Subject 7. On the Identity of the Word with the Son against Photinians and Samosatenes§§. 15-24.
§.15. {531} 1. SUCH extravagances will be the consequence of saying that the One is dilated into a Three. But since those who say so, dare to separate Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first was the Word and then the Son, come let us consider this doctrine also [Note A]. Now their presumption takes various forms; for some say that the man whom the Saviour assumed, is the Son [Note 1]; and others both that the man and the Word, then became Son when they were united [Note 2]. And others say that the Word Himself then became Son when He became man [Note 3]; for from being Word, they say, He became Son, not being Son before, but only Word. 2. Now both are Stoic doctrines, whether to say that God was dilated or to deny the Son [Note B]; but especially is it absurd {532} to name the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if the Word be not from God, reasonably might they deny Him to be Son; but if He is from God, how see they not that what exists from anything is son of him from whom it is [Note C]? Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is not the Word Son of His own Father? for he is and is called father, whose is the son; and he is and is called son of another, whose is the father. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son; but if God be Father, then reasonably also the Word is Son. §. 16. 3. But if afterwards there is Father, and first God, this is an Arian [Note 4] thought [Note 5]. Next, it is extravagant that God should change; for that belongs to bodies; but if He became Father, as in the instance of creation He became afterwards a Maker, let them know that the change is in the things [Note 6] which afterwards came to be, and not in God. If then the Son too were a work, well might God begin to be a Father towards Him as others; but if the Son is not a work, then ever was the Father and ever the Son [Note 7]. But if the Son was ever, He must be the Word [Note D]; for if the Word be not Son, and this be what a man is bold enough to say, either he holds that Word to be Father [Note E] or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son being in the bosom of the Father [John i. 18.], of necessity either the Word is not before the Son, (for nothing is before Him who is in the Father,) or if the Word be other than the Son, the Word must be the Father in whom is the Son. But if the Word is not Father but Word, the Word must be external to the Father, since it is the Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. For not both the Word and the Son are in the bosom, but one must be, and He the Son, who is only-begotten. And it follows for another reason, if the Word is one, and the {533} Son another, that the Son is superior to the Word; for no one knoweth the Father save the Son [Matt. xi. 27.] [Note F], not the Word. Either then the Word does not know, or if He knows, it is not true [Note 8] that no one knows. 4. And the same of He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and I and the Father are One, for this the Son says, and not the Word, as they would have it, as is plain from the Gospel; for according to John when the Lord said, I and the Father are One, the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus [Note G] answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from My Father, for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But If I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father [John x. 32-38.]. And yet, as far as the surface of the words intimated, He said neither "I am God," nor "I am Son of God," but I and the Father are One. §. 17. The Jews, then, when they heard One, thought like Sabellius, that He said that He was the Father, but our Saviour shews their sin by this argument; "Though I said God, you should have remembered what is written, I said, Ye are gods." [Note H] Then to clear up I and the Father are One, He has explained the Son's oneness with the Father in the words, Because I said, I am the Son of God. For if He did not say it in the letter [Note 9], still He has explained as to the sense are One of the Son. For nothing is one with the Father, but what is from Him. What is That which is from Him but the Son? And therefore He adds, that ye may know {534} that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For, when expounding the One, He said that the union and the inseparability lay, not in This being That, with which It was One, but in His being in the Father and the Father in the Son. For thus He overthrows both Sabellius, in saying, not, I am "the Father," but, the Son of God; and Arius, in saying, are One. 5. If then the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not that the Word is one with the Father, but the Son; nor whoso hath seen the Word hath seen the Father, but he that hath seen the Son. And from this it follows, either that the Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing beyond the Son. For what can be greater or more perfect than One, and I in the Father and the Father in Me, and He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father? for all this is said by the Son. And hence the same John says, He that hath seen Me, hath seen Him that sent Me [John xii. 45. al. text rec.], and He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me [Matt. x. 40.]; and, I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me, should not abide in darkness. And if any one hear My words and observe them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. The word [Note 10] which he shall hear, the same shall judge him in the last day, because I go unto the Father [John xii. 46-48. al. t. r.]