τούτων δὲ πάντων ἐκτὸς τὸ παντελῶς ἀδύνατον
καὶ ἀνεπίδεκτον, ὡς ὂ νῦν ἐξετάζομεν. ὡς γὰρ ἀδύνατον
εἶναι λέγομεν πονηρὸν εἶναι θεόν, ἢ μὴ εἶναι· τοῦτο γὰρ
ἀδυναμίας ἂν εἴη μᾶλλον θεοῦ, ἤπερ δυνάμεως· ἢ τὸ μὴ ὂν
εἶναι, ἢ τὰ δὶς δύο καὶ τέσσαρα εἶναι καὶ δέκα· οὕτως 
ἀδύνατον καὶ ἀνεγχώρητον ποιεῖν τι τὸν υἱόν, ὧν οὐ ποιεῖ
ὁ πατήρ. πάντα γὰρ ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατήρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστίν·
ὡς ἔμπαλιν τὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός. οὐδὲν οὖν ἴδιον, ὅτι
κοινά. ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι κοινὸν καὶ ὁμότιμον, εἰ καὶ
τῷ υἱῷ παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. καθ’ ὂ καὶ λέγεται καὶ τό· Ἐγὼ 
ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα· οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖθεν αὐτῷ τοῦ ζῆν καὶ τοῦ
εἶναι συνεχομένου, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑπάρχοντος ἀχρόνως
καὶ ἀναιτίως. βλέπει δὲ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα πῶς, καὶ
 11. 5 δύο καὶ] om καὶ df || τέσσαρα εἶναι] τεσσαρις b (om εἶναι) ||
7 om ἐστιν f || 10 καθ’ ο καὶ] om καὶ c2e 
 11. And sometimes ‘cannot’ denotes
what is unthinkable, α logical
absurdity. It denotes ’νθ’ limitation
of power to say that God cannot οἱ
evil. This is what the text means.
He does not see the Father act and
then imitate His action, making for
example α world apiece. His action
is not similar, but identical, to that
of the Father, only the initiative
rests with the Father. The sustaining
of what is already created is α
part of this common action of Father
and Son. 
 2. ἀνεπίδεκτον] ‘ inadmissible ’ or
‘ unthinkable ’ ; almost ’ impossible
in the sense of unthinkable.’ 
 3. ἢ μὴ εἶναι] ‘ or not to exist.’ 
 ib. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀδυναμίας ἂν εἴη]
See Petavius de Deo Deique Propr.
v 7, and the passages there cited. 
 7. πάντα γὰρ δσα] John xvi 15. 
 8. ὡς ξμπαλιν κτλ.] John xvii 10. 
 9. αὐτὸ τὸ elvai κοινόν] ’ Their
very being is common and equal,
although the Son has it from the
Father.’ 
 10. ἐγὼ ζῶ δ. τ. π. ] John vi 57. 
 12. συνεχομνοο] ‘ kept from ’
It seems a slight difficulty
that in John vi 57 our Lord seems
to refer not so much to the origination
of His being as to something
which may be compared to the
continual sustenance of life καὶ ὁ
τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι’ ἐμέ).
But on the other hand, so far as
we know, the distinction between
the original gift and the maintenance
of life does not exist in the case of
the Eternal Son, but belongs only
to temporal existence. With Him
nasci and pasci are the same. On
the whole this interpretation is better
than to translate συνεχ. ’restricted,’
‘confined.’ 
 12 ὑπάρχ. ἀχρόνως] instead of
being sustained by a succession of
temporal acts. 
 13 καὶ ἀναιτίως] It is difficult to
assign a meaning to the word in
this connexion. Gr. has frequently
affirmed that the Father is the αἰτία
of the Son. It must therefore
mean ‘ without any intermediate
or secondary cause.’ 
 ib. βλέπει δὲ...πῶς λ́τλ.] ‘ In
what sense docs He see the Father
doing, and do likewise?’ 

