Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus.
Eran. —It will be well so to do.
Orth. —We will therefore tell them that it is right to style the Christ not only God, but also man.
Orth. —And how is it possible for us to induce others to style the Christ ‘man’ while we excuse ourselves from doing so? They will not yield to our persuasion, but on the contrary will convict us of agreeing with them.
Eran. —And how can we, confessing as we do that the divine Word took flesh and a reasonable soul, agree with them?
Orth. —If we confess the fact, why then shun the word?
Eran. —It is right to name the Christ from His nobler qualities.
Orth. —Keep this rule then. Do not speak of Him as crucified, nor yet as risen from the dead, and so on.
Eran. —But these are the names of the sufferings of salvation. Denial of the sufferings implies denial of the salvation.
Orth. —And the name Man is the name of a nature. Not to pronounce the name is to deny the nature: denial of the nature is denial of the sufferings, and denial of the sufferings does away with the salvation.
Eran. —I hold it profitable to acknowledge the assumed nature; but to style the Saviour of the world man is to belittle the glory of the Lord.
Orth. —Do you then deem yourself wiser than Peter and Paul; aye, and than the Saviour Himself? For the Lord said to the Jews “Why do ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard of my Father?” And He frequently called Himself Son of Man.
And the meritorious Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says,—“Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you.” And the blessed Paul, when bringing the message of salvation to the chiefs of the Areopagus, among many other things said this,—
“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” He then who excuses himself from using the name appointed and preached by the Lord and his Apostles deems himself wiser than even these great instructors, aye, even than the very well-spring of the wisest.
Eran. —They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the greater part of the world has professed the faith.
Orth. —But we have still among us Jews and pagans and of heretics systems innumerable, and to each of these we must give fit and appropriate teaching. But, supposing we were all of one mind, tell me now, what harm is there in calling the Christ both God and man? Do we not behold in Him perfect Godhead, and manhood likewise lacking in nothing?
Eran. —This we have owned again and again.
Orth. —Why then deny what we have again and again owned?
Eran. —I hold it unnecessary to call the Christ ‘man,’—especially when believer is conversing with believer.
Orth. —Do you consider the divine Apostle a believer?
Eran. —Yes: a teacher of all believers.
Orth. —And do you deem Timothy worthy of being so styled?
Eran. —Yes: both as a disciple of the Apostle, and as a teacher of the rest.
Orth. —Very well: then hear the teacher of teachers writing to his very perfect disciple. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” Do stop your idle prating, and laying down the law about divine names. Moreover in this passage that very name ‘mediator’ stands indicative both of Godhead and of manhood. He is called a mediator because He does not exist as God alone; for how, if He had had nothing of our nature could He have mediated between us and God? But since as God He is joined with God as having the same substance, and as man with us, because from us He took the form of a servant, He is properly termed a mediator, uniting in Himself distinct qualities by the unity of natures of Godhead, I mean, and of manhood.
Eran. —But was not Moses called a mediator, though only a man?
Orth. —He was a type of the reality: but the type has not all the qualities of the reality. Wherefore though Moses was not by nature God, yet, to fulfil the type, he was called a god. For He says “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.”
And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to God, for “Aaron thy brother,” He says, “shall be thy Prophet.” But the reality is by nature God, and by nature man.
Eran. —But who would call one not having the distinct characteristics of the archetype, a type?
Orth. —The imperial images, it seems, you do not call images of the emperor.
Eran. —Yes, I do.
Orth. —Yet they have not all the characteristics which their archetype has. For in the first place they have neither life nor reason; secondly they have no inner organs, heart, I mean, and belly and liver and the adjacent parts. Further they present the appearance of the organs of sense, but perform none of their functions, for they neither hear, nor speak, nor see; they cannot write; they cannot walk, nor perform any other human action; and yet they are called imperial statues. In this sense Moses was a mediator and Christ was a mediator; but the former as an image and type and the latter as reality. But that I may make this point clearer to you from yet another authority, call to mind the words used of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Eran. —What words?
Orth. —Those in which the divine Apostle comparing the Levitical priesthood with that of the Christ likens Melchisedec in other respects to the Lord Christ, and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec.
Eran. —I think the words of the divine Apostle are as follows;—“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest continually.” I presume you spoke of this passage.
Orth. —Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not mutilating it, but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of these points fit Melchisedec in nature and reality?
Eran. —Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine apostle has asserted it?
Orth. —Then you say that all this fits Melchisedec by nature?
Orth. —Do you say that he was a man, or assumed some other nature?
Eran. —A man.
Orth. —Begotten or unbegotten?
Eran. —You are asking very absurd questions.
Orth. —The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth. Answer then.
Eran. —There is one only unbegotten, who is God and Father.
Orth. —Then we assert that Melchisedec was begotten?
Orth. —But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words which you quoted a moment ago, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” How then do the words “Without father and without mother” fit him; and how the statement that he neither received beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends humanity?
Eran. —These things do in fact overstep the limits of human nature.
Orth. —Then shall we say that the Apostle told lies?
Eran. —God forbid.
Orth. —How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the Apostle, and apply the supernatural to Melchisedec?
Eran. —The passage is a very difficult one, and requires much explanation.
Orth. —For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine Apostle adds “made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.” Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchisedec in things concerning the human nature. And he speaks of Melchisedec as “made like unto the Son of God.” Now let us examine the point in this manner;—do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh?
Orth. —Why?
Eran. —He was born of the holy Virgin alone.
Orth. —He is therefore properly styled “without father”?
Orth. —Do you say that according to the divine Nature He had a mother?
Orth. —For He was begotten of the Father alone before the ages?
Orth. —And yet, as the generation He has of the Father is ineffable, He is spoken of as “without descent.” “Who” says the prophet “shall declare His generation?”
Orth. —Thus it becomes Him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for He is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.
Eran. —This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchisedec.
Orth. —As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Saviour these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchisedec. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and in like manner of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, of Melchisedec it records neither the father nor the mother, nor does it teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons, to the end 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 of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”
Eran. —Then, since Holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother?
Orth. —If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the Divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality.
Eran. —The type must have the character of the archetype.
Orth. —Is man called an image of God?
Eran. —Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God.
Orth. —Listen then to the Apostle. He says: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”
Eran. —Granted, then, that he is an image of God.
Orth. —According to your argument then he must needs have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded, and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype.