“If the Son really said, ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,’ He not only shewed His own cowardice and weakness, but implied that there might be something impossible to the Father.  The words ‘if it be possible’ are those of one in doubt, and not thoroughly assured that the Father could save Him.  How could not He who gave the boon of life to corpses much rather be able to preserve life in the living?  Wherefore then did not He Who had raised Lazarus and many of the dead supply life to Himself?  Why did He ask life from the Father, saying, in His fear, ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me’?  If He was dying unwillingly, He had not yet humbled Himself; He had not yet been made obedient to the Father unto death; cf. Phil. ii. 8. He had not given Himself, as the Apostle says, ‘who gave Himself for our sins, Gal. i. 4. a ransom.’ Matt. xxi. 28.  If He was dying willingly, what need of the words ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away’?  No:  this must not be understood of Himself; it must be understood of those who were on the point of sinning against Him, to prevent them from sinning; when crucified in their behalf He said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ Luke xxiii. 34.  We must not understand words spoken in accordance with the œconomy cf. pp. 7 and 12.  Most commentators that I am acquainted with write on the lines of Bengel, “poculum a patre oblatum, tota passionis massa plenum.”  cf. Athanasius, “the terror was of the flesh.”  C. Arian. Orat. III., § xxix., Amphilochius, Apud Theod. Dial. iii., and Chrysost., Hom. in Matt. lxxxiii. to be spoken simply.”