Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| That there is no distinction in the scriptural use of these syllables.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter IV.
That there is no distinction in the scriptural use of
these syllables.
6. We acknowledge
that the word of truth has in many places made use of these
expressions; yet we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is
in bondage to the pettiness of Paganism. On the contrary, we
maintain that Scripture varies its expressions as occasion requires,
according to the circumstances of the case. For instance, the
phrase “of which” does not always and absolutely, as
they suppose, indicate the material,725
| 725 ὕλη=Lat. materies, from the
same root as mater, whence Eng. material and
matter. (ὕλη,
ὕλFα, is the same word as sylva=wood.
With materies cf. Madeira, from the
Portuguese “madera”=timber.)
“The word ὕλη in Plato bears the same
signification as in ordinary speech: it means wood, timber,
and sometimes generally material. The later philosophic
application of the word to signify the abstract conception of
material substratum is expressed by Plato, so far as he has that
concept at all, in other ways.” Ed. Zeller.
Plato and the older Academy, ii. 296. Similarly
Basil uses ὕλη. As a technical philosophic term
for abstract matter, it is first used by Aristotle. | but it is more
in accordance with the usage of Scripture to apply this term in the
case of the Supreme Cause, as in the words “One God, of whom are
all things,”726
and again, “All
things of God.”727
The word of
truth has, however, frequently used this term in the case of the
material, as when it says “Thou shalt make an ark of
incorruptible wood;”728
| 728 Ex. xxv. 10, LXX. A.V. “shittim.” R.V.
“acacia.” St. Ambrose (de Spiritu
Sancto, ii. 9) seems, say the Benedictine Editors, to have here
misunderstood St. Basil’s argument. St. Basil is
accusing the Pneumatomachi not of tracing all things to God as the
material “of which,” but of unduly limiting the use of
the term “of which” to the Father alone. | and “Thou shalt
make the candlestick of pure gold;”729
and
“The first man is of the earth, earthy;”730
and “Thou art formed out of clay as I am.”731
But these men, to the end, as we have
already remarked, that they may establish the difference of nature,
have laid down the law that this phrase befits the Father alone.
This distinction they have originally derived from heathen authorities,
but here they have shewn no faithful accuracy of limitation. To
the Son they have in conformity with the teaching of their masters
given the title of instrument, and to the Spirit that of place, for
they say in the Spirit, and through the Son. But
when they apply “of whom” to God they no longer follow
heathen example, but “go over, as they say, to apostolic usage,
as it is said, “But of him are ye in Christ
Jesus,”732
and “All
things of God.”733
What, then,
is the result of this systematic discussion? There is one
nature of Cause; another of Instrument; another of Place. So
the Son is by nature distinct from the Father, as the tool from the
craftsman; and the Spirit is distinct in so far as place or time is
distinguished from the nature of tools or from that of them that
handle them.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
