Orth.— But if he were to go on to say, “But he did not take a soul but only a body; for the Godhead instead of a soul being united to the body performed all the functions of the soul,” with what arguments could you meet his objections?
Eran.— I could bring proofs from the divine Scripture showing how God the Word took not only flesh but also soul.
Orth.— And what proofs of this shall we find in Scripture?
Eran.— Have you not heard the Lord saying “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again....I lay it down of myself that I might take it again.” And again, “Now is my soul troubled.” And again, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death,” and again David's words as interpreted by Peter “His soul was not left in hell neither did His flesh see corruption.” These and similar passages clearly point out that God the Word assumed not only a body but also a soul.
Orth.— You have quoted this testimony most appositely and properly, but your opponent might reply that even before the incarnation God said to the Jews, “Fasting and holy day and feasts my soul hates.” Then he might go on to argue that as in the Old Testament He mentioned a soul, though He had not a soul, so He does in the New.
Eran.— But he shall be told again how the divine Scripture, when speaking of God, mentions even parts of the body as “Incline your ear and hear” and “Open your eyes and see” and “The mouth of the Lord has spoken it” and “Your hands have made me and fashioned me” and countless other passages.
If then after the incarnation we are forbidden to understand soul to mean soul, it is equally forbidden to hold body to mean body. Thus the great mystery of the œconomy will be found to be mere imagination; and we shall in no way differ from Marcion, Valentinus and Manes, the inventors of all these figments.
Orth.— But if a follower of Apollinarius were suddenly to intervene in our discussion and were to ask “Most excellent Sir; what kind of soul do you say that Christ assumed?” what would you answer?
Eran.— I should first of all say that I know only one soul of man; then I should answer, “But if you reckon two souls, the one reasonable and the other without reason, I say that the soul assumed was the reasonable. Yours it seems is the unreasonable, inasmuch as you think that our salvation was incomplete.”
Orth.— But suppose he were to ask for proof of what you say?
Eran.— I could very easily give it. I shall quote the oracles of the Evangelists “The Child Jesus grew and waxed strong in spirit and the grace of God was upon him” and again “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men.” I should say that these have nothing to do with Godhead for the body increased in stature, and in wisdom the soul— not that which is without reason, but the reasonable. God the Word then took on Him a reasonable soul.
Orth.— Good Sir, you have bravely broken through the three fold phalanx of your foes; but that union, and the famous commixture and confusion, not in two ways only but in three, you have scattered and undone; and not only have you pointed out the distinction between Godhead and manhood, but you have in two ways distinguished the manhood by pointing out that the soul is one thing and the body another, so that no longer two, according to our argument, but three natures of our Saviour Jesus Christ may be understood.
Eran.— Yes; for did not you say that there is another substance of the soul besides the nature of the body?
Orth.— Yes.
Eran.— How then does the argument seem absurd to you?
Orth.— Because while you object to two, you have admitted three natures.
Eran.— The contest with our antagonists compels us to this, for how could any one in any other way argue against those who deny the assumption of the flesh, or of the soul, or of the mind, but by adducing proofs on these points from the divine Scripture? And how could any one confute them who in their readiness strive to belittle the Godhead of the only Begotten but by pointing out that the divine Scripture speaks sometimes theologically and sometimes œconomically.
Orth.— What you now say is true. It is what I, nay what all say, who keep whole the apostolic rule. You yourself have become a supporter of our doctrines.
Eran.— How do I support yours, while I refuse to acknowledge two sons?
Orth.— When did you ever hear of our affirming two sons?
Eran.— He who asserts two natures asserts two sons.
Orth.— Then you assert three sons, for you have spoken of three natures.
Eran.— In no other way was it possible to meet the argument of my opponents.
Orth.— Hear this same thing from us too; for both you and I confront the same antagonists.
Eran.— But I do not assert two natures after the union.
Orth.— And yet after many generations of the union a moment ago you used the same words. Explain to us however in what sense you assert one nature after the union. Do you mean one nature derived from both or that one nature remains after the destruction of the other?
Eran.— I maintain that the Godhead remains and that the manhood was swallowed up by it.
Orth.— Fables of the Gentiles, all this, and follies of the Manichees. I am ashamed so much as to mention such things. The Greeks had their gods' swallowings and the Manichees wrote of the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching as being as absurd as it is impious, for how could a nature absolute and uncompounded, comprehending the universe, unapproachable and infinite, have absorbed the nature which it assumed?
Eran.— Like the sea receiving a drop of honey, for straightway the drop, as it mingles with the ocean's water, disappears.
Orth.— The sea and the drop are different in quantity, though alike in quality; the one is greatest, the other is least; the one is sweet and the other is bitter; but in all other respects you will find a very close relationship. The nature of both is moist, liquid, and fluid. Both are created. Both are lifeless yet each alike is called a body. There is nothing then absurd in these cognate natures undergoing commixture, and in the one being made to disappear by the other. In the case before us on the contrary the difference is infinite, and so great that no figure of the reality can be found. I will however endeavour to point out to you several instances of substances which are mixed without being confounded, and remain unimpaired.
Eran.— Who in the world ever heard of an unmixed mixture?
Orth.— I shall endeavour to make you admit this.
Eran.— Should what you are about to advance prove true we will not oppose the truth.
Orth.— Answer then, dissenting or assenting as the argument may seem good to you.
Eran.— I will answer.
Orth.— Does the light at its rising seem to you to fill all the atmosphere except where men shut up in caverns might remain bereft of it?
Eran.— Yes.
Orth.— And does all the light seem to you to be diffused through all the atmosphere?
Eran.— I am with you so far.
Orth.— And is not the mixture diffused through all that is subject to it?
Eran.— Certainly.
Orth.— But, now, this illuminated atmosphere, do we not see it as light and call it light?
Eran.— Quite so.
Orth.— And yet when the light is present we sometimes are aware of moisture and aridity; frequently of heat and cold.
Eran.— Yes.
Orth.— And after the departure of the light the atmosphere afterwards remains alone by itself.
Eran.— True.
Orth.— Consider this example too. When iron is brought in contact with fire it is fired.
Eran.— Certainly.
Orth.— And the fire is diffused through its whole substance?
Eran.— Well?
Orth.— How, then, does not the complete union, and the mixture universally diffused, change the iron's nature?
Eran.— But it changes it altogether. It is now reckoned no longer as iron, but as fire, and indeed it has the active properties of fire.
Orth.— But does not the smith call it iron, and put it on the anvil and smite it with his hammer?
Source: Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus") (New Advent)