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. [1417]
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." [1419]
And then he adds:--
"Having this in myself I know that thou canst do all things and that with thee nothing is impossible." [1420] 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 [1421] he says, "that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation." [1422] 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." [1423] 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," [1424] 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." [1425]
Orth.--Of course all this is true, for these are divine oracles, [1426] 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," [1427] 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," [1428] and Saul enquiring: "Tell me I pray thee where the seer's house is," [1429] 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," [1430] 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," [1431] and "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," [1432] 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," [1433] and the like.
Eran.--Agreed.
Orth.--Again when the divine Scripture says, "Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey sat thus on the well," [1434] 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?