. The preaching [Note 10 sic], He says, shall judge him who has not observed the commandment; "for if," He says, "I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they shall have no cloke, He says, having heard My words, through which those who observe them shall reap salvation." §. 18. 6. Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that this is spoken not by the Son but by the Word; but from what preceded it appeared plainly that the Speaker was the Son. For He who here says, I came not to judge the world, but to save [John xii. 47.], is shewn to be no other than the Only-begotten Son of God, by the same John's saying, before [Note I], For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son, into the world {535} to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil [John iii. 16-19.]. If He who says, For I came not to judge the world, but that I might save it, is the Same as says, He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me [John xii. 45.], and if He who came to save the world and not judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who says, He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. For He who said, He that believeth on Me [John xii. 44.], and, If any one hear My words, I judge him not [John xii. 47.], is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God [John iii. 18, 19.]. 7. And again [Note K]: And this is the condemnation of him who believeth not on the Son, that light hath come into the world, and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world [John i. 9.]. And as long as He was upon earth according to the incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said himself, While ye have light believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light [John xii. 36.]; for I, says He, am come a light into the world [John xii. 46.]. §. 19. This then being shewn, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the light, which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light [John i. 8.]. For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world [Note L]. 8. For if He was in the world, and the world was made by Him [John i. 10.], of necessity He is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made {536} by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came to be, it will not be contradictory, but even identical to say, for instance, In the beginning was the Word, or, In the beginning was the Son [Note M]. But if because John did not say, "In the beginning was the Son," they shall maintain that the attributes of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once [Note 11] follows that the attributes of the Son do not suit with the Word. But to the Son belongs, as was shewn, I and the Father are One [John x. 30.], and, Which is in the bosom of the Father [John i. 18.], and, He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me [John xii. 45.]; and that "the world was brought into being by him," is common to the Word and the Son; so that from this the Son is shewn to be before the world; for of necessity the Framer is before the things He brings into being. 9. And what is said to Philip must belong, not to the Word, as they would have it [Note N], but to the Son. For, Jesus said, says Scripture, Have I been so long time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son [John xiv. 9-13.]. Therefore if the Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must {537} be He who said, I in the Father and the Father in Me; and He who said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father; for He, the same who thus spoke, shews Himself to be the Son, by adding, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. §. 20. 10. If then they say that the Man whom the Word bore, and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten [Note R], the Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that through the Man himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, Verily, verify, I say unto you before Abraham was, I am [John viii. 58.]. And is it not extravagant to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations [Note 12], should exist before Abraham came to be? is it not extravagant, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made? and how will they retain He was in the world? for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son's antecedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, He was in the world. And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man being in the Father? And what will the Word be to the Father, the Man and the Father being One? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was {538} brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the Son to frame the world, yet as to the sight [Note S] of the Father Scripture proceeds to place it, not in the Word but the Son, and the saving of the world, to attribute it not to the Word, but to the Only-begotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus said, Have I been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He That hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. §. 21. 11. And what more does the Word for our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is One, and the Word another? for the command is that we should believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. For John says, He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life [John iii. 36.]