will bring proofs of this from Holy Scripture. Yes, this ought to be done. But in arguing with Sabellius we will take the opposite course. We will make no argument about the substance, for even he acknowledges only one. Plainly. But we will do our best to cure the unsound part of his teaching. Where he limps, we say, is on the hypostases. Then since he says that the Trinity has one hypostasis, we will show him that divine Scripture proclaims three hypostases. That is the course to take. But we have wandered from the subject.

Not at all. We are collecting proofs for it, as you will learn in a moment. But tell me: do you take it that all the heresies that take their name from Christ acknowledge both the Godhead of Christ and his humanity? By no means. Do not some acknowledge the Godhead alone, and some the humanity alone? Yes. And some only a part of the humanity? I think so. But it would be well for us to set down the names of those who hold these different opinions, so that the point under discussion may be made plainer. I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo and Mani openly denied the humanity of Christ. On the other hand, Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus and Photinus fell into the exactly opposite blasphemy, for they preach that Christ is man only, and deny the Godhead that existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the Godhead of the only Son a created Godhead, and hold that he took only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the body that was taken had a soul, but in what he actually teaches he robs the rational soul of both its honor and its salvation. Such is the conflict among these corrupt opinions. But tell us, as one who loves the truth as he ought: must we enter into discussion with these men, or shall we let them go, hurled headlong and howling to their ruin? [o] It would be inhuman to neglect the sick. Very well. Then we must have compassion on them and do our best to heal them. By all means.

Suppose, then, you had studied the science of curing the body, and many people stood around you asking you to cure them and showing you their various ailments: streaming eyes, injured ears, toothache, stiffened joints, paralysis, bile or phlegm. What would you have done? Tell me: would you have given the same treatment to all, or to each the treatment that suited him? [q] I would certainly have given each the remedy that suited him. So by cooling the hot and warming the cold, relaxing the tense and tightening the slack, drying the moist and moistening the dry, you would have driven out the diseases and brought back the health they had driven away. That is the treatment medical science prescribes, for, as the saying goes, opposites are the cure of opposites. If you were a gardener, would you give the same care to every plant? Or would you give the mulberry and the fig their own care, and likewise the pear, the apple and the vine what suits each, and, in a word, to each plant its own proper cultivation? Plainly each plant needs its own treatment. And if you took up shipbuilding and saw that the mast needed repair, would you try to mend it the same way you would the tiller? Or would you give it the treatment proper to a mast? There is no question about these things. Everything needs its own treatment, whether plant or limb or gear or tackle. Then is it not monstrous to give the body, and even things without life, each its own fitting treatment, and not to keep this rule of treatment in the case of the soul? It is most unjust, or rather more stupid than wicked. Those who follow any other method are quite unskilled in the art of healing. Then in arguing against each heresy we will use the fitting remedy? By all means. And the fitting treatment is to add what is lacking and to take away what is excessive? Yes.

Then in trying to cure Photinus and Marcellus and their followers, what should we add, if we are to keep the rule of treatment? The acknowledgment of the Godhead of Christ, for that is what they lack. But about the humanity we will say nothing to them, for they acknowledge the Lord Christ to be man. You are right. And in arguing with Arius and Eunomius about the incarnation of the only Son, what should we persuade them to add to their own confession? That a soul was taken as well, for they say that the divine Word took only a body. And what does Apollinarius lack, to make his teaching about the incarnation accurate? Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess that a rational soul was taken along with the body. Then shall we argue with him on this point? Certainly. But on this subject, what did we say Marcion, Valentinus, Mani and their followers confess, and what do they deny altogether? That they declared their belief in the Godhead of Christ, but do not accept the teaching of his humanity. So we will do our best to persuade them to accept the teaching of the humanity as well, and not to call the divine incarnation a mere appearance. [r] It will be well to do so. So we will tell them that it is right to call the Christ not only God but also man. By all means. And how can we persuade others to call the Christ “man” while we excuse ourselves from doing it? They will not yield to our persuasion. On the contrary, they will convict us of agreeing with them. And how can we agree with them, when we confess that the divine Word took flesh and a rational soul? If we confess the fact, why shun the word? It is right to name the Christ from his nobler qualities. Then keep to this rule. Do not speak of him as crucified, or as risen from the dead, and so on. But these are the names of the sufferings that save us. To deny the sufferings is to deny the salvation. And the name “man” is the name of a nature. Not to say the name is to deny the nature. To deny the nature is to deny the sufferings, and to deny the sufferings does away with the salvation. I hold that it is useful to acknowledge the nature he took. But to call the Savior of the world man belittles the glory of the Lord.

