Übersetzung
ausblenden
De Decretis or Defence of the Nicene Definition
17.
The Council 1 wishing to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but ‘from God,’ and is ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase ‘from God’ as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, ‘There is one God, from whom, all things 2;’ and again, ‘Old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God 3.’ But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words ‘from God.’ Accordingly, they wrote ‘from the essence of God 4,’ in order that ‘from God’ might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is from Him; for as to the creatures, ‘of God’ is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance 5, according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure,—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer,—nor as others again say that the P. 163 constitution of all things is from certain Angels;—but in that (whereas God is), it was by Him that all things were brought into being, not being before, through His Word; but as to the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both called and is ‘from the Father;’ and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is ‘from the essence of the Father,’ for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that ‘all things are from God,’ he immediately adds, ‘and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 6,’ in order to shew all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through His Son) ; and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God 7, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the essence 8 of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the Council wrote ‘of the essence.’
-
vid.ad. Afr.5. ↩
-
1 Cor. viii. 6 . ↩
-
2 Cor. v. 17 . ↩
-
Hence it stands in the Creed, ‘from the Father,that is,from the essence of the Father.’ vid. Eusebius’s Letter,infr. According to the received doctrine of the Church all rational beings, and in one sense all beings whatever, are ‘from God,’ over and above the fact of their creation; and of this truth the Arians made use to deny our Lord’s proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing remains in consistence and life, except from a participation of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from it; vid. above, §17, note 5.contr. Gent.42.de Incarn.5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but ofthings generate,γεννητά . This was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, ‘things originate,being works,cannot be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.’Orat.i. 56. The question then was, as to thedistinctionof the Son’s divine generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics answered that He was ἐξ οὐσίας , from the essence of God; not by participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited sense, but really and simply, and therefore by an internal divine act. vid. below, §22. andinfr.§31. [The above note has been modified so as to eliminate the erroneous identification of γεννητὸς and γενητός .] ↩
-
Cf.de Syn.§35. ↩
-
1 Cor. viii. 6 . ↩
-
When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate, ἀγένητος , this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are distinct from God. vid.Orat.iii. 8. Naz.Orat.30, 13. Cyril.Thesaur.p 142. ‘The words “one” and “only” ascribed to God in Scripture,’ says S. Basil, ‘are not used in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are not God, and falsely called so.’Ep.8. n. 3. On the other hand, when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him, ‘The Blessed and Holy Trinity,’ says S. Athan. ‘is indivisible and one in itself; and when the Father is mentioned, His Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.’ad Serap.i. 14. ↩
-
Vid. alsoad Afros.4. Again, ‘“I am,” τὸ ὂν , is really proper to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.’ Naz.Orat.30. 18 fin. Also CyrilDial.i. p. 392. Damasc.Fid. Orth.i. 9. and the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph.Hær.73. 12 init. By the ‘essence,’ however, or, ‘substance’ of God, the Council did not mean any thing distinct from God, vid. note 3infr.but God Himself viewed in His self-existing nature (vid. Tert. inHermog,3.), nay, it expressly meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created substance. Moreover the term expresses the idea of Godpositively,in contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense, eternal, &c. Damasc.Fid. Orthod.i. 4. and as little implies any thing distinct from God as those epithets do. ↩
Übersetzung
ausblenden
Über die Beschlüsse der Synode von Nizäa (BKV)
19.
Da die Synode die gottlosen Ausdrücke der Arianer beseitigen, und die angenommenen Worte der Schriften anwenden wollte, daß nämlich der Sohn nicht aus Nichtseyendem sey, sondern aus Gott und daß er das Wort und die Weisheit, nicht aber ein Geschöpf oder etwas Gemachtes, sondern des Vaters eigene Erzeugung sey; wollten die Eusebianer, von ihrer alten verkehrten Ansicht geleitet, daß jener Ausdruck „Aus Gott“ dem Worte Gottes mit uns gemeinschaftlich, und daß hierin das Wort Gottes von uns nicht verschieden sey, weil geschrieben stehe:1 „Ein Gott, aus welchem Alles ist.“ Und abermals:2 „Das Alte ist vergangen; sieh! es ist Alles neu geworden. Alles aber ist aus Gott.“ Allein da die Väter diese ihre Verschlagenheit und gottlose Arglist bemerkten, waren sie endlich gezwungen, deutlicher zu erklären, was unter dem Ausdrucke, „Aus Gott“ zu verstehen sey, und zu schreiben, der Sohn sey aus der Wesenheit Gottes, so daß man nicht glauben möchte, jene Worte „Aus Gott“ seyen eine gemeinsame und gleiche Eigenschaft des Sohnes und der Geschöpfe, sondern daß man die Ueberzeugung gewinnen möchte, daß alle übrigen Dinge geschaffen, das Wort allein aber aus dem Vater sey. Denn obwohl es heißt, Alles sey aus Gott; so ist dieses doch in einem andern Sinne gesagt, als da, wo es heißt, der Sohn sey aus Gott. Denn weil die Geschöpfe nicht durch Zufall und aus S. 218 sich selbst sind, und nicht dem Ungefähr ihre Entstehung verdanken, wie diejenigen meinen, welche behaupten, Alles sey durch Verbindung der Atome und aus gleichen Theilen entstanden, oder wie einige Ketzer einen andern Schöpfer (Demiurgen) annehmen, oder wie wieder Andere sagen, Alles habe sein Bestehen durch einige Engel erhalten; sondern weil Alles von dem wirklichen Gotte, da es zuvor nicht gewesen war, durch das Wort in das Daseyn gerufen wurde, deßwegen wurde gesagt, es sey aus Gott. Von dem Worte aber ist, weil es kein Geschöpf ist, gesagt worden, daß es allein aus dem Vater sey, und es ist auch allein aus demselben; und dieser Sinn wird angedeutet, wenn es heißt, der Sohn sey aus der Wesenheit des Vaters; denn dieses kommt keinem der Geschöpfe zu. Wirklich fügt Paulus, wenn er sagt, daß Alles aus Gott sey, sogleich bei: „Und Ein Herr, Jesus Christus, durch welchen Alles ist,“ um Allen zu zeigen, daß der Sohn von Allem, was aus Gott entstanden ist, verschieden sey. Denn was aus Gott entstanden ist, das ist durch den Sohn entstanden. Wegen der Schöpfung also, deren Urheber Gott ist, hat er dieses gesagt, nicht aber als wenn Alles aus dem Vater wäre, wie es der Sohn ist. Denn es sind nicht alle Dinge wie der Sohn ist, und das Wort ist nicht Eines aus allen Dingen; denn es ist der Herr und der Schöpfer aller Dinge. Denn darum hat die heilige Synode die Erklärung gegeben, es sey aus der Wesenheit des Vaters, damit man glaube, das Wort sey von der Natur der geschaffenen Dinge verschieden, weil es allein wahrhaft aus Gott ist, und damit den Gottlosen kein Vorwand mehr zur Täuschung gelassen werde. Dieses also war die Ursache, warum man schrieb: „Aus der Wesenheit.“
