Eranistes (The Beggar), or Polymorphus 1.27–2.6

Of holy Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, from the discourse on Abraham: “… therefore not the naked Word, but the one who became flesh; not the form of God, but the form of the servant. This, then, is the one who said that he can do nothing of himself. For to be unable is a mark of weakness. For as darkness is opposed to light, and death to life, so weakness is opposed to power. But Christ is the power of God; and power is not at all powerless. For if power were weak, what would be powerful? When, then, the Word declares that he cannot do something, it is clear that he does not attribute inability to the Godhead of the Only-begotten, but bears witness to the weakness of our nature. And the flesh is weak, as it is written, ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’” Of the same, from [the discourse] On the Perfect Life: “But again the true lawgiver, of whom Moses was a type, hewed for himself the tablets of the nature from our earth. For no marriage fashioned his God-receiving flesh, but he himself becomes the stonecutter of his own flesh, which was inscribed by the divine finger. For the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, and the power of the [Most High] overshadowed her. And when this had happened, the nature again had its unbreakableness, having become immortal by the marks of the finger.” Of the same, from the discourse Against Eunomius: “We say, then, that in the words before this, by saying that Wisdom built herself a house, he hints in the discourse at the construction of the Lord's flesh. For the true Wisdom did not dwell in a building belonging to another, but built for herself the dwelling from the virginal body.” Of the same, from the same treatise: “The Word was before the ages, but the flesh came to be in the last of times; and no one could reverse this and say either that this is before the ages, or that the Word came to be in the last times.” Of the same, from the same treatise: “The saying ‘He created me’ does not come from the divine and pure [nature], but, as has been said, from what was assumed by the dispensation from our created nature.” Of the same, from the first discourse on the Beatitudes: “‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.’ What is poorer for God than the form of a servant? What is humbler for the King of beings than to come into fellowship with our poor nature? The King of those who reign and the Lord of those who rule voluntarily puts on the form of slavery.”

Of holy … From the homily on John the Baptist: “Do not, then, think of the union in bodily terms, nor understand it as marital intercourse. For your Creator fashions his bodily temple to be born of you.” Of the same, from the discourse on “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”: “Hear him who says, ‘The Spirit is upon me, because he has anointed me.’ You do not know, he says, what you read; for I, the one anointed by the Spirit, have come to you. And it is not the invisible nature that is anointed by the Spirit, but what is of one kind with us.” [Of the same, from the discourse] on “My Father is greater than I”: “Distinguish for me, then, the natures, that of God and that of the human being. For neither did he become human from God by a fall, nor God from a human being by progress. For I speak of God and human being. And when you assign the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles to God, you necessarily, even unwillingly, assign the lowly words to the human being from Mary, and the exalted and God-befitting ones to the Word who was in the beginning. For this is why I utter sometimes exalted words and sometimes lowly ones: so that by the lofty I may show the kinship of the indwelling Word, and by the lowly make known the weakness of the lowly flesh. Therefore I sometimes call myself equal to the Father, and sometimes [say] the Father is greater, not fighting against myself, but showing that I am God and human: God from the lofty things, human from the lowly. And if you wish to know how my Father is greater than I, I said it from the flesh, and not from the person of the Godhead.” Of the same, from the discourse on “The Son can do nothing of himself”: “What Adam disobeyed in heaven? What first-formed one was fashioned from a heavenly body besides the first? But the one from the earth was fashioned in the beginning, the one from the earth disobeyed, the one from the earth was assumed. Therefore the one from the earth was also saved, so that the account of the dispensation might thus appear both true and necessary.” [Of holy John, bishop of Constanti]nople: “… of the one who spoke before him. See what he does from the outset. He puts on our nature, which had become weak, [so as to] wrestle through it; and from the outset he tears up by the roots the nature of madness.” Of the same, from the discourse on the Nativity: “For is it not extreme madness that they, bringing their own gods into stones and wood, cheap images, and shutting them up as in a prison, think it no shame either to do or to say this, yet blame us for saying that God, having prepared for himself a living temple from the Holy Spirit, benefited the world through it? For if it is shameful for God to dwell in a human body, much more so in stone and wood, inasmuch as stone and wood are less honorable than a human being; unless to them our race seems more worthless even than these senseless materials. They themselves bring down the substance of God into stones and dogs, and many of the heretics into other things more dishonorable than these. But we would never bear even to hear any of this. But this we say, that pure flesh, holy and blameless and free from all sin …

