Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus.
And writing to the blessed Timothy, the Apostle adds “It is a faithful saying, for if we be dead with Him we shall also live with Him, if we suffer we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him He will also deny us, if we believe not yet He abideth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” Again then the phrase “He cannot” is indicative of infinite power, for even though all men deny Him He says God is Himself, and cannot exist otherwise than in His own nature, for His being is indestructible. This is what is meant by the words “He cannot deny Himself.” Therefore the impossibility of change for the worse proves infinity of power.
Eran. —This is quite true and in harmony with the divine words.
Orth. —Granted then that with God many things are impossible,—everything, that is, which is repugnant to the divine nature,—how comes it that while you omit all the other qualities which belong to the divine nature, goodness, righteousness, truth, invisibility, incomprehensibility, infinity, and eternity, and the rest of the attributes which we assert to be proper to God, you maintain that His immortality and impassibility alone are subject to change, and in them concede the possibility of variation and give to God a capacity indicative of weakness?
Eran. —We have learnt this from the divine Scripture. The divine John exclaims “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” and the divine Paul, “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by His life.”
Orth. —Of course all this is true, for these are divine oracles, but remember what we have often confessed.
Eran. —What?
Orth. —We have confessed that God the Word the Son of God did not appear without a body, but assumed perfect human nature.
Eran. —Yes; this we have confessed.
Orth. —And He was called Son of Man because He took a body and human soul.
Orth. —Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is verily our God; for of these two natures the one was His from everlasting and the other He assumed.
Eran. —Indubitably.
Orth. —While, then, as man He underwent the passion, as God He remained incapable of suffering.
Eran. —How then does the divine Scripture say that the Son of God suffered?
Orth. —Because the body which suffered was His body. But let us look at the matter thus; when we hear the divine Scripture saying “And it came to pass when Isaac was old his eyes were dim so that he could not see,” whither is our mind carried and on what does it rest, on Isaac’s soul or on his body?
Eran. —Of course on his body.
Orth. —Do we then conjecture that his soul also shared in the affection of blindness?
Orth. —We assert that only his body was deprived of the sense of sight?
Orth. —And again when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos, “Oh thou seer go flee away into the land of Judah,” and Saul enquiring: “Tell me I pray thee where the seer’s house is,” we understand nothing bodily.
Orth. —And yet the words used are significant of the health of the organ of sight.
Orth. —Yet we know that the power of the Spirit when given to purer souls inspires prophetic grace and causes them to see even hidden things, and, in consequence of their thus seeing, they are called seers and beholders.
Eran. —What you say is true.
Orth. —And let us consider this too.
Eran. —What?
Orth. —When we hear the story of the divine evangelists narrating how they brought to God a man sick of the palsy, laid upon a bed, do we say that this was paralysis of the parts of the soul or of the body?
Eran. —Plainly of the body.
Orth. —And when while reading the Epistle to the Hebrews we light upon the passage where the Apostle says “Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees and make straight paths for your feet lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it rather be healed,” do we say that the divine Apostle said these things about the parts of the body?
Orth. —Shall we say that he was for removing the feebleness and infirmity of the soul and stimulating the disciples to manliness?
Eran. —Obviously.
Orth. —But we do not find these things distinguished in the divine Scripture, for in describing the blindness of Isaac he made no reference to the body, but spoke of Isaac as absolutely blind, nor in describing the prophets as seers and beholders did he say that their souls saw and beheld what was hidden, but mentioned the persons themselves.
Eran. —Yes; this is so.
Orth. —And he did not point out that the body of the paralytic was palsied, but called the man a paralytic.
Orth. —And even the divine Apostle made no special mention of the souls, though it was these that he purposed to strengthen and to rouse.
Eran. —No; he did not.
Orth. —But when we examine the meaning of the words, we understand which belongs to the soul and which to the body.
Eran. —And very naturally; for God made us reasonable beings.
Orth. —Then let us make use of this reasoning faculty in the case of our Maker and Saviour, and let us recognise what belongs to His Godhead and what to His manhood.
Eran. —But by doing this we shall destroy the supreme union.
