Cont.

Gent.
The just and literal rendering of the passage is this: 'The true God who in reality is such, namely, the Father of Christ.' The passage admits of a somewhat different interpretation from this of Waterland's, and of equal, if not greater, force against the Arian notion: namely, taking [Greek: ton ontos onta] distinctively from [Greek: ho on]--the 'Ens omnis entitatis, etiam suae', that is, the I Am the Father, in distinction from the 'Ens Supremum', the Son.

It cannot, however, be denied that in changing the 'formula' of the 'Tetractys' into the 'Trias', by merging the 'Prothesis' in the 'Thesis', the Identity in the Ipseity, the Christian Fathers subjected their exposition to many inconveniences.
Ib.p.

432.
[Greek: Ouch ho poiaetaes ton holon estai Theos ho to Mosei eipon auton einai Theon Abraam, kai Theon Isaak, kai Theon Iakob] .-- Justin Mart.Dial.p.

180.
The meaning is, that that divine Person, who called himself God, and was God, was not the Person of the Father, whose ordinary character is that of maker of all things, but another divine Person, namely, God the Son.