§8. He proceeds to show that there is no “variance” in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony, and explains the “form,” the “seal,” and the “express image.”

But what need is there in our discourse to reveal his hidden deceit by mere guesses at his intention, and possibly to give our hearers occasions for objection, on the ground that we make these charges against our enemies untruly? For lo, he sets forth to us his blasphemy in its nakedness, not hiding his guile by any veil, but speaking boldly in his absurdities with unrestrained voice. What he has written runs thus:—“We, for our part,” he says, “as we find nothing else besides the essence of the Son which admits of the generation, are of opinion that we must assign the appellations to the essence itself, or else we speak of ‘Son’ and ‘begotten’ to no purpose, and as a mere verbal matter, if we are really to separate them from the essence; starting from these names, we also confidently maintain that the essences are variant from each other613    The whole passage is rather obscure, and Oehler’s punctuation renders it perhaps more obscure than that which is here adopted. The argument seems to be something like this:—“The generated essence is not compared with any of the things made by it, or after it, because being only-begotten it leaves no room for a common basis of comparison with anything else, and the operation of its maker is also peculiar to itself (since it is immediate, the operation in the case of other things being mediate). The essence of the Son, then, being so far isolated, it is to it that the appellations of γέννημα, ποίημα, and κτίσμα are to be assigned; otherwise the terms ‘Son’ and ‘Only-begotten’ are meaningless. Therefore the Son, being in essence a ποίημα or κτίσμα, is alien from the Father Who made or created Him.” The word παρηλλάχθαι, used to express the difference of essence between the Father and the Son, is one for which it is hard to find an equivalent which shall suit all the cases of the use of the word afterwards instanced: the idea of “variation,” however, seems to attach to all these cases, and the verb has been translated accordingly..”

There is no need, I imagine, that the absurdity here laid down should be refuted by arguments from us. The mere reading of what he has written is enough to pillory his blasphemy. But let us thus examine it. He says that the essences of the Father and the Son are “variant.” What is meant by “variant”? Let us first of all examine the force of the term as it is applied by itself614    Following Oehler’s suggestion and reading ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς., that by the interpretation of the word its blasphemous character may be more clearly revealed. The term “variance” is used, in the inexact sense sanctioned by custom, of bodies, when, by palsy or any other disease, any limb is perverted from its natural co-ordination. For we speak, comparing the state of suffering with that of health, of the condition of one who has been subjected to a change for the worse, as being a “variation” from his usual health; and in the case of those who differ in respect of virtue and vice, comparing the licentious life with that of purity and temperance, or the unjust life with that of justice, or the life which is passionate, warlike, and prodigal of anger, with that which is mild and peaceful—and generally all that is reproached with vice, as compared with what is more excellent, is said to exhibit “variance” from it, because the marks observed in both—in the good, I mean, and the inferior—do not mutually agree. Again, we say that those qualities observed in the elements are “at variance” which are mutually opposed as contraries, having a power reciprocally destructive, as heat and cold, or dryness and moisture, or, generally, anything that is opposed to another as a contrary; and the absence of union in these we express by the term “variation”; and generally everything which is out of harmony with another in their observed characteristics, is said to be “at variance” with it, as health with disease, life with death, war with peace, virtue with vice, and all similar cases.

