§4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησίαfrom the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry, and with bringing in Anubis, Osiris, and Isis to the creed of Christians, and shows that, considered as admitting His sufferings of necessity and not voluntarily, the Only-begotten is entitled to no gratitude from men: and that fire has none for its warmth, nor water for its fluidity, as they do not refer their results to self-determining power, but to necessity of nature1006    The grammar of this section of the analysis is very much confused..

Let us once more notice the passage cited. “If he can show,” he says, “that the God Who is over all, Who is the Light unapproachable, was incarnate, or could be incarnate,….then let him say that the Light is equal to the Light.” The purport of his words is plain from the very form of the sentence, namely, that he does not think that it was by His almighty Godhead that the Son proved strong for such a form of loving-kindness, but that it was by being of a nature subject to passion that He stooped to the suffering of the Cross. Well, as I pondered and inquired how Eunomius came to stumble into such notions about the Deity, as to think that on the one side the ungenerate Light was unapproachable by its contrary, and entirely unimpaired and free from every passion and affection, but that on the other the generate was intermediate in its nature, so as not to preserve the Divine unsullied and pure in impassibility, but to have an essence mixed and compounded of contraries, which at once stretched out to partake of good, and at the same time melted away into a condition subject to passion, since it was impossible to obtain from Scripture premises to support so absurd a theory, the thought struck me, whether it could be that he was an admirer of the speculations of the Egyptians on the subject of the Divine, and had mixed up their fancies with his views concerning the Only-begotten. For it is reported that they say that their fantastic mode of compounding their idols, when they adapt the forms of certain irrational animals to human limbs, is an enigmatic symbol of that mixed nature which they call “dæmon,” and that this is more subtle than that of men, and far surpasses our nature in power, but has the Divine element in it not unmingled or uncompounded, but is combined with the nature of the soul and the perceptions of the body, and is receptive of pleasure and pain, neither of which finds place with the “ungenerate God.” For they too use this name, ascribing to the supreme God, as they imagine Him, the attribute of ungeneracy. Thus our sage theologian seems to us to be importing into the Christian creed an Anubis, Isis, or Osiris from the Egyptian shrines, all but the acknowledgment of their names: but there is no difference in profanity between him who openly makes profession of the names of idols, and him who, while holding the belief about them in his heart, is yet chary of their names. If, then, it is impossible to get out of Holy Scripture any support for this impiety, while their theory draws all its strength from the riddles of the hieroglyphics, assuredly there can be no doubt what right-minded persons ought to think of this. But that this accusation which we bring is no insulting slander, Eunomius shall testify for us by his own words, saying as he does that the ungenerate Light is unapproachable, and has not the power of stooping to experience affections, but affirming that such a condition is germane and akin to the generate: so that man need feel no gratitude to the Only-begotten God for what He suffered, if, as they say, it was by the spontaneous action of His nature that He slipped down to the experience of affections, His essence, which was capable of being thus affected, being naturally dragged down thereto, which demands no thanks. For who would welcome as a boon that which takes place by necessity, even if it be gainful and profitable? For we neither thank fire for its warmth nor water for its fluidity, as we refer these qualities to the necessity of their several natures, because fire cannot be deserted by its power of warming, nor can water remain stationary upon an incline, inasmuch as the slope spontaneously draws its motion onwards. If, then, they say that the benefit wrought by the Son through His incarnation was by a necessity of His nature, they certainly render Him no thanks, inasmuch as they refer what He did, not to an authoritative power, but to a natural compulsion. But if, while they experience the benefit of the gift, they disparage the lovingkindness that brought it, I fear lest their impiety should work round to the opposite error, and lest they should deem the condition of the Son, that could be thus affected, worthy of more honour than the freedom from such affections possessed by the Father, making their own advantage the criterion of good. For if the case had been that the Son was incapable of being thus affected, as they affirm of the Father, our nature would still have remained in its miserable plight, inasmuch as there would have been none to lift up man’s nature to incorruption by what He Himself experienced;—and so it escapes notice that the cunning of these quibblers, by the very means which it employs in its attempt to destroy the majesty of the Only-begotten God, does but raise men’s conceptions of Him to a grander and loftier height, seeing it is the case that He Who has the power to act, is more to be honoured than one who is powerless for good.

Πάλιν δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα κατανοήσωμεν. « εἰ μὲν ἔχει δεικνύναι », φησί, « τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν, ὅσπερ ἐστὶν ἀπρόσιτον φῶς, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενον ἢ γενέσθαι δυνάμενον, ἴσον λεγέτω τῷ φωτὶ τὸ φῶς ». πρόδηλος γὰρ ὁ τῶν εἰρημένων σκοπὸς δι' αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων κατασκευῆς, ὅτι οὐκ οἴεται τῇ παντοδυνάμῳ θεότητι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς φιλανθρωπίας ἰσχύσαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ φύσεως ἐμπαθοῦς εἶναι τὸ 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 ἐναντίων 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 λόγοις. φασὶ γὰρ ἐκείνους τὴν ἀλλόκοτον εἰδωλοποιΐαν, ὅταν ἀνθρωπίνοις μέλεσιν ἀλόγων τινῶν μορφὰς ἐφαρμόζωσιν, αἴνιγμα λέγειν εἶναι τῆς συμμίκτου φύσεως, ἣν προσαγορεύουσι δαίμονα, ταύτην δὲ λεπτοτέραν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων 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 ἀγέννητον 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 ὀνομάτων 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 ἀπρόσιτον 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 φυσικῶς πρὸς τοῦτο κατασυρείσης, ὅπερ οὐδεμιᾶς ἄξιον εὐχαριστίας 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 ἀνθρώποις λέγουσιν, οὐδεμίαν πάντως χάριν γινώσκουσιν, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς δύναμιν ἐξουσιαστικήν, ἀλλ' εἰς φυσικὴν ἀνάγκην τὸ γεγονὸς ἀναφέρουσιν. εἰ δὲ τῆς δωρεᾶς αἰσθανόμενοι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ἀτιμάζουσι, δέδοικα μὴ πρὸς τοὐναντίον περιτραπῇ 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 καθαιρεῖν ἐπιχειρεῖ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ τὸ μεγαλεῖον, εἰς μείζονάς τε καὶ προτιμοτέρας ὑπολήψεις αὐτὸν περιάγουσα, ἐπείπερ ὁ δυνάμενος δρᾶσαι τοῦ ἀδυνατοῦντος πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν προτιμότερος.