Theodoret Search This Resource     in this Authorin this Sectionin all Sections   Navigator (Page 1 of 8) Previous Next   Page2   Dialogue II.-The Unconfounded. Eranistes and Orthodoxus. Eran.-I am come as I promised. 'Tis yours to adopt one of two alternatives, and either furnish a solution of my difficulties, or assent to what I and my friends lay down. Orth.-I accept your challenge, for I think it right and fair. But we must first recall to mind at what point we left off our discourse yesterday, and what was the conclusion of our argument. Eran.-I will remind you of the end. I remember our agreeing that the divine Word remained immutable, and took flesh, and was not himself changed into flesh. Orth.-You seem to be content with the points agreed on, for you have faithfully called them to mind. Eran.-Yes, and I have already said that the man that withstands teachers so many and so great is indubitably out of his mind. I was moreover put to not a little shame to find that Apollinarius used the same terms as the orthodox, although in his books about the incarnation his drift has distinctly been in another direction. Orth.-Then we affirm that the Divine Word took flesh? Eran.-We do. Orth.-And what do we mean by the flesh? A body only, as is the view of Arius and Eunomius, or body and soul? Eran.-Body and soul. Orth.-What kind of soul? The reasonable soul, or that which is by some termed the phytic, vegetable,(1) that is, vital? for the fable-mongering quackery of the Apollinarians compels us to ask unseemly questions. Eran.-Does then Apollinarius make a distinction of souls?(2) Orth.-He says that man is composed of three parts, of a body, a vital soul, and further of a reasonable soul, which he terms mind. Holy Scripture on the contrary knows only one, not two souls; and this is plainly taught us by the formation of the first man. For it is written God took dust from the earth and "formed man," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."(3) And in the gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."(4) And the very divine Moses when he told the tale of them that came down into Egypt and stated with whom each tribal chief had come in, added, "All the souls that came out of Egypt were seventy-five,"(5) reckoning one soul for each immigrant. And the divine apostle at Troas, when all supposed Eutychus to be dead, said "Trouble not yourselves for his soul is in him."(6) Eran.-It is shewn clearly that each man has one soul. Orth.-But Apollinarius says two; and that the Divine Word took the unreasonable, and that instead of the reasonable, he was made in the flesh. It was on this account that I asked what kind of soul you assert to have been assumed with the body. Eran.-I say the reasonable. For I follow the Divine Scripture. Orth.-We agree then that the "form of a servant" assumed by the Divine Word was complete. Eran.-Yes; complete. Orth.-And rightly; for since the whole first man became subject to sin, and lost the impression of the Divine Image,(7) and the race followed, it results that the Creator, with the intention of renewing the blurred image, assumed the nature in its entirety, and stamped an imprint far better than the first. Eran.-True. But now I beg you in the first place that the meaning of the terms employed may be made quite clear, that thus our discussion may advance without hindrance, and no investigation of doubtful points intervene to interrupt our conversation. Orth.-What you say is admirable. Ask now concerning whatever point yon like. Eran.-What must we call Jesus the Christ? Man? Orth.-By neither name alone, but by both. For the Divine Man after being made man was named Jesus Christ. "For," it is written, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins,"(8) and unto you is born this day in the city of David Christ the Lord.(9) Now these are angels' voices. But before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten, Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,"(10) and "all things were made by Him,"(11) and "He was life,"(12) and "He was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." There are also other similar passages, declaring the divine nature. But after the Incarnation He was named Jesus and Christ. Eran.-Therefore the Lord Jesus is God only. Orth.-You hear that the divine Word was made man, and do you call him God only? Eran.-Since He became mall without being changed, but remained just what He was before, we must call Him just what He was. Orth.-The divine Word was and is and will be immutable. But when He had taken man's nature He became man. It behoves us therefore to confess both natures, both that which took, and that which was taken. Eran.-We must name Him by the nobler. Orth-Man,-I mean man the animal,-is he a simple or a composite being? Eran.-Composite. Orth.-Composed of what component parts? Eran.-Of a body and a soul. Orth.-And of these natures whether is nobler? Eran.-Clearly the soul, for it is reasonable and immortal, and has been entrusted with the sovereignty of the animal. But the body is mortal and perishable, and without the soul is unreasonable, and a corpse. Orth.-Then the divine Scripture ought to have called the animal after its more excellent part. Eran.-It does so call it, for it calls them that came out of Egypt souls. For with seventy-five souls, it says, Israel came down into Egypt. Orth.