Eranistes 1 part 5/13

Tell me, then, whether you agree that the Saviour Christ ought also to be named 'man.'

ERAN. I call Him God.

ORTH. If you call Him God because you were taught that He is the Son of God, call Him man also;

for He frequently called Himself the Son of man.

ERAN. The name 'man' does not fit Him as the name 'God' does.

ORTH. Because it is not true, or for some other reason? ERAN. The name 'God' is a name of nature;

but the name 'man' is an appellation of the dispensation.

ORTH. But do we call the dispensation true, or something illusory and false? ERAN. True.

ORTH. If, then, the grace of the dispensation is true, and we call the incarnation of God the Word 'the dispensation,' then the name 'man' also is true;

for having assumed the human nature He was called man.

ERAN. Before the passion He was called man;

the divine Apostle wrote the epistle to Timothy after the passion and the resurrection, in which he addressed the Saviour Christ as 'man.'

After the passion and the resurrection, while delivering a public address at Athens, he called Him a 'man.'

After the passion and the resurrection, writing to the Corinthians, he cries aloud:

'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.' And teaching more plainly of whom he speaks, he added:

'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.' After the passion and the resurrection, the divine Peter, in discoursing with the Jews, addressed Him as a 'man.'

After the ascension into the heavens, the glorious victor Stephen, while being stoned, said to the Jews:

'Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.' Let us not, then, think ourselves wiser than the great heralds of the truth.

ERAN. I do not suppose myself wiser than the holy teachers, but I do not find the use of the name.

ORTH. Then those who deny the Lord's manhood—I mean the Marcionites and the Manichaeans and the others, as many as are sick with this disease—how could you persuade them to confess the proclamation of the truth? Would it not be by bringing forward these and such-like testimonies, and by teaching that the Master Christ is not only God but also man? ERAN. Perhaps it is necessary to bring these forward to such people.

ORTH. But why then do you not teach the faithful the truth of the doctrine? Or have you forgotten the apostolic ordinance which charges us to be ready for a defence? Let us consider it in this way.

Does the best general engage, shoot, and hurl javelins, and break the phalanx, only against the enemy, or does he also arm and marshal his soldiers and whet their spirits to courage? ERAN. This latter he ought rather to do.

ORTH. For it is not the mark of a general that he alone should face danger in the forefront and take his stand in the ranks, while leaving his soldiers to sleep on both sides, but rather that he should rouse these also to the battle-line.

ORTH. This is what the divine Paul also does.

For in writing to those who had believed, he said:

'Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.' And again:

'Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth,' and what follows.

Recall also what we said before, that the physician too supplies the quality that is lacking to the constitution.

For if he finds the cold in excess, he adds the hot, and likewise the other qualities;

this the Lord also did.

ERAN. And where will you show that the Lord did this? ORTH. In the divine Gospels.

ORTH. What did the Jews suppose the Saviour Christ to be? ERAN. A man.

ORTH. And that He was also God, were they wholly ignorant? ERAN. True.

ORTH. Then it was necessary that those who were ignorant should learn this? ERAN. It is agreed.

ORTH. Hear Him, then, saying to them:

'Many works have I shown you from my Father; for which of them do you stone me?' And when they had said, 'For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because that you, being a man, make yourself God,' He added:

'It is written in your law:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said,

I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me.

But if I do, even though you are not willing to believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.' ERAN. In what you have just now read, you have shown the Lord displaying Himself to the Jews as God, not as man.

ORTH. For they had no need to learn what they already knew.

For that He was a man, they knew;

but that He was also God, they did not know.

He wrought it in the case of the Pharisees.

For seeing them approach Him as one would a common man, He questioned them in this way:

'Sit at My right hand.' Then He draws the inference:

'If, then, He is his Lord, how is He his son?' {ERAN.} You have brought forward testimony against yourself.

{ORTH.} You have not, it seems, attended to the divine teaching.