 
οὕτω ποιεῖ; ἆρα ὡς οἱ τὰς μορφὰς γράφοντες καὶ τὰ
γράμματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τῆς ἁληθείας ἄλλως ἐπιτυχεῖν,
εἰ μὴ πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον βλέποντας, κἀκεῖθεν χειραγω-
γουμένους ; καὶ πῶς ἡ σοφία δεῖται τοῦ διδάξοντος, ἢ οὐ
 ποιήσει τι μὴ διδασκομένη ; ποιεῖ δὲ πῶς ὁ πατήρ, ἢ
πεποίηκεν ; ἆρα ἄλλον προυπέστησε κόσμον ἀντὶ τοῦ
παρόντος, καὶ ὑποστήσει τὸν μέλλοντα, καὶ πρὸς ἐκεῖνα
βλέπων ὁ υἱός, τὸν μὲν ὑπέστησε, τὸν δὲ ὑποστήσει;
τέσσαρες οὖν κόσμοι κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, οἱ μὲν πατρός,
 οἱ δὲ υἱοῦ ποιήματα. τῆς ἀλογίας. καθαίρει δὲ λέπρας,
καὶ δαιμόνων καὶ νόσων ἀπαλλάττει, καὶ ζωοποιεῖ νεκρούς,
καὶ ὑπὲρ θαλάσσης ὁδεύει, καὶ τἄλλα ποιεῖ ὅσα πεποίηκεν,
ἐπὶ τίνος ἢ πότε τοῦ πατρὸς ταῦτα προενεργήσαντος ; ἢ
δῆλον ὅτι τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων τοὺς τύπους ἐνσημαίνεται
 μὲν ὁ πατήρ, ἐπιτελεῖ δὲ ὁ λόγος, οὐ δουλικῶς, οὐδὲ
ἀμαθῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐπιστημονικῶς τε καὶ δεσποτικῶς, καὶ οἰκειό-
τερον εἰπεῖν, πατρικῶς ; οὕτω γὰρ ἐγὼ δέχομαι τὸ ἅπερ
ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται, ταῦτα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὁμοίως ποιεῖν·
οὐ κατὰ τὴν τῶν γινομένων ὁμοίωσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τῆς
 ἐξουσίας ὁμοτιμίαν. καὶ τοῦτο ἂν εἴη τὸ ἕως ἄρτι καὶ
τὸν πατέρα ἐργάζεσθαι, καὶ τὸν υἱόν· οὐ μόνον δέ, ἁλλὰ
 3 εἰ μὴ] om εἰ df || βλεποντας] τες ’Reg. ’ et χειραγωγούμενοι ||
9 oυv] + οἱ be || Reg. ’ Ἴ’ 10 ttjs] ω τῆς bf || 1 1 om ἀπαλλάττει aceg ’ Reg. ’ ||
13 προσενερηγσαντος a || 19 ἄλλα κάτα] om κάτα e ’Reg. a’ 
 3. κἀκεῖθεν χεὶρ.] ‘ guided by it
from moment to moment? 
 4. ἢ σοφία] The Eunomian has
already allowed the identification of
Wisdom with Christ, ἑ 2. 
 6. ἀντὶ τοῦ παρόντος] 'corresponding
to the present one.’ 
 13. ἐπὶ τίνος] like ἐπὶ πάντων, ἐφ’
ἑκάστων ; ‘ on what occasion, and at
what time?’ 
 14. τῶν αὐτ’. πραγμάτων] There
are not two sets of things ; they are
the selfsame things which are done
or made by the Father and the Son,
the Father indicating the form and
the Son giving it expression. 
 16. ἀμαθῶς] ’ unintclli gently 1 like
one who copies a pattern mechani-
cally. The adverbs are arranged in
a chiasm. 
 ib. οἰκ. εἰπεῖν, πατρ] ‘ to speak
with more exact appropriateness, in
the same manner ἃς the Father? 
 18. ὁμοίως ποιεῖν] John v 19. 
 20. ἕως ἄρτι] John v 17. 

 
καὶ τὴν ὧν πεποιήκασιν οἰκονομίαν τε καὶ συντήρησιν, ὡς
δηλοῖ τὸ ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα· καὶ
θεμελιοῦσθαι τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν αὐτῆς· ἅπαξ
ἡδρασμένα τε καὶ γενόμενα· καὶ στερεοῦσθαι βροντήν,
καὶ κτίζεσθαι πνεῦμα, ὧν ἅπαξ μὲν ὁ λόγος ὑπέστη, 
συνεχὴς δὲ καὶ νῦν ἡ ἐνέργεια. Ἕβδομον λεγέσθω τὸ καταβεβηκέναι ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ τὸν υἱόν, οὐχ ἵνα ποιῇ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ
τὸ τοῦ πέμψαντος. εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ παρὰ τοῦ κατεληλυθότος
αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐλέγετο, εἴπομεν ἂν ὡς παρὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
τυποῦσθαι τὸν λόγον, οὐ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα νοουμένου, —
 1 την ων] των ων b || πεποιηκεν bdf || 6 συνεχεις a 
 1. τὴν . . . οἰκονομίαν] The only
grammatical construction for these
words is to attach them to κατὰ τὴν
τ. ἐ. ὁμοτιμίαν, treating καὶ τοῦτο
ἂν εἴη κτλ. as parenthetical. Τῆς
ἐξουσίας will then be not merely ‘of
power,’ but ‘of the power’ displayed
in the making of τὰ γινόμενα :—for
it is clear that Gr. understands
ποιεῖν here chiefly of ‘making’
rather than ‘doing.’ He then adds
that it is not only in respect of
equality of power in creating that
the Son is said to make or do ‘like
wise’ whatever the Father makes or
does, but in respect also of ordering
and sustaining what He has made
or done. 
