Theodoret Search This Resource     in this Authorin this Sectionin all Sections   Navigator (Page 1 of 7) Previous Next   Page2   Dialogue III.-The Impassible. Orthodoxus and Eranistes. Orth.-In our former discussions we have proved that God the Word is immutable, and became incarnate not by being changed into flesh, but by taking perfect human nature. The divine Scripture, and the teachers of the churches and luminaries of the world have clearly taught us that, after the union, He remained as He was, unmixed, impassible, unchanged, uncircumscribed; and that He preserved unimpaired the nature which He had taken. For the future then the subject before us is that of His passion, and it will be a very profitable one, for thence have been brought to us the waters of salvation. Eran.-I am also of opinion that this discourse will be beneficial. I shall not however consent to our former method, but I propose myself to ask questions. Orth.-And I will answer, without making any objection to the change of method. He who has truth on his side, not only when he questions but also when he is questioned, is supported by the might of the truth. Ask then what you will. Eran.-Who, according to your view, suffered the passion? Orth.-Our Lord Jesus Christ. Eran.-Then a than gave us our salvation. Orth.-No; for have we confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ was only man? Eran.-Now define what you believe Christ to be. Orth.-Incarnate Son of the living God. Eran.-And is the Son of God God? Orth.-God, having the same substance as the God Who begat Him. Eran.-Then God underwent the passion. Orth.-If He was nailed to the cross without a body, apply the passion to the Godhead; but if he was made man by taking flesh, why then do you exempt the passible from the passion and subject the impassible to it? Eran.-But the reason why He took flesh was that the impassible might undergo the passion by means of the passible. Orth.-You say impassible and apply passion to Him. Eran.-I said that He took flesh to suffer. Orth.-If He had had a nature capable or the Passion He would have suffered without flesh; so the flesh becomes superfluous. Eran.-The divine nature is immortal, and the nature of the flesh mortal, so the immortal was united with the mortal, that through it He might taste of death. Orth.-That which is by nature immortal does not undergo death, even when conjoined with the mortal; this is easy to see. Eran.-Prove it; and remove the difficulty. Orth.-Do you assert that the humansoul was immortal, or mortal? Eran.-Immortal. Orth.-And is the body mortal or immortal? Eran.-Indubitably mortal. Orth.-And do we say that man consists of these natures? Eran.-Yes. Orth.-So the immortalis conjoinedwith the mortal? Eran.-True. Orth.-But when the connexion or union is at an end, the mortal submits to the law of death, while the soul remains immortal though sin has introduced death, or do you not hold death to be a penalty? Eran.-So divine Scripture teaches. For we learn that when God forbade Adam to partake of the tree of knowledge He added "on the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die."(1) Orth.-Then death is the punishment of them that have sinned? Eran.-Agreed. Orth.-Why then, when soul and body have both sinned together, does the body alone undergo the punishment of death? Eran.-It was the body that cast its evil eye upon the tree, and stretched forth its hands, and plucked the forbidden fruit. It was the mouth that bit it with the teeth, and ground it small, and then the gullet committed it to the belly, and the belly digested it, and delivered it to the liver; and the liver turned what it had received into blood and passed it on to the hollow vein(2) and the vein to the adjacent parts and they through the rest, and so the theft of the forbidden food pervaded the whole body. Very properly then the body alone underwent the punishment of sin. Orth.-You have given us a physiological disquisition on the nature of food, on all the parts that it goes through and on the modifications to which it is subject before it is assimilated with the body. But there is one point that you have refused to observe, and that is that the body goes through none of these processes which you have mentioned without the soul. When bereft of the soul which is its yoke mate the body lies breathless, voiceless, motionless; the eye sees neither wrong nor aright; no sound of voices reaches the ears, the hands cannot stir; the feet cannot walk; the body is like an instrument without music. How then can you say that only the body sinned when the body without the soul cannot even take a breath? Eran.