Do you think yourself wiser, then, than Peter and Paul, yes, and than the Savior himself? For the Lord said to the Jews, “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from my Father?” And he often called himself the Son of Man. [s] And the worthy Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you.” And the blessed Paul, bringing the message of salvation to the leaders of the Areopagus, said this among many other things: [t] “God overlooked the times of this ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained. Of this he has given assurance to all people by raising him from the dead.” So whoever excuses himself from using the name that the Lord and his apostles laid down and preached thinks himself wiser even than these great instructors, yes, even than the very wellspring of the wisest. [u] They gave this teaching to unbelievers. But now the greater part of the world has professed the faith. [v] But we still have Jews and pagans among us, and heretical systems without number, and to each of these we must give teaching that is fit and appropriate. But suppose we were all of one mind. Tell me, what harm is there in calling the Christ both God and man? Do we not see in him perfect Godhead, and humanity likewise lacking in nothing? We have admitted this again and again. Then why deny what we have admitted again and again? I hold it unnecessary to call the Christ “man,” especially when believer is talking with believer. Do you consider the divine apostle a believer? Yes, a teacher of all believers. And do you think Timothy worthy of that name? Yes, both as a disciple of the apostle and as a teacher of the rest. Very well. Then hear the teacher of teachers writing to his most mature disciple: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.” So stop your idle chatter and your laying down the law about divine names. Moreover, in this passage the very name “mediator” points to both Godhead and humanity. He is called a mediator because he does not exist as God alone. For if he had had nothing of our nature, how could he have mediated between us and God? But since as God he is joined with God, having the same substance, and as man he is joined with us, because he took the form of a servant from us, he is rightly called a mediator. He unites distinct qualities in himself by the union of the natures, I mean of Godhead and of humanity. [w]

But was not Moses called a mediator, though he was only a man? [x] He was a type of the reality, and the type does not have all the qualities of the reality. That is why, though Moses was not God by nature, he was called a god, to fulfill the type. For God says, “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh.” And directly afterward he gives him a prophet too, as though to a god: “Aaron your brother,” he says, “shall be your prophet.” But the reality is God by nature and man by nature. [y] But who would call something a type when it does not have the distinctive marks of the archetype? So, it seems, you do not call the emperor’s images images of the emperor. Yes, I do. Yet they do not have all the marks of their archetype. In the first place, they have neither life nor reason. Second, they have no inner organs, I mean heart and belly and liver and the parts around them. Further, they show the outward form of the organs of sense but perform none of their work: they do not hear or speak or see; they cannot write; they cannot walk or do anything else a human being does. And yet they are called statues of the emperor. It is in this sense that Moses was a mediator and Christ was a mediator: the former as an image and type, the latter as the reality. But to make this point clearer to you from yet another passage, call to mind the words used of Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews.

