Again, he to whom St Thomas said, My Lord and my Jolin xx. 28. God, or rather, 'The Lord of me, and the God of me;' he is that God before whose name the Greek article is prefixed, which they require, by way of excellency. But St Thomas spake these words to Christ'. For Jesus spake unto Thomas, and Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. And in these words' he made confession of his faith; for our Saviour replied, Thomas, because thou hast seen Jon xx. 29. me, thou hast believed. And let him be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of an apostle. 1 Indeed it hath been answered, that these words are not to be referred to Christ, but to God the Father. So Theodorus Mopsuestenus in his Commentary on St John: Thomas quidem, cum sic credidisset, Dominus meus et Deus meus dicit, non ipsum Dominum et Deum dicens (non enim resurrectionis scientia docebat et Deum esse eum qui resurrexit), sed quasi pro miraculoso facto Deum collaudat.' Syn. V. Collat. 4. [$ xv. Labbe, Vol. v. p. 440 E.] As if Thomas had intended only to have praised God for raising Christ. But first, it is plain that Thomas answered Christ; secondly, that he spake unto him, that is, to Christ, and consequently, that the words which he spake belong to Christ; thirdly, that the words are a confession of his faith in Christ, as our Saviour doth acknowledge. And whereas Franciscus Davidis did object, that in a Latin Testament he found not et dixit ei, but et dixit without ei, it is sufficiently discountenanced by Socinus in his epistle, [ad Franc. Davidem Epist. Vol. 1. p. 395. col. 1.] affirming that all the Greek and Latin copies had it, except that one which he had found: and therefore the omission must be imputed to the negligence of the printer, 2Ο Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. Either in these words there is an ellipsis of el ou, Thou art my Lord, thou art my God; or an antiptosis, the nominative case used for the vocative, as 'Elwt, 'EXwî, ò Ocós μου, ὁ Θεός μου, Mark xv. 34. ̓Αββὰ ὁ Πατήρ, Mark xiv. 36. and Χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς Tuv 'Iovdalwr, John xix. 3. If it be an ellipsis of the verb el, so frequent in the Scriptures, and of the person sufficiently understood in the preceding pronoun, then is it evident that ó cós is attributed unto Christ: for then St Thomas said unto him, Thou art ỏ cós Mov. If it be an antiptosis, though the construction require not a verb, yet the signification virtually requireth as much, which is equivalent: for he acknowledgeth him as much God while he calleth him so, as if he did affirm him to be so. Neither can it be objected that the article o serveth only in the place of w, as signifying that the nominative is to be taken for the vocative case; because the nominative may as well stand vocatively without an article, as 'Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, Matt. i. 20. and 'Ελέησον ἡμᾶς, Κύριε, υἱὸς Aaßio, Matt. xx. 30, 31. and therefore when the vocative is invested with an article, it is as considerable as in a nominative, And being these words were an expression of the Apostle's faith, as Christ understood and approved them, they must contain in them, virtually at least, a proposition; because no act of our faith can be expressed, where the object is not at least a virtual proposition. And in that proposition, ỏ cós must be the predicate, and Christ, to whom these words are spoken, must also be the subject. It cannot therefore be avoided, but that St Thomas did attribute the name of God to our Saviour with an article. Indeed to me there is no doubt but St Thomas in Nor have we only their required testimony of Christ's supreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity asserting that supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God; and the same apostle, who said the Word was God, lest any cavil should arise by any omission of an article, though so frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate authors, hath also assured us that he is the true God. For, we know (saith he) that the Son of 1 John v. 20. God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life'. 132 As therefore we read in the Acts, of the word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he Acts x. 36. these words did make as true and real supreme God, then o Oeós pov must be my supreme God: as when David speaks to God, ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός μου, πрós σε opłρizw, Psal. lxii. 2. the latter is of as great importance as the former. So again, Psal. xlii. 4. ¿oμολογήσομαί σοι ἐν κιθάρα, ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός μου, and xlix. 3. ὁ Θεὸς ἐμφανῶς ἥξει, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, and lxx. 12. ὁ Θεὸς μὴ μακρύνῃς ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ὁ Θεός μου. I dare not therefore say to any person that he is ὁ Θεός μου, except I do believe that he is ó Ocós. Wherefore I conclude that the words of St Thomas, ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου, are as fully and highly significative as those of David, Πρόσχες τῇ φωνῇ τῆς δεήσεώς μου, ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ o Ocós μov, Psal. v. 2. or those, ὁ Θεός μου καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου, εἰς τὴν dikηy μov, Psal. xxxv. 23. or those, Ta θυσιαστήριά σου, Κύριε τῶν δυνάμεων, ὁ βασιλεύς μου, καὶ ὁ Θεός μου, Psal. lxxxiv. 3. or those of St John in the Revelation, iv. 11. as they lie in the Alexandrian and Complutensian copies: ̓́Αξιος εἶ, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ ἅγιος, λαβεῖν, &c. or that lastly in the most ancient hymn, Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. 