|
58. It is, however, asked by our opponents, how it is that
Scripture nowhere describes the Spirit as glorified together with the
Father and the Son, but carefully avoids the use of the expression
"with the Spirit," while it everywhere prefers to ascribe glory "in
Him" as being the fitter phrase. I should, for my own part, deny
that the word in [or by] implies lower dignity than the word
"with;" I should main-pain on the contrary that, rightly
understood, it leads us up to the highest possible meaning. This is
the case where, as we have observed, it often stands instead of with;
as for instance, "I will go into thy house in burnt offerings,"
instead of with burnt offerings and "he brought them forth also by
silver and gold," that is to say with silver and gold and "thou goest
not forth in our armies" instead of with our armies, and innumerable
similar passages. In short I should very much like to learn from this
newfangled philosophy what kind of glory the Apostle ascribed by the
word in, according to the interpretation which our opponents proffer as
derived from Scripture, for I have nowhere found the formula "To
Thee, O Father, be honour and glory, through Thy only begotten
Son, by [or in] the Holy Ghost,"--a form which to our
opponents comes, so to say, as naturally as the air they breathe.
You may indeed find each of these clauses separately, but they will
nowhere be able to show them to us arranged in this conjunction. If,
then, they want exact conformity to what is written, let them give us
exact references. If, on the other hand, they make concession to
custom, they must not make us an exception to such a privilege.
59. As we find both expressions in use among the faithful, we use
both; in the belief that full glory is equally given to the Spirit by
both. The mouths, how, ever, of revilers of the truth may best be
stopped by the preposition which, while it has the same meaning as that
of the Scriptures, is not so wieldy a weapon for our
opponents,(indeed it is now an object of their attack) and is used
instead of the conjunction and. For to say "Paul and Silvanus and
Timothy" is precisely the same thing as to say Paul with Timothy and
Silvanus; for the connexion of the names is, preserved by either mode
of expression. The Lord says "The Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost." If I say the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost
shall I make, any difference in the sense? Of the connexion of names
by means of the conjunction and the instances are many. We read "The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the
fellowship of the Holy Ghost," and again "I beseech you for the
Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit." Now
if we wish to use with instead of and, what difference shall we have
made? I do not see; unless any one according to hard and fast
grammatical rules might prefer the conjunction as copulative and making
the union stronger, and reject the preposition as of inferior force.
But if we had to defend ourselves on these points I do not suppose we
should require a defence of many words. As it is, their argument is
not about syllables nor yet about this or that sound of a word, but
about things differing. most widely in power and in truth. It is for
this reason that, while the use of the syllables is really a matter of
no importance whatever, our opponents are making the endeavour to
authorise some syllables, and bunt out others from the Church. For
my own part, although the usefulness of the word is obvious as soon as
it is heard, I will nevertheless set forth the arguments which led our
fathers to adopt the reasonable coarse of employing the preposition
"with." It does indeed equally well with the preposition "and,"
confute the mischief of Sabellius; and it sets forth quite as well as
"and" the distinction of the hypostases, as in the words "I and my
Father will come," and "I and my Father are one." In addition
to this the proof it contains of the eternal fellowship and
uninterrupted conjunction is excellent. For to say that the Son is
with the Father is to exhibit at once the distinction of the
hypostases, and the inseparability of the fellowship. The same thing
is observable even in mere human matters, for the conjunction "and"
intimates that there is a common element in an action, while the
preposition "with" declares in some sense as well the communion in
action. As, for instance;-Paul and Timothy sailed to
MaCedonia, but both Tychicus and Onesimus were sent to the
Colossians. Hence we learn that they did the same thing. But
suppose we are told that they sailed with, and were sent with? Then
we are informed in addition that they carried out the action in company
with one another. Thus while the word "with" upsets the error of
Sabellius as no other word can, it routs also sinners who err in the
very opposite direction; those, I mean, who separate the Son from
the Father and the Spirit from the Son, by intervals of time.
60. As compared with "in," there is this difference, that while
"with" sets forth the mutual conjunction of the parties associated,
--as, for example, of those who sail with, or dwell with, or do
anything else in common, "in" shews their relation to that matter in
which they happen to be acting. For we no sooner hear the words "sail
in" or "dwell in" than we form the idea of the boat or the house.
Such is the distinction between these words in ordinary usage; and
laborious investigation might discover further. illustrations. I have
no time to examine into the nature of the syllables. Since then it has
been shewn that "with" most clearly gives the sense of conjunction,
let it be declared, if you will, to be under safe-conduct, and cease
to wage your savage and truceless war against it. Nevertheless,
though the word is naturally thus auspicious, yet if any one likes, in
the ascription of praise, to couple the names by the syllable "and,"
and to give glory, as we have taught in the Gospel, in the formula of
baptism, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, be it so: no one will
make any objection. On these conditions, if you will, let us come to
terms. But our foes would rather surrender their tongues than accept
this word. It is this that rouses against us their implacable and
truceless war. We must offer the ascription of glory to God, it is
contended, in the Holy Ghost, and not and to the Holy Ghost, and
they passionately cling to this word in, as though it lowered the
Spirit. It will therefore be not unprofitable to speak at greater
length about it; and I shall be astonished if they do not: when they
have heard what we have to urge, reject the in as itself a traitor to
their cause, and a deserter to the side of tile glory of tile Spirit.
|
|
