Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

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 begot 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 connection 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 you eat thereof you 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 shown 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.