{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/208/2080034.htm","path":"chr/ecf/208/2080034.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/208/2080034.htm","text":"That there is no distinction in the scriptural use of these syllables.\n6. 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 \u201cof which\u201d does not always and absolutely, as they suppose, indicate the material, 725 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 \u201cOne God, of whom are all things,\u201d 726 and again, \u201cAll things of God.\u201d 727 The word of truth has, however, frequently used this term in the case of the material, as when it says \u201cThou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood;\u201d 728 and \u201cThou shalt make the candlestick of pure gold;\u201d 729 and \u201cThe first man is of the earth, earthy;\u201d 730 and \u201cThou art formed out of clay as I am.\u201d 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 \u201cof whom\u201d to God they no longer follow heathen example, but \u201cgo over, as they say, to apostolic usage, as it is said, \u201cBut of him are ye in Christ Jesus,\u201d 732 and \u201cAll things of God.\u201d 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.\n\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7=Lat. materies, from the same root as mater, whence Eng. material and matter. (\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, \u1f55\u03bbF\u03b1, is the same word as sylva=wood. With materies cf. Madeira, from the Portuguese \u201cmadera\u201d=timber.)\n\u201cThe word \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 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.\u201d Ed. Zeller. Plato and the older Academy, ii. 296. Similarly Basil uses \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7. As a technical philosophic term for abstract matter, it is first used by Aristotle.\n5:726 5:727 5:728\nEx. xxv. 10, LXX. A.V. \u201cshittim.\u201d R.V. \u201cacacia.\u201d St. Ambrose (de Spiritu Sancto, ii. 9) seems, say the Benedictine Editors, to have here misunderstood St. Basil\u2019s argument. St. Basil is accusing the Pneumatomachi not of tracing all things to God as the material \u201cof which,\u201d but of unduly limiting the use of the term \u201cof which\u201d to the Father alone.\n5:729 5:730 5:731 5:732 5:733","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. VIII: De Sp...","type":"page"}