Subject 9. (Being Subject 7. continued.)
{545} 1. BUT that the Son has no beginning [Note A] of being, but before He was made man, was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing thus: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, and we have seen it; and we bear witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us [1 John i. 1, 2.]. While he says here that the Life, not "became," but was with the Father, in the end of his Epistle he says the Son is this Life, writing, And we are in Him that is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ; this is the True God and Eternal Life [1 John v. 20.]. But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and the same Evangelist says, And the Word was with God [John i. 1.], the Son must be the Word, which is ever with the Father. And as the Son is Word, so God must be the Father. Moreover, the Son, according to John, is not merely "God" but Very God; for according to the same Evangelist, And the Word was God; and the Son said, I am the Life [John xiv. 6.]. Therefore the Son is the Word and Life which is with the Father. 2. And again, what is said in the same John, The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father [John i. 18.], shews that {546} the Son was ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand [Note 1], saying, Why stretchest not forth Thy Right Hand out of Thy bosom? [Ps. lxxiv. 12. Sept.] Therefore if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things; for it is written, Thy Hand hath made all these things [vid. Is. lxvi. 2.], and He led out His people with His Hand [Deut. vii. 8.]; therefore through the Son. And if this is the changing of the Right Hand of the Most Highest [Ps. lxxvii. 11. Sept.], and again, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be changed, a song for My Well-beloved [Ps. xlv. title.]; the Well-beloved then is the hand that has been changed; concerning whom the Divine Voice also says, This is My Beloved Son. "This My Hand" then is equivalent to This My Son. §. 27. 3. But since there are ill-instructed men who, while resisting the doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee [Ps. cx. 3. Sept.]; as if this referred to his relation to Mary, alleging that He was born of Mary before the morning star [Note B], for that to say womb could not refer to His relation towards God, we must say a few words here. If then, because the womb is human, therefore it is foreign to God, plainly heart too has a human meaning [Note 2]; for that which has heart has womb also. Since then both are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both. Now as a word is from the heart, so is .an offspring from the womb; and as when the heart of God is spoken of, we do not conceive of it as human, so if Scripture says from the womb, we must not take it in a corporeal sense. For it s usual with divine Scripture [Note 3], to speak and signify in the way of man what is above man. Thus speaking of the creation it says, Thy hands have made me and fashioned me, and, Thy hand hath made all these things, and, He commanded and they were created [Ps. cxix. 73. cxlviii. 5.]. Suitable then is its language about every thing; attributing to the Son "propriety" and "genuineness," and to the creation "the beginning of being." For some things God makes and creates; but Him {547} He begets from Himself, as Word and Wisdom. Now womb and heart plainly declare the proper and the genuine; for we too draw this from the womb; but works we make by the hand. §. 28. 4. What means then, say they, Before the morning star? I would answer, that if Before the morning star shews that His birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides have been born before the rising of the star. What then is said so wonderful in His instance, that He should record it as some choice prerogative [Note 4], when it is common to many? Next to beget differs from bringing forth; for beginning involves the primary foundation [Note 5], but to bring forth is nothing else than the production of what exists. If then the term belongs to the body, let it be observed that He did not then receive a beginning of generation [Note 6] when He was evangelized to the shepherds by night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not night, for this is not said; on the contrary, it was night when He issued from the womb. This difference Scripture makes, and says on the one hand that He was begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaks of His proceeding from the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm, Thou hast drawn Me from the womb [Ps. xxii. 9.]. Besides, He has not said "before the rising of the morning star," but simply before the morning star. If then the phrase must be taken of the body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the stars were before Adam, or we have to investigate the sense of the letter. And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the I last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad [Note C] their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; {548} and let him that is athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely [Rev. xxii. 13-17.]. If then the Offspring of David be the Bright and Morning Star, it is plain that the flesh [Note 7] of the Saviour is called the Morning Star, which the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, "I have begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appearance [Note 8] in the flesh;" for before the Morning Star is equivalent to "before the Incarnation of the Word." §. 29. 