{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/205/2050091.htm","path":"chr/ecf/205/2050091.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/205/2050091.htm","text":"p. CLXVIII \u00a78. He proceeds to show that there is no \u201cvariance\u201d in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony, and explains the \u201cform,\u201d the \u201cseal,\u201d and the \u201cexpress image.\u201d\nBut 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:\u2014\u201cWe, for our part,\u201d he says, \u201cas 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 \u2018Son\u2019 and \u2018begotten\u2019 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 other 667 .\u201d\nThere 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 \u201cvariant.\u201d What is meant by \u201cvariant\u201d? Let us first of all examine the force of the term as it is applied by itself 668 , that by the interpretation of the word its blasphemous character may be more clearly revealed. The term \u201cvariance\u201d 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 \u201cvariation\u201d 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\u2014and generally all that is reproached with vice, as compared with what is more excellent, is said to exhibit \u201cvariance\u201d from it, because the marks observed in both\u2014in the good, I mean, and the inferior\u2014do not mutually agree. Again, we say that those qualities observed in the elements are \u201cat variance\u201d 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 \u201cvariation\u201d; and generally everything which is out of harmony with another in their observed characteristics, is said to be \u201cat variance\u201d with it, as health with disease, life with death, war with peace, virtue with vice, and all similar cases.\nNow 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 \u201cvariant from each other.\u201d What does he mean by it? Is it in the sense that the Father is according to nature, while the Son \u201cvaries\u201d 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 \u201cvariation,\u201d 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 \u201cIt is enough 669 ,\u201d 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 \u201cvariance\u201d 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 phrase 670 , \u201cThe Son is variant from Him Who begat Him\u201d; 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 p. CLXIX the Father expressed by the word \u201cSon\u201d? 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 \u201cat variance\u201d is surely so conceived and so called, in opposition to that which is \u201cin harmony,\u201d 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 \u201charmony,\u201d and that which is out of tune and discordant \u201cinharmonious.\u201d To speak of things as at \u201cvariance,\u201d then, is the same as to speak of them as \u201cout of harmony.\u201d If, therefore, the nature of the Only-begotten God is at \u201cvariance,\u201d 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 harmony 671 . 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 \u201cin the form of God 672 \u201d has been formed by no impression different from the Father, seeing that He is \u201cthe express image\u201d of the Father\u2019s Person 673 , while the \u201cform of God\u201d is surely the same thing as His essence. For as, \u201cbeing made in the form of a servant 674 ,\u201d 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 \u201cform,\u201d so, surely, he who says that He is \u201cin the form of God\u201d signified essence by \u201cform.\u201d If, therefore, He is \u201cin the form of God,\u201d and being in the Father is sealed with the Father\u2019s glory, (as the word of the Gospel declares, which saith, \u201cHim hath God the Father sealed 675 ,\u201d\u2014whence also \u201cHe that hath seen Me hath seen the Father 676 ,\u201d) then \u201cthe image of goodness\u201d and \u201cthe brightness of glory,\u201d 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\u2019 blasphemy. For if things at \u201cvariance\u201d 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 Himself 677 , 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 \u201cvariance\u201d was shown to be out of harmony, so conversely that which is harmonious is surely confessed beyond dispute not to be at \u201cvariance.\u201d For as that which is at \u201cvariance\u201d is not harmonious, so the harmonious is not at \u201cvariance.\u201d Moreover, he who says that the nature of the Only-begotten is at \u201cvariance\u201d 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\u2014\u201cO ye simple,\u201d as the Proverb saith, \u201cunderstand his craftiness 678 !\u201d\nThe whole passage is rather obscure, and Oehler\u2019s punctuation renders it perhaps more obscure than that which is here adopted. The argument seems to be something like this:\u2014\u201cThe 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 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, and \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 are to be assigned; otherwise the terms \u2018Son\u2019 and \u2018Only-begotten\u2019 are meaningless. Therefore the Son, being in essence a \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 or \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, is alien from the Father Who made or created Him.\u201d The word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 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 \u201cvariation,\u201d however, seems to attach to all these cases, and the verb has been translated accordingly.\nCLXVIII:668\nFollowing Oehler\u2019s suggestion and reading \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\nCLXVIII:669\nCf. Prov. xxx. 15 (LXX.).\nCLXVIII:670\nThe sense given would perhaps be clearer if we were to read (as Gulonius seems to have done) \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7. This might be interpreted, \u201cHe 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.\u201d The \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 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 \u201cvariance\u201d than those enumerated.\nCLXIX:671\nThe 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.\nCLXIX:672 CLXIX:673 CLXIX:674 CLXIX:675\nS. John vi. 27\nCLXIX:676\nS. John xiv. 9\nCLXIX:677\nCf. S. John xiv. 10\nCLXIX:678\nProv. viii. 5 (LXX.).","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. V: Dogmatic Treatises.: He proceeds to show that there is no \u201cvariance\u201d in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony, and explains the \u201cform,\u201d the \u201cseal,\u201d and the \u201cexpress image.\u201d","type":"page"}