|
7. After thus describing the outcome of our adversaries' arguments,
we shall now proceed to shew, as we have proposed, that the Father
does not first take "of whom" and then abandon "through whom" to the
Son; and that there is no truth in these men's ruling that the Son
refuses to admit the Holy Spirit to a share in "of whom" or in
"through whom," according to the limitation of their new-fangled
allotment of phrases. "There is one God and Father of whom are all
things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things."
Yes; but these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule, but
carefully distinguishing the hypostases.
The object of the apostle in thus writing was not to introduce the
diversity of nature, but to exhibit the notion of Father and of Son
as unconfounded. That the phrases are not opposed to one another and
do not, like squadrons in war marshalled one against another, bring
the natures to which they are applied into mutual conflict, is
perfectly, plain from the passage in question. The blessed Paul
brings both phrases to bear upon one and the same subject, in the words
"of him and through him and to him are all things." That this
plainly refers to the Lord will be admitted even by a reader paying but
small attention to the meaning of the words. The apostle has just
quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, "Who hath known the mind of the
Lord, or who hath been his counsellor, and then goes on, "For of
him and from him and to him are all things." That the prophet is
speaking about God the Word, the Maker of all creation, may be
learnt from what immediately precedes: "Who hath measured the waters
in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and
comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the
mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed
the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"
Now the word "who" in this passage does not mean absolute
impossibility, but rarity, as in the passage "Who will rise up for
me against the evil doers?" and "What man is he that desireth
life?" and "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?" So is
it in the passage in question, "Who hath directed [lxx., known]
the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath known him?"
"For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things." This
is He who holds the earth, and hath grasped it with His hand. who
b,'ought all things to order and adornment, who poised the hills in
their places, and measured the waters, and gave to all things in the
universe their proper rank, who encompasseth the whole of heaven with
but a small portion of His power, which, in a figure, the prophet
calls a span. Well then did the apostle add "Of him and through him
and to him are all things." For of Him, to all things that are,
comes the cause of their being, according to the will of God the
Father. Through Him all things have their continuance and
constitution, for He created all things, and metes out to each
severally what is necessary for its health and preservation. Wherefore
to Him all things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and
unspeakable affection to "the arthur" and maintainer" of" their
"life," as it is written "The eyes of all wait upon thee," and
again, "These wait all upon thee," and "Thou openest thine hand,
and satisfiest the desire of every living thing."
8. But if our adversaries oppose this our interpretation, what
argument will save them from being caught in their own trap?
For if they will not grant that the three expressions "of him" and
"through him" and "to him" are spoken of the Lord, they cannot but
be applied to God the Father. Then without question their rule will
fall through, for we find not only "of whom," but also "through
whom" applied to the Father. And if this latter phrase indicates
nothing derogatory, why in the world should it be confined, as though
conveying the sense of inferiority, to the Son? If it always and
everywhere implies, ministry, let them tell us to what superior the
God of glory and Father of the Christ is subordinate.
They are thus overthrown by their own selves, while our position will
be on both sides made sure. Suppose it proved that the passage refers
to the Son, "of whom" will be found applicable to the Son.
Suppose on the other hand it be insisted that the prophet's words
relate to God, then it will be granted that "through whom" is
properly used of God, and both phrases have equal value, in that both
are used with equal force of God. Under either alternative both
terms, being employed of one and the same Person, will be shewn to be
equivalent. But let us revert to our subject.
