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.