For this saying teaches it plainly:

'If, then, He is his Lord, how is He his son?' For He did not say, 'If He is Lord, He is not son,' but, 'How is He his son?'—that is, in what respect He is Lord, and in what respect He is son.

And these words plainly show both the Godhead and the manhood.

{ERAN.} There is no need of syllogisms.

'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.' And not only did He take no offence, but He even praised their faith.

For He freed the blind from their prolonged night, and bestowed on them the power of sight.

And He healed the Canaanite woman's daughter, who was frenzied and raving, and drove out the utterly wicked demon.

'For verily,' He said, 'I say unto you, that even if these should be silent, the stones will cry out.' {ERAN.} Before the resurrection He tolerated these forms of address, condescending to the weakness of those who had not yet truly believed;

but after the resurrection these titles are superfluous.

{ORTH.} Where then shall we rank the blessed Paul? Among the perfect, or among the imperfect? {ERAN.} One ought not to jest in serious matters.

{ORTH.} One ought not to be negligent in the reading of the divine oracles.

{ERAN.} And who is so thrice-wretched as to neglect his own salvation? {ORTH.} Answer the question, and you will learn your ignorance.

{ORTH.} When did he begin his preaching? {ERAN.} After the Saviour's ascension, and the coming of the Spirit, and the stoning of Stephen the victorious.

{ORTH.} This man, at the very end of his life, writing his last epistle to his disciple Timothy, and handing it on to him as a kind of paternal inheritance by way of a testament, set down these words also:

'Wherein,' he said, 'I suffer hardship even unto bonds, as a malefactor.' It would have been easy for me to bring forward many other such testimonies, but I have judged this to be superfluous.

{ERAN.} Having promised to show that the Lord supplied the lacking teaching to those in need, you have indeed said that He discoursed to the Pharisees and the other Jews concerning His own Godhead;

but that He also brought forward the teaching concerning the flesh, you have not demonstrated.

{ORTH.} It was, indeed, quite superfluous to discourse concerning the flesh that was seen;

for it was plainly seen, eating and drinking and toiling and sleeping.

Nevertheless—to pass over the many and various things before the passion—after the resurrection, to the apostles who disbelieved, He showed not the Godhead, but the manhood;

for He says, 'See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself;

handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having.' Behold, we have fulfilled our promise to you;

for we have shown, to those ignorant of the Godhead, the teaching brought forward concerning it;

and to those disbelieving in the resurrection of the flesh, the [teaching] shown concerning this.

Cease, then, from your contentiousness, and confess the two natures of the Saviour.

But having come together, they made up one nature.

{ORTH.} And when do you say the union came to be? {ERAN.} I for my part say it was straightway, at the conception.

{ORTH.} And do you not say that God the Word pre-existed the conception? {ERAN.} I affirm that He existed before the ages.

{ORTH.} And did the flesh co-exist with Him? {ERAN.} By no means.

{ORTH.} But was it fashioned from the Holy Spirit after the angel's salutation? {ERAN.} So I affirm.

{ORTH.} Therefore before the union there were not two natures, but one only.

For if the Godhead pre-exists, but the manhood does not co-exist (since it was fashioned after the angelic greeting, and the union is joined to the fashioning), then there was one nature before the union, that which ever is and was even before the ages.

But indeed, let us examine this very point once again.

Do you consider the incarnation—that is, the becoming-man—to be something other than the union? {ERAN.} No.

{ORTH.} For having assumed flesh, He was made flesh? {ERAN.} It appears so.

{ORTH.} And is the union joined to the assumption? {ERAN.} So I say.

{ORTH.} Therefore before the becoming-man there was one nature.

For if union and becoming-man are the same, and He became man by assuming the human nature, and the form of God took the form of the servant, then before the union there was one nature, the divine.

{ERAN.} And how are union and becoming-man the same? {ORTH.} You just now agreed that these terms do not differ.

{ERAN.} You have tricked me with your syllogisms.

{ORTH.} And yet I have put to you a simple question.

{ERAN.} But I was still attending to the syllogisms mentioned before.

{ORTH.} Then, if you please, let us take up the same argument again.

{ORTH.} Does the incarnation, as regards the very nature of the thing, differ from the union? {ERAN.} Very greatly indeed.

{ERAN.} And the very meaning of the terms shows the difference.

For the incarnation signifies the assumption of the flesh, whereas the union signifies the conjoining of things that were apart.

{ORTH.} And do you say the incarnation is prior to the union? {ERAN.} By no means.

{ORTH.} But that the union came to be at the conception? {ERAN.} So I affirm.

{ORTH.} Therefore, if not even the least instant of time intervened between the assumption of the flesh and the union, and the nature that was assumed did not pre-exist the assumption and the union;

then incarnation and union signify the same thing;

and so before the union—that is, the incarnation—there was one nature, but after the union it is fitting to speak of two, both that which assumed and that which was assumed.

{ERAN.} I say that Christ is from two natures, but I do not say two natures.

{ORTH.} Explain to us in what sense you say 'from two natures'—as gold-sprinkled silver, as the manufacture of electrum, as solder compounded of lead and tin? {ERAN.} I say this union resembles none of these;

for it is ineffable and unutterable and surpassing all understanding.

{ORTH.} I too confess that the account of the union is beyond our reach.

But that each nature has remained unalloyed even after the union, I have been taught by the divine Scripture.

{ERAN.} And where did the divine Scripture teach this? {ORTH.} The whole of it is full of this teaching.

{ORTH.} For do you not confess the properties of each nature? {ERAN.} After the union, by no means.

{ERAN.} I am persuaded by the divine Scripture.

{ORTH.} When, therefore, you hear the inspired John crying out:

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'; and:

'All things were made through Him,' and the other things of like kind—do you say that the flesh was in the beginning with God, and is God by nature, and made all things; or [do you say this of] God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the ages? {ERAN.} I affirm that these things pertain to God the Word;

yet I do not separate Him from the flesh that is united to Him.

{ORTH.} Neither do we separate the flesh from God the Word, nor do we make the union a confusion.

{ERAN.} I know one nature after the union.

{ORTH.} Hear then John, saying:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made — and what follows.

Fit together, then, these things and those into one nature.

For to have been from Abraham is contrary to being in the beginning; and to have had a created forefather is contrary to having made all things.

ERANISTES: In saying this you divide the only-begotten Son into two persons.

ORTHODOXOS: One Son of God I both know and worship — our Lord Jesus Christ;

but I have been taught the difference between the Godhead and the manhood.

But you, who say that after the union one nature came to be, fit to that nature the opening words of the Gospels.

ERANISTES: It seems that you suppose the proposition to be very strong, and perhaps insoluble.

ORTHODOXOS: Let it be for you easy and effortless — only solve for us the question at issue.

ORTHODOXOS: You laid it down as a law that one must speak of one nature after the union;

do not, therefore, transgress your own law by making mention of flesh.

ERANISTES: Even without making mention of flesh it is easy to solve the proposition;

for I apply both sets of things to Christ the Saviour.

ORTHODOXOS: I too affirm that both these things and those befit Christ the Master, but I do so while beholding two natures in him and assigning to each what is proper to it.

And again, to have sprung from created beings is contrary to having made all things; and to have had men as fathers is contrary to being from God.

And what is recent is contrary to what is eternal.

So then, let us consider the matter in this way:

Do we say that God the Word is the Maker of all things? ERANISTES: So we have been taught by divine Scripture to believe.

ORTHODOXOS: And on what day have we learned that Adam was fashioned, after the creation of heaven and earth? ERANISTES: On the sixth.

ORTHODOXOS: And from Adam to Abraham how many generations passed? ERANISTES: I have reckoned them as twenty.

ORTHODOXOS: And from Abraham to Christ our Saviour, how many generations does the evangelist Matthew number? ERANISTES: Forty-two.