-The body does indeed receive life from the soul, and it furnishes the soul with the penal possession of sin. Orth.-How, and in what manner? Eran.-Through the eyes it makes it see amiss; through the ears it makes it hear unprofitable sounds; and through the tongue utter injurious words, and through all the other parts act ill. Orth.-Then I suppose we may say Blessed are the deaf; blessed are they that have lost their sight and have been deprived of their other faculties, for the souls of men so incapacitated have neither part nor lot in the wickedness of the body. And why, O most sagacious sir, have you mentioned those functions of the body which are culpable, and said nothing about the laudable? It is possible to look with eyes of love and of kindliness; it is possible to wipe away a tear of compunction, to hear oracles of God, to bend the ear to the poor, to praise the Creator with the tongue, to give good lessons to our neighbour, to move the hand in mercy, and in a word to use the parts of the body for complete acquisition of goodness. Eran.-This is all true. Orth.-Therefore the observance and transgression of law is common to both soul and body. Eran.-Yes. Orth.-It seems to me that the soul takes the leading part in both, since it uses reasoning before the body acts. Eran.-In what sense do you say this? Orth.-First of all the mind makes, as it were, a sketch of virtue or of vice, and then gives to one or the other form with appropriate material and colour, using for its instruments the parts of the body. Eran.-So it seems. Orth.-If then the soul sins with the body; nay rather takes the lead in the sin, for to it is entrusted the bridling and direction of the animal part, why, as it shares the sin, does it not also share the punishment? Eran.-But how were it possible for the immortal soul to share death? Orth.-Yet it were just that after sharing the transgression, it should share the chastisement. Eran.-Yes, just. Orth.-But it did not do so. Eran.-Certainly not. Orth.-At least in the life to come it will be sent with the body to Gehenna. Eran.-So He said "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."(3) Orth.-Therefore in this life it escapes death, as being immortal; in the life to come; it will be punished, not by undergoing death, but by suffering chastisement in life. Eran.-That is what the divine Scripture says. Orth.-It is then impossible for the immortal nature to undergo death. Eran.-So it appears. Orth.-How then do you say, God the Word tasted death? For if that which was created immortal is seen to be incapable of becoming mortal, how is it possible for him that is without creation and eternally immortal, Creator of mortal and immortal natures alike, to partake of death? Eran.-We too know that His nature is immortal, but we say that He shared death in the flesh. Orth.-But we have plainly shewn that it is in no wise possible for that which is by nature immortal to share death, for even the soul created together with, and conjoined with, the body and sharing in its sin, does not share death with it, on account of the immortality of its nature alone. But let us look at this same position from another point of view. Eran.-There is every reason why we should leave no means untried to arrive at the truth. Orth.-Let us then examine the matter thus. Do we assert that of virtue and vice some are teachers and some are followers? Eran.-Yes. Orth.-And do we say that the teacher of virtue deserves greater recompense? Eran.-Certainly. Orth.-And similarly the teacher of vice deserves twofold and threefold punishment? Eran.-True. Orth.-And what part shall we assign to the devil, that of teacher or disciple? Eran.-Teacher of teachers, for he himself is father and teacher of all iniquity. Orth.-And who of men became his first disciples? Eran.-Adam and Eve. Orth.-And who received the sentence of death? Eran.-Adam and all his race. Orth.-Then the disciples were punished for the bad lessons they had learnt, but the teacher, whom we have just declared to deserve two-fold and three-fold chastisement, got off the punishment? Eran.-Apparently. Orth.-And though this so came about we both acknowledge and declare that the Judge is just. Eran.-Certainly. Orth.-But, being just, why did He not exact an account from him of his evil teaching? Eran.-He prepared for him the unquenchable flame of Gehenna, for, He says, "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."(4) And the reason why he did not here share death with his disciples is because he has an immortal nature. Orth.-Then even the greatest transgressors cannot incur death if they have an immortal nature. Eran.-Agreed. Orth.