Eranistes (The Beggar), or Polymorphus 4.1–4.5

1. We have confessed one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and we have said with one voice that it is immutable. If, then, the substance of the Trinity is one, and it is immutable, then the only-begotten Son, being one person of the Trinity, is immutable. And if he is immutable, he surely did not become flesh by being changed, but … 2. Another. If God the Word became flesh by undergoing change into flesh, then he is not immutable. For no one in his senses would call what is altered immutable. And if he is mutable, then neither is he consubstantial with the one who begot him. For how is it possible, in the reckoning of the simple substance, for one part to be mutable and the other immutable? If we grant this, we shall surely fall into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius; for they say that the Son is of another substance. 3. Another. If the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the Son became flesh by undergoing a change into flesh, then the substance is mutable and not immutable. And if anyone dares this blasphemy, he will surely increase it by a blasphemy against the Father; for he will surely call him mutable as well, since he shares in the same substance. 4. Another. The divine Scriptures say that God the Word took flesh, and indeed a soul as well; and the most divine evangelist said, “The Word became flesh.” It is necessary, then, to do one of two things: either to accept the change of the Word into flesh, and to turn away from the whole divine Scripture, Old and New, as teaching falsehood; or to obey the divine Scripture, and confess the assumption of the flesh, and drive the change out of our reasonings, understanding the Gospel saying in a fitting way. And this, then, is what must be done, since we both confess that the nature of God the Word is immutable and have countless testimonies to the assumption of the flesh. 5. Another. What dwells in a tent is other than the tent it dwells in. The evangelist called the flesh a tent, and said that God the Word dwelt in it as in a tent: “For the Word,” he says, “became flesh and dwelt among us.” If he became flesh by being changed, he did not dwell in flesh. But we have learned that he dwelt in flesh. For the same evangelist in another passage too called his body a temple. We must believe, then, the evangelist, who unfolded the saying and [cleared up] what seems doubtful to some. 6. Another. If the evangelist, having written “The Word became flesh,” had added nothing able to resolve the ambiguity, the dispute about the saying might perhaps have had some reasonable pretext, the obscurity of the letter. But since he at once joined to it “and dwelt among us,” those who strain against the yoke quibble in vain. For what follows is the interpretation of what was written before. 7. Another. The all-wise evangelist openly proclaimed the immutability of God the Word. For having said, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he at once added, “and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” If, as the foolish hold, he had undergone the change into flesh, he would not have remained what he was. But if, even though covered with flesh, … he sent forth the rays of his Father’s nobility, he surely has an immutable nature, and shines even in the body, and sends forth the gleams of the invisible nature. For nothing can dim that light: “For the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it,” as the most divine John says. 8. Another. The all-praised evangelist, wishing to express the glory of the Only-begotten, and then unable to accomplish the attempt, shows it from his fellowship with the Father. For he is, he says, from that nature. He does as someone would who, speaking to people who saw Joseph serving below his worth and did not know the distinction of his family, said that Jacob was his father and Abraham his forefather. For so this evangelist too said that even dwelling among us he did not dim the glory of his nature: “For we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.” And if even when incarnate he was plainly the one he was, then he remained what he was, and did not undergo the change into flesh. 9. Another. We have confessed that God the Word assumed not flesh only but also a soul. Why, then, did the divine evangelist leave out the soul here and mention the flesh only? Is it not clear that he pointed out the visible nature, and through it indicated the nature naturally yoked to it? For with the mention of the flesh, the mention of the soul surely comes in too.