. And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word. How then are they able to hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the grant of Baptism? But perhaps they will say, that in the Father's Name the Word is included? Wherefore then not the Spirit also? or is the Spirit external to the Father? and the Man indeed, (if the Word is not Son,) is named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man? and, instead of being content with the One dilating into a Three, they dilate into a Four, Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. 12. Being brought to shame on this ground, they have recourse to another, and say that not the Man by himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son; for both joined together are named Son, is they say. Which then is cause of which? and which has made which a Son? or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because of the flesh? or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? or is neither the cause, but the concurrence of {539} the two? If then the Word be a Son because of the flesh, of necessity the flesh is Son, and all those extravagances follow which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not being himself a son, especially [Note T] when there was a father [Note 13]. If then He makes sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father; but if for the Father, then must He be Son, or rather that Son, for whose sake the rest are made sons. §. 22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, My Father, and, I from the Father [John v. 17; xvi. 28]? for if He be common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He only come out from the Father. Now He says, that God is sometimes called our Father, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word became flesh, that, since the Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us [Note 14], God may be called our Father also; for He hath sent forth, says Scripture, the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father [Gal. iv. 6.]. Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients [Note 15] are called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us; for I have begotten sons [Is. i. 2. Sept.], saith Scripture; and in the time of Noe, When the sons of God saw [Gen vi. 2.], and in the Song, Is not He Thy Father [Deut. xxxii. 6.]? Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the concurrence of the two, it follows that neither is Son; I say, neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on account of which they were united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede {540} the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before the flesh. 13. When this then is urged, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying, neither that the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was named [Note 16] Son; for before his appearing He was not Son but Word only; and as the Word became flesh, not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before [Note X]. Such are their idle words; but they admit of an obvious refutation. §. 23. For if simply, when made Man, He became Son, the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man is cause of His being Son, or both together, then the same extravagances result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He knew the Father afterwards, not before; for not as being Word [Note 17] does He know him, but as Son. For no one knoweth the Father but the Son [Matt. xi. 27.]. And this too will result, that He became afterwards in the bosom of the Father [John i. 18.], and afterwards He and the Father became One; and afterwards is, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [John xiv. 9.]. For all these things are said of the Son. Hence they will be forced to say, the Word was nothing but a name [Note Y]. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoso has seen the Word, hath seen the Father, nor was the Father known to any one at all, for through the Son is the Father known, (for so it is written, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him,) and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet did any know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers? for He says Himself in the book of Kings, Was I not plainly revealed to the house of thy Father? [1 Sam. ii. 27. Sept.] But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal, as He says himself, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 14. It is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and whence they gained such an {541} idea it were well to ask them. They answer, Because no mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of the Word [Note Z]; and for this reason they are positive in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because not in the Old, but in the New Testament only, is He spoken of. This is what they irreligiously say; for first to separate between the Testaments, so that the one does not hold with the other, is the device of Manichees and Jews, the one of whom oppose the Old, and the other the New [Note 18]. Next, on their shewing, if what is contained in the Old Testament is of older date, and what in the New of later, and times depend upon the writing, it follows that I and the Father are One, and Only-begotten, and He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [John x. 30; i. 18; xiv. 9.], are later, for these testimonies are adduced not from the Old but from the New. §. 24. But it is not so; for in truth much is said in the Old Testament also about the Son, as in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee [Ps. ii. 7]; and in the ninth the title, Unto the end concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David [Ps. ix., title Sept.]; and in the forty-fourth, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed to the Sons of Core for understanding, a song about the Well-beloved [Ps. xlv., title. not Sept.] [Note A]; and in Esaias, I will sing to My Well-beloved a song of My Well-beloved touching My vineyard. My Well-beloved hath a vineyard [Is. v. 1.]; Who is this Well-beloved [Note 19] but the Only-begotten Son? as also in the hundred and ninth, From the womb I have begotten Thee before the morning star [Ps. cx. 3. Sept.], concerning which I shall speak afterwards; and in the Proverbs, Before the hills He begat Me [Prov. viii. 25.]; and in Daniel, And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God [Dan. iii. 25.]; and many others. If then from the Old be ancientness, ancient must be the Son, who is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. 15. "Yes," they say, "so it is, but it must be taken prophetically." [Note B] Therefore also the Word must be said to be {542} uttered prophetically; for this is not to be taken one way, that another. For if Thou art My Son refer to the future, so does By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established [Ps, xxxiii. 6.]; for it is not said "brought to be," nor "He made." And because established refers to the future, it is said elsewhere, The Lord is King [Ps. xciii. 1], then, He hath so established the earth that it can never be moved. And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm for My Well-beloved refer to the future, so does what follows upon them, My heart burst with a good Word [Ps. xlv. 1. Sept.]. And if From the womb relates to a man, therefore also From the heart. For if the womb is human, so is the heart corporeal. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is From the womb is eternal. And if the Only-begotten is in the bosom, therefore the Well-beloved is in the bosom. For Only-begotten and Well-beloved are the same, as in the words This is My Well-beloved Son [Matt. iii. 17.]. For not as wishing to signify His love towards Him did He say, Well-beloved, as if it might appear that He hated others, but He made plain thereby His being Only-begotten, that He might shew that He alone was from Him [Note C]. And hence the Word, with a view of conveying to Abraham the idea of Only-begotten, says, Offer thy son thy well-beloved [Gen. xxii. 2.]; and it is plain to any one that Isaac was the only son from Sara [Note D]. 16. The Word then is Son, not lately brought to be, or named Son [Note 20], but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He Word; and if not Word, neither is He Son. For that which is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, but that Word that went forth from the heart, and was born from the womb? for the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father [Note E]; but the one is Father, and the other Son; and one begets, and the other is begotten. FootnotesA. The Valentinians, in their system of Eons, had
already divided the Son from the Word; but they considered the [monogenes]
first, the [logos] next. B.
Perhaps by saying that the Stoics denied the Son, he means to allude
to their doctrine, that their [logos] or God was one of the two
Ingenerate Principles, matter being the other. Laertius first
distinguishes between [archai] and [stoicheia], saying
that the former are [agenetoi kai aphthartoi]; and then
lays down that the [archai ton holon] are two, [to
poioun kai to paschon], then [to men paschon ten hulen
einai, to de poioun ton en autei logon ton theon]. vid.
Lips. Physiol. Stoic. i. 4. C.
In consequence it is a very difficult question in theology, why the
holy Spirit is not called a "Son," and His procession "generation."
This was an objection of the Arians, viii. ad Serap. i. 15-17. and
Athan. only answers it by denying that we may speculate. Other writers
apply, as in other cases, the theological language of the Church to a
solution of this question. It is carefully discussed in Petav. Dogm.
t. 2. vii. 13, 14. vid. p. 121, note S. D.
i.e. He must be the Word, who confessedly is from everlasting. The
object of this section and the next is to shew that "Son" is not a
lower title than Word, (which certain heretics said,) and therefore
that they are both titles of One and the Same. E.
This is what Nestorius says of Photinus; dicit Verbum istum aliquando
quidem Patris nomine vocitari, aliquando autem Verbi nomine, &c.
ap. Mar. Merc. t. 2. p. 87. F.
Eusebius says that Marcellus, as it were, corrected this text, while
he quoted it; "as if correcting the Saviour's words, instead of 'Son,'
he names again 'Word,' thus saying, 'No one knoweth the Father save
the Son, that is, the Word.'" pp. 77, 78. G.
This passage is urged against Marcellus in the same way by Eusebius,
p. 87. H.
vid. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 17. I.
Those same texts are quoted to prove the same doctrine, the
pre-existence, &c. of the Son, by Eusebius against Marcellus. p.
86. K.
vid. in like manner Eusebius contr. Marcell. pp. 83, 87, 117. L.
vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 142, c. M.
A similar passage is found in Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 122, d. N.
This is what Marcellus argues, as quoted by Eusebius, p. 39, a, b.
After saying that "I and My Father are One" are spoken, not of Him who
was seen, but of the Word, he continues, [kakeino, tosoutoi
chrono meth humon eimi, Philippe, kai legeis deixon moi
ton patera, ou toutois tois ophthalmois, alla tois noetois;
aoratos gar ho te pater kai ho toutou logos]. [letters O, P, and Q skipped] R.
This is the first of the three hypotheses noted above, p. 531. This
form of Sabellianism closely approximates to what was afterwards
Nestorianism. As to Marcellus, it is a question whether he admitted
any "Son of God," except as a title of the Word manifested in
the flesh. vid. Euseb. pp. 81, 82. the human being, whom He assumed,
being in his creed "the Son of man," not of God. vid. ibid. pp. 42, a.
77, c. 137, b. S.
[to de horan ton patera]. The Latin version, which is often
faulty, renders, Patrem non a Verbo sed ą Filio videri; but Athan.
seems to mean our seeing the Father in the Word. Yet there is a
repetition just afterwards of [horan ton patera] in the former
sense. T.
[ontos malista patros]. This is hardly the sense of [malista]
which in this position is common; vid. supr. p. 52, note C. Also [ei
kai ta malista]. de Syn. 29, a. [hotan mal]. Apol. ad
Const. 25. init. [ean mal]. Orat. ii. 7, a. [entha mal].
Orat. ii. 10, c. [oia mal]. Orat. iii. 32, b. [megalos
mal]. Orat. iii. 42 init. [akouontes mal]. ad Ep. Ęg. 20
fin. [letter U skipped] X.
Marcellus seems to express this view in various passages in Eusebius,
who reports him as holding [mete einai mete
prouphestanai mete holos popote huion huparxai toi
theoi pro tou techthenai dia tes parthenou, auton
de monon einai logon, sumphua toi theoi, aidios
autoi sunonta kai henomenon]. p. 32. Y.
This is a retort upon Marcellus, who held that "the Son" was a name or
appellation of the Word. Z.
This seems to have been an objection of Marcellus, which Eusebius
answers, p. 93, a. p. 96, d. and accounts for the fact, if granted, p.
135. A.
vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 99, a. B.
And so Eusebius of Marcellus, and Epiphanius of Photinus, as quoted
supr. p. 510, (11.) An earlier heretic (Beryllus, who afterwards
recanted), is referred to by Origen (according to De La Rue, ad
Origenian. i. 3. §. 8.) as holding hominem Dominum Jesum pręcognitum
et prędestinatum, qui ante adventum carnalem substanialiter et
proprie non exsisterit. t. 4. p. 695. Paul of Samosata said the same.
vid. supr. p. 114, note C. Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3. C.
[agapetos] is explained by [monogenes] by
Hesychius, Suidas, and Pollux; it is the version of the Sept. equally
with [monogenes] of the Hebrew D.
The subject of Old Testament evidence in favour of the title "Son," is
continued in §§. 27, 28. E.
This doctrine Nestorius considered as the characteristic of Photinus.
supr. p. 506 init. Sabellius [huiopatora] dicit, Photinus [logopatora]. Margin Notes1. vid. §. 20. 2.
vid. §. 21. 3.
vid. §. 22. fin. 4.
p. 529, note E. 5.
p. 523, note D. 6.
vid. supr. p. 223. 7.
p. 201, note B. 8.
[pseudos]. 9.
[tei lexei]. 10.
[ho logos], i.e. [to kerygma]. 11.
[hora], p. 524, r. 5. 12.
vid. Matt. i. 13.
p. 416, note E. 14.
p. 366, note C. 15.
p. 548, r. 3. 16.
p. 307, note D. 17.
[ei logos]. 18.
p. 258, note A. p. 450, r. 6. 19.
[agapetos]. 20.
[onomastheis], vid. p. 505, 3. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |
.
Horsier calls Astyanax [Ektoriden agapeton]; vid,
also the instance of Telemachus, infr. p. 549; Plutarch notices this;
[Homeros agapeton onomazei mounon telugeton,
tout esti me echousi heteron goneusi, mete hexousi
gegennemenon], as quoted by Wetstein in Matth. iii. 17.
Vid. also Suicer in voc.