 2. ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἁ . . . . πν.] Ps. ciii
(civ) 4. Cp. what he has said on
this text ii 31. The point is that
the present is used, where the past
would have been expected. The
power which first made the angels
spirits is still said to make them so. 
 3. θεμελιοῦσθαι] Ps. ciii (civ) 5,
where Gr. evidently read the present,
ὁ θεμελιῶν. Ἡδρασμένα in ref. to
the earth, γενόμενα in ref. to the
angels. 
 4. στ. βροντήν] Am. iv 13.
Here the point seems to lie not
only in the tense, but in the using,
with regard to transient things like
thunder and wind, such words as
στερεοῦν, κτίζειν (to found). The
explanation is that the ‘law’ or
‘principle’ of them (λόγος) was laid
down once for all, though the activity
which produces them
continues. 
 12. No. 7.—I came down not
to do Mine own will, but the will
of Him that sent Me. At first it
looks as if this were said of the Manhood;
for the human will does not
always find it easy to conform to
the divine. The cry in Gethsemane
is a proof of it. But as it was only
the divine nature which came down ,
the will cannot be the human will.
Well, sentences of this kind do not
always imply the existence of the
thing whose activity is denied, but
quite the opposite. The Son has no
will of His own to do, apart from
the Father’s. 
 7. καταβεβηκέναι] John vi 38. 
 9. τοῦ κατεληλ. αὐτοῦ] neut.; sec
below, τὸ κατεληλυθός. 
 10. ὡς παρὰ τοῦ ἁ.] ‘that the expression
took this form as proceeding
from the Man (see note on § 7), not
from the Saviour regarded αἰ such.’ 

 
τὸ γὰρ ἐκείνου θέλειν οὐδὲ ὑπεναντίον θεῷ, θεωθὲν ὅλον, —
ἁλλὰ τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς· ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος οὐ
πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ θείῳ, ἀλλ’ ἀντιπίπτοντος, ὡς τὰ
πολλά, καὶ ἀντιπαλαίοντος. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο οὕτως ἐνοήσαμεν
 τό· Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ τὸ
ποτήριον τοῦτο· πλὴν οὐχ ὃ ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν
ἰσχυέτω θέλημα. οὔτε γάρ, εἰ δυνατὸν ἢ μή, τοῦτο
ἀγνοεῖν ἐκεῖνον εἰκός, οὔτε τῷ θελήματι ἀντεισφέρειν τὸ
θέλημα. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὡς παρὰ τοῦ προσλαβόντος ὁ λόγος,
 τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ κατεληλυθός, οὐ τοῦ προσλήμματος, οὕτως
ἀπαντησόμεθα. οὐχ ὡς ὄντος ἰδίου τῷ υἱῷ θελήματος
παρὰ τὸ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλ’ ὡς οὐκ ὄντος ὁ λόγος· ἵν ᾖ
τοιοῦτον τὸ συναγόμενον· Οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ
ἐμόν, οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἐμὸν τοῦ σοῦ κεχωρισμένον, ἀλλὰ
 τὸ κοινὸν ἐμοῦ τε καὶ σοῦ, ὧν ὡς μία θεότης, οὕτω καὶ
βούλησις. πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν οὕτω λεγομένων ἀπὸ κοινοῦ
 12. 7 ἀνθρωπίνου] κου b || 11 του υἱοῦ abf || 13 τοιοῦτο συναγομενον b 
 1. ἐκείνου] sc. τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σ.
νοουμένου. 
 ib. οὐδε ὑπεν.] not opposed to God,
however faintly? The ὑπὸ has its
full significance. 
 ib. θεωθὲν ὅλον] It is strange
that Gr. should allow himself to
speak of the will of the Divine Son
as having been ’ deified ’ (or ’ taken
possession of by ’), which might
imply that except for some action
of God upon it, the ’s will was
not divine. It does not wholly
remove the difficulty to say that the
’time ’ when that action took place
is, like the ’generation’ of which
it is one aspect, before and above
time. 
 2, τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς] sc νοουμένου ;
‘considered according to us ’ means
‘considered as man.’ 
 3. ἀντιπίπτοντος] The human
will of Christ, ace. to no was no
exception to the rule; though, as
his next quotation shews, it ceased
to struggle when it was assured
what ’s will was. 
 5. πάτερ, εἰ δὺν.] Matt, xxvi 39 ;
Luke xxii 42. 
 8. ἐκεῖνον] i.e. τὸν κατὰ τὸν
σωτῆρα νοούμενον. 
 9. παρὰ τοῦ προσλαβόντος] the
Divine Son, as opp. to τὸ πρόσλῆμμα,
the nature which He assumed.
