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 caseof 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," and "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," 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," and the like.
Eran. -Agreed.
Orth. -Again when the divine Scripture says. "Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey sat thus on the well," 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?
Eran. -I think so.
Orth. -But then yon directly contradict the exclamation of the prophet "He fainteth not neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint and to them that have no might he increaseth strength." And a little further on "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary and they shall walk and not faint." Now how can He who bestows upon others the boon of freedom from weariness and want, possibly be himself subject to hunger and thirst?
Eran. -I have said over and over again that God is impassible, and free from all want, but after the incarnation He became capable of suffering.
Orth. -But did He do this by admitting the sufferings in His Godhead, or by permitting the passible nature to undergo its natural sufferings and by suffering proclaim that what was seen was no unreality, but was really assumed of human nature? But now let us look at the matter thus: we say that the divine nature was uncircumscribed.
Eran. -Aye.
Orth. -And uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by none.
Eran. -Of course not.