-If then even the very inventor and teacher of iniquity did not incur death on account of the immortality of his nature, do you not shudder at the thought of saying that the fount of immortality and righteousness shared death? Eran.-Had we said that he underwent the passion involuntarily, there would have been some just ground for the accusation which yon bring against us. But if the passion which is preached by us was spontaneous and the death voluntary, it becomes you, instead of accusing us, to praise the immensity of His love to man. For He suffered because He willed to suffer, and shared death because He wished it. Orth.-You seem to me to be quite ignorant of the divine nature, for the Lord God wishes nothing inconsistent with His nature, and is able to do all that He wishes, and what He wishes is appropriate and agreeable to His own nature. Eran.-We have learnt that all things are possible with God.(5) Orth.-In expressing yourself thus indefinitely you include even what belongs to the Devil, for to say absolutely all things is to name together not only good, but its opposite. Eran.-But did not the noble Job speak absolutely when he said "I know that thou canst do all things and with thee nothing is impossible"?(6) Orth.-If you read what the justman said before, you will see the meaning of the one passage from the other, for he says "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh and hast fenced me with bones and sinews, thou hast granted me life and favour."(7) And then he adds:- "Having this in myself I know that thou canst do all things and that with thee nothing is impossible."(8) Is it not therefore all that belongs to these things that he alleges to belong to the incorruptible nature, to the God of the universe? Eran.-Nothing is impossible to Almighty God. Orth.-Then according to your definition sin is possible to Almighty God? Eran.-By no means. Orth.-Wherefore? Eran.-Because He does not wish it. Orth.-Wherefore does He not wish it? Eran.-Because sin is foreign to His nature. Orth.-Then there are many things which He cannot do, for there are many kinds of transgression. Eran.-Nothing of this kind can be wished or done by God. Orth.-Nor can those things which are contrary to the divine nature. Eran.-What are they? Orth.-As, for instance, we have learnt that God is intelligent and true Light. Eran.-True. Orth.-And we could not call Him darkness or say that He wished to become, or could become, darkness. Eran.-By no means. Orth.-Again, the Divine Scripture calls His nature invisible. Eran.-It does. Orth.-And we could never say that It is capable of being made visible. Eran.-No, surely. Orth.-Nor comprehensible. Eran.-No; for He is not so. Orth.-No; for He is incomprehensible, and altogether unapproachable. Eran.-You are right. Orth.-And He that is could never become non-existent. Eran.-Away with the thought! Orth.-Nor yet could the Father become Son. Eran.-Impossible. Orth.-Nor yet could the unbegotten become begotten. Eran.-How could He. Orth.-And the Father could never become Son? Eran.-By no means. Orth.-Nor could the Holy Ghost ever become Son or Father. Eran.-All this is impossible. Orth.-And we shall find many other things of the same kind, which are similarly impossible, for the Eternal will not become of time, nor the Uncreate created and made, nor the infinite finite, and the like. Eran.-None of these is possible. Orth.-So we have found many things which are impossible to Almighty God. Eran.-True. Orth.-But not to be able in any of these respects is proof not of weakness, but of infinite power, and to be able would certainly be proof not of power but of impotence. Eran.-How do you say this? Orth.-Because each one of these proclaims the unchangeable and invariable character of God. For the impossibility of good becoming evil signifies the immensity of the goodness; and that He that is just should never become unjust, nor He that is true a liar, exhibits the stability and the strength that there is in truth and righteousness. Thus the true light could never become darkness; He that is could never become nonexistent, for the existence is perpetual and the light is naturally invariable. And so, after examining all other examples, you will find that the not being able is declaratory of the highest power. That things of this kind are impossible in the case of God, the divine Apostle also both perceived and laid down, for in his Epistle to the Hebrews(9) he says, "that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation."(10) He shews that this incapacity is not weakness, but very power, for he asserts Him to be so true that it is impossible for there to be even a lie in Him. So the power of truth is signified through its want of power. And writing to the blessed Timothy, the Apostle adds "It is a faithful saying, for if we be dead with Him we shall also live with Him, if we suffer we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him He will also deny us, if we believe not yet He abideth faithful, He cannot deny Himself."