Now that we have thus analyzed these expressions, let us also consider in regard to our author in what sense he says that the essences of the Father and the Son are “variant from each other.” What does he mean by it? Is it in the sense that the Father is according to nature, while the Son “varies” from that nature? Or does he express by this word the perversion of virtue, separating the evil from the more excellent by the name of “variation,” so as to regard the one essence in a good, the other in a contrary aspect? Or does he assert that one Divine essence also is variant from another, in the manner of the opposition of the elements? or as war stands to peace, and life to death, does he also perceive in the essences the conflict which so exists among all such things, so that they cannot unite one with another, because the mixture of contraries exerts upon the things mingled a consuming force, as the wisdom of the Proverbs saith of such a doctrine, that water and fire never say “It is enough615    Cf. Prov. xxx. 15 (LXX.).,” expressing enigmatically the nature of contraries of equal force and equal balance, and their mutual destruction? Or is it in none of these ways that he sees “variance” in the essences? Let him tell us, then, what he conceives besides these. He could not say, I take it, even if he were to repeat his wonted phrase616    The sense given would perhaps be clearer if we were to read (as Gulonius seems to have done) ἀσυνήθη for συνήθη. This might be interpreted, “He could not say, I take it, even if he uses the words in an unwonted sense, that the Son is at variance with Him Who begat Him.” The συνήθη would thus be the senses already considered and set aside: and the point would be that such a statement could not be made without manifest absurdity, even if some out-of-the-way sense were attached to the words. As the passage stands, it must mean that even if Eunomius repeats his wonted phrase, that can suggest no other sense of “variance” than those enumerated., “The Son is variant from Him Who begat Him”; for thereby the absurdity of his statements is yet more clearly shown. For what mutual relation is so closely and concordantly engrafted and fitted together as that meaning of relation to the Father expressed by the word “Son”? And a proof of this is that even if both of these names be not spoken, that which is omitted is connoted by the one that is uttered, so closely is the one implied in the other, and concordant with it: and both of them are so discerned in the one that one cannot be conceived without the other. Now that which is “at variance” is surely so conceived and so called, in opposition to that which is “in harmony,” as the plumb-line is in harmony with the straight line, while that which is crooked, when set beside that which is straight, does not harmonize with it. Musicians also are wont to call the agreement of notes “harmony,” and that which is out of tune and discordant “inharmonious.” To speak of things as at “variance,” then, is the same as to speak of them as “out of harmony.” If, therefore, the nature of the Only-begotten God is at “variance,” to use the heretical phrase, with the essence of the Father, it is surely not in harmony with it: and inharmoniousness cannot exist where there is no possibility of harmony617    The reading of Oehler is here followed: but the sense of the clause is not clear either in his text or in that of the Paris editions.. For the case is as when, the figure in the wax and in the graying of the signet being one, the wax that has been stamped by the signet, when it is fitted again to the latter, makes the impression on itself accord with that which surrounds it, filling up the hollows and accommodating the projections of the engraving with its own patterns: but if some strange and different pattern is fitted to the engraving of the signet, it makes its own form rough and confused, by rubbing off its figure on an engraved surface that does not correspond with it. But He Who is “in the form of God618    Phil. ii. 6.” has been formed by no impression different from the Father, seeing that He is “the express image” of the Father’s Person619    Heb. i. 3., while the “form of God” is surely the same thing as His essence. For as, “being made in the form of a servant620    Phil. ii. 7.,” He was formed in the essence of a servant, not taking upon Him the form merely, apart from the essence, but the essence is involved in the sense of “form,” so, surely, he who says that He is “in the form of God” signified essence by “form.” If, therefore, He is “in the form of God,” and being in the Father is sealed with the Father’s glory, (as the word of the Gospel declares, which saith, “Him hath God the Father sealed621    S. John vi. 27,”—whence also “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father622    S. John xiv. 9,”) then “the image of goodness” and “the brightness of glory,” and all other similar titles, testify that the essence of the Son is not out of harmony with the Father. Thus by the text cited is shown the insubstantial character of the adversaries’ blasphemy. For if things at “variance” are not in harmony, and He Who is sealed by the Father, and displays the Father in Himself, both being in the Father, and having the Father in Himself623    Cf. S. John xiv. 10, shows in all points His close relation and harmony, then the absurdity of the opposing views is hereby overwhelmingly shown. For as that which is at “variance” was shown to be out of harmony, so conversely that which is harmonious is surely confessed beyond dispute not to be at “variance.” For as that which is at “variance” is not harmonious, so the harmonious is not at “variance.” Moreover, he who says that the nature of the Only-begotten is at “variance” with the good essence of the Father, clearly has in view variation in the good itself. But as for what that is which is at variance with the good—“O ye simple,” as the Proverb saith, “understand his craftiness624    Prov. viii. 5 (LXX.).!”

