Theodoret Search This Resource     in this Authorin this Sectionin all Sections   Navigator (Page 1 of 5) Previous Next   Page2   Dialogue I.-The Immutable. Orthodoxos and Eranistes. Orth.-Better were it for us to agree and abide by the apostolic doctrine in its parity. But since, I know not how, you have broken the harmony, and are now offering us new doctrines, let us, if you please, with no kind of quarrel, investigate the truth. Eran.-We need no investigation, for we exactly hold the truth. Orth.-This is what every heretic supposes. Aye, even Jews and Pagans reckon that they are defending the doctrines of the truth; and so also do not only the followers of Plato and Pythagoras, but Epicureans too, and they that are wholly without God or belief. It becomes us, however, not to be the slaves of a priori assumption, but to search for the knowledge of the truth. Eran.-I admit the force of what you say and am ready to act on your suggestion. Orth.-Since then you have made no difficulty in yielding to this my preliminary exhortation, I ask you in the next place not to suffer the investigation of the truth to depend on the reasonings of men, but to track the footprints of the apostles and prophets, and saints who followed them. For so way-farers when they wander from the high-road are wont to consider well the pathways, if haply they shew any prints of men or horses or asses or mules going this way or that, and when they find any such they trace the tracks as dogs do and leave them not till once more they are in the rightroad. Eran.-So let us do. Lead on yourself, as you began the discussion. Orth-Let us, therefore, first make careful and thorough investigation into the divine names,-I mean substance, and essences, and persons and proprieties, and let us learn and define how they differ the one from the other. Then let us thus handle afterwards what follows. Eran.-You give us a very admirable and proper introduction to our argument. When these points are clear, our discussion will go forward without let or obstacle. Orth.-Since we have decided then that this must be our course of procedure, tell me, my friend, do we acknowledge one substance of God, alike of Father and of the only begotten Son and of the Holy Ghost, as we have been taught by Holy Scripture, both Old and New, and by the Fathers in Council in Nicaea, or do we follow the blasphemy of Arius? Eran.-We confess one substance of the Holy Trinity. Orth.-And do we reckon hypostasis to signify anything else than substance, or do we take it for another name of substance? Eran.-Is there any difference between substance and hypostasis?(1) Orth-In extra Christian philosophy there is not, for ousia signifies to on, that which is, and upostasiv that which subsists. But according to the doctrine of the Fathers there is the same difference between ousia and upostasiv as between the common and the particular, and the species and the individual. Eran.-Tell me more clearly what is meant by race or kind, and species and individual. Orth.-We speak of race or kind with regard to the animal, for it means many things at once. It indicates both the rational and the irrational; and again there are many species of irrational, creatures that fly, creatures that are amphibious, creatures that go on foot, and creatures that swim. And of these species each is marked by many subdivisions; of creatures that go on foot there is the lion, the leopard, the bull, and countless others. So, too, of flying creatures and the rest there are many species; yet all of them, though the species are the aforesaid, belong to one and the same animal race. Similarly the name man is the common name of mankind; for it means the Roman, the Athenian, the Persian, the Sauromatian,(2) the Egyptian, and, in a word, all who are human, but the name Paulus or Petrus does not signify what is common to the kind but some particular man; for no one on hearing of Paul turns in thought to Adam or Abraham or Jacob, but thinks of him alone whose name he has heard. But if he hears the word man simply, he does not fix his mind on the individual, but bethinks him of the Indian, the Scythian, and the Massagete, and of all the race of men together, and we learn this not only from nature, but also from Holy Scripture, for God said, we read, "I will destroy man from the face of the earth,"(3) and this he spake of countless multitudes, and when more than two thousand and two hundred years had gone by after Adam, he brought universal destruction on men through the flood, and so the blessed David says: "Man that is in honour and understandeth not,"(4) accusing not one here nor one there, but all men in common. A thousand similar examples might be found, but we must not be tedious. Eran.-The difference between the common and the proper is shewed clearly. Now let us return to discussion about ousia and upostasiv. Orth.