… Christ …, and he set right his own vessel.” And a little later: “But this we say, that God the Word, having prepared for himself a holy temple, through it brought into our life the way of life from the heavens.” Of the same, from the discourse “That the things said and done by Christ in a lowly manner came about not through weakness of power and …”: “What, then, are the reasons why both he himself and the apostles said many lowly things about him? The first and greatest reason is that he had put on flesh, and wished to assure both those of that time and all those after them that what was seen is not some shadow nor a mere figure, but the reality of a nature. For if, when so many lowly and human things were said about him both by himself and by the apostles, the devil was nevertheless able to persuade some wretched and miserable people to deny the account of the dispensation, to dare to say that he did not take flesh, and to destroy the whole basis of his love for humankind, then if he had said none of these things, how many would not have fallen into this pit?”

[Orthodoxos:] I have brought you a few passages, out of very many, from the heralds of the truth, so as not to weary your ears with their number. Even these are enough to show the aim of the thought of these praiseworthy men. It would now be yours to say how what has been said seems to you. Eranistes: All of them have spoken in harmony, and agree with those who cultivated [the lands] toward the rising sun; but I saw a division in the words of [these] … Orthodoxos: These men became successors of the divine apostles. Some of them even enjoyed their holy voice and their admirable presence; and most … were adorned with the crowns of martyrdom. Does it seem pious to you, then, to move your blasphemous tongue against these too? Eranistes: This I fear to do; but the … Orthodoxos: But I will again [offer] you an unexpected remedy. For I will bring into the open one of the teachers of your admirable heresy, Apollinarius, and show that he understood “The Word became flesh” in the same way as the holy Fathers. Hear, then, what he [says] about this in the book arranged by chapters. From the book by chapters: “If what one assumes is not changed into it, and Christ assumed flesh, then he was not changed into flesh.” And again, immediately joining on, he says: “For he graciously gave himself to us in kinship through the body, in order to save. And what saves is far better than what is saved; therefore he is far better than us even in his embodiment. But he would not have been better if he had been changed into flesh.” And a little later he speaks thus: “The simple is one, but the composite cannot be one. He who says that he became flesh, then, speaks of a change of the one Word. But if the composite too is one, as a human being is, then he who says ‘The Word became flesh’ because of the union with flesh speaks of one by composition.” And again, a little after, he said this too: “Incarnation is emptying; and the emptying showed the one who emptied himself to be not a human being but the Son of Man, by way of clothing, not by way of change.” See, the teacher of your doctrines has even offered you the word “clothing.” And indeed in the little discourse On the Faith he speaks thus: “We believe, then, that, the Godhead remaining unaltered, its incarnation took place for the renewal of humanity. For no alteration, no movement, no enclosure took place in regard to the holy power of God.” And a little later: “We worship God, who took flesh from the holy Virgin, and is therefore human according to the flesh, but God according to the spirit.” And in another exposition he spoke thus: “We confess that the Son of God became Son of Man, not in name but in truth, having taken flesh from Mary the Virgin.” Eranistes: I did not think that Apollinarius held these views; for I had other opinions about the man. Orthodoxos: See, then, you have learned that not only the prophets and apostles, and the teachers of the world ordained after them, but also Apollinarius, who wrote the heretical nonsense, both confesses God the Word immutable and says that he was not changed into flesh but assumed flesh; and he said this many times, as you have heard. Do not, then, strive to outdo your teacher in blasphemy. “For a disciple is not above his teacher,” the Lord said. Eranistes: I too confess both that God the Word is immutable and that he assumed flesh. For to resist so many witnesses is extreme madness. Orthodoxos: Does it seem good to you, then, that the remaining questions too should be resolved? [Eranistes:] … test. Orthodoxos: Let us depart, then, breaking up our meeting, and let us remember what we have agreed.