For when we hear the Prophet saying, “Let all flesh bless his holy name,” we do not think that the Prophet is exhorting soulless flesh, but we believe that the whole is called to hymnody by naming the part. 10. Another. “The Word became flesh” indicates not change but his ineffable love for humankind. For the all-praised evangelist, having said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and having shown him to be the Creator of things visible and invisible, and having named him life and true light, and set down certain other things like these, and having spoken of him as God as far as the human mind could contain and the tongue was able to serve its colors, added, “And the Word became flesh,” as though astounded and marvelling at the boundlessness of his love for humankind: he who always is, and is God, and made all things, and is the fountain of eternal life and of true light, for the salvation of human beings put on himself the tent of the flesh. And this alone was thought to be what was seen. For this reason he did not mention the soul either, but only the flesh, which is perishable and mortal; he left out the soul as immortal, so as to show the immeasurable greatness of his goodness. 11. Another. The divine Apostle names Christ the Lord the seed of Abraham. If this is true — and it is true — then God the Word was not changed into flesh, but took hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the teaching of the Apostle himself. 12. Another. God swore to David that from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ according to the flesh, as the prophet said and the great Peter interpreted. But if God the Word was changed into flesh and so named Christ, we shall nowhere find the truth of the oaths. But we have been taught that God is without falsehood, or rather that he is Truth itself. Therefore God the Word did not undergo the change into flesh, but [took flesh] from the seed of David according to the promise … 1. Those who believe that one nature of Godhead and humanity came about after the union destroy by this argument the properties of the natures; and the destruction of these is the denial of each nature. For confusion of the things united does not allow us to understand either the flesh as flesh or God as God. But if even after the union the difference between the things united is distinct, then no confusion took place, but the union is unconfused. And if this is agreed, then Christ the Lord is not one nature, but one Son, [showing] each nature … 2. Another. We too say that the union took place at the conception. If, then, the union mixed and confused the natures, how was the flesh after the birth seen to have nothing new, but showed the human character, and kept the measures of an infant, and submitted to swaddling bands, and drew at its mother’s breast? But if these things were accomplished in appearance and seeming … but they do not, as they say, admit appearance and seeming; then what was seen was truly a body. And if this is agreed, then the union did not confuse the natures, but each remained [unimpaired]. 3. Another. Those who have put together this motley and many-shaped heresy sometimes say that God the Word became flesh, and sometimes say that the flesh received a change into the nature of Godhead. Each statement is stale and vain and full of falsehood. For if, as they themselves say, God the Word became flesh, why do they name him God, and that only, and are unwilling to name him man as well, but strongly accuse us when we say that he is man as well as confessing him God? And if the flesh was changed into the nature of Godhead, why do they partake of the antitypes of the body? For the type is superfluous when [the archetype] has been done away. Another. An incorporeal nature is not circumcised bodily. And “bodily” is added because of the spiritual circumcision of the heart. Circumcision, then, surely belongs to the body. And Christ the Lord was circumcised after the union. If this is agreed, then the argument for confusion too has been refuted. … [we have learned that] Christ the Saviour [hungered, thirsted, and grew weary], and we believe that these things truly happened, and not in seeming. But these are proper not to an incorporeal nature but to a body. So Christ the Lord had a body, which before the resurrection received the sufferings of nature. And the divine Apostle bears witness to this: “For we do not have,” he says, “a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every respect according to our likeness, without sin.” For sin belongs not to nature but to evil choice. 6. Another. The prophet David said concerning the divine nature, “He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.” But the history of the Gospels shows Christ the Lord sleeping in the boat. Now sleeping is contrary to not sleeping; then the words of the prophets are surely contrary to those of the Gospels, if indeed, as they argue, Christ the Lord is God only. But they are not contrary; for these and those are streams of one Spirit. Christ the Lord, then, had a body, akin to other bodies, which received the need of sleep; and the argument for confusion has been shown to be a myth.

4. Another. The prophet Isaiah said of the divine nature, “He will not hunger, nor grow weary,” and what follows; and the evangelist says, “Jesus, wearied from the journey, was sitting thus by the spring.” “He will not grow weary” is contrary to “he grew weary”; so the prophecy is contrary to the history of the Gospels. But it is not contrary; for these and those are of one God. Not growing weary, then, belongs to the uncircumscribed nature, for it fills all things; but moving from place to place is proper to the circumscribed body; and what moves from place to place, being obliged to walk, undergoes the toil of the journey. So it was a body that walked and grew weary. For the union did not confuse the natures. 