‘Ο λόγος is John vi 38, not
the cry in the Garden. 
 11. οὐχ ὡς ὄντος] ’it does not
imply that the Son has a will of His
own, distinct from the ’s, but
that He has not.’ 
 13. τὸ συναγόμενον] the meaning
gathered from the words. 
 16. ἀπὸ κοινοῦ λέγ.] From the
illustrations which Gr. proceeds to
give, it seems clear that the phrase
ἀπὸ κ. is used without any ref. to
τὸ κοινόν immediately before. With
the possible exception of the first,
they have nothing to do with the
peculiar ‘ community ’ which exists
between the Father and the Son.
We must therefore suppose that ἀπὸ
κοινοῦ is an adverbial expression
with a wider meaning. It is, however,
difficult to seize the exact
force of it. Elias appears to have
thought that it meant ’ in α way
that common intelligence discerns.'
It prob. means ’in a general way,'
as distinguished from a pedantic
adaptation to special situations.
Cp. κατὰ κοινοῦ § 13. 

 
λέγεται, καὶ οὐ θετικῶς, ἀρνητικῶς δέ, ὡς τό· Οὐ γὰρ ἐκ
μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα· οὔτε γὰρ δίδωσιν, οὔτε
μεμετρημένον, οὐ γὰρ μετρεῖται παρὰ θεοῦ θεός· καὶ τό·
Οὔτε ἡ ἁμαρτία μου, οὔτε ἡ ἀνομία μου· οὐ γὰρ ὡς οὔσης
ὁ λόγος, ἁλλ’ ὡς οὐκ οὔσης· καὶ πάλιν τό· Οὐ διὰ τὰς 
δικαιοσύνας ἡμῶν, ἂς ἐποιήσαμεν· οὐ γὰρ ἐποιήσαμεν.
δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο κἂν τοῖς ἑξῆς· τί γάρ, φησι, τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πατρός ; ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν σώζηται,
καὶ τυγχάνῃ τῆς τελευταίας ἀναστάσεως, εἴτουν ἀποκαταστάσεως.
ἆρ’ οὖν τοῦ πατρὸς μὲν τοῦτο θέλημα, τοῦ 
υἱοῦ δὲ οὐδαμῶς ; ἢ ἄκων εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πιστεύεται;
 1 λέγονται b || 3 πάρα θεοῦ θέω ab || 9 om ειτουν ἀποκαταστάσεως cfg 
 1. καἰ οὐ θετικῶς] This is added
to bear out the assertion οὐχ ὡς
ὄντος, ἀλλ’ ὡς οὐκ ὄντος. The point
lies in this, that while the sentence,
rigidly analysed, implies the existence
of a fact, though it rejects an
inference drawn from the fact, the
speaker’s intention is to deny the
fact as well as the inference. Thus
οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου κτλ. implies that
the Spirit is ‘given,’ though not
‘by by measure ’ ; but in reality it
does not affirm the giving, any
more than the measuring. Again,
οὔτε ἢ ἁμαρτία μου κτλ. implies
that the Psalmist was guilty of sin,
though that guilt was not the cause
of the opposition which he en-
countered ; but the Psalmist has no
intention of affirming his own sin.
Again, οὐ διὰ τὰς δίκ’. ἤμ’. implies
that we have righteousnesses, though
we claim nothing on the ground of
them ; but St Paul would never
admit that we have any. Similarly,
’not Mine own will, but Thine’
implies the existence of a will of the
Son, apart from the ’s ; but
if we consider the expression ἀπὸ
κοινοῦ, in a broad way, in view of
the common use of language, we see
that no assertion of the kind is
intended. 
 ib. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου] John iii
34. In the explanatory sentence
θεός and θεῷ make equally good
sense. Gr. prob. understood the
text as the A.V. does, supplying
’unto Him.' But pern, the very
fact that this was the common intgerpretation
caused θεός to be changed
into θεῷ. 
 4. οὔτε ἢ ἁμαρτί] Ps. lviii 4
(lix 3). 
 5. οὐ διὰ τὰς δίκ’. ἤμ’.] Α combination
of Dan. ix 18 with Tit.
iii 5. 
 7. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο] Gr. returns
to the discussion of John vi 38 foil. 
 9. eh οὑν ἀποκατ.] Gr. adds this
gloss, because in one sense unbelievers
also have an ἀνάστασις. 

