Eran. -What do you say to those words of the Apostle "Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"? in this passage he mentions neither body nor soul.
Orth. -Therefore you must not put the words "in the flesh" in it,-for this is your ingenious invention for decrying the Godhead of the Word-but must attribute the passion to the bare Godhead of the Word.
Eran. -No; no. He suffered in the flesh, but His incorporeal nature was not capable of suffering by itself.
Orth. -Ah! but nothing must be added to the Apostle's words.
Eran. -When we know the Apostle's meaning there is nothing absurd in adding what is left out.
Orth. -But to add anything to the divine words is wild and rash. To explain what is written and reveal the hidden meaning is holy and pious.
Eran. -Quite right.
Orth. -We two then shall do nothing unreasonable and unholy in examining the mind of the Scriptures.
Eran. -No.
Orth. -Let us then look together into what seems to be hidden.
Eran. -By all means.
Orth. -Did the great Paul call the divine James the Lord's brother?
Eran. -He did.
Orth. -But in what sense are we to regard him as brother? By relationship of His godhead or of His manhood?
Eran. -I will not consent to divide the united natures.
Orth. -But you have often divided them in our previous investigations, and yon shall do the same thing now. Tell me; do you say that God the Word was only begotten Son?
Eran. -I do.
Orth. -And only begotten means only Son.
Eran. -Certainly.
Orth. -And the only begotten cannot have a brother?
Eran. -Of course not, for if He had had a brother He would not be called the only begotten.
Orth. -Then they were wrong in calling James the brother of the Lord. For the Lord was only begotten, and the only begotten cannot have a brother.
Eran. -No, but the Lord is not incorporeal and the proclaimers of the truth are referring only to what touches the godhead.
Orth. -How then would you prove the word of the apostle true?
Eran. -By saying that James was of kin with the Lord according to the flesh.