5. Thus in the Old Testament also, statements are plainly made concerning the Son; at the same time it is superfluous to argue the point; for if what is not stated in the Old, is of later date, let them who are thus disputatious, say where in the Old Testament is mention made of the Spirit the Paraclete? for of the Holy Spirit there is mention, but no where of the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not mentioned in the Old [Note D]? but perish the word that the Spirit is later, and the distinction of the Holy Ghost as one and the Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and the same, then and now hallowing and comforting them who are his recipients; as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption of sons those who were worthy [Note 9]. For sons under the Old Covenant were made such through no other than the Son. For unless even before Mary there were a Son who was of God, how is He before all, when they are sons before Him? and how also First-born, if He comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for He was before all, nor the Son later; for in the beginning was the Word [John i. 1.]. And as the Spirit and Paraclete are the same, so the Son and Word are the same; and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit, But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name [John xiv. 26.], speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John describes similarly when he says, And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the {549} glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father [John i. 14.]. For here too he does not distinguish but witnesses the identity. And as [Note 10] the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word is not one, and Son another, but the Word is Only-Begotten; for He says not the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who dares distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, so neither can the Word, being also Son and Wisdom and Power. 6. Moreover, the word "Well-beloved" even the Greeks who are skilful in grammar know to be equivalent with "Only-begotten." For Homer speaks thus of Telemachus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of the Odyssey:
Therefore he who is the only son of his father is called well-beloved. §. 30. 7. Some of the Samosatene school [Note E], distinguishing the Word from the Son, pretend that the Son is Christ, and the Word another; and they ground this upon Peter's words in the Acts, which he spoke with a suitable sense, but they explain badly [Note 12]. It is this: The Word He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; this is Lord of all [Acts x. 36.] [Note F]. For they say that since the Word spoke through Christ, {550} as in the instance of the Prophets, Thus saith the Lord, the prophet was one and the Lord another [Note G]. But to this it is parallel to oppose the words in the first to the Corinthians, waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end unblameable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. i. 7, 8.]. For as one Christ does not confirm the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms in His own day those who wait for Him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that being made man He might preach by means of Himself. And therefore he straightway adds, This is Lord of all, but the Word is such. §. 31. And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses [Lev. ix. 7.]. See now here, though Moses be one, Moses himself speaks as if about another Moses, as the Lord commanded Moses. In like manner then, if the blessed Peter speak of the Divine Word also, as sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, it is not necessary to understand that the Word is one and Christ another, but that they were one and the same by reason of the uniting [Note 13] which took place in His divine and loving condescension and incarnation. §. 31. 8. And if even He be considered in two ways [Note 14], still it is without any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says, And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us [John i. 14.]. What then is said in a suitable and orthodox way [Note 15] by the blessed Peter, the Samosatenes, understanding badly and wrongly, stand not in the truth. For Christ is understood in both ways in Divine Scripture, as when it says Christ God's power and God's wisdom [1 Cor. i. 24.]. If then Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ unto the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean, that the Word incarnate has appeared to the children of Israel, so that it may correspond to And the Word became flesh. But if they understand it otherwise, and, while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, separate from Him the Man that He has taken, with which {551} also we believe that He is made one, saying that He has been sent through Jesus Christ, they are, without knowing [Note 16] it, contradicting themselves. For those who in this place separate the divine Word [Note 17] from the divine incarnation, have, it seems, a degraded notion of the doctrine of His having become flesh, and entertain Gentile thoughts, as they do, conceiving that the divine incarnation is an alteration [Note 18] of the Word. But it is not so; perish the thought. §. 32. For in the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible oneness, the mortal being swallowed up of life [2 Cor. v. 4.], nay, of Him who is Very Life, (as the Lord said to Martha, I am the Life,) so when the blessed Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he implies the divine oneness also. For as when a man heard The Word became flesh, he would not think that the Word ceased to be, which is extravagant, as has been said before, so also hearing of the Word which has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery one and simple. 