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: tòn óntôs ónta] distinctively from [Greek: ho ôn]--the 'Ens omnis entitatis, etiam suæ', 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 poiaetàes tôn hólôn éstai Theòs ho tô Môsei eipôn autòn einai Theòn Abraàm, kaì Theòn Isaàk, kaì Theòn Iakôb].--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. * * It was Justin's business to shew that there was a divine Person, one who was God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was not the Father; and therefore there were two divine Persons. At all events, it was a very incautious expression on the part of Justin, though his meaning was, doubtless, that which Waterland gives. The same most improper, or at best, most inconvenient because equivocal phrase, has been, as I think, interpolated into our Apostles' Creed. Ib. p. 436. [Greek: Taeroito d' àn, hôs ho emòs lógos, ehis mèn Theòs, eis hèn aítion kaì Ghiou kaì Pneúmatos anapheroménôn. k.t.l.]--Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. We may, as I conceive, preserve (the doctrine of) one God, by referring both the Son and Holy Ghost to one cause, &c. Another instance of the inconvenience of the Trias compared with the Tetractys. [Footnote 1: A Vindication of Christ's Divinity: being a defence of some queries relating to Dr. Clarke's scheme of the Holy Trinity, &c. By Daniel Waterland. 2nd edit. Cambridge, 1719. Ed.] [Footnote 2: