Our opponents ask why Scripture nowhere describes the Spirit as glorified “with” the Father and the Son, but carefully avoids that expression and instead prefers to give glory “in” the Spirit, as though “in” were the more fitting phrase.
For my part, I deny that “in” signifies a lower dignity than “with.” Properly understood, it can lead us to the highest meaning. As we have already observed, Scripture often uses “in” with the sense of “with.” It says, for example, “I will enter your house in burnt offerings,” meaning with burnt offerings; “He brought them out in silver and gold,” meaning with silver and gold; and, “You do not go out in our armies,” meaning with our armies. Innumerable examples could be added.
I would very much like to learn from this new philosophy what exact doxology the Apostle supposedly teaches by the word “in.” I have nowhere found the formula, “To you, Father, be honor and glory through your Only-begotten Son in the Holy Spirit,” though this formula seems to come as naturally to our opponents as breathing. Each part of such language may be found separately, but they cannot show us the clauses arranged together in precisely this form.
If they demand strict conformity to what is written, let them produce exact scriptural references. If they permit the Church to use customary language, then they must not deny that same liberty to us.
Since both expressions are used among the faithful, we use both, believing that by either one full glory is given to the Spirit.
Yet the mouths of those who revile the truth may be most effectively stopped by the preposition that has the same force as Scriptural usage but gives our opponents less room to weaponize a syllable—the very word they now attack—namely “with,” which can function like the conjunction “and.” To say “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy” conveys the same connection of the names as “Paul with Timothy and Silvanus.”
The Lord says, “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” If I say, “the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit,” what change have I made in the meaning?
Scripture gives many examples of names joined by “and”: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit”; and again, “I urge you through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit.” If we replace “and” with “with,” what difference in meaning results? I see none—unless someone rigidly applying grammatical rules says that the conjunction is even stronger because it directly binds the terms, while the preposition has less force.
If the dispute were really about grammar, our defense would require few words. But their argument is not actually about syllables or sounds; it concerns realities that differ enormously in significance and truth. The syllables themselves are insignificant. Our opponents nevertheless labor to authorize some and drive others out of the Church.
Although the usefulness of “with” becomes evident as soon as it is heard, I will still explain why our fathers reasonably chose to employ it. Like “and,” it refutes the error of Sabellius, because it clearly preserves the distinction of the hypostases. Scripture says, “I and my Father will come,” and, “I and my Father are one.”
Moreover, “with” beautifully expresses eternal fellowship and uninterrupted conjunction. To say that the Son is “with the Father” declares both the distinction of the hypostases and the inseparability of their communion.
We see something similar in ordinary human speech. “And” indicates that people share in an action; “with” can additionally indicate that they perform the action in companionship. If we say, “Paul and Timothy sailed to Macedonia,” or, “Tychicus and Onesimus were sent to the Colossians,” we learn that each did the same thing. If we say that they sailed “with” one another or were sent “with” one another, we learn in addition that they carried out the action together.
Thus “with” overturns Sabellius’ confusion, but it also defeats the opposite error of those who separate the Son from the Father and the Spirit from the Son by intervals of time.
Compared with “in,” the word “with” has this distinction: “with” expresses the mutual conjunction of those associated—for example, people who sail with one another, live with one another, or perform some action together. “In,” by contrast, commonly expresses their relation to the setting or sphere in which they act. When we hear “sail in” or “live in,” the mind immediately supplies the ship or the house.
This is the distinction in ordinary usage, and a more laborious investigation could certainly discover additional examples. But I do not have time to examine every feature of these syllables.
Since “with” has been shown to express conjunction most clearly, let it now, if you please, be granted safe conduct. Stop waging this savage and implacable war against it.
Nevertheless, although the expression is so fitting, if someone prefers in the ascription of praise simply to join the names with “and” and to give glory according to the baptismal teaching of the Gospel—Father and Son and Holy Spirit—let it be so. No one will object. On those terms, if you wish, we can make peace.
But our opponents would sooner surrender their tongues than accept the word “with.” This is what provokes their relentless war against us. They insist that glory must be offered to God “in the Holy Spirit,” but not “and to the Holy Spirit,” clinging passionately to “in” because they imagine it lowers the Spirit.
It will therefore be useful to examine “in” at greater length. I would not be surprised if, after hearing what we have to say, they themselves reject it as a traitor to their cause and a deserter to the side of the Spirit’s glory.