9. More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning, does what was said by the Archangel to the Mother of God [Note 19] herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God [Luke i. 35.]. Irrationally then do the Samosatenes separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, Go ye, teach all nations [Matt. xxviii. 19.]. §. 33. 10. And this is usual with Scripture [Note 20], to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases. For so also in Numbers we shall find, Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses; for there was not one Moses who spoke, and another whose father-in-law was Raguel, but Moses was one. And if in like manner the ‘Word of God is called Wisdom and Power and Right-Hand and Arm and the like, and if in His love to man He has become one with us, putting on our first-fruits and blended [Note H] with it, therefore the {552} other titles also have, as was natural, become the Word's portions. For that John has said, that in the beginning was the Word, and He with God and Himself God, and all things through Him, and without Him nothing made, shews clearly that even man is the formation of God the Word. If then after taking him, when corrupted [Note 21], into Himself [Note I], He renews here again through that sure renewal for our endless abidance [Note 22], and therefore is made one with him in order to raise him to a diviner lot, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the Man who was from Mary, and reckon him, the Lord of Apostles, with other Apostles, I mean such as prophets who were sent [Note 23] by Him! And how can Christ be called a mere [Note 24] man? on the contrary, being made one with the Word, He is with reason called Christ and Son of God, the prophet having long since loudly and clearly ascribed the Father's subsistence [Note 25] to Him, and said, And I will send My Son Christ [vid. Acts iii. 20.]; and in the Jordan, This is My Well-beloved Son. For when He had fulfilled his promise, He showed, as was suitable, that He was He whom He said He had sent. §. 34. 11. Let us then consider [Note 26] Christ in both ways [Note K], the divine Word made one in Mary with That which is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself His house, as at the beginning He formed Adam from the earth; or rather more divinely, concerning whom Solomon too says openly, knowing that the Word was also called Wisdom, Wisdom hath builded Herself an house [Prov. ix. 1.]; which the Apostle interprets when he says, Which house are we [Heb. iii. 6.], and elsewhere calls us a temple, as far as it is fitting to God to inhabit a temple, of which the image, made of stones, He by Solomon commanded the ancient people to build [Note 27]; whence, on the appearance of the Truth, {553} the Image ceased. For when the ruthless men wished to prove the Image to be the Truth, and to destroy that true habitation which we surely believe his union with us to be, He threatened them not; but knowing that their crime was against themselves, He says to them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up [John ii. 19.]; He, our Saviour, surely shewing thereby that the things about which men busy themselves, carry their dissolution with them. For unless the Lord build the house and keep the city, in vain the builders toil, and the keepers watch [vid. Ps. cxxvii. 1.]. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow; but the Church is firmly established; it is founded on the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [vid. Matt. vii. 25. xvi. 18.]. Theirs [Note 28] it was to say, Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? [John x. 33.] [Note 29] and their disciple [Note 30] is the Samosatene; whence to his followers with reason does he teach his heresy. But we have not so learned Christ, if so be that we have heard Him, and have learned from Him, putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and taking up the new, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness [Eph. iv. 20-24.]. Let Christ then in both ways be religiously considered [Note 31]. §. 35. 12. But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ, as in the blessed Peter's words to Cornelius, when he teaches him of Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost, and again to the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God for you, and again the blessed Paul to the Athenians, By that Man whom He hath ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead [Acts x. 38. ii. 22. xvii. 31.], (for we find the appointment and the mission [Note 32] often synonymous with the anointing; from which any one who will may learn, that there is no discordance in the words of the sacred writers [Note 33], but that they but give various names to the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes as anointing, sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment,) it follows that what the blessed Peter says is orthodox [Note 34], and he proclaims in purity [Note 35] the Godhead of the Only-begotten, without separating the subsistence [Note 36] of God the Word from the Man from Mary, (perish the thought! for how should he, who had heard in so many ways, I and the Father are one, and He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [John x. 30. xiv. 9.]? In which Man [Note 37], after {554} the resurrection also [Note 38], when the doors were shut, we know [Note 39] of His coming to each pair [Note 40] of Apostles, and dispersing all that was hard to believe in it by His words, Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have [Luke xxiv. 39.]