What words? The ones in which the divine apostle, comparing the Levitical priesthood with that of Christ, likens Melchizedek in other respects to the Lord Christ, and says that the Lord held the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. [z] I think the divine apostle’s words are these: “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom Abraham also gave a tenth part of everything, being first, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” I take it this is the passage you meant. [aa] Yes, I meant this one, and I must praise you for not cutting it short but quoting the whole. Now tell me: does each of these points fit Melchizedek in nature and in reality? Who would dare deny that they fit, when the divine apostle has said they do? Then you say that all this fits Melchizedek by nature? Yes. Do you say that he was a man, or did he take on some other nature? A man. Begotten or unbegotten? You are asking very absurd questions. The fault is yours, for openly opposing the truth. So answer. There is only one who is unbegotten, and he is God and Father. Then we say that Melchizedek was begotten? Yes. But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words you quoted a moment ago: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” How then do the words “without father and without mother” fit him? And how does the statement fit him that he had neither beginning of existence nor end, since all this goes beyond human nature? These things do in fact pass the limits of human nature. Then shall we say that the apostle told lies? Far from it! How then can we both bear witness to the apostle’s truth and attribute what is beyond nature to Melchizedek? The passage is a very difficult one, and needs much explaining. For anyone willing to consider it with attention, it will not be hard to grasp the meaning of the words. After saying “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine apostle adds, “made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is the archetype of Melchizedek in the things that concern human nature. And he speaks of Melchizedek as “made like the Son of God.” Now let us look at the point this way: do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh? [ab] Certainly not. Why? He was born of the holy Virgin alone. So he is rightly called “without father”? True. Do you say that according to the divine nature he had a mother? Certainly not. For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages? Agreed. And again, since the birth he has from the Father cannot be told, he is called “without genealogy.” “Who,” says the prophet, “will tell of his birth?” [ac] You are right. So it suits him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life, for he is without beginning, imperishable, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father. That is my view too. But now we must consider how this fits the admirable Melchizedek. As an image and a type. As we have just observed, the image does not have all the properties of the archetype. So these qualities belong to the Savior both by nature and in reality, but the account of the race’s beginnings has attributed them to Melchizedek. For it tells us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and likewise of Jacob and his sons, and it sets out the family line of our first forefathers. But of Melchizedek it records neither father nor mother, nor does it say that he traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons. It does this so 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 from Abraham, and blessed him who had the promises.” [ad] Then, since Holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother? If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image but the reality. But since these qualities are his not by nature but by the arrangement of the divine Scripture, he shows the type of the reality. [ae] The type must have the character of the archetype.

Is man called an image of God? Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God. [af] Then listen to the apostle. He says, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” [ag] Granted, then, that he is an image of God. Then by your argument he must plainly have kept the marks of the archetype. He must have been uncreated, not made of parts, and without limit. He ought likewise to have been able to create out of what did not exist, and to have fashioned all things by his word and without labor. Besides this, he ought to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger and sin, to have been immortal and imperishable, and to have all the qualities of the archetype. Man is not an image of God in every respect. Even in the respects in which you would grant that he truly is an image, you will find him separated from the reality by a wide gap. Agreed. Consider this point too. The divine apostle calls the Son the image of the Father, for he says, “He is the image of the invisible God.” [ah] What then? Does the Son not have all the qualities of the Father? He is not Father. He is not without a cause. He is not unbegotten. If he were, he would not be Son. Then does not what I said hold good, that the image does not have all the qualities of the archetype? True. In this sense too the divine apostle said that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God. [ai] Suppose we grant that he is without father and without mother and without genealogy, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life? When the holy Moses wrote the ancient genealogy, he tells us how Adam, at such and such an age, fathered Seth, and how, after living so many years, he ended his life. He writes in the same way of Seth, of Enoch and of the rest. But of Melchizedek he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life. So, as far as the story goes, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life. But in truth and reality the only Son of God never began to exist and will never have an end. [aj] Agreed. So, in what belongs to God and is truly divine, Melchizedek is a type of the Lord Christ. But in the priesthood, which belongs to man rather than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. For Melchizedek was high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ has made for all people the most holy offering that brings salvation. [ak]

We have spent many words on this matter. Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one. Let us go back to the question before us. What was the question? When I remarked that Christ must not be called man but only God, you brought, among many other testimonies, the well-known words the apostle used in his letter to Timothy: “One God, one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to be given at the proper time.” [al] I remember where we turned aside into this digression. It was when I said that the name “mediator” shows the two natures of the Savior, and you said that Moses was called a mediator though he was only a man, and not God and man. So I had to follow up these points, to show that the type does not have all the qualities of the archetype. Tell me, then: do you agree that the Savior ought also to be called man? I call him God, for he is God’s Son. If you call him God because you have learned that he is God’s Son, call him man too, for he often called himself “Son of Man.” The name man does not apply to him in the same way as the name God. Because it does not really belong to him, or for some other reason? God is his name by nature; man is his name by the incarnation. [am] But are we to regard the incarnation as real, or as something imaginary and false? As real. If, then, the grace of the incarnation is real, and what we call the incarnation is the divine Word’s being made man, then the name man is real too. For after taking human nature he is called man. Before his suffering he was called man, but afterward he was no longer called so. [an] But it was after the suffering and the resurrection that the divine apostle wrote the letter to Timothy in which he speaks of Christ the Savior as man. And writing to the Corinthians after the suffering and the resurrection, he exclaims, “For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man.” And to make his meaning clear he adds, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” And after the suffering and the resurrection the divine Peter, speaking to the Jews, called him man. And after he was taken up into heaven, Stephen the victor, in the storm of stones, said to the Jews, “Look, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” Are we to think ourselves wiser than the illustrious heralds of the truth? [ao] I do not think myself wiser than the holy teachers, but I do not see the use of the name. Then how could you persuade those who deny the Lord’s incarnation, the Marcionites, I mean, and the Manichaeans, and all the others who are unsound in this way, to accept the teaching of the truth, unless you bring these proofs and others like them, to show that the Lord Christ is not God only but also man? Perhaps it is necessary to bring them.