Orth. —In the case of Isaac, of the prophets, of the man sick of the palsy, and of the rest, we did so without destroying the natural union of the soul and of the body; we did not even separate the souls from their proper bodies, but by reason alone distinguished what belonged to the soul and what to the body. Is it not then monstrous that while we take this course in the case of souls and bodies, we should refuse to do so in the case of our Saviour, and confound natures which differ not in the same proportion as soul from body, but in as vast a degree as the temporal from the eternal and the Creator from the created?
Eran. —The divine Scripture says that the Son of God underwent the passion.
Orth. —We deny that it was suffered by any other, but none the less, taught by the divine Scripture, we know that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. We are told of impassibility and of passion, of manhood and of Godhead, and we therefore attribute the passion to the passible body, and confess that no passion was undergone by the nature that was impassible.
Eran. —Then a body won our salvation for us.
Orth. —Yes; but not a mere man’s body, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. If you regard this body as insignificant and of small account, how can you hold its type to be an object of worship and a means of salvation? and how can the archetype be contemptible and insignificant of that of which the type is adorable and honourable?
Eran. —I do not look on the body as of small account, but I object to dividing it from the Godhead.
Orth. —We, my good sir, do not divide the union but we regard the peculiar properties of the natures, and I am sure that in a moment you will take the same view.
Eran. —You talk like a prophet.
Orth. —No; not like a prophet, but as knowing the power of truth. But now answer me this. When you hear the Lord saying “I and my Father are one,” and “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” do you say that this refers to the flesh or to the Godhead?
Eran. —How can the flesh and the Father possibly be of one substance?
Orth. —Then these passages indicate the Godhead?
Orth. —And so with the text, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God,” and the like.
Orth. —Again when the divine Scripture says, “Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey sat thus on the well,” of what is the weariness to be understood, of the Godhead or of the body?
Eran. —I cannot bear to divide what is united.
Orth. —Then it seems you attribute the weariness to the divine nature?
Eran. —I think so.
Orth. —But then you directly contradict the exclamation of the prophet “He fainteth not neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.”
And a little further on “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary and they shall walk and not faint.” Now how can He who bestows upon others the boon of freedom from weariness and want, possibly be himself subject to hunger and thirst?
Eran. —I have said over and over again that God is impassible, and free from all want, but after the incarnation He became capable of suffering.
Orth. —But did He do this by admitting the sufferings in His Godhead, or by permitting the passible nature to undergo its natural sufferings and by suffering proclaim that what was seen was no unreality, but was really assumed of human nature? But now let us look at the matter thus: we say that the divine nature was uncircumscribed.
Eran. —Aye.
Orth. —And uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by none.
Orth. —It therefore needs no transition for it is everywhere.
Orth. —And that which needs no transition needs not to travel.
Eran. —That is clear.
Orth. —And that which does not travel does not grow weary.
Orth. —It follows then that the divine nature, which is uncircumscribed, and needs not to travel, was not weary.
Eran. —But the divine Scripture says that Jesus was weary, and Jesus is God; “And our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”
Orth. —But the exact expression of the divine Scripture is that Jesus “was wearied” not “is wearied.” We must consider how one and the other can be applied to the same person.
Eran. —Well; try to point this out, for you are always for forcing on us the distinction of terms.
Orth. —I think that even a barbarian might easily make this distinction. The union of unlike natures being conceded, the person of Christ on account of the union receives both; to each nature its own properties are attributed; to the uncircumscribed immunity from weariness, to that which is capable of transition and travel weariness. For travelling is the function of the feet; of the muscles to be strained by over exercise.
Eran. —There is no controversy about these being bodily affections.
Orth. —Well then; the prediction which I made, and you scoffed at, has come true; for look; you have shewn us what belongs to manhood, and what belongs to Godhead.
Eran. —But I have not divided one son into two.
Orth. —Nor do we, my friend; but giving heed to the difference of the natures, we consider what befits godhead, and what is proper to a body.
Eran. —This distinction is not the teaching of the divine Scripture; it says that the Son of God died. So the Apostle;—“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” And he says that the Lord was raised from the dead for “God” he says “raised the Lord from the dead.”
Orth. —And when the divine Scripture says “And devout men carried Stephen to his burial and made great lamentation over him” would any one say that his soul was committed to the grave as well as his body?