 
καὶ τίς ἂν τοῦτο πιστεύσειεν ; ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ τὸν λόγον τὸν
ἀκουόμενον μὴ εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ, τοῦ πατρὸς δέ, τὴν αὐτὴν
ἔχει δύναμιν. πῶς γὰρ ἴδιόν τινος τὸ κοινόν, ἢ μόνου,
τοῦτο συνιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω, πολλὰ σκοπῶν· οἶμαι δέ, οὐδὲ
 ἄλλος τις. ἂν οὕτω νοῇς περὶ τοῦ θέλειν, ὀρθῶς νοήσεις
καὶ λίαν εὐσεβῶς, ὡς ὁ ἐμὸς λόγος, καὶ παντὸς τοῦ
εὐγνώμονος. Ὅγδοόν ἐστιν αὐτοῖς τό· Ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν
μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν χριστόν·
 καὶ τό· Οὐδεὶς ἂγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ
πάντῃ ῥᾴστην ἔχειν τὴν λύσιν μοι φαίνεται. εἰ γὰρ τὸ
μόνον ἀληθινὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς θήσεις, ποῦ θήσεις τὴν
αὐτοαλήθειαν ; καὶ γὰρ εἰ τῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, ἢ τῷ μόνῳ
ἔχοντι ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκοῦντι ἀπρόσιτον, ἢ Βασιλεῖ
 τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ νοήσεις
οὕτως, οἰχήσεταί σοι θάνατον κατακριθεὶς ὁ υἱός, ἢ σκότος,
ἢ τὸ μὴ σοφὸς εἶναι, μηδὲ βασιλεύς, μηδὲ ἀόρατος, μηδὲ
ὅλως θεός, ὂ τῶν εἰρημένων κεφάλαιον. πῶς δὲ οὐκ
 1 om τὸ a ΙΙ 5 νοης] διανοῇς cf: νόεις d ΙΙ νογσεις] νόεις d ’Or. 1’
13. 15 ἀοράτῳ] + καὶ f || 18 πὼς δάι d 
 1. τὸν λόγον τὸν ἅκ.] John xiv
24. The ἐπεὶ carries us somewhat
abruptly back to the main thesis of
the section, οὐχ ὡς ὄντος κτλ. 
 6. καὶ παντὸς τοῦ εὐγν] sc. ὁ
λόγος. This is the usual interpretation
of the fathers. 
 13. ’λθ’. 8. — Thee the only true
God and Jesus Christ, and There is
none good but one, that is, God.
There are other instances where
similar language does not exclude
the Son. Here, it is used to exclude
the false gods, and it is the common
Godhead of the Father and of the
which is addressed as the only
true God. The other text is an
answer to one who, thinking Him to
be only a man, called Him ‘good’;
whereas the goodness was that of the
Godhead. If this argument does not
satisfy them., we can find them a
text which, on their principles, would
prove the Son alone to be God. 
 8. ἵνα γινώσκωσι σέ] John xvii 3. 
 10. οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός] Mark x 18. 
 12. τὴν αὐτοαλήθειαν] viz. Christ,
who says, “ I am the Truth." 
 13. τῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῶ Rom. xvi
27. 
 ib. τῷ μόνῳ ἔχ. ἀθ’.] 1 Tim. vi
16. Gr. turns the words into the
ascriptive form. 
 14. βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰ.] 1 Tim. i 17. 
 15. νοήσεις] The foregoing quotations
form the object, or accusative,
to the verb : ‘If you so underSon
stand τῷ μόνῳ σ. θ.‘ Usually in
such cases we have τὸ τῷ μόνῳ κτλ. 
 16. οἰχήσεταί σοι] ‘you condemn
the Son to death, to darkness
and He must go.’ 
 18. οὐκ ἀπολεῑ] ‘How can He
help losing?’ 

 
ἀπολεῖ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τὴν ἀγαθότητα, ἢ μάλιστα
μόνου θεοῦ ; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι τὸ μέν· Ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν
μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, ἐπ’ ἀναιρέσει λέγεσθαι τῶν οὐκ ὄντων
μὲν θεῶν, λεγομένων δέ. οὐ γὰρ ἂν προσέκειτο· Καὶ ὃν
ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν χριστόν, εἰ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀντιδιῄρητο 
τὸ μόνον ἀληθινόν, ἁλλὰ μὴ κατὰ κοινοῦ τῆς θεότητος ἦν
ὁ λόγος. τὸ δέ, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, ἀπάντησιν ἔχει πρὸς τὸν
πειράζοντα νομικόν, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν ἀγαθότητα μαρτυρήσαντα.
