Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus.
Orth. —It is mad and rash against those noble champions of the faith so much as to wag your tongue. But I will adduce for you the words of Apollinarius, in order that you may know that he too asserts the union to be without confusion. Now hear his words.
Testimony of Apollinarius.
From his summary:—
“There is an union between what is of God and what is of the body. On the one side is the adorable Creator Who is wisdom and power eternal; these are of the Godhead. On the other hand is the Son of Mary, born at the last time, worshipping God, advancing in wisdom, strengthened in power; these are of the body. The suffering on behalf of sin and the curse came and will not pass away nor yet be changed into the incorporeal.”
“Men are consubstantial with the unreasoning animals as far as the unreasoning body is concerned; they are of another substance in so far forth as they are reasonable. Just so God who is consubstantial with men according to the flesh is of another substance in so far forth as He is Word and Man.”
And in another place he says:—
“Of things which are mingled together the qualities are mixed and not destroyed. Thus it comes to pass that some are separate from the mixed parts as wine from water, nor yet is there mingling with a body, nor yet as of bodies with bodies, but the mingling preserves also the unmixed, so that, as each occasion may require, the energy of the Godhead either acts independently or in conjunction, as was the case when the Lord fasted, for the Godhead being in conjunction in proportion to its being above need, hunger was hindered, but when it no longer opposed to the craving its superiority to need, then hunger arose, to the undoing of the devil. But if the mixture of the bodies suffered no change, how much more that of the Godhead?”
And in another place he says:—
“If the mixture with iron which makes the iron itself fire does not change its nature, so too the union of God with the body implies no change of the body, even though the body extend its divine energies to what is within its reach.”
To this he immediately adds:—
“If a man has both soul and body, and these remain in unity, much more does the Christ, who has Godhead and body, keep both secure and unconfounded.”
“For human nature is partaker of the divine energy, as far as it is capable, but it is as distinct as the least from the greatest. Man is a servant of God, but God is not servant of man, nor even of Himself. Man is a creature of God, but God is not a creature of man, nor even of Himself.”
“If any one takes in reference to Godhead and not in reference to flesh the passage the ‘Son doeth what He seeth the Father do,’ wherein He Who was made flesh is distinct from the Father Who was not made flesh, divides two divine energies. But there is no division. So He does not speak in reference to Godhead.”
Again he says:—
“As man is not an unreasoning being, on account of the contact of the reasoning and the unreasoning, just so the Saviour is not a creature on account of the contact of the creature with God uncreate.”
To this he also adds:—
“The invisible which is united to a visible body and thereby is beheld, remains invisible, and it remains without composition because it is not circumscribed with the body, and the body, remaining in its own measure, accepts the union with God in accordance with its being quickened, nor is it that which is quickened which quickens.”
And a little further on he says:—
“If the mixture with soul and body, although from the beginning they coalesce, does not make the soul visible on account of the body, nor change it into the other properties of the body, so as to allow of its being cut or lessened, how much rather God, who is not of the same nature as the body, is united to the body without undergoing change, if the body of man remains in its own nature, and this when it is animated by a soul, then in the case of Christ the commingling does not so change the body as that it is not a body.”
And further on he says again:—
“He who confesses that soul and body are constituted one by the Scripture, is inconsistent with himself when he asserts that this union of the Word with the body is a change, such change being not even beheld in the case of a soul.”
Listen to him again exclaiming clearly:—
“If they are impious who deny that the flesh of the Lord abides, much more are they who refuse wholly to accept His incarnation.”
And in his little book about the Incarnation he has written:—
“The words ‘Sit thou on my right hand’ He speaks as to man, for they are not spoken to Him that sits ever on the throne of glory, as God the Word after His ascension from earth, but they are said to Him who hath now been exalted to the heavenly glory as man, as the Apostles say ‘for David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself the Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right hand.’ The order is human, giving a beginning to the sitting; but it is a divine dignity to sit together with God ‘to whom thousand thousands minister and before whom ten thousand times ten thousand stand.’”
“He does not put His enemies under Him as God but as man, but so that the God who is seen and man are the same. Paul too teaches us that the words ‘until I make thy foes thy footstool’ are spoken to men, describing the success as His own of course in accordance with His divinity ‘According to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself.’
