Orth. -Was He then changed into flesh?
Eran. -Certainly not.
Orth. -If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten-the Lord Christ-the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord. At one time He finds no fault with them that style Him Son of David; at another He teaches the ignorant that He is not only David's Son but also David's Lord. He calls Nazareth and Capernaum His country, and again He exclaims "Before Abraham was I am." You will find the divine Scripture full of similar passages, and they all point not to one nature but to two.
Eran. -He who contemplates two natures in the Christ divides the one only begotten into two sons.
Orth. -Yes; and he who says Paul is made up of soul and body makes two Pauls out of one.
Eran. -The analogy does not hold good.
Orth. -I know it does not, for here the union is a natural union of parts that are coaeval, created, and fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will, of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.
Eran. -If the proper qualities of the natures remain distinct, how does the soul together with the body crave for food?
Orth. -The soul does not crave for food. How could it when it is immortal? But the body, which derives its vital force from the soul, feels its need, and desires to receive what is lacking. So after toil it long, for rest, after waking for sleep, and so with the rest of its desires. So forthwith after its dissolution, since it has no longer its vital energy, it does not even crave for what is lacking, and, ceasing to receive it, it undergoes corruption.
Eran. -You see that to thirst and to hunger and similar appetites belong to the soul.
Orth. -Did these belong to the soul it would suffer hunger and thirst, and the similar wants, even after its release from the body.
Eran. -What then do you say to be proper to the soul?
Orth. -The reasonable, the absolute, the immortal, the invisible.
Eran. -And what of the body?
Orth. -The complex, the visible, the mortal.
Eran. -And we say that man is composed of these?
Orth. -Yes.
Eran. -Then we define man as a mortal reasonable being.
Orth. -Agreed.
Eran. -And we give names to him from both these attributes.
Orth. -Yes.
Eran. -As then in this case we make no distinction, but call the same man both reasonable and mortal, so also should we do in the case of the Christ, and apply to Him both the divine and the human.
Orth. -This is our argument, although you do not accurately express it. For look you. When we are pursuing the argument about the human soul, do we only mention what is appropriate to its energy and nature?
Eran. -This only.
Orth. -And when our discussion is about the body, do we not only recall what is appropriate to it?