-But does the divine Scripture never call any one after the body? Eran.-It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For "God," it is written, "said my spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh."(13) Orth.-But without blameno one is called flesh? Eran.-I do not remember. Orth.-Then I will remind you, and point out to you that even the very saints are called "flesh." Answer now. What would you call the apostles? Spiritual, or fleshly? Eran.-Spiritual;-and leaders and teachers of the spiritual. Orth.-Hear now the holy Paul when he says "But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood neither went I up to them that were apostles before me."(14) Does he so style the apostles because he blames them? Eran.-Certainly not. Orth.-Is it not that he names them after their visible nature, and comparing the calling which is of men with that which is of heaven? Eran.-True. Orth.-Then hear too the psalmist David-"Unto thee shall all flesh come."(15) Hear too, the prophet Isaiah foretelling "All flesh shall see the salvation of our God."(16) Eran.-It is made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human nature fromthe flesh without the least blame. Orth.-I will proceed to give you the yet further proof. Eran.-What further? Orth.-The fact that sometimes when giving blame the divine Scripture uses only the name of soul. Eran.-And where will you find this in holy Scripture? Orth.-Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel "The sold that sinneth it shall die."(17) Moreover through the great Moses He saith "If a soul sin-"(18) And again "It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off."(19) And many other passages of the same kind may be found. Eran.-This is plainly proved. Orth.-In cases, then, where there is a certain natural union, and a combination of created things, and of beings connected by service and by time, it is not the custom of holy Scripture to use a name for this being derived only from the nobler nature; it names it indiscriminately both by the meaner and by the nobler. If so, how can you find fault with us for calling Christ the Lord,man, after confessing Him to be God, when many things combine to compel us to do so? Eran.-What is there to compel us to call the Saviour Christ, "man"? Orth.-The diverse and mutually inconsistent opinions of the heretics. Eran.-What opinions, and contrary to what? Orth.-That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes one hypostasis instead of three.(20) Tell me now, how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for both ailments, or for each the proper one? Eran.-For each the proper one. Orth.-We shall therefore endeavour to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture. Eran.-Yes: this ought to be done. Orth.-But in arguing with Sabellius we shall adopt the opposite course. Concerning the substance we shall advance no argument, for even he acknowledges but one. Eran.-Plainly. Orth.-But we shall do our best to cure the unsound part of his doctrine. Eran.-We say that where he halts is about the hypostases. Orth.-Since then he asserts there to be one hypostasis of the Trinity, we shall point out to him that the divine Scripture proclaims three hypostases. Eran.-This is the course to take. But we have wandered from the subject. Orth.-Not at all. We are collecting proofs of it, as you will learn in a moment. But tell me, do you understand that all the heresies which derive their name from Christ, acknowledge both the Godhead of Christ and His manhood? Eran.-By no means. Orth.-Do not some acknowledge the godhead alone, and somethemanhood alone? Eran.-Yes. Orth.-And some but a part of the manhood? Eran.-I think so. But it will be well for us to lay down the names of the holders of these different opinions, that the point under discussion may be made plainer. Orth.-I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the humanity of Christ. On the other hand Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus, fell into the diametrically opposite blasphemy; for they preach Christ to be man only, and deny the Godhead which existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the Godhead of the only begotten a created Godhead, and maintain that He assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the assumed body was a living(21) body, but in his work deprives the reasonable soul alike of its honour and of its salvation. This is the contrariety of these corrupt opinions. But do you, with all due love of truth, tell us, must we institute a discussion with these men, or shall we let them go dashed down headlong and howling to their doom? Eran.-It is inhuman to neglect the sick. Orth.-Very well; then we must compassionate them, and do our best to heal them. Eran.-By all means. Orth.-If then you had scientifically learned how to cure the body, and round you stood many men asking you to cure them, and shewing their various ailments, such as arise from running at tile eyes, injury to the ears, tooth-ache, contraction of tile joints, palsy, bile, or phlegm, what would you have done? Tell me; would you have applied the same treatment to all, or to each that which was appropriate? Eran.-I should certainly have given to each the appropriate remedy. Orth.