. And He did not say, "This," or "this Man which I have taken to Me," but Me. Wherefore Samosatene will gain no allowance, being refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the Word, nay by God the Word Himself, who now brings the news to all, and assures [Note 41] them by eating, and permitting to them that handling of Him which then took place. For certainly he who gives food to others, and they who give him, touch hands. For they gave Him, Scripture says, a piece a broiled fish and of an honey-comb, and when He had eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them [Luke xxiv. 42, 43. vid. Wetstein in loc.]. See now, though not as Thomas was allowed, yet by another way, He afforded to them full assurance, in being touched by them; but if you would now see the scars, learn from Thomas. Reach hither thy hand and thrust into My side, and reach hither thy finger and behold My hands [John xx. 27.]; so says God the Word, speaking of His own [Note 42] side and hands, and of Himself as whole man and God together, first affording [Note 43] to the Saints [Note 44] even perception of the Word through the body, as we may consider, by entering when the doors were shut; and next standing near them in the body and affording full assurance. §. 36. 13. So much may be conveniently said for confirmation of the faithful, and correction of the unbelieving. And so let Paul of Samosata also [Note 45] stand corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him who said My body, not "Christ besides Me who am the Word," but "It [Note 46] with Me, and Me with It." For I the Word am the chrism, and that which has the chrism from Me is the Man [Note 47]; not then without Me could It [Note 48] be called Christ, but being with Me and I in It. Therefore the mention of the mission of the Word shews the uniting which took place with Jesus of Mary, which is interpreted Saviour, not by reason of any thing else, but the Man's being made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as the Father that sent Me, and I came not of Myself, but the Father sent Me [John viii. 10. 42.]. For he has given the name of mission [Note 49] to the uniting with the Man, with which [Note 50] the Invisible nature might be {555} known to men, through the visible. For God changes not place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion of our littleness He displayed Himself in his existence in the flesh; for how should He, who fills the heaven and the earth? but on account of the presence in the flesh the just have spoken of His mission. 14. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ [Note 51] from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ but one and the Same; He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from the Virgin; invisible [Note 52] before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the operation [Note 53] of the Godhead through the human body and whole man, which He has renewed by appropriation to Himself. To Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen. FootnotesA. Here [arche] is used in the same
sense as in the foregoing section, and seems to connect it with the
present, as the foregoing was connected with the passage before it by
the mention of Baptism. This is one out of several instances which
shew that the book, incomplete and ill-digested as it is, is no chance
collection of fragments. Thus too the mention of the Stoic doctrine in
§. 15. connects it with §. 14. And the unusual word [hypostasis],
which occurs twice towards the end of this concluding portion of the
book, is found in the foregoing section, init. though on a different
subject. The connection of §. 12. and §. 13. by the words [eis
apeiron, apeiros] has been noticed in loc. B.
The parties opposed by Athan. understand the morning star literally,
our Lord being born at midnight, [nuktos]. infr. §. 28. and so
Tertullian contr. Marc. v. 9. However, Marcellus considers "the
morning star" to be the Star seen by the Magi, [ho pheron te
kai delon hemeran tois Magois]. Euseb. p. 48. C.
[platunontes], which seems intended for [plunontes] as [eplunan,
vii. 14. and as in the Vulgate here. Most of the Greek Mss., some
Versions, and some Fathers, read [poiountes tas entolas autou],
with the present rec. text. vid. Wolf. Cur. Phil. in loc. D.
A heresy of this kind is actually noticed by Origen; viz. of those qui
Spiritum Sanctum allium quidem dicant esse qui fuit in Prophetis,
alium autem qui fuit in Apostolis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. In Tit.
t. 4. p. 695. hence in the Creed "who spake by the prophets;" and
hence the frequent epithet given by S. Justin to the Holy Spirit of [prophetikon];
e.g. when speaking of baptism. Apol. i. 61 fin. Also Ap. i. 6. 13.
Tryph. 49. On the other hand, he calls the Spirit of the Prophet "the
Holy Spirit," e.g. Tryph. 54, 61. E.
For Paul's opinions vid. supr. pp. 174, 175. To the passages there
brought, distinguishing between him and Nestorius, may be added the
express words of the latter, Serm. 12. t. 2. p. 87. Mar. Mer. Assemani
takes the same view, Bibl. Orient. t. 4, p. 68, 9. F.
[Ton logon, hon apesteile … houtos esti … humeis oidate to
genomenon rhema]. The Samosatenes interpreted this
difficult construction as Hippolytus before them, as if [ton logon]
were either governed by [kata] or attracted by [hon], [houtos]
agreeing with [ho logos] understood. Dr. Routh in loc. Hipp.
who at one time so construed it, refers to 1 Pet. ii. 7. John iii. 34.
as parallel, also Matt. xxi. 42. And so Urbem quam statuo, &c.
vid. Raphel. in Luc. 21, 6. vid. also [ten archen
hoti kai lalo humin] John viii. 25. with J. C. Wolf's
remarks, who would understand by [archen] omnino, which
Lennep however in Phalar. Ep. says it can only mean with a negative.
Our translation understands [logos] and [rhema]
as synonymous, (which is harsh,) and the latter as used merely to
connect the sentence; and [houtos] as if for [hos].
