τούτω δὲ ἕπεται καὶ τὸ δοῦλον ἀκούειν εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὸ μέγα εἶναι αὐτῷ κληθῆναι παῖδα θεοῦ. τῷ ὄντι γὰρ ἐδούλευσε σαρκί, καὶ γενέσει, καὶ πάθεσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις, διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐλευθερίαν, καὶ πᾶσιν οἷς σέσωκεν ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας κατεχομένους. 3. 10 κατεχομενους] -οις f 1. ἐχρίσθη θεότητι] Gr. falls again into the danger of Nestorian language, and speaks as if there were a created person (identified with the created ’Wisdom’) who was ’anointed with Godhead.’ mention of unction is so abrupt that I cannot help suspecting that in some version accessible to Gr. the word nissachti in Prov. viii 23 Ἱ was set ’) was translated ‘Ι was anointed.’ So the Heb. word understood by Fiirst, Bertheau, and others; but I know no other indication of such a rendering in any ancient version. 4. τὴν κάτω γ.] ‘His birth upon earth.’ 5. πλόον ἄληπτον] used instead of ἀληπτοτέρα bee. it implies more decidedly that ἡ κάτω γ. was itself ἄληπτος. 3. Under the same head come the texts tvhich speak of Him ἃς a Servant, vant, and make it a great thing for Him to be called a child of God. His Incarnation did indeed put Him in a state ὁ servitude; and it ὕας indeed α great thing for His manhood to be so united to God. 6. εὖ δουλ. πολλοῖς] Is. liii 11. 7. μέγα. . . παῖδα θ.] Is. xlix 6. From what follows, it seems that Gr. (and his opponents) understood παῖδα = τέκνον or υἱόν. 8. ἐδοὑλ. σαρκί] Gr. seems to be undecided whether to take πολ. λοῖς as neut., including σάρξ, λένεσις, πάθη, or as masc, viz. πᾶσιν οἶς κτλ. The ’Attic attraction’ οἶς misled De Billy into supposing that πᾶσιν likewise was neut. (omnibus illis per quae). It is difficult to determine whether the same mistake caused the copyists to write κατεχομένους, or whether Gr. himself neglected to complete the attraction by saying (as he should have done) κατεχομένοις. That Ue ’s translation is wrong is shewn by the absence of the article before κατεχομένους; if Gr. had meant ’and all those things whereby He hath saved those who were enslaved,’ he have said τοὺς κάτεχ’. In view of the preponderating authority for κατεχομένους, it seems best to retain it in the text, understanding it to be a construction ad sensum, agreeing with the οὓς which lies hidden in the attracted ὄις. τί δὲ μεῖζον ἀνθρώπου ταπεινότητι ἢ θεῷ πλακῆναι, καὶ γενέσθαι θεὸν ἐκ τῆς μίξεως, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπισκεφθῆναι ἀνατολῇ ἐξ ὕψους, ὥστε καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον υἱὸν ὑψίστου κληθῆναι, καὶ χαρισθῆναι αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα; τοῦτο δὲ τί ποτε ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ θεός; καὶ τὸ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψαι τῷ κενωθέντι δι’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ τὴν θείαν εἰκόνα δουλικῇ μορφῇ συγκεράσαντι, καὶ γνῶναι πάντα οἶκον Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν; γέγονε γὰρ ταῦτα ἐνεργείᾳ μὲν τοῦ γεννήματος, εὐδοκία δὲ τοῦ γεννήτορος.