Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")

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 learned, 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 learned 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 you can do all things and with you 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 you, that you have made me as the clay and will you bring me into dust again? Have you not poured me out as milk and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh and hast fenced me with bones and sinews, you have granted me life and favour.”

And then he adds:—

“Having this in myself I know that you can do all things and that with you 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 learned 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 shows 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 abides 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?