Behold Godhead and manhood existing inseparably in One Person.”
“‘Glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.’ The word ‘glorify’ He uses as man, but His having this glory before the ages He reveals as God.”
“But let us not be humiliated as thinking the worship of the Son of God humiliation, even in His human likeness, but as though honouring some king appearing in poor raiment with his royal glory, and above all seeing that the very garb in which He is clad is glorified, as became the body of God and of the world’s Saviour which is seed of eternal life, instrument of divine deeds, destroyer of all wickedness, slayer of death and prince of resurrection; for though it had its nature from man it derived its life from God, and its power and divine virtue from heaven.”
“Whence we worship the body as the Word; we partake of the body as of the spirit.”
Now it has been plainly shewn you that the author who was first to introduce the mixture of the natures openly uses the argument of a distinction between them; thus he has called the body garb, creature and instrument; he even went so far as to call it slave, which none of us has ever ventured to do. He also says that it was deemed worthy of the seat on the right hand, and uses many other expressions which are rejected by your vain heresy.
Eran. —But why then did he who was the first to introduce the mixture insert so great a distinction in his arguments?
Orth. —The power of truth forces even them that vehemently fight against her to agree with what she says, but, if you will, let us now begin a discussion about the impassibility of the Lord.
Eran. —You know that musicians are accustomed to give their strings rest, and they slacken them by turning the pegs; if then things altogether void of reason and soul stand in need of some recreation, we who partake of both shall do nothing absurd if we mete out our labour in proportion to our power. Let us then put it off till tomorrow.
Orth. —The divine David charges us to give heed to the divine oracles by night and by day; but let it be as you say, and let us keep the investigation of the remainder of our subject till to-morrow.
Dialogue III.—The Impassible.
Orthodoxus and Eranistes.
Orth. —In our former discussions we have proved that God the Word is immutable, and became incarnate not by being changed into flesh, but by taking perfect human nature. The divine Scripture, and the teachers of the churches and luminaries of the world have clearly taught us that, after the union, He remained as He was, unmixed, impassible, unchanged, uncircumscribed; and that He preserved unimpaired the nature which He had taken. For the future then the subject before us is that of His passion, and it will be a very profitable one, for thence have been brought to us the waters of salvation.
Eran. —I am also of opinion that this discourse will be beneficial. I shall not however consent to our former method, but I propose myself to ask questions.
Orth. —And I will answer, without making any objection to the change of method. He who has truth on his side, not only when he questions but also when he is questioned, is supported by the might of the truth. Ask then what you will.
Eran. —Who, according to your view, suffered the passion?
Orth. —Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Eran. —Then a man gave us our salvation.
Orth. —No; for have we confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ was only man?
Eran. —Now define what you believe Christ to be.
Orth. —Incarnate Son of the living God.
Eran. —And is the Son of God God?
Orth. —God, having the same substance as the God Who begat Him.
Eran. —Then God underwent the passion.
Orth. —If He was nailed to the cross without a body, apply the passion to the Godhead; but if he was made man by taking flesh, why then do you exempt the passible from the passion and subject the impassible to it?
Eran. —But the reason why He took flesh was that the impassible might undergo the passion by means of the passible.
Orth. —You say impassible and apply passion to Him.
Eran. —I said that He took flesh to suffer.
Orth. —If He had had a nature capable of the Passion He would have suffered without flesh; so the flesh becomes superfluous.
Eran. —The divine nature is immortal, and the nature of the flesh mortal, so the immortal was united with the mortal, that through it He might taste of death.
Orth. —That which is by nature immortal does not undergo death, even when conjoined with the mortal; this is easy to see.
Eran. —Prove it; and remove the difficulty.
Orth. —Do you assert that the human soul was immortal, or mortal?
Eran. —Immortal.
Orth. —And is the body mortal or immortal?
Eran. —Indubitably mortal.
Orth. —And do we say that man consists of these natures?
Orth. —So the immortal is conjoined with the mortal?
Orth. —But when the connexion or union is at an end, the mortal submits to the law of death, while the soul remains immortal though sin has introduced death, or do you not hold death to be a penalty?
Eran. —So divine Scripture teaches. For we learn that when God forbade Adam to partake of the tree of knowledge He added “on the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die.”
Orth. —Then death is the punishment of them that have sinned?