Orth. -See how you have brought in again that division which you object to.
Eran. -It was not possible to explain the kinship in any other way.
Orth. -Then do not find fault with those who cannot explain similar difficulties in any other way.
Eran. -Now you are getting the argument off the track because you want to shirk the question.
Orth. -Not at all, my friend. That will be settled too by the points we have investigated. Now look; when you were reminded of James the brother of the Lord, you said that the relationship referred not to the Godhead but to the flesh.
Eran. -I did.
Orth. -Well, now that you are told of the passion of the cross, refer this too to the flesh.
Eran. -The Apostle called the crucified "Lord of Glory," and the same Apostle called the Lord "brother of James."
Orth. -And it is the same Lord in both cases. If then you are right in referring the relationship to the flesh you must also refer the passion to the flesh, for it is perfectly ridiculous to regard the relationship without distinction and to refer the passion to Christ without distinction.
Eran. -I follow the Apostle who calls the crucified "Lord of glory."
Orth. -I follow too, and believe that He was "Lord of glory." For the body which was nailed to the wood was not that of any common man but of the Lord of glory. But we must acknowledge that the union makes the names common. Once more: do you say that the flesh of the Lord came down from heaven?
Eran. -Of course not.
Orth. -But was formed in the Virgin's womb?
Eran. -Yes.
Orth. -How, then, does the Lord say "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before," and again "No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?"
Eran. -He is speaking not of the flesh, but of the Godhead.
Orth. -Yes; but the Godhead is of the God and Father. How then does He call him Son of man?
Eran. -The peculiar properties of the natures are shared by the person, for on account of the union the same being is both Son of man and Son of God, everlasting and of time, Son of David and Lord of David, and so on with the rest.
Orth. -Very right. But it is also important to recognise the fact that no confusion of natures results from both having one name. Wherefore we are endeavouring to distinguish how the same being is Son of God and also Son of man, and how He is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," and by the reverent distinction of terms we find that the contradictions are in agreement.
Eran. -You are right.
Orth. -You say that the divine nature came down from heaven and that in consequence of the union it was called the Son of man. Thus it behoves us to say that the flesh was nailed to the tree, but to hold that the divine nature even on the cross and in the tomb was inseparable from this flesh, though from it it derived no sense of suffering, since the divine nature is naturally incapable of undergoing both suffering and death and its substance is immortal and impassible. It is in this sense that the crucified is styled Lord of Glory, by attribution of the title of the impassible nature to the passible, since, as we know, a body is described as belonging to this latter.
Now let us examine the matter thus. The words of the divine Apostle are "Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." They crucified the nature which they knew, not that of which they were wholly ignorant: had they known that of which they were ignorant they would not have crucified that which they knew: they crucified the human because they were ignorant of the divine. Have you forgotten their own words. "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." These words are a plain proof that they recognised the nature they saw, while of the invisible they were wholly ignorant: had they known that nature they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Eran. -That is very probable, but the exposition of the faith laid down by the Fathers in council at Nicae says that the only begotten Himself, very God, of one substance with the Father, suffered and was crucified.
Orth. -You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and again.
Eran. -What do you mean?