Philip Schaff (ed.) · 181 of 886

The Impassible. · Part 1

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 man 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 of 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 human soul 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 immortal is conjoined with 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.”

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 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.”

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.” 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 you 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.

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”?

Orth.—If you read what the just man 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.”

And then he adds:—

“Having this in myself I know that thou canst do all things and that with thee nothing is impossible.” 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 he says, “that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation.” 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.” 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,” 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.”

Orth.—Of course all this is true, for these are divine oracles, 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,” 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,” and Saul enquiring: “Tell me I pray thee where the seer’s house is,” we understand nothing bodily.

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—And yet 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,” do we say that the divine Apostle said these things about the parts of the body?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Shall we say that he was for removing the feebleness and infirmity of the soul and stimulating the disciples to manliness?

Eran.—Obviously.

Orth.—But we do not find these things distinguished in the divine Scripture, for in describing the blindness of Isaac he made no reference to the body, but spoke of Isaac as absolutely blind, nor in describing the prophets as seers and beholders did he say that their souls saw and beheld what was hidden, but mentioned the persons themselves.

Eran.—Yes; this is so.

Orth.—And he did not point out that the body of the paralytic was palsied, but called the man a paralytic.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And even the divine Apostle made no special mention of the souls, though it was these that he purposed to strengthen and to rouse.

Eran.—No; he did not.

Orth.—But when we examine the meaning of the words, we understand which belongs to the soul and which to the body.

Eran.—And very naturally; for God made us reasonable beings.

Orth.—Then let us make use of this reasoning faculty in the case of our Maker and Saviour, and let us recognise what belongs to His Godhead and what to His manhood.

Eran.—But by doing this we shall destroy the supreme union.

Orth.—In the case of Isaac, of the prophets, of the man sick of the palsy, and of the rest, we did so without destroying the natural union of the soul and of the body; we did not even separate the souls from their proper bodies, but by reason alone distinguished what belonged to the soul and what to the body. Is it not then monstrous that while we take this course in the case of souls and bodies, we should refuse to do so in the case of our Saviour, and confound natures which differ not in the same proportion as soul from body, but in as vast a degree as the temporal from the eternal and the Creator from the created?

Eran.—The divine Scripture says that the Son of God underwent the passion.

Orth.—We deny that it was suffered by any other, but none the less, taught by the divine Scripture, we know that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. We are told of impassibility and of passion, of manhood and of Godhead, and we therefore attribute the passion to the passible body, and confess that no passion was undergone by the nature that was impassible.

Eran.—Then a body won our salvation for us.

Orth.—Yes; but not a mere man’s body, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. If you regard this body as insignificant and of small account, how can you hold its type to be an object of worship and a means of salvation? and how can the archetype be contemptible and insignificant of that of which the type is adorable and honourable?

Eran.—I do not look on the body as of small account, but I object to dividing it from the Godhead.

Orth.—We, my good sir, do not divide the union but we regard the peculiar properties of the natures, and I am sure that in a moment you will take the same view.

Eran.—You talk like a prophet.

Orth.—No; not like a prophet, but as knowing the power of truth. But now answer me this. When you hear the Lord saying “I and my Father are one,” and “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” do you say that this refers to the flesh or to the Godhead?

Eran.—How can the flesh and the Father possibly be of one substance?

Orth.—Then these passages indicate the Godhead?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And so with the text, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God,” and the like.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Again when the divine Scripture says, “Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey sat thus on the well,” of what is the weariness to be understood, of the Godhead or of the body?

Eran.—I cannot bear to divide what is united.

Orth.—Then it seems you attribute the weariness to the divine nature?

Eran.—I think so.

Orth.—But then you directly contradict the exclamation of the prophet “He fainteth not neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.” And a little further on “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary and they shall walk and not faint.” Now how can He who bestows upon others the boon of freedom from weariness and want, possibly be himself subject to hunger and thirst?

Eran.—I have said over and over again that God is impassible, and free from all want, but after the incarnation He became capable of suffering.

Orth.—But did He do this by admitting the sufferings in His Godhead, or by permitting the passible nature to undergo its natural sufferings and by suffering proclaim that what was seen was no unreality, but was really assumed of human nature? But now let us look at the matter thus: we say that the divine nature was uncircumscribed.

Eran.—Aye.

Orth.—And uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by none.

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—It therefore needs no transition for it is everywhere.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And that which needs no transition needs not to travel.