5. Another. [The Lord, appearing] to the divine Paul, [said,] “Do not be afraid, Paul,” and what follows. And he who drove away Paul’s fear so feared the passion, as the blessed Luke said, that [he gave out] drops of sweat … and sprinkled with them the ground beneath his body, and was strengthened by angelic help. These things too are contrary. For how is fearing not contrary to driving away fear? But they are not contrary. For the same one is both God by nature and man; and as God he encourages those who need courage, while as man he receives courage through an angel. And yet the Godhead and the Spirit were present with him, the Spirit as his anointing. But neither the united Godhead nor the all-holy Spirit then supported the body or the soul; they entrusted this service to an angel, so as to show the weakness of both the soul and the body, and so that through the weakness the natures of those that were weak might be shown. These things took place, clearly, with the divine nature permitting them, so that, of those who were to come later, those who believe in the assumption of the soul and the body might be confirmed by the proofs, and those who speak against it might be refuted by the clear testimonies. If, then, the union took place together with the conception, and the union, by their argument, made both natures into one nature, how could the properties of the natures have remained intact, so that the soul was in agony and the body sweated so as to give out drops like blood from the excess of fear? But if the one is proper to the body and the other to the soul, then one nature of flesh and Godhead did not come about from the union, but one Son appeared, showing in himself both the divine things and the human. 6. Another. And if they should say that after the resurrection the body received the change into Godhead, one should answer them thus. After the resurrection it was seen to be circumscribed, and to have hands and feet and the other parts of the body; and it was tangible and visible, and had the piercings and the wounds, just as it had before the resurrection. One must, then, say one of two things: either attribute these parts to the divine nature too, if the body, having been changed into the nature of Godhead, had these parts; or confess that the body has remained within the bounds of its nature. But the divine nature is simple and uncompounded, while the body is compounded and divided into many parts. So it was not changed into the nature of Godhead; but even after the resurrection it is immortal and incorruptible and full of divine glory, yet still a body, having its own circumscription. 7. Another. After the resurrection the Lord showed the unbelieving apostles his hands and his feet and the marks of the nails. Then, teaching them that what they saw was no phantom, he added, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” So the body was not changed into spirit; for it was flesh, and bones, and hands, and feet. Therefore even after the resurrection [it is] a body … the thrice-blessed Stephen said [that he saw] the Lord. So even after the ascension the body of the Lord is a body. For it was this that the victorious Stephen beheld, since the divine nature cannot be beheld. … the whole nature of human beings … will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, according to the word of the Lord himself; but to Moses he himself said, “No one shall see my face and live.” Both are true; so he will come with the body with which he went up into heaven. For that is visible; and the angels said this to the apostles: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come again in the same way as you saw him going into heaven.” If this is true — as indeed it is true — then there is not one nature of flesh and Godhead; for the union is unconfused. … 1. We have been taught both by the divine Scripture and by the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea to confess that the Son is consubstantial with God the Father; and nature teaches the impassibility of the Father, and the divine Scripture proclaims it.

So we shall also confess the Son to be impassible. For the sameness of the substance teaches this definition. When, then, we hear the divine Scripture proclaiming the cross and the death of Christ the Lord, let us say that the passion belongs to the flesh. For the Godhead, which is impassible by nature, cannot suffer in any way. 2. Another. “All that the Father has is mine,” said Christ the Lord; and one of all these things is impassibility. If, then, he is impassible as God, then he suffered as man; for the divine nature does not admit passion. 3. Another. The Lord said, “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And again, “I am the good shepherd; I know my own and I am known by my own, and I lay down my soul for the sheep.” So the good shepherd gave a body and a soul for those who have a soul and a body. 4. Another. The nature of human beings is composed of body and soul. It sinned, and needed a sacrifice free from every blemish. So the Creator, taking a body and a soul and keeping them untouched by the stains of sin, gave the body for bodies and the soul for souls. If these things are true — and they are true, for the words are those of Truth itself — then those who attach the passion to the divine nature talk nonsense and blaspheme. 5. Another. The blessed Paul called Christ the Lord the firstborn from the dead; and the firstborn surely has the same nature as those of whom he is called the firstborn. So it is as man that he is firstborn from the dead. For he first [loosed] the pangs … the sweet hope. And in that in which he rose, in that he also suffered. So he suffered as man, and as God … 6. Another. The divine Apostle named Christ the Saviour the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep; and the firstfruits has kinship with the whole of which it is the firstfruits. So it is not in that he is God that he has been called firstfruits. For what kinship is there between Godhead and humanity? The one is an immortal nature, the other mortal. And such is the nature of those who have fallen asleep, of whom Christ was called the firstfruits. To this nature, then, belong both the death and the resurrection. For we hold its resurrection as the pledge of the common resurrection. 