380

a kind of philanthropy to be strong, but by being of a passible nature to accept the suffering on the cross. But as I was considering and investigating from where such conceptions concerning the divine arose, so as to think the unbegotten light unapproachable to the contrary and purely impassible and undefiled, but the begotten to be ambiguous in nature, so as not to keep the divine unmixed and pure in impassibility, but to have some mixed and blended substance from contraries, which both strives for a share of the good and flows toward a passible disposition, since it was not possible to find the hypotheses for such an absurdity from scripture, it occurred to me to consider whether perhaps, admiring the Egyptian mythologies about the divine, he mixes their opinions into the doctrines about the only-begotten. For they say that those people, in their strange idol-making, when they fit the forms of certain irrational creatures to human limbs, say it is an enigma of a mixed nature, which they call a demon, and that this is more subtle than that of humans and by far surpasses our nature in power, but does not possess the divine unmixed or pure, but is blended with the nature of soul and the sensation of body, receiving both pleasure and pain, none of which applies to the unbegotten God. For they too use this name, ascribing unbegottenness to the god who is superior according to their conceptions. It seems to us, therefore, that this wise theologian introduces from the Egyptian sanctuaries Anubis or Isis or Osiris into the preaching of the Christians, except for the agreement in names; but it makes no difference at all with respect to impiety whether one confesses the names of the idols or confirms the opinions about them in himself while refraining from the names. If, therefore, it is not possible to find any support for this impiety from the divine scripture, but their argument has its strength from the hieroglyphic enigmas, it is certainly not unclear what the right-minded ought to think about these things. But that we do not bring this accusation maliciously, Eunomius himself would be our witness through his own words, who says the unbegotten is an unapproachable light and unable to come into an experience of sufferings, but on the begotten's part defines such a disposition to be suitable and congenital; so that man has no gratitude to the only-begotten God for what he suffered, if indeed, according to their argument, he slipped automatically into the experience of sufferings, with his passible substance being naturally dragged down to this, which is worthy of no thanks. For who would receive as a matter of grace what happens by necessity, even if it is profitable and beneficial? For we acknowledge no gratitude to fire for its heat or to water for its flow, attributing what happens to the necessity of nature, because fire cannot be deprived of its heating power, nor can water remain stationary on a slope, with the local inclination automatically drawing its motion forward. If, therefore, they say that the beneficence through the flesh from the Son has come to men by a necessity of nature, they acknowledge no grace at all, because they attribute what happened not to an authoritative power, but to a natural necessity. But if, while perceiving the gift, they dishonor the benefaction, I fear that their impiety may be turned back again to the contrary and they may make the passible disposition of the Son more honorable than the Father's impassibility, making the judgment of the good in relation to their own good. For if it happened that the Son, just as they dogmatize about the Father, was insusceptible to suffering, the calamity of our nature would have remained uncorrected, there being no one to deliver man to incorruptibility through his own experience, and thus escapes notice the cleverness of the sophists, by which he attempts to diminish the majesty of the only-begotten God, leading him around to greater and more honorable conceptions, since he who is able to act for the good is more honorable than he who is unable. But I perceive