Eran.—That is clear.

Orth.—And that which does not travel does not grow weary.

Eran.—No.

Orth.—It follows then that the divine nature, which is uncircumscribed, and needs not to travel, was not weary.

Eran.—But the divine Scripture says that Jesus was weary, and Jesus is God; “And our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.”

Orth.—But the exact expression of the divine Scripture is that Jesus “was wearied” not “is wearied.” We must consider how one and the other can be applied to the same person.

Eran.—Well; try to point this out, for you are always for forcing on us the distinction of terms.

Orth.—I think that even a barbarian might easily make this distinction. The union of unlike natures being conceded, the person of Christ on account of the union receives both; to each nature its own properties are attributed; to the uncircumscribed immunity from weariness, to that which is capable of transition and travel weariness. For travelling is the function of the feet; of the muscles to be strained by over exercise.

Eran.—There is no controversy about these being bodily affections.

Orth.—Well then; the prediction which I made, and you scoffed at, has come true; for look; you have shewn us what belongs to manhood, and what belongs to Godhead.

Eran.—But I have not divided one son into two.

Orth.—Nor do we, my friend; but giving heed to the difference of the natures, we consider what befits godhead, and what is proper to a body.

Eran.—This distinction is not the teaching of the divine Scripture; it says that the Son of God died. So the Apostle;—“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” And he says that the Lord was raised from the dead for “God” he says “raised the Lord from the dead.”

Orth.—And when the divine Scripture says “And devout men carried Stephen to his burial and made great lamentation over him” would any one say that his soul was committed to the grave as well as his body?

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—And when you hear the Patriarch Jacob saying “Bury me with my Fathers,” do you suppose this refers to the body or to the soul?

Eran.—To the body; without question.

Orth.—Now read what follows.

Eran.—“There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife and there I buried Leah.”

Orth.—Now, in the passages which you have just read, the divine Scripture makes no mention of the body, but as far as the words used go, signifies soul as well as body. We however make the proper distinction and say that the souls of the patriarchs were immortal, and that only their bodies were buried in the double cave.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And when we read in the Acts how Herod slew James the brother of John with a sword, we are not likely to hold that his soul died.

Eran.—No; how could we? We remember the Lord’s warning “Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul.”

Orth.—But does it not seem to you impious and monstrous in the case of mere men to avoid the invariable connexion of soul and body, and in the case of scriptural references to death and burial, to distinguish in thought the soul from the body and connect them only with the body, while in trust in the teaching of the Lord you hold the soul to be immortal, and then when you hear of the passion of the Son of God to follow quite a different course? Are you justified in making no mention of the body to which the passion belongs, and in representing the divine nature which is impassible, immutable and immortal as mortal and passible? While all the while you know that if the nature of God the Word is capable of suffering, the assumption of the body was superfluous.

Eran.—We have learnt from the Divine Scriptures that the Son of God suffered.

Orth.—But the divine apostle interprets the Passion, and shews what nature suffered.

Eran.—Show me this at once and clear the matter up.

Orth.—Are you not acquainted with the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews in which the divine Paul says “For which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying ‘I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee.’ And again, ‘Behold I and the children which God hath given me.’”

Eran.—Yes, I know this, but this does not give us what you promised.

Orth.—Yes: even these suggest what I promised to shew. The word brotherhood signifies kinship, and the kinship is due to the assumption of the nature, and the assumption openly proclaims the impassibility of the Godhead. But to understand this the more plainly read what follows.

Eran.—“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death…and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life subject to bondage.”

Orth.—This, I think, needs no explanation; it teaches clearly the mystery of the œconomy.

Eran.—I see nothing here of what you promised to prove.

Orth.—Yet the divine Apostle teaches plainly that the Creator, pitying this nature not only seized cruelly by death, but throughout all life made death’s slave, effected the resurrection through a body for our bodies, and, by means of a mortal body, undid the dominion of death; for since His own nature was immortal He righteously wished to stay the sovereignty of death by taking the first fruits of them that were subject to death, and while He kept these first fruits (i.e. the body) blameless and free from sin, on the one hand He gave death license to lay hands on it and so satisfy its insatiability, while on the other, for the sake of the wrong done to this body, he put a stop to the unrighteous sovereignty usurped over all the rest of men. These firstfruits unrighteously engulfed He raised again and will make the race to follow them.