(11) Again then the phrase "He cannot" is indicative of infinite power, for even though all men deny Him He says God is Himself, and cannot exist otherwise than in His own nature, for His being is indestructible. This is what is meant by the words "He cannot deny Himself." Therefore the impossibility of change for the worse proves infinity of power. Eran.-This is quite true and in harmony with the divine words. Orth.-Granted then that with God many things are impossible,-everything, that is, which is repugnant to the divine nature,-how comes it that while you omit all the other qualities which belong to the divine nature, goodness, righteousness, truth, invisibility, incomprehensibility, infinity, and eternity, and the rest of the attributes which we assert to be proper to God, you maintain that His immortality and impassibility alone are subject to change, and in them concede the possibility of variation and give to God a capacity indicative of weakness? Eran.-We have learnt this from the divine Scripture. The divine John exclaims "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,"(12) and the divine Paul,"For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by His life."(13) Orth.-Of course all this is true, for these are divine oracles,(14) but remember what we have often confessed. Eran.-What? Orth.-We have confessed that God the Word the Son of God did not appear without a body, but assumed perfect human nature. Eran.-Yes; this we have confessed. Orth.-And He was called Son of Man because He took a body and human soul. Eran.-True. Orth.-Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is verily our God; for of these two natures the one was His from everlasting and the other He assumed. Eran.-Indubitably. Orth.-While, then, as man He underwent the passion, as God He remained incapable of suffering. Eran.-How then does the divine Scripture say that the Son of God suffered? Orth.-Because the body which suffered was His body. But let us look at the matter thus; when we hear the divine Scripture saying "And it came to pass when Isaac was old his eyes were dim so that he could not see,"(15) whither is our mind carried and on what does it rest, on Isaac's soul or on his body? Eran.-Of course on his body. Orth.-Do we then conjecture that his soul also shared in the affection of blindness? Eran.-Certainly not. Orth.-We assert that only his body was deprived of the sense of sight? Eran.-Yes. Orth.-And again when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos, "Oh thou seer go flee away into the land of Judah,"(16) and Saul enquiring: "Tell me I pray thee where the seer's house is,"(17) we understand nothing bodily. Eran.-Certainly not. Orth.-And vet the words used are significant of the health of the organ of sight. Eran.-True. Orth.-Yet we know that the power of the Spirit when given to purer souls inspires prophetic grace and causes them to see even hidden things, and, in consequence of their thus seeing, they are called seers and beholders. Eran.-What you say is true. Orth.-And let us consider this too. Eran.-What? Orth.-When we hear the story of the divine evangelists narrating how they brought to God a man sick of the palsy, laid upon a bed, do we say that this was paralysis of the parts of the soul or of the body? Eran.-Plainly of the body. Orth.-And when while reading the Epistle to the Hebrews we light upon the passage where the Apostle says "Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees and make straight paths for your feet lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it rather be healed,"(18) do we say that the divine Apostle said these things about the parts of the body? FOOTNOTES: Gen. ii. 17. The vena cava, by which the blood returns to the heart. The physiology of Eranistes would be held in the matn "orthodox" even now, and shews that Theodoret was well abreast of the science accepted before the discovery of the circulation of the blood. Matt. x. 28. Matt. xxv. 41. Matt. xix. 26; Mark x. 27. Job x. 13, lxx. Job x. 9-12. Job x. 13, lxx. C. f. note on Page 37. From the middle of the IIIrd century onward we find acceptation of the Pauline authorship Among writers who quote the Ep. as St. Paul's are Cyril of Jerusalem, the two Gregories, Basil, and Chrysostom, as well as Theodoret. Heb. vi. 18. II. Tim. ii. 11-13 I. Tim. ii. 11-13. John iii. 16. Romans v. 10. cf. note on page 155. Gen. xxvii. 1. Amos vii. 12. I. Sam. ix. 18. Heb. xii. 12. Heb. xii. 13.