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.