Orthodoxos: I accepted the challenge, for I took it to be right and just. But first we must recall where we left the discussion yesterday, and what end the debate reached. Eranistes: I will recall the end. For I remember that we agreed that God the Word remained immutable and took flesh, not that he himself was changed into flesh. Orthodoxos: You seem to be content with what has been shown; [you have spoken] as a lover of truth … Eranistes: I said before too that whoever resists so many teachers of such quality is most plainly mad; and not least Apollinarius put me to shame by saying the same things as the orthodox, though in his discourses on the incarnation he plainly went the opposite way. Orthodoxos: [Do we say,] then, that God the Word assumed flesh? … And what do we understand by flesh? A body only, as Arius and Eunomius think, or body and soul? Eranistes: Body and soul. Orthodoxos: What kind of soul? The rational one, or the one some call vegetative or vital? For the fabulous trickery of Apollinarius' writings compels us to ask what we should not need to ask. Eranistes: Does Apollinarius, then, speak of a difference of souls? Orthodoxos: He says that the human being is composed of three: of body, of the vital soul, and again of the rational, which he calls mind. But the divine Scripture knows one soul, not two; and the fashioning of the first human being teaches us this clearly. “For God took dust from the earth,” it says, “and formed the human being, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and the human being became a living soul.” And indeed in the Gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.” And the most divine Moses, having given the number of those who went down into Egypt and said with whom each tribal head entered, added, “All the souls who entered Egypt were seventy-five,” counting one soul for each of those who entered. And the divine Apostle in Troas, when everyone supposed that Eutychus had died, said, “Do not be troubled, for his soul is in him.” Eranistes: It has been clearly shown that each human being has one soul. Orthodoxos: But Apollinarius speaks of two, and says that God the Word assumed the irrational one, and that instead of the rational he himself came to be in the flesh. This is why I asked what kind of soul you say was assumed with the body. Eranistes: I say the rational; for Scripture … Orthodoxos: Do we say, then, that the form of the servant was assumed complete by God the Word? … Orthodoxos: And very reasonably. For since the first human being came wholly under sin and lost the features of the divine image, and the race followed its founder, the Creator of necessity assumed the whole nature, [and renewed it] much more than the former …

Eranistes: These things are true. But I ask that the meanings of the names first be made clear to us, so that the debate may go forward unhindered and none of the … Orthodoxos: Well said; ask, then, about whatever you wish. Eranistes: What ought we to call Jesus Christ? [God, or] human being? Orthodoxos: Neither without the other, but both. For God the Word, having become human, was named Jesus Christ. “For you shall call his name Jesus,” it says, “for he will save his people from their sins.” And, “Today there is born to you Christ the Lord in the city of David.” These are the words of angels. But before the incarnation he was named God, and Son of God, and Only-begotten, and Lord, and God the Word, and Maker. “For in the beginning was the Word,” it says, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; and, “All things came to be through him”; and, “He was life”; and, “He was the true light, which enlightens every human being coming into the world”; and whatever is like these and indicates the divine nature. But after the incarnation he was named Jesus and Christ. Eranistes: Then the Lord Jesus is God only. Orthodoxos: You hear that God the Word became human, and you call him God only? Eranistes: Since he became human without being changed, but remained what he was, we must call him what he was. Orthodoxos: God the Word was, and is, and will be immutable; but having taken human nature he became human. It is fitting for us, then, to confess both natures, both the one that took and the one that was taken. Eranistes: One should name him from the better. Orthodoxos: The human being (I mean the living creature): is it simple or composite? … Orthodoxos: Composed of what? Eranistes: Of body and soul. Orthodoxos: And which of these natures is the better? Eranistes: Clearly the soul; for it is rational and immortal, and has been entrusted with the rule of the living creature. But the body is mortal and perishable, and when separated from the soul it is irrational and dead. Orthodoxos: Then the divine Scripture ought to name the living creature from the better nature. Eranistes: So it does name it. For it called those who went into Egypt souls: “With seventy-five souls,” it says, “Israel went down into Egypt.” Orthodoxos: And has the divine Scripture called no one from the body? … called them flesh. “For God said,” it says, “My Spirit shall not remain in these human beings, because they are flesh.”