Ἀλλὰ τί χρὴ καταστοχαζομένους τῆς διανοίας ἀνακαλύπτειν τῷ λόγῳ τὴν κεκρυμμένην ἀπάτην καὶ παρέχειν ἴσως ἀφορμὰς τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἡμῶν ταῦτα τοῖς ἐχθροῖς προφερόντων; ἰδοὺ γὰρ γυμνὴν ἡμῖν ἐκτίθεται τὴν βλασφημίαν, δι' οὐδενὸς προκαλύμματος τὸν δόλον ἐπικρυπτόμενος, ἀλλ' ἐμπαρρησιαζόμενος τοῖς ἀτόποις ἐλευθέρᾳ φωνῇ. οὕτω δὲ ἔχει τὰ γεγραμμένα. « ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν », φησίν, « οὐδὲν ἕτερον εὑρίσκοντες παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ δεχόμενον τὴν γέννησιν, ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας τάττειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν τὰς προσηγορίας, ἢ μάτην γε καὶ ψιλοῖς ῥήμασι λέγομεν υἱὸν καὶ γεννητόν, εἴ γε ταῦτα τῆς οὐσίας χωρίσαιμεν. ἐκ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι καὶ τὸ παρηλλάχθαι τὰς οὐσίας ἀλλήλων πιστούμεθα ». οὐδὲν οἶμαι χρῆναι τὴν ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἀτοπίαν διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐλέγχεσθαι λόγων: αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀνάγνωσις ἱκανὴ στηλιτεῦσαι τὴν βλασφημίαν. οὑτωσὶ δὲ διασκοπήσωμεν. « παρηλλάχθαι » λέγει « τὰς οὐσίας ἀλλήλων » τοῦ υἱοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ πατρός. τί τοίνυν διὰ τοῦ « παρηλλαγμένου » σημαίνεται; πρῶτον αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς λέξεως ἔμφασιν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς ἐξετάσωμεν, ὡς ἂν μᾶλλον διὰ τῆς τοῦ ῥήματος ἑρμηνείας ἐκκαλυφθείη τὸ βλάσφημον. λέγεται τοίνυν ἐν τῇ καταχρήσει τῆς συνηθείας τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς παραλλαγῆς ἐπὶ σωμάτων μέν, ὅταν ἐκ παραλύσεως ἤ τινος ἑτέρου πάθους παρατραπῇ τι μέλος τῆς φυσικῆς ἁρμονίας: ἐκ γὰρ τῆς πρὸς τὸ ὑγιαῖνον τοῦ πεπονθότος ἀντιπαραθέσεως τὴν πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον παρατροπὴν τοῦ παραδεξαμένου τὸ πάθος παραλλαγὴν ὀνομάζομεν: ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν ἤθει κατ' ἀρετὴν καὶ κακίαν διαφερόντων, ὅταν ὁ ἀκόλαστος βίος ἀντιπαρατιθέμενος τῷ καθαρῷ τε καὶ σώφρονι ἢ τῷ δικαίῳ ὁ ἄδικος ἢ πρὸς τὸν πρᾷόν τε καὶ εἰρηνικὸν καὶ ἡσύχιον ὁ θυμώδης τε καὶ πολεμικὸς καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀταμίευτος καὶ πᾶν ὅλως τὸ τῇ παραθέσει τοῦ κρείττονος ἐν κακίᾳ κατηγορούμενον παρηλλάχθαι λέγεται, τῷ μὴ συμβαίνειν ἀλλήλοις τὰ ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων γνωρίσματα, τοῦ τε καλοῦ φημὶ καὶ τοῦ χείρονος. ἔτι παρηλλάχθαι φαμὲν καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν στοιχείων θεωρουμένας ποιότητας, ὅσαι κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον ἀντιστοιχοῦσιν ἀλλήλαις, φθαρτικὴν κατ' ἀλλήλων ἔχουσαι δύναμιν, οἷον τὸ θερμόν τε καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν ἢ τὸ ξηρόν τε καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν ἢ ὅλως εἴ τι τῷ ἑτέρῳ πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον ἀντικαθέστηκε καὶ τὸ ἐν τούτοις ἀσύμβατον τῷ τῆς παραλλαγῆς διερμηνεύομεν ῥήματι, καὶ πᾶν ὅλως τὸ διαφωνοῦν πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον ἐν τοῖς ἐπιθεωρουμένοις γνωρίσμασι τῶν παρηλλαγμένων ἐστίν, ὡς ὑγίεια πρὸς νόσον καὶ πρὸς θάνατον ἡ ζωὴ καὶ πρὸς εἰρήνην ὁ πόλεμος καὶ ἀρετὴ πρὸς κακίαν καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἐστὶν ὁμοιότροπα.
