Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| That Scripture uses the words “in” or “by,” ἐν, cf. note on p. 3, in place of “with.” Wherein also it is proved that the word “and” has the same force as “with.”
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXV.
That Scripture uses the words “in” or
“by,” ἐν, cf. note on p. 3, in place of
“with.” Wherein also it is proved that the word
“and” has the same force as “with.”
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 maintain 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,”1215
instead of with burnt offerings and
“he brought them forth also by silver and
gold,”1216
that is to say
with silver and gold and “thou goest not forth
in our armies”1217
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,1218
| 1218 In
Eph. ii. 18 they are combined, but no
Scriptural doxology uses ἐν of
the Spirit. |
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, however, 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”1219
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.”1220
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,”1221
and again
“I beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for
the love of the Spirit.”1222
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 hunt 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 course of employing the preposition
“with.”1223
| 1223 “St.
Basil’s statement of the reason of the use of μετά, σύν,
in the Doxology, is not confirmed by any earlier or contemporary
writer, as far as the editor is aware, nor is it
contradicted.” Rev. C.F.H. Johnston. | It does
indeed equally well with the preposition “and,” confute
the mischief of Sabellius;1224
| 1224
“Sabellius has been usually assigned to the middle of
third century, Mr. Clinton giving a.d.
256–270 as his active period. The discovery of
the Philosophumena of Hippolytus has proved this
to be a mistake, and thrown his period back to the close of the
second and beginning of the third century.…He was in full
activity in Rome during the Episcopate of Zephyrinus,
a.d. 198–217.”
Professor Stokes in D. C. Biog. iv. 569. For
Basil’s views of Sabellianism vide Epp. CCX.,
CCXIV., CCXXXV. In his Hær. Fab. Conf. ii. 9
Theodoret writes: “Sabellius said that Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost were one Hypostasis; one Person under three names;
and he describes the same now as Father, now as Son, now as Holy
Ghost. He says that in the old Testament He gave laws as
Father, was incarnate in the new as Son, and visited the Apostles
as Holy Ghost.” So in the ῎Εκθεσις
τῆς κατὰ
μέρος
πίστεως, a work
falsely attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, and possibly due to
Apollinaris, (cf. Theod., Dial. iii.)
“We shun Sabellius, who says that Father and Son are the
same, calling Him who speaks Father, and the Word, remaining in
the Father and at the time of creation manifested, and, on the
completion of things returning to the Father, Son. He says
the same of the Holy Ghost.” | and it sets
forth quite as well as “and” the distinction of
the hypostases, as in the words “I and my Father will
come,”1225
and “I and
my Father are one.”1226
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.1227
| 1227 i.e.,
The Arians, who said of the Son, “There was when he was
not;” and the Pneumatomachi, who made the Spirit a created
being. |
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,1228
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 the glory of the Spirit.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