9. In his Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle says, "But
speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which
is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body filly joined
together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according
to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase
of the body." '
And again in the Epistle to the Colossians, to them that have not
the knowledge of the Only Begotten, there is mention of him that
holdeth "the head," that is, Christ, "from which all the body by
joints and bands having nourishment ministered increaseth with the
increase of God." And that Christ is the head of the Church we
have learned in another passage, when the apostle says "gave him to be
the head over all things to the Church," and "of his fulness have
all we received." And the Lord Himself says "He shall take of
mine, and shall shew it unto you." In a word, the diligent reader
will perceive that "of whom" is used in diverse manners. For
instance, the Lord says, "I perceive that virtue is gone out of
me." Similarly we have frequently observed "of whom" used of the
Spirit. "He that soweth to the spirit," it is said, "shall of
the spirit reap life ever!asting." John too writes, "Hereby we
know that he abideth in ns by(e
10. It must now be pointed out that the phrase "through whom" is
admitted by cripture in the case of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost alike. It would indeed be tedious to bring forward
evidence of this in the case of the Son, not only because it is
perfectly well known, but because this very point is made by our
opponents. We now show that "through whom" is used also in the case
of the Father. "God is faithful," it is said, "by whom (di ou)
ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son," and "Paul an
apostle of Jesus Christ by (dia) the will of God;" and again,
"Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son,
then an heir through God." And "like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by (dia) the glory of God the Father." Isaiah,
moreover, says, "Woe unto them that make deep counsel and not
through the Lord; " and many proofs of the use of this phrase in
the-case of the Spirit might be adduced. "God hath revealed him to
us," it is said, "by (dia) the spirit;" and in another place,
"That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by (dia) the
Holy Ghost;" and again, "To one is given by (dia) the spirit
the word of wisdom."
11. In the same manner it may also be said of the word "in," that
Scripture admits its use in the case of God the Father. In the Old
Testament it is said through (en) God we shall do valiantly, and,
"My praise shall be Continually of (en) thee;" and again, "In
thy name will I rejoice." In Paul we read, "In God who created
all things," and, I "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus unto the
church of the Thessalonians in God our Father; " and "if now at
length I might have a prosperous journey by (en) the will of God to
come to you;" and, "Thou makest thy boast of God." Instances
are indeed too numerous to reckon; but what we want is not so much to
exhibit an abundance of evidence as to prove that the conclusions of our
opponents are unsound. I shall, therefore, omit any proof of this
usage in the case of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost, in that it is
notorious. But I cannot forbear to remark that "the wise hearer"
will find sufficient proof of the proposition before him by following
the method of contraries. For if the difference of language
indicates, as we are told, that the nature has been changed, then let
identity of language compel our adversaries to confess with shame that
the essence is unchanged.
12. And it is not only in the case of the theology that the use of
the terms varies, but whenever one of the terms takes the meaning of
the other we find them frequently transferred from the one subject to
the other. As, for instance, Adam says, "I have gotten a man
through God," meaning to say the same as from God; and in another
passage "Moses commanded ... Israel through the word of the
Lord," and, again, "Is not the interpretation through God?"
Joseph, discoursing about dreams to the prisoners, instead of saying
"from God" says plainly "through God." Inversely Paul uses the
term "from whom" instead of "through whom," when he says "made
from a woman" (A.V., "of" instead of "through a woman").
And this he has plainly distinguished in another passage, where he
says that it is proper to a woman to be made of the man, and to a man
to be made through the woman, in the words "For as the woman is from
[A.V., of] the man, even so is the man also through [A.V.,
by] the woman." Nevertheless in the passage in question the
apostle, while illustrating the variety of usage, at the same time
corrects obiter the error of those who supposed that the body of the
Lord was a spiritual body, and, to shew that the God-bearing flesh
was formed out of the common lump of human nature, gave precedence to
the more emphatic preposition.
The phrase "through a woman" would be likely to give rise to the
suspicion of mere transit in the generation, while the phrase "of the
woman" would satisfactorily indicate that the nature was shared by the
mother and the offspring. The apostle was in no wise contradicting
himself, but he shewed that the words can without difficulty be
interchanged. Since, therefore, the term "from whom" is
transferred to the identical subjects in the case of which "through
whom" is decided to be properly used, with what consistency can these
phrases be invariably distinguished one from the other, in order that
fault may be falsely found with true religion?
|
|
