Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

Eranistes and Orthodoxus.

Eran.— I have 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, 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?

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.” 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.”

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,” 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.”

Eran.— It is shown 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, 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 you 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, “You shall call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins,” and unto you is born this day in the city of David Christ the Lord. 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,” and “all things were made by Him,” and “He was life,” and “He was the true light which lights every man that comes 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 man 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 behooves 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.”

Orth.— But without blame no 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.” 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 you shall all flesh come.” Hear too, the prophet Isaiah foretelling “All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.”

Eran.— It is made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human nature from the 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 soul that sins it shall die.” Moreover through the great Moses He says “If a soul sin—” And again “It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off.” 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?