|
5. They have, however, been led into this error by their close
study of heathen writers, who have respectively applied the terms "of
whom" and "through whom" to things which are by nature distinct.
These writers suppose that by the term "of whom" or "of which" the
matter is indicated, while the term "through whom" or "through
which" represents the instrument, or, generally speaking,
subordinate agency? Or rather--for there seems no reason why we
should not take up their whole argument, and briefly expose at once its
incompatibility with the truth and its inconsistency with their own
teaching--the students of vain philosophy, while expounding the
manifold nature of cause and distinguishing its peculiar
significations, define some causes as principal, some as cooperative
or con-causal, while others are of the character of "sine qua non,"
or indispensable?
For every one of these they have a distinct and peculiar use of terms,
so that the maker is indicated in a different way from the instrument.
For the maker they think the proper expression is "by whom,"
maintaining that the bench is produced "by the carpenter; and for the
instrument "through which," in that it is produced "through" or by
means of adze and gimlet and the rest. Similarly they appropriate "of
which" to the material, in that the tiring made is "of" wood, while
"according to which" shews the design, or pattern put before the
craftsman. For he either first makes a mental sketch, and so brings
his fancy to bear upon what he is about, or else he looks at a pattern
previously put before him, and arranges his work accordingly. The
phrase "on account of which" they wish to be confined to the end or
purpose, the bench, as they say, being produced for, or on account
of, the use of man. "In which" is supposed to indicate time and
place. When was it produced? In this time. And where? In this
place. And though place and time contribute nothing to what is being
produced, yet without these the production of anything is impossible,
for efficient agents must have both place and time. It is these
careful distinctions, derived from unpractical philosophy and vain
delusion, which our opponents have first studied and admired, and then
transferred to the simple and unsophisticated doctrine of the Spirit,
to the belittling of God the Word, and the setting at naught of the
Divine Spirit. Even the phrase set apart by non-Christian writers
for the case of lifeless instruments or of manual service of the meanest
kind, I mean the expression "through or by means of which," they do
not shrink from transferring to the Lord of all, and Christians feel
no shame in applying to the Creator of the universe language belonging
to a hammer or a saw.
|
|