τὸ γὰρ ἄκρως ἀγαθόν, φησι, μόνου θεοῦ, κἂν τοῦτο
καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὀνομάζηται, ὡς τό· Ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ 
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ προβάλλει τὸ ἀγαθόν· καί, δώσω
τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ ἀγαθῷ ὑπὲρ σέ, τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν
Σαοὺλ περὶ τοῦ Δαβὶδ λέγοντος· καὶ τό· Ἀγάθυνον,
κύριε, τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς· καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα λέγεται περὶ
τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐπαινουμένων, ἐφ’ οὓς ἡ ἀπόρροια τοῦ πρώτου 
καλοῦ καὶ κατὰ δεύτερον λόγον ἔφθασεν. εἰ μὲν οὖν
πείθομεν τοῦτο, ἄριστον· εἰ δὲ μή, τί φήσεις πρὸς τοὺς
λέγοντας ἑτέρωθι, τὸν υἱὸν μόνον εἰρῆσθαι θεὸν κατὰ τὰς
σὰς ὑποθέσεις ; ἐν τίσι τοῖς ῥήμασιν ; ἐν ἐκείνοις· Οὗτός
σου θεός, οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτόν· καὶ μετ’ 
ὀλίγα· Μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὤφθη, καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
 5 εκεινον] τοῦτον b || 6 om τὸ g ΙΙ 12 θεοῦ] + λογος df || 17 πείθοιμεν a ||
19 οὕτος ο θεὸς bcf2 ’duo Reg.' ΙΙ 20 θεος] + καὶ cdf 
 5. εἰ πρὸς ἐκ. ἀντιδιῄρητο] ‘If
the words " only true" were used to
distinguish God from Him,’ ‘to 
exclude Him.' Cp. § 4. 
 6. κατὰ κοίνου] Something like
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in § 12, ‘ in general.' Of
course τῆς θεότ. depends upon ἢν,
not upon κατὰ κ. Gr. does not perceive
what difficulties he is landed
in, if he makes ’Jesus Christ' address
the Godhead in general as
His sender. Both Nestorianism and
Sabellianism are near at hand.
ἀπάντησιν ἔχει πρός] ‘is intended
ἃς an answer to? Gr. has
confused the Rich Young Ruler
with the Lawyer who tempted
Christ. 
 9. καλ’ τοῦτο] sc. ἀγαθός. 
 10. ὁ ἂγ. ἄνθρωπος] Matt, xii 35. 
 11. δώσω τὴν β.] 1 Sam. xv 28. 
 13. ἀγάθυνον] Ps. exxiv (exxv) 4. 
 15. ἐφ’ οὒς ἡ ἀπόρρ. ] ‘upon whom
the outflotv of the First Fair has
come, even in a secondary sense.’ 
 17. πείθομεν τοῦτο] ’persuade you
of this.’ 
 19. οὗτός σου θεός] Baruch iii
35 foll. 

 
συνανεστράφη. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλὰ
τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ λεγόμενον, ἡ προσθήκη σαφῶς παρίστησιν.
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ σωματικῶς ὁμιλήσας ἡμῖν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν
κάτω γενόμενος. εἰ δὲ νικήσειε κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς λέγεσθαι
 τοῦτο, μὴ τῶν νομιζομένων θεῶν, ἡττήμεθα τὸν πατέρα,
δι’ ὧν τοῦ υἱοῦ κατεσπουδάσαμεν. τί ἃν τῆς νίκης ταύτης
γένοιτο ἀθλιώτερον ἢ ζημιωδέστερον ; Ἐννατον ἐκεῖνο φήσουσι τό· Πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ
ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. εὖ γε καὶ λίαν μυστικῶς τε καὶ
 φιλανθρώπως. τὸ γὰρ ἐντυγχάνειν οὐχ, ὡς ἡ τῶν πολλῶν
συνήθεια, τὸ ζητεῖν ἐκδίκησιν ἔχει· τοῦτο γάρ πὼς καὶ
ταπεινότητος· ἁλλὰ τὸ πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῷ λόγῳ
τῆς μεσιτείας· ὡς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐντυγχάνειν
λέγεται. Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,
 ἄνθρωπος Ἰησοῦς χριστός. πρεσβεύει γὰρ ἔτι καὶ νῦν,
ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς σωτηρίας, ὅτι μετὰ τοῦ
 1 ἄλλα] πέρι e2 ’in nonnull.' ΙΙ 6 κατεσπουδάσαμεν] + καὶ bdef || 7 γενοιτ’
ἀν’ ac 
 4. νικήσειε] The subject of the
is λέγεσθαι τοῦτο ; ‘if the contention
that this is said in opposition
to the Father should prevail ’ ; or
perhaps more strictly νικήσειε is impersonal,
and λέγεσθαι in app. to
imaginary subject, ’ if it should
that,' etc. 
 5. ἡττήμεθα] The weapons that
were forged against the Son, when
the text from John xvii 3 was under
discussion, beat the Father off the
field (Gr. purposely uses an outrageous
word), when we treat other
texts on the same principle. The
1st pers. is used because ex hypothesi
Gr. has been converted (νικήσειε) to
the view which he opposes. 
 14. No. 9. — To make intercession
for us. It does not mean
that He appeals on our behalf to a
higher power than His own. but
He acts ἃς our Representative and
Mediator. In His capacity of our
Paraclete, He encotirages us to perverb
severance. 
