Übersetzung
ausblenden
De Decretis or Defence of the Nicene Definition
22.
If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident 1 is in essence, or P. 165 to have any external envelopement 2, and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, ‘I am that I am,’ and ‘I am the Lord God 3,’ or when Scripture says, ‘God,’ we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of 4. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for ‘from God’ written ‘of the essence.’ For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was ‘of God’ and ‘of the essence of God,’ since the word ‘God,’ as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as ‘all things are from God,’ then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.
-
συμβεβηκός . Cf.Orat.iv. 2. alsoOrat.i. 36. The text embodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God’s goodness as an accident, ‘as colour to the body,’ ‘as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,’Legat.24. This, however is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, τὸ ὄντως ὂν , and His unity of nature, τὸ μονοφυὲς , as in the number of ἐπισυμβεβηκότα αὐτῶ . Eusebius uses the word συμβεβηκὸς in the same way [but seeOrat.iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr.Evang.iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe, ‘There are cogent reasons for considering these thingsas accidentsσυμβεβηκότα in God, though they be not.’Thesaur.p. 263. vid. the following note. ↩
-
περιβολὴ , and sode Syn.§34. which is very much the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that ‘neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present to us His essence.’Orat.28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that ‘not every thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.’de Trin.v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him, περὶ αὐτὸν , it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words περὶ θεὸν occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject fully in his workde Deo.i. 7–11. and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine ‘proprietates’ and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as ifin projection(if such a word may be used), and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided into genus and difference. ↩
-
Ex. iii. 14, 15 . ↩
-
In like mannerde Synod.§34. Also Basil, ‘The essence is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God.’contr. Eun.i. 10 fin. ‘The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.’ CyrilThesaur.p. 59. ‘When we say the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the essence of the Father.’ August.de Trin.vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, ‘Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.’ Præp.Evang.xi. 10. ↩
Übersetzung
ausblenden
Über die Beschlüsse der Synode von Nizäa (BKV)
22.
Glaubt also Jemand, Gott sey zusammengesetzt, wie in der Wesenheit das Zufällige, oder er habe von Aussen irgend eine Hülle, und werde bedeckt, oder es sey etwas um ihn, was seine Wesenheit ausfülle, so daß wir, wenn wir Gott sagen oder den Namen Vater aussprechen, nicht seine Wesenheit selbst, welche nicht gesehen und nicht begriffen werden kann, sondern etwas von dem, was um dieselbe ist, bezeichnen; so mögen sie die Synode tadeln, welche geschrieben hat, der Sohn Gottes sey aus der Wesenheit desselben. Allein sie sollen bedenken, daß sie durch eine solche Gesinnung eine doppelte Lästerung begehen. Denn sie führen irgend einen körperlichen Gott ein, und sprechen die Unwahrheit aus, daß der Herr nicht der Sohn des Vaters selbst, sondern der Sohn der Dinge sey, welche um jenen sind. Ist aber Gott etwas Einfaches, wie er es auch wirklich ist, so ist es klar, daß wir, wenn wir Gott nennen, oder den Namen Vater aussprechen, nichts, was gleichsam um ihn ist, nennen, sondern seine Wesenheit selbst bezeichnen. Denn obschon man nicht begreifen kann, was eigentlich die Wesenheit Gottes sey; so wollen wir doch, wenn wir nur einsehen, daß Gott ist, da ihn auch die Schrift mit diesen Worten bezeichnet, keinen andern, als ihn, bezeichnen, wenn wir Gott und Vater und Herr sagen. Wenn er also sagt: „Ich bin der, welcher ist;“ und: „Ich bin Gott der Herr,“ S. 224 und wo immer die Schrift sagt, „Gott,“ sehen wir, indem wir dieses lesen, daß nichts anderes angedeutet werde, als seine unbegreifliche Wesenheit selbst, und daß er der sey, welchen sie angeben. Es verwundere sich also Niemand, wenn er hört, der Sohn Gottes sey aus der Wesenheit Gottes, sondern er stimme vielmehr den Vätern bei, welche, um den Sinn zu erläutern, der größern Deutlichkeit wegen, anstatt des gleichbedeutenden Ausdruckes „aus Gott“ die Worte „aus Gottes Wesenheit“ niedergeschrieben haben. Denn sie glaubten, es sey eines und dasselbe sagen, „das Wort sey aus Gott,“ und sagen, es sey aus Gottes „Wesenheit,“ da ja das Wort Gott, wie gesagt, nichts anders bezeichnet, als die Wesenheit dessen, welcher ist. Wenn also das Wort nicht so aus Gott ist, daß es der Natur nach der wahre Sohn aus dem Vater ist; und wenn man vielmehr sagt, es sey nur auf diejenige Weise aus Gott, wie alle Geschöpfe, weil sie nämlich von dem Schöpfer gemacht worden sind; so ist es freilich nicht aus der Wesenheit des Vaters, und selbst der Sohn ist nicht der Wesenheit nach Sohn, sondern bloß in Folge der Tugend, wie wir, die wir aus Gnade Kinder genannt werden. Ist hingegen er allein aus Gott, als wahrhafter Sohn, wie er es wirklich ist; so kann man ihn mit Recht den Sohn aus der Wesenheit Gottes nennen.
