|
65. THE word "in "say our opponents, "is exactly appropriate
to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him. Why
then, they ask, have we introduced this new phrase, saying, "with
the Spirit" instead of "in the Holy Spirit," thus employing an
expression which is quite unnecessary, and sanctioned by no usage in
the churches? Now it has been asserted in the previous portion of this
treatise that the word "in" has not been specially allotted to the
Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son. It has also
been, in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated that, so far from
detracting anything from the dignity of the Spirit, it leads all, but
those whose thoughts are wholly perverted, to the sublimest height.
It remains for me to trace the origin of the word "with;" to explain
what force it has, and to shew that it is in harmony with Scripture.
66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or
publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess
derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us
"in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these m
relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will
gainsay;--no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in
the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance
they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in
its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere
phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most
general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign
with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East
at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of
tim invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the
cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what
the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and
conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the
validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and
besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written
authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical
tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself
taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to
the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the
renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that
unpublished and secret teaching which oar fathers guarded in a silence
out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?
Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries
is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even
allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in
written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not
making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane
he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded
to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of
the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly
functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted
to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the
year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he
might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty
of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to
the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally
associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the
Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the
beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and
silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no
mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten
precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become
neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity.
"Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is
observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One
form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which
makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very
advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our
prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country,
Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. We pray
standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the
reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk.
anastasis we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at
prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek
those things which are above," but because the day seems to us to be
in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though
it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but
one. For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one
day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one and
"eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really
"one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain
titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present
time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor,
that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity, then, the
church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that
day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless
life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither.
Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in
the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times
multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost;
for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making
fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a
likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a
circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the
church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for
by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no
longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall
upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by
our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our
Creator were called hack to heaven.
67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten
mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very
confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is
the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so
also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like
terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism
and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our
opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription
of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology
on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the
written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters
which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many,
and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness is so important, can
they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the
Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding
in unperverted churches;--a word for which the arguments are strong,
and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the
force of the mystery?
68. The force of both expressions has now been explained. I will
proceed to state once more wherein they agree and wherein they differ
from one another;--not that they are opposed in mutual antagonism,
but that each contributes its own meaning to true religion. The
preposition "in" states the truth rather relatively to ourselves;
while "with" proclaims the fellowship of the Spirit with God.
Wherefore we use both words, by the one expressing the dignity of the
Spirit; by the other announcing the grace that is with us. Thus we
ascribe glory to God both "in" the Spirit, and "with" the
Spirit; and herein it is not our word that we use, but we follow the
teaching of the Lord as we might a fixed rule, and transfer His word
to things connected and closely related, and of which the conjunction
in the mysteries is necessary. We have deemed ourselves under a
necessary obligation to combine in our confession of the faith Him who
is numbered with Them at Baptism, and we have treated the confession
of the faith as the origin and parent of the doxology. What, then,
is to be done? They must now instruct us either not to baptize as we
have received, or not to believe as we were baptized, or not to
ascribe glory as we have believed. Let any man prove if he can that
the relation of sequence in these acts is not necessary and unbroken;
or let any man deny if he can that innovation here must mean ruin
everywhere. Yet they never stop dinning in our ears that the
ascription of glory "with" the Holy Spirit is unauthorized and
unscriptural and the like. We have stated that so far as the sense
goes it is the same to say "glory be to the Father and to the Son and
to the Holy Ghost," and glory be to the Father and to the Son with
the Holy Ghost." It is impossible for any one to reject or cancel
the syllable "and," which is derived from the very words of our
Lord, and there is nothing to hinder the acceptance of its
equivalent. What amount of difference and similarity there is between
the two we have already shewn. And our argument is confirmed by the
fact that the Apostle uses either word indifferently,--saying at one
time "in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God
;" at another "when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, with
the power of our Lord Jesus," with no idea that it makes any
difference to the connexion of the names whether he use the conjunction
or the preposition.
|
|
