Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus.
Eran. —Cease from charging us with impiety. Even we say that not the divine nature suffered but the human; but we do say that the divine shared with the body in suffering.
Orth. —What can you mean by sharing in suffering? Do you mean that when the nails were driven into the body the divine nature felt the sense of pain?
Orth. —Both now and in our former investigations we have shewn that the soul does not share all the faculties of the body but that the body while it receives vital force has the sense of suffering through the soul. And even supposing us to grant that the soul shares in pain with the body we shall none the less find the divine nature to be impassible, for it was not united to the body instead of a soul. Or do you not acknowledge that He assumed a soul?
Eran. —I have often acknowledged it.
Orth. —And that He assumed a reasonable Soul?
Orth. —If then together with the body He assumed the soul, and we grant that the soul shared in suffering with the body, then the soul, not the Godhead, shared the passion with the body; it shared the passion, receiving pangs by means of the body. But possibly somebody might agree to the soul sharing suffering with the body, but might deny its sharing death, because of its having an immortal nature. On this account the Lord said “Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul.” If then we deny that the soul of the Saviour shared death with the body, how could any one accept the blasphemy you and your friends presumptuously promulgate when you dare to say that the divine nature participated in death? This is the more inexcusable when the Lord points out at one time that the body was being offered, at another that the soul was being troubled.
Eran. —And where doth the Lord shew that the body was being offered? Or are you going to bring me once more that well worn passage “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”? Or with your conceited self-sufficiency are you going to quote me the words of the Evangelist? “But He spake of the temple of his body. When therefore He was risen from the dead His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them and they believed the Scripture and the words which He had said.”
Orth. —If you have such a detestation of the divine words which preach the mystery of the incarnation, why, like Marcion and Valentinus and Manes, do you not destroy texts of this kind? For this is what they have done. But if this seems to you rash and impious, do not turn the Lord’s words into ridicule, but rather follow the Apostles in their belief after the resurrection that the Godhead raised again the temple which the Jews had destroyed.
Eran. —If you have any good evidence to adduce, give over gibing and fulfil your promise.
Orth. —Remember specially those words of the gospels in which the Lord made a comparison between manna and the true bread.
Eran. —I remember.
Orth. —In that passage after speaking at some length about the bread of life, he added, “The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.” In these words may be understood alike the bounty of the Godhead and the boon of the flesh.
Eran. —One quotation is not enough to settle the question.
Orth. —The Ethiopian eunuch had not read much of the Bible, but when he had found one witness from the prophets he was guided by it to salvation. But not all Apostles and prophets and all the preachers of the truth who have lived since then are enough to convince you. Nevertheless I will bring you some further testimony about the Lord’s body. You cannot but know that passage in the Gospel history where, after eating the passover with His disciples, our Lord pointed to the death of the typical lamb and taught what body corresponded with that shadow.
Eran. —Yes I know it.
Orth. —Remember then what it was which our Lord took and broke, and what He called it when He had taken it.
Eran. —I will answer in mystic language for the sake of the uninitiated. After taking and breaking it and giving it to His disciples He said, “This is my body which was given for you” or according to the apostle “broken” and again, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many.”
Orth. —Then when exhibiting the type of the passion He did not mention the Godhead?
Eran.—No.
Orth. —But He did mention the body and blood.
Orth. —And the body was nailed to the Cross?
Eran. —Even so.
Orth. —Come, then; look at this. When after the resurrection the doors were shut and the Lord came to the holy disciples and beheld them affrighted, what means did He use to destroy their fear and instead of fear to infuse faith?
Eran. —He said to them “Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.”
Orth. —So when they disbelieved He shewed them the body?
Eran. —He did.
Orth. —Therefore the body rose?
Eran. —Clearly.
Orth. —And I suppose what rose was what had died?
Eran. —Even so.
Orth. —And what had died was what was nailed to the cross?
Eran. —Of necessity.
Orth. —Then according to your own argument the body suffered?
Eran. —Your series of arguments forces us to this conclusion.
Orth. —Consider this too. Now I will be questioner, and do you answer as becomes a lover of the truth.
Eran. —I will answer.
Orth. —When the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles, and that wonderful sight and sound collected thousands to the house, what did the chief of the apostles in the speech he then made say concerning the Lord’s resurrection?
Eran. —He quoted the divine David, and said that he had received promises from God that the Lord Christ should be born of the fruit of his loins and that in trust in these promises he prophetically foresaw His resurrection, and plainly said that His soul was not left in Hades and that His flesh did not see corruption.
Orth. —His resurrection therefore is of these.
Eran. —How can any one in his senses say that there is a resurrection of the soul which never died?
Orth. —How comes it that you who attribute the passion, the death and the resurrection to the immutable and uncircumscribed Godhead have suddenly appeared before us in your right mind and now object to connecting the word resurrection with the soul?
Eran. —Because the word resurrection is applicable to what has fallen.
Orth. —But the body does not obtain resurrection apart from a soul, but being renewed by the divine will, and conjoined with its yokefellow, it receives life. Was it not thus that the Lord raised Lazarus?
Eran. —It is plain that not the body alone rises.
Orth. —This is more distinctly taught by the divine Ezekiel, for he points out how the Lord commanded the bones to come together, and how all of them were duly fitted together, and how He made sinews and veins and arteries grow with all the flesh pertaining to them and the skin that clothes them all, and then ordered the souls to come back to their own bodies.
Eran. —This is true.
Orth. —But the Lord’s body did not undergo this corruption, but remained unimpaired, and on the third day recovered its own soul.
Orth. —Then the death was of what had suffered?
Eran. —Without question.
Orth. —And when the great Peter mentioned the resurrection, and the divine David too, they said that His soul was not left in Hell, but that His body did not undergo corruption?
Eran. —They did.
Orth. —Then it was not the Godhead which underwent death, but the body by severance from the soul?
Eran. —I cannot brook these absurdities.
Orth. —But you are fighting against your own arguments; it is your own words which you are calling absurd.
Eran. —You slander me; not one of these words is mine.
Orth.—Suppose any one to ask what is the animal which is at once reasonable and mortal, and suppose some one else to answer—man; which of the two would you call interpreter of the saying? The questioner or the answerer?
Eran. —The answerer.
Orth. —Then I was quite right in calling the arguments yours? For you, I ween, in your answers, by rejecting some points and accepting others, confirmed them.
Eran. —Then I will not answer any longer; do you answer.
Orth. —I will answer.
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.
Orth. —Let us then look together into what seems to be hidden.
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 you shall do the same thing now. Tell me; do you say that God the Word was only begotten Son?
Orth. —And only begotten means only Son.
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.
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.”