-So by applying cold treatment to the hot, and heating the cold, and loosing the strained, and giving tension to tim loose, and drying the moist, and moistening the dry, you would have driven out the diseases and restored the health which they had expelled. Eran.-This is the treatment prescribed by medical science, for contraries, it is said, are the remedies of contraries. Orth.-If you were a gardener, would yon give the same treatment to all plants? or their own to the mulberry and the fig, and so to the pear, to the apple, and to the vine what is fitting to each, and in a word to each plant its own proper culture? Eran.-It is obvious that each plant requires its own treatment. Orth.-And if you undertook to be a ship builder, and saw that the mast wanted repair, would you try to mend it in the same way as you would the tiller? or would you give it the proper treatment of a mast? Eran.-There is no question about these things: everything demands its own treatment, be it plant or limb or gear or tackle. Orth.-Then is it not monstrous to apply to the body and to things without life to each its own appropriate treatment, and not to keep this rule of treatment in the case of the soul? Eran.-Most unjust; nay, rather stupid than unrighteous. They who adopt any other method are quite unskilled in the healing art. Orth.-Then in disputing against each heresy we shall use the appropriate remedy? Eran.-By all means. Orth.-And it is fitting treatment to add what is wanting and to remove what issuperfluous? Eran.-Yes. Orth.-In endeavouring then to cure Photinus and Marcellus and their adherents, in order to carry out the rule of treatment, what should we add? Eran.-The acknowledgment of the Godhead of Christ, for it is this that they lack. Orth.-But about the manhood we will say nothing to them, for they acknowledge the Lord Christ to be man. Eran.-You are right. Orth.-And in arguing with Arius and Eunomius about the incarnation of the only begotten, what should we persuade them to add to their own confession? Eran.-The assumption of the soul; for they say that the divine Word took only a body. Orth.-And what does Apollinarius lack to make his teaching accurate about the incarnation? Eran.-Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess that, with the body, was assumed a reasonable soul. Orth.-Then shall we dispute with him on this point? Eran.-Certainly. Orth.-But under this head what did we assert to be confessed, and what altogether denied, by Marcion, Valentinus, Manes and their adherents? Eran.-That they admitted their belief in the Godhead of Christ, but do not accept the doctrine of His manhood. Orth.-We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine incarnation(22) a mere appearance. 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. Eran.-By all means. 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?"(23) 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."(24) 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."(25) 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(26) 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 youdeem 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."(27) 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.(28) Eran.-But was not Moses called a mediator, though only a man?(29) 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."(30) And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to God, for "Aaron thy brother," He says, "shall be thy Prophet."(31) But the reality is by nature God, and by nature man. FOOTNOTES: futikoj, of or belonging to futon, or plant; but though futon is opposed to xwon, it is also used of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of physical life, and nothing beyond. cf. p. 132. Gen. ii. 7. Matt. x. 28. of. Luke xii. 4. Luke xii. 5. Gen. xlvi. 20, lxx. In the Hebrew the number is but seventy, including Jacob himself. St. Stephen, as was natural in a Hellonized Jew follows the lxx. (Acts vii. 14.) For the number 75 there were doubtless important traditional authorities known to the lxx. Acts xx. 10. This "lost" must be qualified. The Scriptural doctrine is that the "image of God" though defaced and marred, is not lost or destroyed. After the flood the "image of God" is still quoted as against murder Gen. ix. 6. St. James urges it as a reason against cursing (iv. 9). cf. I. Cor. xi. 7. So the IXth Article declares original sin to be, not the nature, which is good, but the "fault and corruption of the nature of every man;" in short the "image of God," like the figts of God, as David in Browning's "Saul" has it, "a man may waste, desecrate, never quite lose." cf. p. 164 and note. Matt. i. 21. Luke ii. 11. tiktetai is substitued for etexqh, in addition to the omission of "a Saviour which is." In this verse the mss. do not vary. John i. 1. John i. 3. John i. 4. Gen. vi. 3, lxx. and Marg. in R. V. Gal. i. 15-17. Ps. lxv. 2. Is. xl. 5. Ez. xviii. 4 and Ez. xviii. 20. Lev. v. 1. The reference seeing to be a loose combination of Numbers ix. 13. with Deut. xviii. 19. Vide note on page 36. emyuxon. oikonouian. cf. p. 72, note. John viii. 40. Note looseness of citation. Acts ii. 22. Acts xvii. 30, Acts xvii. 31. h oikoumenh means of course the Empire and the adjacent countries, the "orbis veteribus notus." I. Tim. ii. 5, I. Tim. ii. 6. cf. Job ix. 33. "daysman betwixt us that might lay his hand upon us both." Gal. iii. 19. cf. Deut. v. 5. Exodus vii. 1. Ex. vii. 1.