ORTHODOXOS: If, then, Christ the Master is one nature, how is it possible for him both to be the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and, after so many generations, to be fashioned by the all-holy Spirit in a virgin's womb? And how can he be both the Maker of Adam and the son of Adam's descendants? ERANISTES: And I said before already that both these things and those befit him as God incarnate.

— the nature of the Word made flesh.

ORTHODOXOS: Nor do we, my good friend, say that two natures of God the Word were made flesh;

for we know the nature of God the Word to be one;

but the flesh, by using which he was made flesh, we have been taught to be of another nature.

And I think that you too agree with this.

Tell me, then: do you say that the incarnation came about through some change? ERANISTES: I do not know the manner, but I believe that he was made flesh.

ORTHODOXOS: Craftily have you put forward ignorance, like the Pharisees.

For they too, seeing the force of the Master's question, and then wary of the refutation, said, 'We do not know.'

But I proclaim it plainly, that the divine incarnation is free from change.

For if he was made flesh by some alteration and change, then in no way do the divine names and deeds befit him after the change.

ERANISTES: We have often confessed that God the Word is unchangeable.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore, having taken flesh, he was made flesh.

ORTHODOXOS: Then the nature of God the Word that was made flesh is one thing, and the nature of the flesh is another — the flesh which the divine nature of the Word took up, and so was made flesh and became man.

ORTHODOXOS: Was he then turned into flesh? ERANISTES: By no means.

ORTHODOXOS: If, then, not by being turned but by taking flesh he was made flesh, and both these things and those befit him as God made flesh —

the natures were not confused, but remained unmixed.

For understanding it thus, we shall also see the harmony of the evangelists.

For of the one only-begotten — I mean Christ the Master — the one proclaims the divine things, the other the human.

And the Master Christ himself teaches us to understand it thus;

for now he calls himself Son of God, and now Son of Man;

and at one time he honours his mother as her who bore him, at another he rebukes her as her Master;

and he calls both Nazareth and Capernaum his native country;

'Before Abraham was, I am.' And you will find divine Scripture full of very many such things.

And these things are indicative not of one nature, but of two.

ERANISTES: He who beholds two natures in Christ divides the one only-begotten into two sons.

ORTHODOXOS: Then you also, in saying that Paul consists of soul and body, have declared the one Paul to be two Pauls.

ERANISTES: The example is unfitting.

For here the union is a natural one, of things that are contemporary, created, and fellow-servants;

but in the case of the Master Christ the whole is a matter of good pleasure, of love for mankind, and of grace.

Yet even here, where the union is natural, the properties of the natures have remained intact.

ERANISTES: If the properties of the natures remained unmingled, how is it that together with the body the soul desires food? ORTHODOXOS: It is not the soul that craves food;

for how could that which is immortal and superior to food do so? Rather, the body, receiving its vital power from the soul, perceives its lack and desires to take in what is wanting;

so too it longs for rest after toil, and for sleep after waking, and likewise for the other things.

Thus immediately after the dissolution, no longer possessing the vital energy, it neither desires what is wanting, and, taking nothing in, it undergoes corruption.

ERANISTES: Do you see that hungering and thirsting and things like them belong to the soul? ORTHODOXOS: If these belonged to the soul, then even after its departure from the body it would still endure hunger and thirst, and the rest likewise.

ERANISTES: What then do you say are the properties of the soul? ORTHODOXOS: The rational, the simple, the immortal, the invisible.

ERANISTES: And what are the properties of the body? ORTHODOXOS: The composite, the visible, the mortal.

ERANISTES: And do we say that man is composed of these? ORTHODOXOS: So we say.

ERANISTES: Do we then define man as a rational, mortal living being? ORTHODOXOS: It is agreed.

ERANISTES: And do we name him from both these and those? ORTHODOXOS: True.

ERANISTES: Just as here, then, we do not divide, but call the same one both rational and mortal;

it is fitting to do the same, and to apply to him both the divine and the human.

