Chapter 2

Their minute attention to syllables and words is not as innocent or straightforward as someone might suppose, and the harm toward which it is directed is not small. Beneath it lies a deep and concealed design against godliness. Their persistent aim is to show that the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are expressed in different ways, because they think that from this they can easily establish a difference of nature.

They rely on an old sophism devised by Aetius, the champion of this heresy. In one of his letters he says, in effect, that things different by nature are expressed by different terms, and conversely that things expressed by different terms are different by nature. As proof he drags in the Apostle’s words: “One God and Father, from whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” He argues that the relation between the terms must correspond to the relation between the natures they indicate: as “from whom” differs from “through whom,” so the Father differs from the Son.

This is the source of their useless hair-splitting about these phrases. They assign “from whom” to God the Father as though it were his exclusive possession; they restrict “through whom” to God the Son; and they give “in whom” to the Holy Spirit. They insist that these expressions are never interchanged, so that, as I have said, difference of language may be made to signify difference of nature. It is quite plain that all their quibbling over words is meant to sustain the force of this impious argument.

By “from whom,” they say, the Creator is indicated; by “through whom,” a subordinate worker or instrument; and by “in whom” or “in which,” the time or place. Their purpose is to reduce the Creator of the universe to the dignity of an instrument and to make the Holy Spirit appear to contribute no more to existing things than place or time contributes.