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.