Elucidation.

Petavius, to whom the translator refers his readers, may be trusted in points where he has no theory of his own to sustain, but must always be accepted with caution. The Greek Fathers in this very series, from Justin116 προκοπάς. Vol. i. pp. 164, 166, 170, 178, 190–193, 263, 272; Irenæus, Ibid., 468, 546, etc. Works of Grester, vol. xv. p. 434, Ratisbon, 1741, in fol., from a manuscript codex. onward, enable us to put the later terminology to the test of earlier exposition (see examples in the notes to the Praxeas of Tertullian, and consult Dr. Holmes’ valuable note embodied in my elucidations).117 δόξαν τὴν ἐπιγινομένην. Vol. iii. p. 628. Compare (same volume) notes 15, p. 602, and 1, p. 604. This paragraph is wanting in a very ancient copy. We may go back to Theophilus for the distinction between the ἐνδιάθετος and the προφορικός , the immanent and the uttered Word.118 μόρφωσις τῶν ὅλων. Vol. ii. p. 98, notes 1, 2; also p. 103, note 5. Compare Tertullian, also, against Marcion.119 τὴν κτίσιν. Vol. iii. p. 299, note 19. Evidences, therefore, are abundant and archaic, indeed, to prove that the Ante-Nicene Fathers, with those of the Nicene and the Post-Nicene periods, were of one mind, and virtually of one voice.