-As then the name man is common to human nature, so we understand the divine substance to indicate the Holy Trinity; but the hypostasis denotes any person, as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; for, following the definitions of the Holy Fathers, we say that hypostasis and individuality mean the same thing. Eran.-We agree that this is so. Orth.-Whatever then is predicated of the divine nature is common both to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as for instance "God," "Lord," "Creator," "Almighty," and so forth. Eran.-Without question these words are common to the Trinity. Orth.-But all that naturally denotes the hypostasis ceases to be common to the Holy Trinity, and denotes the hypostasis to which it is proper, as, for instance, the names "Father," "Unbegotten," are peculiar to the Father; while again the names "Son," "Only Begotten," "God the Word," do not denote the Father, nor yet the Holy Ghost, but the Son, and the words "Holy Ghost," "Paraclete," naturally denote the hypostasis of the Spirit. Eran.-But does not Holy Scripture call both the Father and the Son "Spirit"? Orth.-Yes, it calls both the Father and the Son "Spirit," signifying by this term the incorporeal illimitable character of the divine nature. The Holy Scripture only calls the hypostasis of the Spirit "Holy Ghost." Eran.-This is indisputable. Orth.-Since then we assert that some terms are common to the Holy Trinity, and some peculiar to each hypostasis, do we assert the term "immutable" to be common to the substance or peculiar to any hypostasis? Eran.-The term "immutable" is common to the Trinity, for it is impossible for part of the substance to be mutable and part immutable. Orth.-You have well said, for as the term mortal is common to mankind, so are "immutable" and "invariable" to the Holy Trinity. So the only-begotten Son is immutable, as are both the Father that begat Him and the Holy Ghost. Eran.-Immutable. Orth.-How then do you advance the statement in the gospel "the word became flesh."(5) and predicate mutation of the immutable nature? Eran.-We assert Him to have been made flesh not by mutation, but as He Him self knows. Orth.-If He is not said to have become flesh by taking flesh, one of two things must be asserted, either that he underwent the mutation into flesh, or was only so seen in appearance, and in reality was God without flesh. Eran.-This is the doctrine of the disciples of Valentinus, Marcion, and of the Manichees, but we have been taught without dispute that the divine Word was made flesh. Orth.-But in what sense do you mean "was made flesh"? "Took flesh," or "was changed into flesh"? Eran.-As we have heard the evangelist say, "the word was made flesh." Orth.-In what sense do you understand "was made"? Eran.-He who underwent mutation into flesh was made flesh, and, as I said just now, as He knows. But we know that with Him all things are possible,(6) for He changed the water of the Nile into blood, and day into night, and made the sea dry land, and filled the dry wilderness with water, and we hear the prophet saying "Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven, and in earth, in the seas and all deep places."(7) Orth.-The creature is transformed by the Creator as He will, for it is mutable and obeys the nod of Him that fashioned it. But His nature is immutable and invariable, wherefore of the creature the prophet saith "He that maketh and transformeth all things."(8) But of the divine Word the great David says "Thou art the same and thy years shall not fail."(9) And again the same God says of Himself "For I am the Lord and I change not."(10) Eran.-What is hidden ought not to "be enquired into." Orth.-Nor yet what is plain to be altogether ignored. Eran.-I am not aware of the manner of the incarnation. I have heard that the Word was made flesh. Orth.-If He was made flesh by mutation He did not remain what He was before, and this is easily intelligible from several analogies. Sand, for instance, when it is subjected to heat, first becomes fluid, then is changed and congealed into glass, and at the time of the change alters its name, for it is no longer called sand but glass. Eran.-So it is. Orth.-And while we call the fruit of the vine grape, when once we have pressed it, we speak of it no longer as grape, but as wine. Eran.-Certainly. Orth.-And the wine itself, after it has undergone a change, it is our custom to name no longer wine, but vinegar. Eran.-True. Orth.-And similarly stone when burnt and in solution is no longer called stone, but lime. And innumerable other similar instances might be found where mutation involves a change of name. Eran.-Agreed. Orth.-If therefore you assert that the Divine Word underwent the change in the flesh, why do you call Him God and not flesh? for change of name fits in with the alteration of nature. For if where the things which undergo change have some relation to their former condition (for there is a certain approximation of vinegar to wine and of wine to the fruit of the vine, and of glass to sand) they receive another name after their alteration, how, where the difference between them is infinite and as wide as that which divides a gnat from the whole visible and invisible creation (for so wide, nay much wider, is the difference between the nature of flesh and of Godhead) is it possible for the same name to obtain after the change? Eran.