 8. πάντοτε ζῶν] Heb. vii 25. 
 9. μυστικῶς] ’in a zvay that
full of significance for us.’ 
 10. τὸ γὰρ ἐντ’.] ‘for that interits
cession (Gr. does not mean intercesprevail
sion in general) does not
(cp. ἔχει ἀπάντησιν § 13) any seeking
of redress. ’ It is not the vindictive
element in ἐκδίκησιν ζητεῖν which
Gr. pts away, but the thought of
appealing to a supreme power
against a foe too strong for the
appellant. ‘There would,' he
’be something even of abasement in
that.’ 
 12. πρεσβεύειν ὑπ’. ἡμ.] ’to act
our Representativ.’ 
 14. εἷς γὰρ θεός] 1 Tim. ii 5. 
 16. μετὰ τοῦ σώματος] Gr.
to mean ’with the Church.’ Μετὰ
would not be a very natural prep.
to use of the other ’body.’ 

 
σώματός ἐστιν, οὗ προσέλαβεν, ἕως ἂν ἐμὲ ποιήσῃ θεὸν
τῇ δυνάμει τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως, κἂν μηκέτι κατὰ σάρκα
γινώσκηται, τὰ σαρκικὰ λέγω πάθη καί, χωρὶς τῆς ἁμαρτίας,
ἡμέτερα. οὕτω δὲ καὶ παράκλητον ἔχομεν Ἰησοῦν
οὐχ ὡς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προκαλινδούμενον τοῦ πατρός, καἲ 
προσπίπτοντα δουλικῶς. ἄπαγε τὴν δούλην ὄντως ὑπόνοιαν,
καὶ ἀναξίαν τοῦ πνεύματος. οὔτε γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦτο ἐπιζητεῖν, οὔτε τοῦ υἱοῦ πάσχειν, ἢ ὡς περὶ θεοῦ
διανοεῖσθαι δίκαιον· ἀλλ’ οἷς πέπονθεν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος,
πείθει καρτερεῖν, ὡς λόγος καὶ παραινέτης. τοῦτο νοεῖταί 
μοι ἢ παράκλησις. Δέκατον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ἡ ἄγνοια, καὶ τὸ μηδένα
γινώσκειν τὴν τελευταίαν ἡμέραν ἢ ὥραν, μηδὲ τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτόν, εἰ μὴ τὸν πατέρα. καίτοι πῶς ἀγνοεῖ τι τῶν ὄντων
ἡ σοφία, ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν αἰώνων, ὁ συντελεστὴς καὶ 
 14. 4 ιησουν] + χριστὸν ef II 8 η] ει acef2g ’duo Reg. quattuor Colb.’
15. 12 ἐστι αὐτοῖς c || 15 σοφία] + η b 
 1. ἕως ἄν] Remembering what
Gr. has said in § 4, we must not
suppose him here to be fixing a
terminus ad quem. 
 2. κατὰ σάρκα γιν.] 2 Cor. v 16.
The explanatory clause, τὰ σάρκ’.
λέγω π., shews that Gr. is not here
concerned with our knowledge, but
only with ’s condition : γινώσκηται,
but for the text of 2 Cor.,
might as well be ἦ. 
 3. χ. τῆς ἁμαρτίας] Heb. iv 15. 
 4. καὶ παράκλητον] 1 John ii 1.
The καὶ does not indicate a new
thought, ΟnΙγ a new text. 
 5. προκαλινδούμενον] ’falling
prostrate before.’ 
 7. τοῦ πνεύματος] whose inspired
words these are. 
 8. ἢ. . . δίκαιον] The ἢ grammatically
joins δίκαιον to the adjectival
notion in τοῦ πατρός, τοῦ υἱοῦ. 
 9. ἀλλ’ οἶς πονθεν] ‘ But on
the strength of what He has suffered
in His character of Man, He prevails
upon us to endure in His character
of the Word and the Encourager.’
Thus Gr. seems to recognise only
the manward aspect of the work of
the Advocate. 
 15. No. 10 — The Son knoweth
not the last day or hour. Obviously
the Wisdom through whom the
worlds, or ages, were made cannot
be ignorant of the length of their
duration ; and our Saviour's s prophecies
concerning the last things
shetv that He knew. You cannot
know how the day ends without
knowing how the night begins. He
knew therefore as God, and knew
not as man. The title of the Son,
standing by itself, lends itself to this
supposition. 
 12. μηδένα γινώσκειν] Mark xiii
32. 
 15. ὁ π. τῶν αἰώνων] II Heb. i 2.
In συντελεστὴς Gr. peril, refen
to sach passages as Epb. i 10, or
iv 13; in μεταπ., to Rev. xxi 5
(although the Speaker there is the
Father) or Wisd. vii 27 ; in τὸ
πέρας, to Rev. i 17 etc., or Col. i
16 εἰς αὐτόν). The question only
asks how such an one could be
ignorant of anything ; but the titles
by which He is here spoken of have
ref. to this particular thing. 