ORTHODOXOS: This argument is ours, even if you have not worked it out with precision.

When we examine the account concerning the human soul, do we speak only of the things proper to its nature and activity? ERANISTES: Only those.

ORTHODOXOS: And when our discourse concerns the body, do we again go through only its properties? ERANISTES: True.

ORTHODOXOS: But when the discussion is about the whole living being, then without hesitation we bring forward both these things and those.

For to a human being belong both the properties of the body and those of the soul.

ORTHODOXOS: In the very same way, then, it is fitting that we should frame our discourses concerning Christ the Master;

and when we discuss the natures, we must assign to each what befits it, and know which things are proper to the divinity and which to the humanity.

ERANISTES: That there is one person of Christ, and that to him belong both the divine things and the human, you have stated most rightly, and I accept this definition of the faith.

But your further statement, that when discussing the natures one must assign to each its own properties, seems to me to dissolve the union;

and for this reason I do not admit these and suchlike statements.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet, when we were examining the matters concerning soul and body, the distinction drawn in those arguments appeared to you worthy of all admiration;

you at once offered your commendation.

Why, then, in the case of the divinity and humanity of Christ the Master do you not accept the same rule? Or do you not even set the divinity and humanity of Christ on a par with soul and body? Yet to soul and body you grant an unconfused union;

yet do you dare to say that the divinity and humanity of Christ have undergone a blending and confusion? ERANISTES: For my part, I have supposed that the divinity of Christ, and indeed his flesh too, are by a great and immeasurable measure more precious than soul and body;

nevertheless I say that after the union there is one nature.

ORTHODOXOS: And how is it not impious and monstrous to say that a soul joined to a body has in no way suffered the affection of confusion, whereas the divinity of the Master of all things could neither preserve its own nature undefiled nor keep within its own bounds the humanity which it assumed, but has blended what cannot be blended and mixed what cannot be mixed? For this is what the notion of one nature prepares us to suspect.

ERANISTES: To me too the name of confusion is one to be shunned;

but I decline to speak of two natures, lest I fall into a duality of Sons.

ORTHODOXOS: But I am eager to escape either precipice—both that of impious confusion and that of impious division.

For to me it is alike unholy both to divide the one Son in two and to deny the duality of the natures.

But tell me, by the truth:

if one of the partisans of Arius or of Eunomius, conversing with you, should try to diminish the Son and to show him to be less and inferior to the Father, saying the things they are wont to say, and bringing forward from the divine Scripture the words:

'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me'; and:

'Now is my soul troubled,' and other such things—

how would you resolve his difficulties? And how would you show that the Son is not thereby diminished, nor of another substance, but begotten of the Father's essence? ERANISTES: I would say that the divine Scripture speaks some things theologically and some things economically, and that one must not fit together what is said economically with what is said theologically.

ORTHODOXOS: But he would say that even in the Old Testament the divine Scripture speaks many things economically.

'Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking'; and:

'If it be according to their cry which comes to me that they are bringing it to fulfilment, and if not, that I may know'; and:

'Now I know that you fear God'; and many other such things.

ERANISTES: To these things again I would reply, that great is the difference among the economies.

For in the Old Testament there is an economy of such words, but here of deeds as well.

ORTHODOXOS: But he would ask:

'What deeds?' ERANISTES: But he will straightway hear: those of the incarnation.

For the Son of God, having become man, both through words and through deeds shows now the flesh and now the divinity;

just as here, of course, he showed the weakness of the flesh and of the soul.

ORTHODOXOS: But if, taking up the point, he should say:

'And yet he did not assume a soul, but a body only, while the divinity, being united to the body in place of a soul, took upon itself all that belongs to the soul'—by what arguments would you resolve the objection? ERANISTES: By bringing forward the proofs from the divine Scripture, and showing that God the Word assumed not flesh only but a soul as well.