380

εἶδος τῆς φιλανθρωπίας ἰσχύσαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ φύσεως ἐμπαθοῦς εἶναι τὸ 3.10.40 κατὰ τὸν σταυρὸν δέξασθαι πάθος. ἀλλά μοι σκοπουμένῳ καὶ ἀναζητοῦντι, πόθεν ταῖς τοιαύταις τῶν ὑπολήψεων περὶ τὸ θεῖον συνέπεσεν, ὡς τὸ μὲν ἀγέννητον φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἶναι τῷ ἐναντίῳ καὶ καθαρῶς ἀπαθὲς καὶ ἀκήρατον οἴεσθαι, τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν ἐπαμφοτερίζειν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀκραιφνές τε καὶ καθαρὸν ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ φυλάσσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἀλλά τινα συμμιγῆ τε καὶ σύγκρατον ἐκ τῶν ἐναν τίων τὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν τὴν καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μετουσίας ὀρεγομένην καὶ πρὸς ἐμπαθῆ διάθεσιν μεταρρέουσαν, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς οὐκ ἦν τῆς τοιαύτης ἀτοπίας τὰς ὑποθέσεις εὑρεῖν, ἐπῆλθέ μοι λογίσασθαι, μή ποτε ἄρα τὰς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων περὶ τὸ θεῖον μυθολογίας θαυμάσας τὰς ἐκείνων δόξας τοῖς περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἐγκαταμίγνυσι 3.10.41 λόγοις. φασὶ γὰρ ἐκείνους τὴν ἀλλόκοτον εἰδωλοποιΐαν, ὅταν ἀνθρωπίνοις μέλεσιν ἀλόγων τινῶν μορφὰς ἐφαρμό ζωσιν, αἴνιγμα λέγειν εἶναι τῆς συμμίκτου φύσεως, ἣν προσ αγορεύουσι δαίμονα, ταύτην δὲ λεπτοτέραν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώ πων εἶναι καὶ πολὺ τῇ δυνάμει τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑπερφέρουσαν φύσιν, τὸ δὲ θεῖον οὐκ ἀμιγὲς οὐδὲ ἄκρατον ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς φύσει καὶ σώματος αἰσθήσει συγκεκραμένον, ἡδονήν τε καὶ πόνον ἀναδεχόμενον, ὧν οὐδὲν περὶ τὸν ἀγέν νητον εἶναι θεόν. καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι λέγουσι τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα, τῷ ὑπερέχοντι κατὰ τὰς ὑπολήψεις αὐτῶν θεῷ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ἐπιφημίζοντες. ἔοικεν οὖν ἡμῖν ὁ σοφὸς θεολόγος οὗτος ἐκ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἀδύτων Ἄνουβιν ἢ Ἶσιν ἢ Ὄσιριν τῷ κηρύγματι τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐπεισάγειν πλὴν τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμολογίας· διαφέρει δὲ πάντως οὐδὲν εἰς ἀσέβειαν ὅ τε ὁμολογῶν τὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀνόματα καὶ ὁ τὰς περὶ τούτων δόξας ἐν ἑαυτῷ κρατύνας, τῶν δὲ ὀνο 3.10.42 μάτων φειδόμενος. εἰ τοίνυν ἐκ μὲν τῆς θείας γραφῆς συνηγορίαν τινὰ τῆς ἀσεβείας ταύτης εὑρεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἱερογλυφικῶν αἰνιγμάτων ὁ λόγος αὐτοῖς τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει, πάντως οὐκ ἄδηλον τί προσήκει τοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας περὶ τούτων λογίσασθαι. ὅτιδ' οὐκ ἐπηρεαστικῶς ταύτην τὴν διαβολὴν ἐπιφέρομεν, αὐτὸς ἂν γένοιτο ἡμῖν μάρτυς διὰ τῶν ἰδίων λόγων Εὐνόμιος, ὁ τὸν ἀγέννητον μὲν ἀπρόσ ιτον φῶς λέγων καὶ εἰς πεῖραν παθημάτων ἐλθεῖν μὴ δυνάμενον, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ γεννητοῦ κατάλληλόν τε καὶ συγγενῆ τὴν τοιαύτην διάθεσιν εἶναι διοριζόμενος· ὡς μηδὲ χάριν τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὧν ἕνεκεν ἔπαθεν ἔχειν, εἴπερ αὐτομάτως κατὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν πρὸς τὴν τῶν παθημάτων πεῖραν κατώλισθεν, τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς οὐσίας φυ σικῶς πρὸς τοῦτο κατασυρείσης, ὅπερ οὐδεμιᾶς ἄξιον εὐχα 3.10.43 ριστίας ἐστί. τίς γὰρ ἂν ἐν χάριτος δέξαιτο μέρει τὸ κατ' ἀνάγκην συμβαῖνον, κἂν ἐπικερδὲς καὶ ὠφέλιμον ᾖ; οὔτε γὰρ τῷ πυρὶ τῆς θερμότητος οὔτε τῷ ὕδατι τῆς ῥοῆς χάριν γινώσκομεν, εἰς τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγοντες τὸ γινόμενον, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸ πῦρ τῆς θερμαντικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀπολειφθῆναι ἢ στάσιμον ἐπὶ πρανοῦς μεῖναι τὸ ὕδωρ, αὐτομάτως τῆς τοπικῆς ἐπικλίσεως ἐφελκομένης ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσω τὴν κίνησιν. εἰ οὖν φύσεως ἀνάγκῃ τὴν διὰ σαρκὸς εὐεργεσίαν παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώ ποις λέγουσιν, οὐδεμίαν πάντως χάριν γινώσκουσιν, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς δύναμιν ἐξουσιαστικήν, ἀλλ' εἰς φυσικὴν ἀνάγκην τὸ 3.10.44 γεγονὸς ἀναφέρουσιν. εἰ δὲ τῆς δωρεᾶς αἰσθανόμενοι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ἀτιμάζουσι, δέδοικα μὴ πρὸς τοὐναντίον περι τραπῇ πάλιν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀσέβεια καὶ προτιμοτέραν ποιήσωνται τὴν ἐμπαθῆ τοῦ υἱοῦ διάθεσιν τῆς πατρικῆς ἀπαθείας, ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἀγαθῷ τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ κρίσιν ποιούμενοι. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὸν υἱόν, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς δογματίζουσιν, ἀπαράδεκτον εἶναι συνέβη τοῦ πάθους, ἀδιόρθωτος ἔμεινεν ἂν ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν συμφορά, οὐκ ὄντος τοῦ διὰ τῆς οἰκείας πείρας εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἐξαιρουμένου τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ οὕτω λανθάνει τῶν σοφιστῶν ἡ δεινότης, δι' ὧν καθ αιρεῖν ἐπιχειρεῖ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ τὸ μεγαλεῖον, εἰς μείζονάς τε καὶ προτιμοτέρας ὑπολήψεις αὐτὸν περιάγουσα, ἐπείπερ ὁ δυνάμενος δρᾶσαι τοῦ ἀδυνατοῦντος πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν προτιμότερος. 3.10.45 Ἀλλ' αἰσθάνομαι