petitio rei sub lite
. Why is he called the Son in
antithesis
to the Father, if it meant, "no not the Christ, except in his character of the co-eternal Son, included in the Father?" If it "concerned him only as a man," why is he placed after the angels? Why called the
Son
simply, instead of the Son of Man, or the Messiah?
Ib.
is not
, but, no one: as in John i. 18. No one hath seen God at any time; that is, he is by essence invisible.
This most difficult text I have not seen explained satisfactorily. I have thought that the