ORTHODOXOS: And what such proofs shall we find in the Scripture? ERANISTES: Have you not heard the Lord saying:

'I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again;'

'no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself, that I may take it again'; and again:

'Now is my soul troubled.' And once more:

ORTHODOXOS: Most aptly indeed and judiciously have you adduced these testimonies.

But he would object that even before the incarnation God, conversing with the Jews, said:

'My soul hates your fasting and idleness and your feasts.' Then, reasoning it out, he would say that just as in the Old Testament he mentioned a soul though he had no soul, so also he has done here.

ERANISTES: But he will hear once more, that the divine Scripture, when speaking of God, also makes mention of bodily members.

'Incline,' it says, 'your ear, and hearken'; and:

'Open your eyes, and see'; and:

'The mouth of the Lord has spoken these things'; and:

'Your hands made me and fashioned me'; and countless such things.

If, then, even after the incarnation the soul is not to be understood as a soul, neither, therefore, is the body to be understood as a body;

and the great mystery of the economy will be found to be a phantasm, and we shall differ in no way from Marcion and Valentinus and Manes;

for those men too fable suchlike things.

ORTHODOXOS: But if, while you were conversing, someone of the faction of Apollinaris should suddenly arrive and ask:

'What sort of soul, my good man, do you say was assumed?' what would you answer? ERANISTES: First, that I know one soul of man.

Then I would add: But if you suppose two, and reckon one to be rational and the other irrational, I affirm that the rational one was assumed.

For you, it seems, hold the irrational one, since you consider our salvation to have been left incomplete.

'But Jesus advanced in stature, and in wisdom, and in grace with God and men.' And I would say that none of these things befits the divinity.

For it is in stature that the body advances, but in wisdom the soul—not the irrational, but the rational.

Therefore God the Word assumed a rational soul.

ORTHODOXOS: Most nobly indeed, my excellent friend, have you broken through the three phalanxes of your adversaries;

but that famous union, and the much-bruited blending and confusion, you have by your argument dissolved not merely in two but even in three;

and you have shown not only the difference of divinity and humanity, but you have also divided the humanity itself in two;

so that, according to our own reasoning, three natures are to be conceived in our Saviour Jesus Christ.

ERANISTES: For do you not say that the substance of the soul is some other thing beside the nature of the body? ORTHODOXOS: Yes indeed.

ERANISTES: How then did the argument appear paradoxical to you? ORTHODOXOS: Because, while declining to say two, you have confessed three natures.

ERANISTES: It is the contest against our adversaries that compels us to do this.

For how else could one converse with those who deny the assumption of the flesh, or of the soul, or of the mind, than by bringing forward from the divine Scripture the proofs concerning these? And how could one refute those who rage in their contentious desire to diminish the divinity of the Only-begotten, than by showing that the divine Scripture has spoken some things theologically and some economically? ORTHODOXOS: True is this argument;

for it is ours—or rather, it belongs to all who have kept the apostolic rule unbending.

And you yourself have appeared as an advocate of our doctrines.

ERANISTES: And how do I plead for your side, when I do not speak of two Sons? ORTHODOXOS: When have you heard us proclaiming two Sons? ERANISTES: He who says two natures says two Sons.

ORTHODOXOS: Then you, therefore, are saying three Sons;

ERANISTES: There was no other way to resolve the difficulties of our opponents.

ORTHODOXOS: Hear this very same thing from us as well;

for we too employ the same antagonists.

ERANISTES. But I, after the union, do not speak of two natures.

ORTHODOXOS. And yet, many generations after the union, you just now made use of these very words —

as though one nature had come to be out of both, or as though one remained while the other was destroyed? ERANISTES. I say that the Godhead remained, but that the manhood was swallowed up by it.

ORTHODOXOS. These are the myths of the Greeks and the ravings of the Manichaeans.

And I am ashamed even to bring them forward into public view.

For the one party fabricated tales of gods being swallowed, while the other made mention in their writings of the daughter of the light.

But we turn away from such statements not only as impious, but also as exceedingly senseless.