Orthodoxos: And has it called no one flesh without an accusation? … Orthodoxos: Then I will remind you and teach you that it called even the very holy “flesh.” Answer, then: what would you call the apostles? Spiritual …? Eranistes: Spiritual, and [the first] of the spiritual. Orthodoxos: Hear, then, the inspired Paul saying, “But when he who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I might [preach] him …, [I did not confer] with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to the apostles before me.” He did not name them so as an accusation against the apostles … Orthodoxos: But naming them from the visible nature, and comparing the call through human beings with the call from heaven. [Hear also David] singing to God and saying, “To you all flesh will come”; and the prophet Isaiah prophesying that “all flesh will see the salvation of our God.” It has been clearly shown that even without any accusation the divine Scripture names the human nature from the flesh. … Orthodoxos: And I will show you the other point too. … Orthodoxos: That even when accusing some, the divine Scripture names them from the soul alone. Eranistes: And where will you find this in the divine Scripture? [Orthodoxos: Hear] the prophet saying, “The soul that sins, it shall die.” And indeed through Moses the great he says, “A soul, if it sins”; and again, “And every soul that will not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed.” And many other such things can be found. Orthodoxos: If, then, where there is a natural union, a conjunction of things created, fellow servants, and of the same time, it is the custom of the divine Scripture to name this living creature not only from the better nature but also from the lesser as well as the greater, how can you blame us for naming the Master Christ human together with confessing him God, and that when many … [Eranistes: Why must one] name the Savior Christ [from both]? Orthodoxos: Because of the different and wholly opposed doctrines of the heretics. Eranistes: And which doctrines are opposed to which? Orthodoxos: That of Arius to that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances; the other confounds the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances; Sabellius speaks of one hypostasis instead of three. Tell me, then, how ought each disease to be healed? Should one apply the same remedy to both sufferings, or to each the one suited to it? Eranistes: To each the one suited to it. Orthodoxos: Then we will try to persuade Arius to confess the [one] substance of the holy Trinity, and we will bring the proofs of this from the divine Scripture. … Orthodoxos: But in debating with Sabellius we will do the opposite. For we will offer no argument about the substance, since he too confesses one. … Orthodoxos: But we will be eager to heal the diseased part of his opinion. … Orthodoxos: And what disease did we say that he suffers from?

Eranistes: We say that he [goes lame] in regard to the hypostases … Orthodoxos: Then, since he says that the Trinity is one hypostasis, we will show him the divine [Scripture] … Eranistes: This must be done so; but [let us return to] the matter in hand … Orthodoxos: By no means [have we left it]. For it is about this very thing that we are collecting the proofs, and you will learn this shortly. Tell me, then: do you suppose that all the heresies called after Christ confess both the Godhead of Christ and the humanity? … Orthodoxos: But some confess the Godhead only, and others the humanity only? … Orthodoxos: And others a part of the humanity? Eranistes: So I think. [Orthodoxos:] But it is fitting for us to make clear how those who hold the one view and those who hold the other are named, so that the question may become clearer. Simon, and Menander, and Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, and Bardaisan, and Cerdo, and Mani openly denied the humanity of Christ. But Artemon, and Theodotus, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, and Marcellus, and Photinus fell into the diametrically opposite blasphemy. For they proclaim Christ a mere human being and deny the Godhead that exists before the ages. Arius and Eunomius call the Godhead of the Only-begotten created, and say that he assumed a body only. Apollinarius confesses that the body assumed was ensouled, but in his own discourses deprives the rational soul of both honor and salvation. This, then, is the difference among the corrupt doctrines. But tell us yourself truthfully: should one hold a discussion with these, or must one [push them] over the cliffs? Eranistes: Contempt for the sick is the work of misanthropy. Orthodoxos: It is fitting, then, both to suffer with them and to [heal them]. … Orthodoxos: If, then, you knew how to heal bodies, and many stood around asking to be healed and showing different sufferings, such as discharges from the eyes, injuries of the ears, toothaches, in some a tension of the sinews and in others a slackening, in one a flood of bile and in another of phlegm, what would you do, tell me? Would you prepare one remedy for all, or for each suffering the one suited to it? Eranistes: Clearly what is appropriate to each and … Orthodoxos: Then by cooling the hot ailments and warming the cold, relaxing what is tense and strengthening what is slack with tonics, and [moistening] what is dry, you would drive out the diseases and bring back the health they had driven out? Eranistes: So the law of medicine bids one heal; for opposites, they say, [are cured] by opposites. Orthodoxos: And if you were a gardener, would you give all the plants the same care, or to the pomegranate the care proper to it, to the fig its own, and likewise to the pear, the apple, and the cultivated vines the care appropriate to them; in a word, to each plant what suits it?