Moreover, if [logos] be taken for [rhema], [ton
logon apesteile] is a harsh phrase; however, it occurs Acts xiii.
26. If [logos] on the other hand have a theological sense, a primâ
facie countenance is given to the distinction between "the Word"
and "Jesus Christ," which the Samosatenes wished to deduce from the
passage. However, Athan. answers this inference in the passage which
follows. G.
Paul of Sarnosata had argued in the same way against the divinity of
Christ. Routh Relliqu. t. 2. p. 475. and Eusebius imputes it to
Marcellus pp. 55, a. 78, c. The passage that follows is a remarkable
one, as shewing the historical connection between Samosatenes and
Nestorians at Antioch. Diodorus and Theodore fill up the interval
between Athanasius and Nestorius. H.
[anakratheis]. vid. note on Tertull. O. Tr. vol. i. p. 48. and
so [he kaine mixis, theos kai anthropos].
Greg. Naz. as quoted by Eulogius ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 857. immixtus
Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. commixtio Vigil. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494. (B.
P. 1624.) permixtus August. Ep. 137, 11. ut naturć alteri altera
misceretur. Leon. Serm. 23, 1. There is this strong passage in Naz. Ep.
101. p. 87, c. (ed. 1840.) [kirnamenon hosper ton
phuseon houto de kai ton kleseon,
kai perichorouson eis allelas toi logoi tes
sumphuias]; Bull says that in using [perichorouson],
Greg. Naz. and others "minůs proprič loqui." Defens. F. N. iv. 4. §.
14. Petavius had allowed this, but proves the doctrine amply from the
Fathers. de Incarn. iv. 14. Such oneness is not "confusion," for [ou
sunchusin apergasamenos, alla ta duo kerasas eis hen], says Epiph.
Ancor. 81 fin. and so Phot. Bibl. p. 831 fin. [ou tes kraseos
sunchusin autoi delouses]. Vid. also on the
word [mixis], &c. Zacagn. Monum. p. xxi.-xxvi. Thomassin.
de Incarn. iii. 5.iv. 15. I.
[eis heauton labomenos]. And so the Creed ascribed to Athan.
speaks of "the taking of the manhood into God." K.
[to sunamphoteron noamen Christon]. This seems a reference to
the [ei de kai nooito dichos] §. 31. at the
commencement of n. 8. vid. end of sect. Margin Notes1. p. 323, note A. 2.
p. 542. 3.
[ethos tei gr.] vid. p. 551, r. 6. 4.
[exairetou], p. 308, note F. 5.
[archen kataboles]. 6.
[archen geneseos]. 7.
[to kata sarka]. 8.
[epiphaneias], epiphany. 9.
p. 236, note C. 10.
[ouch hos]. 11.
[mounos eon agapetos]. 12.
p. 283, note C. 13.
[henosin ten pros ten sunk]. 14.
p. 440, §. 29. init. 15.
p. 341, note I. 16.
[noousin] vid. r. 2. 17.
[theion noousin l. theion logon] vid. p. 552, r. 6. 18.
[tropen]. 19.
[theotokos]. 20.
p. 355, note C. 21.
p. 375, note U. 22.
[diamonen], p. 521, note A. 23.
[apostaleisi]. 24.
[psilos]. 25.
[hypostasin]. 26.
[noomen log. ton theion], vid. p. 551, r. 2. 27.
[ktizein]. 28.
[ekeinon]. 29.
pp. 2, 150, 183, 438. 30.
[touton]. 31.
[noeistho], p. 552, r. 6. 32.
[apostolen]. 33.
passim vid. p. 338, r. 6. Hist. Tr. p. 198, r. 2. 34.
p. 341, note I. 35.
[eilikrine ten theoteta]. 36.
[hypostasis]. 37.
[di' ou]. 38.
[to auto]. 39.
verb. omit. 40.
f. [ten] abund. 41.
[plerophoron] f. [ountos]. 42.
p. 447, note T. 43.
[parechontos] f. [parechon]. 44.
[hagiois], sacred writers, vid. 1 John i. 1. 45.
[kai]. 46.
i.e. [ton Christon]. 47.
p. 248, note B. 48.
i.e. [ho anthropos]. 49.
vid. parenthesis p. 553. 50.
[sun hoi]. 51.
[oun] abund. 52.
p. 120, note Q. 53.
[energeiai], vid. p. 544. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |