Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus.
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.
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.
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?
Orth. —And do we say that the teacher of virtue deserves greater recompense?
Orth. —And similarly the teacher of vice deserves twofold and threefold punishment?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Orth. —And we could not call Him darkness or say that He wished to become, or could become, darkness.
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.
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?
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.
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 non existent, 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.