Τούτων δὲ ἡμῖν οὕτω διευκρινηθέντων, κατανοήσωμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λογογράφου, πῶς « παρηλλάχθαι λέγει τὰς οὐσίας ἀλλήλων » ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρός τε καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. τί τοῦτο λέγων; ἆρ' ὡς τοῦ πατρὸς μὲν ὄντος κατὰ φύσιν, τοῦ δὲ υἱοῦ παρηλλαγμένου τῆς φύσεως; ἢ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς παρατροπὴν τῷ ῥήματι τούτῳ διερμηνεύει, χωρίζων τῷ τῆς παραλλαγῆς ὀνόματι τὸ κακὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος, ὡς ταύτην μὲν ἐν τῷ καλῷ τὴν οὐσίαν βλέπειν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐναντίῳ τὴν ἄλλην; ἢ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς τῶν στοιχείων ἐναντιώσεως καὶ τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν παρηλλάχθαι τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας διϊσχυρίζεται; ἢ ὡς ἔχει πρὸς εἰρήνην ὁ πόλεμος καὶ πρὸς θάνατον ἡ ζωὴ καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα τῷ τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ μάχην ἐνορᾷ ταῖς οὐσίαις, ὡς μὴ αὐτὰς μετ' ἀλλήλων συμβῆναι, τῷ τὴν μίξιν τῶν ἐναντίων δαπανητικὴν κατὰ τῶν μιγνυμένων ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν, καθώς φησι περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου δόγματος ἡ παροιμιώδης σοφία ὅτι Ὕδωρ καὶ πῦρ οὐ μὴ εἴπωσιν Ἀρκεῖ, τὴν ἰσοπαλῆ τε καὶ ἰσοστάσιον τῶν ἐναντίων φύσιν καὶ τὴν κατ' ἀλλήλων φθορὰν διὰ τοῦ αἰνίγματος ἑρμηνεύουσα; ἢ κατ' οὐδὲν τούτων εἶναι λέγει τὴν ἐν ταῖς οὐσίαις ἐκείναις παραλλαγὴν καθορᾶν; οὐκοῦν εἰπάτω τὸ παρὰ ταῦτα νοούμενον. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοι, κἂν τὰ συνήθη λέγῃ, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα παρήλλακται: τούτῳ γὰρ καὶ μᾶλλον ἡ ἀτοπία τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ λεγομένων ἐλέγχεται. τί γὰρ οὕτω προσφυῶς τε καὶ ἁρμοδίως ἄλλο ἄλλῳ ἐμφύεταί τε καὶ ἐναρμόζεται ὡς ἡ σχετικὴ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασία; ἀπόδειξις δὲ τούτου ὅτι κἂν μὴ τὰ δύο ῥηθῇ ταῦτα ὀνόματα, τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ τὸ παρεθὲν συσσημαίνεται: οὕτως ἔγκειται καὶ ἐνήρμοσται τῷ ἑτέρῳ τὸ ἕτερον καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ καθορᾶται ἀμφότερα, ὡς μὴ ἂν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ νοηθῆναι τούτων τι χωρὶς τοῦ ἄλλου. τὸ δὲ παρηλλαγμένον ἐξ ἐναντίου τῷ ἁρμόζοντι πάντως καὶ νοεῖται καὶ λέγεται, οἷον ἡ σπάρτος πρὸς τὴν εὐθεῖαν ἁρμοδίως ἔχει, τὸ δὲ σκολιὸν τῷ εὐθεῖ παρατιθέμενον οὐχ ἁρμόζεται, καὶ τοῖς μουσικοῖς σύνηθες τὴν συμφωνίαν τῶν τόνων ἁρμονίαν προσαγορεύειν, ἀνάρμοστον δὲ τὸ ἔκτροπόν τε καὶ ἀπρόσχορδον. οὐκοῦν ταὐτόν ἐστι παρηλλαγμένον τε εἰπεῖν καὶ ἀνάρμοστον.
