Traduction
Masquer
Über die Beschlüsse der Synode von Nizäa (BKV)
27.
Daß aber das Wort von Ewigkeit her bei dem Vater sey, und daß es keiner andern Wesenheit oder Substanz, als jener des Vaters eigen sey, wie die Synode ausgesprochen hat, dieses könnet ihr von dem arbeitsamen Origenes vernehmen. Denn was dieser gleichsam untersuchend und S. 233 sich übend niedergeschrieben hat, darf man nicht so verstehen als dächte er selbst auf diese Weise, sondern man muß es als die Ansicht derer ansehen, mit denen er im Streite begriffen ist, allein was er mit Zuversicht bestimmt und behauptet, dieses ist die Ansicht dieses fleißigen Mannes. Er bringt also nach dem, was er gleichsam der Uebung wegen zu den Ketzern gesagt hat, sogleich seine eigene Ansicht vor, indem er so spricht: „Wenn er das Ebenbild des unsichtbaren Gottes ist, so ist auch das Ebenbild unsichtbar. Ja ich möchte sogar noch beizufügen wagen, daß es, da er das Gleichbild des Vaters ist, nie eine Zeit gab, in der er nicht war. Denn wann hat Gott, der nach Johannes Licht genannt wird, (denn Gott ist das Licht1), den Abglanz seiner eigenen Herrlichkeit nicht gehabt, daß sich Jemand getrauen dürfte, dem Sohne einen Anfang des Seyns beizulegen, als wäre er zuvor nicht gewesen? Wann aber war das Wort nicht, das Wort, welches den Vater kennt, und der Abglanz und das Ebenbild des Wesens des Vaters ist, welches weder ausgesprochen, noch genannt, noch ausgedrückt werden kann? Denn es erkenne derjenige, welcher sich zu sagen erkühnt: Es gab einmal eine Zeit, wo der Sohn nicht war, daß es dasselbe sey, als wenn er sagte: Die Weisheit war einmal nicht, und das Wort war nicht, und das Leben war nicht. Und an einem andern Orte sagt er wiederum: Allein es ist nicht erlaubt und nicht ohne Gefahr, wegen unserer Schwäche Gott, so viel bei uns steht, des eingebornen Wortes zu berauben, welches immer bei ihm war, und welches die Weisheit war, an der er sich erfreute2. Denn sonst müßte man annehmen, daß er sich nicht immer erfreut habe.“ Sehet also! wir beweisen, daß diese Ansicht von Vätern auf Väter übergegangen ist; ihr aber, o neue Juden und Schüler des Kaiphas! welche Väter könnet ihr für euere S. 234 Worte aufweisen? Gewiß werdet ihr nie einen Klugen und Weisen vorbringen; denn Alle schaudern vor euch zurück, nur der Teufel allein nicht; denn dieser allein ist der Vater dieses eueres Abfalles, und er hat in euch zuerst den Samen dieser Gottlosigkeit gelegt, und rathet euch auch jetzt noch, daß ihr die allgemeine Synode lästert, weil sie nämlich nicht das Eurige, sondern jenes schriftlich bestätigt hat, was seit dem Anfange Augenzeugen, die auch Diener des Wortes waren, überliefert haben. Denn der Glaube, welchen die Synode schriftlich bekannt hat, dieser ist der Glaube der katholischen Kirche; um diesen zu schirmen, haben die seligen Väter so geschrieben, und die arianische Ketzerei verdammt. Darum bestreben sich jene vorzüglich, die Synode zu verleumden. Denn nicht die Ausdrücke schmerzen sie, sondern dieses, daß sie darin als Ketzer dargestellt wurden, und zwar als solche, welche verwegener sind, als die übrigen Ketzer.
Traduction
Masquer
De Decretis or Defence of the Nicene Definition
27.
And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving 1 Origen also. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, that let no one take as expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are contending in investigation, but what he 2 definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man. After his prolusions then (so to speak) against the heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief, thus:—
“If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for ‘God is Light’), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son’s origin of existence, as if before He was not? But when was not that Image of the Father’s Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows the Father? for let him understand well who dares to say, ‘Once the Son was not,’ that he is saying, ‘Once Wisdom was not,’ and ‘Word was not,’ and ‘Life was not.’”
