Orth. -Why then does he introduce the resurrection of the Lord, when he wishes to prove the resurrection of the bodies?
Eran. -As sufficient to prove the resurrection of us all.
Orth. -In what is His death like the death of the rest; that by His resurrection may be proved the resurrection of all?
Eran. -The reason of the incarnation, suffering, and death of the only begotten Son of God, was that He might destroy death. Thus, after rising, by His own resurrection He preaches the resurrection of all.
Orth. -But who, hearing of a resurrection of God, would ever believe that the resurrection of all men would be exactly like it? The difference of the natures does not allow of our believing in the argument of the resurrection. He is God and they are men, and the difference between God and men is incalculable. They are mortal, and subject to death, like to the grass and to the flower. He is almighty.
Eran. -But after His incarnation God the Word had a body, and through this He proved His likeness to men.
Orth. -Yes; and for this reason the suffering and the death and the resurrection are all of the body, and in proof of this the divine Apostle in another place promises renewal of life to all, and to them that believe in the resurrection of their Saviour, yet look upon the general resurrection of all as fable, he exclaims, "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen, and if Christ he not risen ...your faith is vain, you are yet ill your sins." And from the past he confirms the future, and from what is disbelieved he disproves what is believed, for he says, If the one seems impossible to you, then the other will be false; if the one seems real and true, then let the other in like manner seem true, for here too a resurrection of the body is preached, and this body is called the first fruits of those. The resurrection of this body after many arguments he affirms directly, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept, for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," and he does not only confirm the argument of the resurrection, but also reveals the mystery of the oeconomy. He calls Christ man that he may prove the remedy to be appropriate to the disease.
Eran. -Then the Christ is only a man.
Orth. -God forbid. On the contrary, we have again and again confessed that He is not only man but eternal God. But He suffered as man, not as God. And this the divine Apostle clearly teaches us when he says "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." And in his letter to the Thessalonians, he strengthens his argument concerning the general resurrection by that of our Saviour in the passage "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
Eran. -The Apostle proves the general resurrection by means of the Lord's resurrection, and it is clear that in this case also what died and rose was a body. For he would never have attempted to prove the general resurrection by its means unless there had been some relation between the substance of the one and the other. I shall never consent to apply the passion to the human nature alone. It seems agreeable to my view to say that God the Word died in the flesh.
Orth. -We have frequently shewn that what is naturally immortal can in no way die. If then He died He was not immortal; and what perils lie in the blasphemy of the words.
Eran.-He is by nature immortal, but He became man and suffered.
Orth. -Therefore He underwent change, for how otherwise could He being immortal submit to death? But we have agreed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable. Having therefore a nature superior to change, He by no means shared death.
Eran. -The divine Peter says "Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh."
Orth. -This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.
Eran. -How then can you deny that God the Word suffered in the flesh?
Orth. -Because we have not found this expression in the divine Scripture.
Eran. -But I have just quoted you the utterance of the great Peter.
Orth. -You seem to ignore the distinction of the terms.
Eran. -What terms? Do you not regard the Lord Christ as God the Word?
Orth. -The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us, both God and man, but the term "God the Word" so said signifies the simple nature before the world, superior to time, and incorporeal. Wherefore the Holy Ghost that spake through the holy Apostles nowhere attributes passion or death to this name.
Eran. -If the passion is attributed to the Christ, and God the Word after being made man was called Christ, I hold that he who states God the Word to have suffered in the flesh is in no way unreasonable.
Orth. -Hazardous and rash in the extreme is such an attempt. But let us look at the question in this way. Does the divine Scripture state God the Word to be of God and of the Father?
Eran. -True.
Orth. -And it describes the Holy Ghost as being in like manner of God?