<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg010.opp-grc1:9</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg010.opp-grc1:9</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg010.opp-grc1" xml:lang="grc"><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="9"><p>Πέμπτον λεγέσθω τὸ λαμβάνειν αὐτὸν ζωήν, ἢ
<note type="footnote">8. 3 εχει] εχον c || θεος] + ο θεος e2 || 6 ηνικα] + ἀν b</note>
κυρίως θεοῦ θεός: not however in
virtue of the Son's Godhead, but
because ὁ κυρίως θεός is also man.
<note type="footnote">2. ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν] In regard to both
natures in Christ a term is properly
applied and a term improperly.
The same is true with regard to us;
one term is properly applied in
regard to us and the other improperly:
but the term properly applied
in regard to Christ is applied improperly
in regard to us, and vice uversa.
The term God (in θεός μου καὶ θ.
ὑμῶν) is improperly applied in regard
to Christ as God, and properly in
regard to Christ as man and to us.
The term Father is properly applied
to Christ as God, and improperly to
Christ as man and to us.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. ἡ τῶν ὀν. ἐπίζευξις] The
communicatio idiomatum. Gr. is
not thinking only of the particular
text, or of the words ‘God’ and
‘Father.’</note>
<note type="footnote">7. ταῖς ἐπινοίαις] Cp. iii 13,
which shews that ταῖς ἐπ. is to be
taken with συνδ., not with διιστ.
‘When the natures are mentioned
separately, the nomenclature follows
the distinction of the sense.’</note>
<note type="footnote">8. ἵνα ὁ θεός] Eph. i 17.</note>
<note type="footnote">9. X. μὲν θεός, τῆς δὲ δ. π.] An
interpretation as uncritical as it is
doctrinally precarious. It rests upon
the assumption that δόξα is the offspring
in respect of which the Father
is Father, and not (as in 1 Cor. ii 8,
Jam. ii 1, 1 Pet. iv 14) an epithet;
and the contrast which it draws
between the personal name of the
Incarnate Lord, and the ‘glory’
which is assumed to be His Divine
Nature, is unsound.</note>
<note type="footnote">11. οὐ τῇ φύσει] So Gr. rejects
the yet unborn heresy of Eutyches.
It might, however, have been still
better if he had said τὸ συναμφ. εἷς.
The ἕν, of course, means ‘a single
whole.’</note>
<note type="footnote">9. No. 5.—Life, power, etc. are
given to Him. This too is because
He is Man. But it would be equally
true of Him as God; it does not
imply that these are given Him at
some point subsequent to His eternal
generation.</note>
<note type="footnote">13. λεγέσθω] ‘be counted’ = ἀρίθμει
in § 7.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. λαμβάνειν] ζωήν John v 26;
κρίσιν ib. 22, 27 ; κληρ. ἐθνῶν Ps. ii 
8; ἐξ. π. σαρκός John xvii 2; δόξαν
in the context seems to point to
John xvii 1, 5, but cp. 1 Pet. i 21,
2 Pet. i 17; μαθητάς John xvii 6.</note>

<pb n="121"/>
κρίσιν, ἢ κληρονομίαν ἐθνῶν, ἢ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός,
ἢ δόξαν, ἢ μαθητάς, ἢ ὅσα λέγεται. καὶ τοῦτο τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος.
εἰ δὲ καὶ τῷ θεῷ δοίης, οὐκ ἄτοπον. οὐ γὰρ ὡς
ἐπίκτητα δώσεις, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς συνυπάρχοντα, καὶ
λόγῳ φύσεως, ἀλλ’ οὐ χάριτος.</p><lb n="5"/></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>