And again elsewhere he says:—
“But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him; and the Wisdom in which He rejoiced; else He must be conceived as not always possessed of joy.”
See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone 3; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this P. 169 irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council 4, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us 5. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them 6, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies.
-
φιλοπόνου , and soSerap.iv. 9. [This place is referred to bySocr.vi. 13.] ↩
-
ἃ μὲν ὡς ζητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων ἔργαψε, ταῦτα μὴ ὡς αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντος δεχέσθω τις, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρὸς ἔριν φιλονεικούντων ἐν τῷ ζητεῖν, ἀδεῶς ὁρίζων ἀποφαίνεται, τοῦτο τοῦ φιλοπόνου τὸ φρόνημα ἐστι. ῾ἀλλὰ . Certe legendum ἀλλ᾽ ἃ , idque omnino exigit sensus. Montfaucon. Rather for ἀδεῶς read ἃ δὲ ὡς , and put the stop at ζητεῖν instead of δεχέσθω τις . ↩
-
Supr. §5. ↩
-
vid. supr. §4.Orat.i. §7.Ad Afros.2, twice. Apol.contr. Arian.7.ad Ep. Æg.5. Epiph.Hær.70. 9. Euseb.Vit. Const.iii. 6. The Council was more commonly called μεγάλη , vid. supr. §26. The second General Council, a.d. 381, took the name of ecumenical. vid. Can. 6. fin. but incidentally. The Council of Ephesus so styles itself in the opening of its Synodical Letter. ↩
-
The profession under which the decrees of Councils come to us is that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as ἐγγραφῶς ἐξετέθη with reference to them. Thus Damasus, Theod.H. E.v. 10. speaks of that ‘apostolical faith, which wasset forth in writingby the Fathers in Nicæa.’ On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch speaks of the doctrine of our Lord’s perfect humanity being ‘inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i.e. till the Council of Chalcedon] beingconfirmedby the decree of an ecumenical Council.’Phot.229. p. 801. ( ἐγγραφῶς , however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing; Phot.ibid.or to Scripture, Clement.Strom.i. init. p. 321.) Hence Athan. saysad Afros.1. and 2. that ‘the Word of the Lord which was given through the ecumenical Council in Nicæaremaineth for ever;’ and uses against its opposers the texts, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set’ (vid. also Dionysius in Eus.H. E.vii. 7.), and ‘He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.’ Prov. xxii. 28. Ex. xxi. 17 . vid. also Athan.ad Epict.1. And the Council of Chalcedon professes to ‘drive away the doctrines of error by a common decree, andrenewthe unswerving faith of the Fathers,’ Act. v. p. 452. [t. iv. 1453 ed. Col.]‘as,’ they proceed, ‘from of old the prophets spoke of Christ, and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of the Fathers has delivered to us,’ whereas ‘other faith it is not lawful for any to bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or to teach.’ p. 456. [1460 ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p. 5. note m. This, however, did not interfere with theiraddingwithoutundoing.‘For,’ says Vigilius, ‘if it were unlawful to receive aught further after the Nicene statutes, on what authority venture we to assert that the Holy Ghost is of one substance with the Father, which it is notorious was there omitted?’contr. Eutych.v. init.; he gives other instances, some in point, others not. vid. also Eulogius,apud Phot. Cod.23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to add to theconfessionof the Church is not to add to thefaith,since nothing can be added to the faith. Leo,Ep.124. p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the Nicene faith is sufficient to refute every heresy,ad Max.5. fin. (also Leo.Ep.54. p. 956. and Naz.Ep.102. init.)excepting, however,the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; which explains his meaning. The Henoticon of Zeno says the same, but with the intention of dealing a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345. Aetius at Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that Cyril and Leo did butinterpret the Creed.Conc. t. 2. p. 428. [t. iv. 1430, 1431 ed. Col. See this whole subject very amply treated in Dr. Pusey’sOn the Clause, And the Son,pp. 76 sqq.] Leo even says that the Apostles’ Creed is sufficient against all heresies, and that Eutyches erred on a point ‘of which our Lord wished no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant,’ and he wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed ‘puro et simplici corde.’Ep.31. p. 857, 8. ↩
-
Supr. §21. init. ↩