NPN2-03B - Theodoret, The Eranistes or Polymorphus, Dialogue 1, The Immutable, Of the same from the first discourse on the Beatitudes

Of the same from the same treatise:--

"The Word was before the ages, but the flesh was made in the last times, and no one would say on the contrary either that the flesh was before the ages, or the Word made in the last times."

Of the same from the same treatise:--

"The expression 'created me '[4] is not to be understood of the divine and the undefiled, but, as has been said, of our created nature, according to the dispensation of the incarnation."[5]

Of the same from the first discourse on the Beatitudes:--

"'Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant.'[6] What poorer, in respect of God, than the form of a servant? What more lowly, in respect of the King of all, than approach to fellowship in our poor nature? The King of Kings and Lord of Lords[7] voluntarily dons the form of servitude."

Testimony of the Holy Flavianus, bishop of Antioch. From his sermon on John the Baptist:--

"Do not think of connexion in any physical sense, nor entertain the idea of conjugal intercourse. For thy Creator is creating His own bodily temple now being born of thee."

Of the same from his book on "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me":--

"Hear Him saying, 'The Spirit is upon me because He hath anointed me.'(1) You do not know, He says, what you read, for I, the anointed with the Spirit, am come to you. Now what is akin to us, and not the invisible nature, is anointed with the Spirit."(2)

Testimony of Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. From his Discourse on "My Father is greater than I: "(3)--

"Distinguish me now the natures, the Divine and the human. For man was not made from God by failing away, nor was God made of man by advancement. I am speaking of God and man. When, however, you attribute the passions to the flesh and the miracles to God, you of necessity and involuntarily assign the lowly titles to the man born of Mary, and the exalted and divine to the Word Who in the beginning was God. Wherefore in some cases I utter exalted words, in others lowly, to the end that by means of the lofty I may shew the nature of the indwelling Word, and by the lowly, own the weakness of the lowly flesh. Whence sometimes I call myself equal to the Father and sometimes greater than the Father, not contradicting myself, but shewing that I am God and than, for God is of the lofty, man of the lowly; but if you wish to know how my Father is greater than I, I spoke of the flesh and not of the person of the Godhead."

Of the same from his discourse on "The Son, can do nothing of Himself:"(4)--

How was Adam disobedient in Heaven, and how of heavenly body was he formed first-formed beside the first formation? But it was the Adam of the earth who was formed at the beginning; the Adam of the earth disobeyed; the Adam of the earth was assumed. Wherefore also the Adam of the earth was saved that thus the reason of the incarnation(5) may be proved necessary and true."(6)

Testimony of the Holy John Bishop of Constantinople. From the speech which he made when the Gothic envoy had spoken before him:--

"See from the beginning what He does. He clothes Himself in our nature, powerless and vanquished, that by its means He may fight and struggle and from the beginning He uproots the nature of rebellion."

Of the same from his discourse on(1) The Festival of the Nativity:--

"For is it not of the very last stupidity for them to bring down their own gods into stones and cheap wooden images, shutting them up as it were in a kind of prison, and to fancy that there is nothing disgraceful in what they either say or do, and then to find fault with us for saying that God made a living temple for Himself of the Holy Ghost, by means of which he brought succour to the world? For if it is disgraceful for God to dwell in a human body, then in proportion as the stone and the wood are more worthless than man is it much more disgraceful for him to dwell in stone and wood. But perhaps mankind seems to them to be of less value than these senseless objects. They bring down the substance of God into stones and into dogs;(2) but many heretics into fouler things than these. But we could never endure even to hear of these things.(3) But what we say is that of a virgin's womb the Christ took pure flesh, holy and without spot, and made impervious to all sin, and restored the body(4) that was His own."

A little further on: "And we assert that when the divine Word had fashioned for Himself a holy temple by its means he brought the heavenly state into our life."

Of the same from the oration: That the lowly words and deeds of Christ were not spoken and done through lack of power, but through distinctions of dispensation.

"What then are the causes of many humble things having been said about Him both by Himself and by His apostles? The first and greatest cause is the fact of His having clothed Himself with flesh, and wishing all his contemporaries and all who have lived since, to believe that He was not a shadow, nor what was seen merely a form, but reality of nature. For if when He Himself and His apostles had spoken about Him so often in humble and in human sense, the devil yet had power to persuade some wretched and miserable men to deny the reason of the incarnation, and dare to say that He did not take flesh and so to destroy all the ground of His love for man, how many would not have fallen into this abyss if He had never said anything of the kind?"

I have now produced for you a few out of many authorities of the heralds of the truth, not to stun you with too many. They are quite enough to show the bent of the mind of the excellent writers. It is now for you to say what force their writings seem to have.

Eran.--They have all spoken in harmony with one another, and the workers in the vineyard of the West agree with them whose husbandry is done in the region of the rising sun. Yet I perceived a considerable difference in their sayings.

Orth.--They are successors of the divine apostles; some even of those apostles were privileged to hear the holy voice and see the goodly sight. The majority of them too were adorned with the crown of martyrdom. Does it seem right for you to wag the tongue of blasphemy against them?

Eran.--I shrink from doing this; at the same time I do not approve of their great divergence.

Orth.--But now I will bring you an unexpected remedy. I will adduce one of your own beautiful heresy--your teacher Apollinarius,(1) and I will shew you that he understood the text "The Word was made flesh" just as the holy Fathers did. Hear now what he wrote about it in his "Summary."

The testimony of Apollinarius from his "Summary":--

"If no one is turned into that which he assumes, and Christ assumed flesh, then He was not turned into flesh."

And immediately afterward he continues:--

"For also He gave himself to us in relationship by means of the body to save us. Now that which saves is far more excellent than that which is being saved. Far more excellent then than we are, is He in the assumption of a body! But He would not have been more excellent had He been turned into flesh."

A little further on he says:--

"The simple is one, but the complex cannot be one; he then that alleges that He was made flesh affirms the mutation of the one Word. But if the complex is also one, as man, then he who on account of the union with the flesh says the Word was made flesh means the one in complexity."

And again a little further on he says-"To be made flesh is to be made empty,(2) but the being made empty declares not man, but the Son of man, who 'emptied Himself' not by undergoing change, but by investiture."

There; you see the teacher of your own doctrines has introduced the word 'investiture' and indeed in his little work upon the faith he says- -"We then believe that he was made flesh, while His Godhead remained unchanged for the renewal of the manhood. For in the holy power of God there has been neither alteration nor change-of place, nor inclusion"-- and then shortly again--"We worship God who took flesh of the blessed virgin, and on this account in the flesh is man, but in the spirit God." And in another exposition he says--"We confess the Son of God to have been made the Son of man, not nominally but verily, on taking flesh of the Virgin Mary."

Eran.--I did not suppose that Apollinarius held these sentiments. I had other ideas about him.

Orth.--Well; now you have learnt that not only the prophets and apostles, and they who after them were ordained teachers of the world, but even Apollinarius, the writer of heretical babbling, confesses the divine Word to be immutable, states that He was not turned into flesh but assumed flesh, and this over and over again, as you have heard. Do not then struggle to throw your master's blasphemy into the shade by your own, For, says the Lord "the disciple is not above his master."(1)

Eran.--Yes, I confess that the divine Word of God is immutable and took flesh. It were the uttermost foolishness to withstand authorities so many and so great.

Orth.--Do you wish to have a solution of the rest of the difficulties?

Eran.--Let us put off their investigation until to-morrow.

Orth.--Very well; our synod is dismissed. Let us depart, and bear in mind what we have agreed upon.


Ante-Nicene Fathers
Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Series 1
Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Series 2