7. Another. Christ the Lord, wishing to persuade the doubting apostles that he had risen, having destroyed death, showed them the parts of his body — his side, and hands, and feet — and the tokens of the passion kept in them. It was this, then, that rose; for it was surely this that was shown to those who disbelieved. And what rose was also buried; and what was buried had also died; and what had died was surely also nailed to the cross. So the divine nature remained impassible, while united to the body. 8. Another. Those who call the Lord’s flesh life-giving make the Life itself mortal by their argument. They ought to have seen that it is because of the Life united to it that the flesh itself is life-giving. But if by their argument the Life is mortal, how could the flesh, which is mortal by nature and becomes life-giving because of the Life, remain life-giving? 9. Another. God the Word is immortal by nature, and the flesh is mortal by nature. And it too became immortal after the passion by participation in the Word. How, then, is it not shocking [to say that] the giver of such immortality … 10. Another. Let those who insist that God the Word suffered in the flesh be asked the meaning of the saying. And if they dare to say that, when the body was nailed, the divine nature endured the pain, let them learn that the divine nature did not fill the place of a soul; for God the Word assumed a soul together with the body. But if they turn away from this argument as blasphemous, and say that the flesh suffered by nature, while God the Word made the passion his own as … [let them not use ambiguous] words, but let them state clearly the meaning of the ill-sounding saying. For in this interpretation they will have as fellow-voters those who choose to follow the divine Scripture. 11. Another. The divine Peter in the Catholic [Epistle] said that Christ suffered in the flesh. And whoever hears “Christ” does not understand God the Word as incorporeal, but as incarnate. So the name of Christ indicates each nature; but “in the flesh,” added to the passion, signifies not that each nature suffered, but that one of them did. For whoever hears that Christ suffered in the flesh understands him again as impassible as God, and assigns the passion to the flesh alone. For just as, when we hear him say again that God swore to David to raise up the Christ according to the flesh from the fruit of his loins, we do not say that God the Word took his beginning from the seed of David, but the flesh, which is of one race with David, which God the Word assumed: so whoever hears that Christ suffered in the flesh must know that the passion belongs to the flesh, and confess the impassibility of the Godhead. … While being crucified, Christ the Lord said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” Those of Arius and Eunomius say that this spirit is the Godhead of the Only-begotten; for they think that the body was assumed without a soul.

But the heralds of the truth say that the soul is so called, having understood this from the words that follow. For the all-wise evangelist at once added, “And having said this, he breathed his last.” This is how Luke related it; and the blessed Mark likewise set down “he breathed his last”; the most divine Matthew, that “he yielded up his spirit”; and the inspired John, that “he handed over his spirit.” All of them, however, have spoken according to human custom. For “he breathed his last,” and “he yielded up,” and “he handed over his spirit” are what we are accustomed to say of the dying. So none of these suggests Godhead; they indicate the soul. And even if one were to accept the Arian sense of the saying, it will show no less, even so, the immortality of the divine nature. For he committed it to the Father; he did not hand it over to death. If, then, even those who deny the assumption of the soul, and say that God the Word is a creature, and teach that he was in the body in place of a soul, do not say that he was handed over to death, what pardon could they obtain who confess one substance of the Trinity, and leave the soul in its own immortality, but dare openly to say that God the Word, consubstantial with the Father, tasted death? 13. Another. If Christ is both God and man, as the divine Scripture teaches and the all-praised Fathers continually proclaimed, then he suffered as man, and as God remained impassible. 14. Another. If they confess the assumption of the flesh, and say that it was passible before the resurrection, and proclaim the nature of the Godhead impassible, why do they pass over the passible nature and attach the passion to the impassible? 15. Another. If our Saviour and Lord nailed our certificate of debt to the cross, according to the divine Apostle, then he nailed the body. For every human being fixes the stains of his sins in his body, like letters. For this reason he handed over, on behalf of those who had sinned, the body that was free from all sin. 16. Another. When we say that the body, or the flesh, or the humanity suffered, we do not separate the divine nature. For just as it was united to the humanity when it hungered, and thirsted, and grew weary, and indeed slept, and was in agony over the passion — undergoing none of these things itself, but permitting the humanity to receive the sufferings of its nature — so it was joined to it also when it was crucified, and permitted the passion to be accomplished, so that by the passion it might destroy death. It received no pain from the passion, but made the passion its own, as the passion of its own temple and of the flesh united to it, because of which those who have believed are called members of Christ, and he himself has been named the head of those who have believed. Immutable, unconfused, impassible remains the Word, who with God the Father has no beginning, even though he took flesh at the last of times, having received God-given grace from on high. You who are impious, … to these three … you who do not fear to attach wickedly change, confusion, and passion too to the … And a cord, as Solomon writes somewhere, unbreakable like a threefold noose for us, let the trinity of these wise words be …