Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

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. 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 some the manhood 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 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 showing their various ailments, such as arise from running at the eyes, injury to the ears, tooth-ache, contraction of the 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 the 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 you 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 is superfluous?

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 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 you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I heard of my Father?” And He frequently called Himself Son of Man.

And the meritorious Peter, in his sermon to the Jewish people, says—“You men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you.” And the blessed Paul, when bringing the message of salvation to the chiefs of the Areopagus, among many other things said this—