-I have said more than once that He was made flesh not by mutation, but continuing still to be what He was, He was made what He was not. Orth.-But unless this word "was made" becomes quite clear it suggests mutation and alteration, for unless He was made flesh by taking flesh He was made flesh by undergoing mutation. Eran.-But the word "take" is your own invention. The Evangelist says the Word was made flesh.(11) Orth.-You seem either to be ignorant of the sacred Scripture, or to do it wrong knowingly. Now if you are ignorant, I will teach you; if you are doing wrong, I will convict you. Answer then; do you acknowledge the teaching of the divine Paul to be of the Spirit? Eran.-Certainly. Orth.-And do you allow that the same Spirit wrought through both Evangelists and Apostles? Eran.-Yes, for so have I learnt from the Apostolic Scripture "There are diversities of gifts but the same spirit,"(12) and again "All these things worketh that one and the selfsame spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will," a and again "Having the same Spirit of the Faith."(13) Orth.-Your introduction of the apostolic testimony is in season. If we assert that the instruction alike of the evangelists and of the apostles is of the same spirit, listen how the apostle interprets the words of the Gospel, for in the Epistle to the Hebrews he says, "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but be took on him the seed of Abraham."(14) Now tell me what you mean by the seed of Abraham. Was not that which was naturally proper to Abraham proper also to the seed of Abraham? Eran.-No; not without exception, for Christ did no sin. Orth.-Sin is not of nature, but of corrupt will.(15) On this very account, therefore, I did not say indefinitely what Abraham had, but what he had according to nature, that is to say, body and reasonable soul.Now tell me plainly; will you acknowledge that the seed of Abraham was endowed with body and reasonable soul? If not, in this point you agree with the ravings of Apollinarius. But I will compel you to confess this by other means. Tell me now; had the Jews a body and a reasonable soul? Eran.-Of course they had. Orth.-So when we hear the prophet saying, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,"(16) are we to understand the Jews to be bodies only? Are we not to understand them to be men consisting of bodies and souls? Eran.-True. Orth.-And the seed of Abraham not without soul nor yet intelligence, but with everything which characterizes the seed of Abraham? Eran.-He who so says puts forward two sons. Orth.-But he who says that the Divine Word is changed into the flesh does not even acknowledge one Son, for mere flesh by itself is not a son; but we confess one Son who took upon Him the seed of Abraham,according to the divine apostle, and wrought the salvation of mankind. But if you do not accept the apostolic preaching, say so openly. Eran.-But we maintain that the utterances of the apostles are inconsistent, for there appears to be a certain inconsistency between "the Word was made flesh" and "took upon Him the seed of Abraham." Orth.-It is because you lack intelligence, or because you are arguing for arguing's sake, that the consistent seems inconsistent. It does not so appear to men who use sound reasoning; for the divine apostle teaches that the Divine Word was made Flesh, not by mutation, but by taking on Him the seed of Abraham. At the same time, too, he recalls the promise given to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises given to the Patriarch by the God of the Universe? Eran.-What promises? Orth.-When He brought him out of his father's house, and ordered him to come into Palestine, did He not say to him "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thy seed(17) shall all families of the earth be blessed"? Eran.-I remember these promises. Orth.-Remember, too, the covenants made by God with Isaac and Jacob, for He gave them, too, the same promises, confirming the former by the second and the third. Eran.-I remember them too. Orth.-It is in relation to these covenants that the divine apostle writes in his Epistle to the Galatians "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made." He saith not "seeds" as of many, but as of one ...which is Christ,(18) very plainly showing that the manhood of Christ sprang from the seed of Abraham, and fulfilled the promise made to Abraham. Eran.-So the apostle says. Orth.-Enough has been said to remove all the controversy raised on this point. But I will nevertheless remind you of another prediction. The blessing given to the Patriarch Jacob and to his father and his grand father was given by him to his son Judah alone. He said "A Prince shall not fail Judah, no a leader from his loins, until he shall have come to whom it is in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles."(19) Or do you not accept this prediction as spoken of the Saviour Christ? Eran.-Jews give erroneous interpretations of prophecies of this kind, but I am a Christian; I trust in the Divine word; and I receive the prophecies without doubt. Orth.-Since then you confess that you believe the prophecies and acknowledge the predictions have been divinely uttered about our Saviour, consider what follows as to the intention of the words of the apostle, for while pointing out that the promises made to the patriarchs have reached their fulfilment, he uttered those remarkable words(20) "He took not on Him the nature of angels," all but saying the promise is true; the Lord has fulfilled His pledges; the fount of blessing is open to the gentiles; God had taken on Him the seed of Abraham; through it He brings about the promised salvation; through it He confirms the promise of the gentiles. Eran.-The words of the Prophet fit in admirably with those of the apostle. Orth.-So again the divine apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah, and pointing out how it received its fulfilment exclaims(21) "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah." So too the Prophet(22) Micah and the evangelist(23) Matthew. For the former spoke his prediction, and the latter connects the prophecy with his narrative. What is extraordinary is that he says that the open enemies of the truth plainly told Herod that the Christ is born in Bethlehem, for it is written, he says, "And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah art not the least among the Princes of Judah for out of thee shall come a Governor who shall rule my people Israel."(24) Now let us subjoin what the Jews in their malignity omitted and so made the witness imperfect. For the prophet, after saying "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel" adds "Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting."(25) Eran.-You have done well in adducing the whole evidence of the Prophet, for he points out that He who was born in Bethlehem was God. Orth.-Not God only but also Man; Man as sprung from Judah after the flesh and born in Bethlehem; and God as existing before the ages. For the words "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler," shew his birth after the flesh which has taken place in the last days; while the words "Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" plainly proclaim His existence before the ages. In like manner also the divine apostle in his Epistle to the Romans bewailing the change to the worse of the ancient felicity of the Jews, and calling to mind their divine promises and legislation, goes on to say "Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever Amen."(26) and in this same passage he exhibits Him both as Creator of all things and Lord and Ruler as God and as sprung from the Jews as man. Eran.-Well; you have explained these passages, what should you say to the prophecy of Jeremiah? For this proclaims him to be God only. Orth.-Of what prophecy do you speak? Eran.-"This is our God and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison to him-he hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant and to lsrael his beloved. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth and conversed with men."(27) In these words the Prophet speaks neither of the flesh, nor of manhood, nor of man,but of God alone. FOOTNOTES: Cf. note p. 36, History. "Sauromatas gentes Scytharum Groeci vocant, quos Sarmatas Romani." Pliny iii. Gen. vi. 7. Ps. xlix. 20. John i. 14. Matt. xix. 26. Ps. cxxxv. 6. The reference in Schulze's edition is to Jeremiah x. 16, but here the Septuagint o plasaj ta panta does not bear out the point. The quotation is no doubt of Amos v. 8, where the LXX is o poiwn panta kai metaskeuazwn. Ps. iii. 27. Mal. iii. 6. John i. 14. I. Cor. xii. 4. II. Cor. iv. 13. Heb. ii. 16. cf. Article ix. of the English Church. Sin is not part of man's nature, but the fault or corruption of it. If an one sense the fallen Adam is the natural man, in a higher sense Christ, the Son of man, is the natural man; i.e. in Him the manhood is seen incorrupt. cf. p. 183 and note. Isaiah xli. 8. Gen. xii. 3. The lxx. has eneuloghqhsontai en soi. In Acts iii. 25, it is tw spermati sou: in Gal. iii. 8, en soi. Gal. iii. 16. There is here an omission of the four words "kai tw spermati sou." Of the difficulty of the passage a full discussion will be found in Bishop Lightfoot's "Galatians" - page 141. Gen. xlix. 10. Here the text follows the Alexandrine Septuagint substituting ewj an elqh w apokeitai for ewj an elqh ta apokeimena autw.The Vulgate runs "Non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat qui mittendus est et ipse erit expectatio gentium." Hebrews ii. 16. Hebrews vii. 14. Micah v. 2. Matthew ii. 5, Matthew ii. 6. Matthew ii. 6 Micah v. 2. Romans ix. 5.