Then why not teach the faithful the truth of the doctrine? Have you forgotten the apostle’s command that bids us be “ready to give an answer”? Now let us look at the matter this way. Does the best general engage the enemy, shoot arrows and hurl javelins, and try to break their line all by himself? Or does he also arm his men, draw them up in order, and stir their hearts to fight like men? [ap] He ought rather to do the latter. Yes. For it is not a general’s part to risk his own life and take his place in the ranks while his men lie fast asleep. Rather, he should keep them awake for their work at their posts. True. This is what the divine Paul did. Writing to those who had professed the faith, he said, “Take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.” And again, “Stand, therefore, with your waist belted with truth,” and so on. Remember too what we said before, that a physician supplies what nature lacks. Does he find too much cold? He supplies heat, and so with the rest. And this is what the Lord does. [aq] And where will you show that the Lord has done this? In the holy Gospels. Show me, then, and keep your promise.

What did the Jews think our Savior Christ was? A man. And they knew nothing at all of his being God as well. Yes. Was it not necessary, then, for those who did not know to learn? Agreed. Then listen to him saying to them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these works do you stone me?” And when they answered, “We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God,” he added, “It is written in your law, I said, You are gods. If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me… that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” [ar] In the passages you have just read, you have shown that the Lord showed himself to the Jews as God, and not as man. Yes, for they did not need to learn what they knew. That he was a man they knew, but they did not know that he was God from the beginning. He took this same course with the Pharisees. When he saw them addressing him as a mere man, he asked them, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” And when they said, “David’s,” he went on, “How then does David call him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand’?” Then he goes on to argue, “If he is his Lord, how is he his son?” [as] You have brought testimony against yourself. For the Lord plainly taught the Pharisees to call him not “Son of David” but “Lord of David.” So he is clearly shown to want to be called God, and not man. I am afraid you have not paid attention to the divine teaching. He did not reject the name “Son of David,” but he added that he ought also to be believed to be David’s Lord. He shows this clearly in the words, “If he is his Lord, how then is he his son?” He did not say, “If he is Lord, he is not son,” but, “How is he his son?”, as a way of saying that in one respect he is Lord, and in another son. These passages plainly show both the Godhead and the humanity. There is no need for argument. The Lord plainly teaches that he does not wish to be called Son of David. Then he ought to have told the blind men, and the Canaanite woman, and the crowd not to call him Son of David. Yet the blind men cried out, “Son of David, have mercy on us!” And the Canaanite woman: “Have mercy on me, O Son of David! My daughter is severely tormented by a demon.” 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 badly; he even praised their faith. He freed the blind from their long, weary night and gave them the power of sight. He healed the Canaanite woman’s daughter, who had been driven mad and out of her mind, and drove out the wicked demon. And when the chief priests and Pharisees took offense at those who were shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David,” he not only did not stop them from shouting but even approved their acclamation. “I tell you,” he said, “if these keep silent, the stones will immediately cry out.” [at] He put up with this way of addressing him before the resurrection, stooping down to the weakness of those who had not yet properly believed. But after the resurrection these names are no longer needed. [au]