 
μεταποιητης, τὸ πέρας τῶν γενομένων ; ο οὐτῶ τὰ του
θεοῦ γινώσκων, ὡς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ;
τί γὰρ ταύτης τῆς γνώσεως τελεώτερον ; πῶς δὲ τὰ μὲν πρὸ
τῆς ὥρας ἀκριβῶς ἐπίσταται, καὶ τὰ οἷον ἐν χρῷ τοῦ
 τέλους, αὐτὴν δὲ ἀγνοεῖ τὴν ὥραν ; αἰνίγματι γὰρ τὸ
πρᾶγμα ὅμοιον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις τὰ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ τείχους
ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθαι λέγοι, αὐτὸ δὲ ἀγνοεῖν τὸ τεῖχος· ἢ τὸ
τῆς ἡμέρας τέλος εὖ ἐπιστάμενος, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς νυκτὸς
μὴ γινώσκειν· ἔνθα ἡ τοῦ ἑτέρου γνῶσις ἀναγκαίως συνεισάγει
 τὸ ἕτερον. ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι γινώσκει μέν, ὡς
θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τὸ φαινόμενον
χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου ; τὸ γὰρ ἀπόλυτον εἶναι τὴν τοῦ
 1 τὰ] μέτα b || 2 τὰ ἐν ἀυτῶ] τὸ ἐν ἀυτῶ be ’Or. I ’ || 3 ’δε] δάι d ||
4 χρῶ] χρόνω abcdef1g || 5 ἀγνόει] ἀγνοεῖν b ’Coisl. 3' || 11 αγνοειν]
ἀγνόει f || 12 του υἱοῦ τὴν προσηγ. bdf : om τὴν g 
 2. ὡς τὸ πν. τοῦ ἁ.] ι Cor. ii
11. St Paul is speaking of the
Spirit, not of the Son. 
 4. ἀκριβῶς ἐπίσταται] as shewn,
no doubt, by His prophecies. 
 ib. ἐν χρῷ] This seems to have
been the reading of Elias ; and it is
found in the second hand of the
Lincoln College MS. The expression
is both idiomatic and forcible, to
denote what happens right up to
the very moment of the end ; and,
as Jahn points out, in his notes on
Elias, the word οἶον would go more
naturally with it than with the tamer
ἐν χρόνῳ. The reading ἐν χρόνῳ may
easily be attributed to an early
copyist unfamiliar with the phrase
ἐν χρῷ, wno thought it an abbreviation
for ἐν χρόνῳ. 
 9. συνεισάγει] ‘implies,’ ‘involves’;
cp. iii 16. 
 11. τὸ φαῖν’. χωρίσῃ τοῦ ν.] τὸ
νοούμενον may so naturally be used
in contrast with τὸ φαῖν’., as ’the
unseen' to ’the seen,' that probably
Gr. must be understood to mean by
the first the Lord's human nature,
and by τὸ νοούμ. the divine. So
Elias takes it. But it might be
possible to take τὸ φ. = ‘ the look ’
of the saying, and τὸ νοούμ. = ‘ the
meaning? Α casual reader, looking
only at τὸ φ., would think that an
absolute ignorance was predicated ;
but attentive examination would
shew that that is not τὸ νοούμενον. 
 12. τὸ γὰρ ἀπόλυτον κτλ.] The
γὰρ justifies the assertion εὔδηλον.
‘ For the fact that the title of " the
Son " stands absolutely and without
conditions, nothing being added to
say whose Son, suggests to us this
interpretation ; so that we put the
more reveiwit construction tipon the
ignorance, and attribute it to the
human nature, not to the divine.'
Ἄσχετον is used in a remarkable
way, as if from σχέσις, ‘ ’
In the light of later criticism, the
fact which Gr. notices may be
thought to tell in the opp. direction
: the absolute title seems to
denote the eternal relation, not the
temporary condition. See ’s
note in his St Mark p. 297. Gr. takes
the argument, as well as the illustrations
of τεῖχος, νύξ, from Ath. οἱ. iii
c. Ar. § 43, who says that if it had
stood ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, it would have
implied that the Godhead did not
know, but that ὁ υἱός allows us to
suppose that the ignorance is that
τοῦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένου υἱοῦ. 

 
υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν καἰ ἄσχετον, οὐ προσκειμένου τῳ υἱῷ
τοῦ τίνος, ταύτην ἡμῖν δίδωσι τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, ὥστε τὴν
ἄγνοιαν ὑπολαμβάνειν ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβέστερον, τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ,
μὴ τῷ θείῳ, ταύτην λογιζομένους.