Eranistes: Clearly each plant [needs] its own care … you saw the mast-step needing repair, [would you give it the care suited to some other part], or that which suits the mast-step? [Eranistes:] For each thing seeks its own care: a plant, a part of the body, utensils, and the parts of a ship. Orthodoxos: How, then, is it not wretched to apply suitable treatments to the body and to inanimate things, but in the case of souls not [to keep] the rule of healing that governs these? Eranistes: It is most unjust, and full not only of injustice but also of folly. For those who act otherwise are ignorant of the very art of healing. Orthodoxos: Then, in debating with each heresy, shall we apply the remedy suited to it? … Orthodoxos: And a suitable treatment is to add what is lacking and remove what is excessive? … Orthodoxos: When, then, we try to heal Photinus and Marcellus and their neighbors, what shall we add to fulfill the rule of healing? Eranistes: The confession of the Godhead of Christ; for this is what is lacking in them. Orthodoxos: But we will say nothing to them about the humanity, for they confess that the Master Christ is human. … debating about the incarnation, what would we persuade them to add to their own confession? Eranistes: The assumption of the soul; for they say that God the Word assumed a body only. … make exact the account of the incarnation? Eranistes: Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess that the rational soul [was assumed] with the body. Orthodoxos: Then shall we discuss this with him too? … and all who are neighbors to these: what did we say they confess in this respect, and what do they deny altogether? Eranistes: That they said they believe in the Godhead of Christ, but do not admit the account of the humanity. … accept the account of the humanity too, and not call the divine dispensation an appearance. Eranistes: So one should do. Orthodoxos: We will tell them, then, that one must call Christ not only God but also human. … Orthodoxos: And how is it possible, when we ourselves decline to call Christ human as well, [to urge] this on others? Eranistes: And how do we hold the same views as they, when we confess that God the Word assumed both flesh and a rational soul? Orthodoxos: If, then, we confess the realities, why do we flee the names? Eranistes: One must call Christ by the more honorable [names]. Orthodoxos: Keep the rule, then, and do not call him crucified, nor raised from the dead, nor anything like these. Eranistes: But these are the names of the saving sufferings; and the denial of the sufferings is the destruction of salvation. Orthodoxos: And the name “human being” is the name of a nature; and silence about it is the denial of the nature; and the denial of the nature is the destruction of the sufferings; and the destruction of these makes salvation vanish.

Eranistes: To know the nature that was assumed I consider useful; but to call him human [diminishes] his glory. Orthodoxos: Then do you consider yourself wiser than Peter and Paul, and than the Savior himself? For the Lord said to the Jews, “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from my Father?” And in many places he calls himself Son of Man. And the all-praised Peter, addressing the Jewish people: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God.” And blessed Paul, offering the saving proclamation to the leaders of the Areopagus, said this too, among many other things: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, having given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” He, then, who rejects what was set down and proclaimed by the Lord and the apostles has supposed himself wiser than the great teachers, and indeed than the very … Eranistes: They offered this teaching to unbelievers; but now most of the world has believed. Orthodoxos: In the first place, there are still Jews and Greeks and countless bands of heretics, and one must offer each of these a fitting teaching. But even if we were all of one mind, tell me, what harm is there in confessing Christ God and human? Or [do we not confess] perfect Godhead in him and perfect humanity likewise? Eranistes: We have often confessed these. Orthodoxos: Why, then, do we do away with what we have often confessed? Eranistes: I have supposed it superfluous to call Christ human, especially when a believer is talking with a believer. Orthodoxos: Do you consider the divine Apostle a believer? Eranistes: Rather, the teacher of all believers. Orthodoxos: And do you think Timothy worthy of this [name]? Eranistes: As his disciple, at least, and … Orthodoxos: Hear, then, the teacher of teachers writing to his most perfect disciple: “One God, one also mediator of God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all”; and stop chattering in vain and laying down laws for us about divine names. And here the very name “mediator” indicates Godhead and humanity. For if he were God only, he would not have been called mediator; for how could he have mediated between us and God, having nothing of ours? But since as God he is joined to the Father, having the same substance, and as human he is joined to us (for he took the form of the servant from us), he has fittingly been named mediator, joining in himself things that stood apart, by the union of the natures, I mean of Godhead and humanity.