Where shall we rank the blessed Paul? Among the mature or the immature? [av] It is wrong to joke about serious things. It is wrong to make light of reading the divine oracles. And who is so wretched as to despise his own salvation? Answer my question, and then you will learn your ignorance. What question? Where are we to rank the divine apostle? Plainly among the most mature, and as one of the mature teachers. And when did he begin his teaching? After the Savior was taken up into heaven, after the coming of the Spirit and the stoning of the victorious Stephen. At the very end of his life, when Paul was writing his last letter to his disciple Timothy, and leaving him, as it were, a father’s inheritance by will, he added, “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my good news.” Then he went on to mention his sufferings for the good news, and so showed its truth, saying, “For which I suffer hardship as a criminal, even to the point of chains.” [aw] It would be easy for me to bring many testimonies like these, but I have judged it needless to do so. You promised to prove that the Lord supplied the teaching that was lacking to those who needed it. You have shown that he spoke about his own Godhead to the Pharisees and to the rest of the Jews. But you have not shown that he also gave teaching about the flesh. It would have been quite pointless to speak about the flesh, which was before their eyes, for he was plainly seen eating and drinking, toiling and sleeping. Further, to pass over the many and varied events before his suffering, after his resurrection he proved to his disbelieving disciples not his Godhead but his humanity. For he said, “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 that I have.” [ax] Now I have kept my promise. We have proved that he gave teaching about the Godhead to those who did not know the Godhead, and about the resurrection of the flesh to those who denied it. So stop contending, and confess the two natures of the Savior.

There were two before the union, but after they came together they made one nature. When do you say the union took place? At the very moment of conception, I say. And do you deny that the divine Word existed before the conception? I say that he existed before the ages. And that the flesh existed together with him? By no means. But that it was formed by the Holy Spirit after the angel’s greeting? So I say. Then before the union there were not two natures but only one. For if the Godhead existed beforehand, but the humanity did not exist along with it, being formed after the angel’s greeting, and the union took place at the same moment as the forming, then before the union there was one nature, the one that always exists and existed before the ages. Now let us consider this point again. Do you take the taking of flesh, or the becoming man, to be anything other than the union? No. For when he took flesh, he was made flesh. Plainly. And the union coincides with the taking of flesh. So I say. So before the becoming man there was one nature. For if the union and the becoming man are the same thing, and he was made man by taking human nature, and the form of God took the form of a servant, then before the union the divine nature was one. And how are the union and the becoming man the same thing? A moment ago you admitted that there is no difference between these terms. You led me astray with your arguments. Then, if you like, let us go over the same ground again. We had better do so. Is there a difference between the incarnation and the union, in the nature of the event itself? Certainly, a very great difference. Explain fully what this difference is. Even the meaning of the terms shows the difference. The word “incarnation” means the taking of flesh, while the word “union” means the joining together of distinct things. Do you make the incarnation earlier than the union? By no means. You say the union took place in the conception? I do. Then if not even the smallest moment of time came between the taking of flesh and the union, and the nature that was taken did not exist before the taking and the union, then incarnation and union mean one and the same thing. And so before the union and incarnation there was one nature, while after the incarnation we rightly speak of two: the one that took and the one that was taken. I say that Christ was from two natures, but I deny two natures. [ay]

Then explain to us in what sense you take the phrase “from two natures.” Like gilded silver? Like the alloy called electrum? Like solder made of lead and tin? [az] I deny that the union is like any of these. It cannot be told, and it passes all understanding. I too confess that the manner of the union cannot be grasped. But I have at any rate been taught by the divine Scripture that each nature remains unimpaired after the union. And where is this taught in the divine Scripture? It is full of this teaching. Prove what you say. Do you not acknowledge the properties of each nature? No, not after the union. Then let us learn this very point from the divine Scripture. I am ready to obey the divine Scripture. When you hear the divine John exclaim, “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 the other passages like them, do you say that it was the flesh that was in the beginning with God, and was God by nature, and made all things, or the divine Word, begotten of the Father before the ages? [ba] I say that these things belong to God the Word. But I do not separate him from the flesh that was made one with him. Neither do we separate the flesh from God the Word, nor do we make the union a confusion. I acknowledge one nature after the union. When did the evangelists write the Gospel? Before the union, or a very long time after it? Plainly after the union, the birth, the miracles, the suffering, the resurrection, the taking up into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.