Εἰ οὖν παρήλλακται κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἱρέσεως λόγον πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ φύσις, οὐδὲ ἁρμόζεται πάντως: τὸ δὲ ἀνάρμοστον οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἐν ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ἐναρμοσθῆναι οὐ δύναται. ὥσπερ γὰρ μιᾶς οὔσης μορφῆς ἐπί τε τοῦ κηροῦ καὶ τῆς ἐν τῇ σφενδόνῃ γλυφίδος, ὅταν ἐντεθῇ πάλιν τῇ σφενδόνῃ ὁ ἐκτυπωθεὶς παρὰ ταύτης κηρός, ἐναρμόζει τὸν περὶ ἑαυτὸν χαρακτῆρα τῷ περιέχοντι, τοὺς ἰδίους καταλαμβάνων τύπους ἐν τῷ χαράγματι, πρός τε τὰ κοῖλα διαδυόμενος καὶ τὰς ἐξοχὰς τῆς γλυφῆς « τοῖς » ἰδίοις ἀναδεχόμενος τύποις, εἰ δὲ ξένος τις καὶ ἀλλότριος τύπος ἐντεθείη τῇ γλυφῇ τῆς σφενδόνης, τραχύνει καὶ συγχεῖ τὴν ἰδίαν μορφὴν τοῖς ἀνοικείοις χαράγμασι περιγλύφων τὸ εἶδος. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ ἐν τῇ μορφῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινὶ χαρακτῆρι παρὰ τὸν πατέρα μεμόρφωται, χαρακτὴρ ὢν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως: ἡ δὲ μορφὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ταὐτὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ πάντως ἐστίν. ὡς γὰρ ἐν τῇ μορφῇ τοῦ δούλου γενόμενος τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ δούλου ἐνεμορφώθη, οὐ ψιλὴν ἀναλαβὼν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν μορφὴν οὐδὲ τῆς οὐσίας διεζευγμένην, ἀλλ' ἡ οὐσία τῇ μορφῇ συσσημαίνεται, οὕτως πάντως καὶ ὁ εἰπὼν αὐτὸν ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν διὰ τῆς μορφῆς ἐνεδείξατο. εἰ οὖν ἐν τῇ μορφῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν ἐσφράγισται τῇ πατρῴᾳ δόξῃ, καθώς φησιν ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φωνὴ ἡ λέγουσα Τοῦτον ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός, διὸ καὶ ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν υἱὸν ὁρᾷ τὸν πατέρα, ἡ τῆς ἀγαθότητος εἰκὼν καὶ τὸ τῆς δόξης ἀπαύγασμα καὶ πάντα ὅσα τοιαῦτα τὸ μὴ ἀναρμόστως ἔχειν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μαρτύρεται, ἄρα προδήλως τὸ τῆς βλασφημίας τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀσύστατον διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐλέγχεται. εἰ γὰρ τὰ παρηλλαγμένα οὐ συναρμόζεται, ὁ δὲ σφραγισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεικνὺς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχων ἐκεῖνον διὰ πάντων δείκνυσι τὸ συμφυὲς καὶ εὐάρμοστον, ἄρα διὰ τούτων ἡ ἀτοπία τῶν ἐναντίων κατὰ κράτος ἐλέγχεται. ὡς γὰρ ἐδείχθη τὸ παρηλλαγμένον ἀνάρμοστον, οὕτω τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἀναντιρρήτως ὁμολογεῖται τὸ εὐάρμοστον ἀπαράλλακτον πάντως. ὡς γὰρ τὸ παρηλλαγμένον οὐχ ἁρμόζεται, οὕτω τὸ ἁρμοζόμενον οὐ παρήλλακται: ὁ δὲ λέγων τῆς ἀγαθῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς παραλλάττειν φύσιν, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν παραλλαγὴν πάντως βλέπει. τὸ δὲ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ παρηλλαγμένον τί ἐστι, Νοήσατε οἱ ἄκακοι τὴν πανουργίαν, ἡ παροιμία φησίν.