1 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. “Hic agitur non solum de vero Deo, sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in Græco additus indicat.' Catech. Racov. sect. iv. c. I. is Lord of all where it is acknowledged that the Lord of all is by the pronoun he1 joined unto Jesus Christ, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent; so likewise here the true God is to be referred unto Christ, who stands next unto it, not unto the Father, spoken of indeed in the text, but at a distance. There is no reason alleged why these last words should not be referred to the Son of God, but only this, that in grammatical construction they may be ascribed to the Father. 19. As when another king arose which knew not Joseph, Acts vii. 18, the same dealt subtilly with our kindred; the same referreth us not to Joseph, but to the king of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing else can be objected but a possibility in respect of the grammatical construction, we may as well say that Joseph dealt subtilly with his kindred as the king of Egypt; for whatsoever the incongruity be in history, it makes no solecism in the syntax. Wherefore being Jesus Christ is the immediate antecedent to which the relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the apostle chiefly speaketh; being this is rendered as a reason why we are in him that is true, by being in his Son, to wit, because that Son is the true God; being in the language of St John the constant title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reasons may be drawn out of the text itself, why the title of the true God should be attributed to the Son, and no one reason can be raised from thence, why it should be referred to the Father: I can conclude no less, than that our Saviour is the true God, so styled in the Scriptures by way of eminency with an article prefixed, as the first Christian writers which immediately followed the apostles did both speak and write?. 1 Ouros for ős, as Acts viii. 26. ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Γάζαν, αὕτη ἐστὶν Epnuos, quæ est deserta. 2 Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεόν. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 1. 'Ev 0€λýματι τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Toi Đeo nuôi. Id. Ep. ad Eph. init. Ο γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. Ib. c. 18. Ο γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν Πατρὶ ἂν μᾶλλον φαίνεται. Εp. ad Rom. c. 3. Τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τὰ λογικά πλάσματα nucis. Clem. Alex. ad Gentes, c. i. [p. 6.] And it was well observed by the author of the Μικρὰ Λαβύρινθος, But, thirdly, Were there no such particular place in which the article were expressed, yet shall we find such adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Christ, as will prove equivalent to an article, or whatsoever may express the supreme Majesty. As when St Paul doth Rom. ix. 5. magnify the Jews, out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. First, it is evident that Christ is called God', even he who came of the testifies the same, 1. x. ep. 97. 'Quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere.' 1 Though some would leave God out of the text, upon this pretence, because St Cyprian, in lib. ii. adv. Judæos [ad Quir. § 6. p. 70] citing this place, leaves it out. But that must needs be by the negligence of some of the scribes, as is evident. First, because Manutius and Morellius found the word Deus in their copies, and both the MSS. which Pamelius used acknowledge it*. Secondly, because St Cyprian produceth the text to prove quod Deus Christus; and reckoneth it among the rest in which he is called expressly God. Thirdly, because Tertullian, whose disciple St Cyprian professed himself, did both so read it, and so use it: 'Solum autem Christum potero Deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Ex quibus Christus, qui est (inquit) Deus super omnia benedictus in ævum omne.' Adv. Prax. c. 13. And again in the same book: 'Hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum? Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit : Quorum Patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.' c. 15. Novatian, de Trinitate, c. 13. useth the same argument. And another ancient author very expressly: 'Rogo te, Deum credis esse Filium, an non? Sine dubio, responsurus es, Deum; quia etsi negare volueris, sanctis Scripturis convinceris, dicente Apo stolo, Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula.' So also St Augustine: 'Non solum Pater Deus est, sicut omnes etiam hæretici concedunt, sed etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, coguntur fateri, dicente Apostolo, Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in sæcula. De Trin. 1. ii. c. 13. [§ 23. Vol. VII. p. 786 A.] et contra Faustum, 1. xvi. c. 15. [ib. p. 292 A.] As for the objection, that St Chrysostom doth not signify in his commentaries that he read eos in the text: I answer, that neither does he signify that he read o ènì Távтwv, for in his exposition he passeth over wholly ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Ocós, but it doth not follow that he read not ò éπì Távтwv in the text. But when he repeats the words of the apostle, he agrees wholly with the Greek text, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐ λoynrós: [Hom. xvi. § 1. Vol. IX. p. 604 E. The article ò is omitted in the Benedictine edition.] And Theodoret, who lived not long after him, doth not only acknowledge the words, but give a full exposition of them : Ἤρκει μὲν ἡ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα προσθήκη, παραδηλῶσαι τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ τὴν θεότητα· ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ, εἰρηκώς, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, ἐπήγαγε, τοῦ ὁριστ θέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. οὕτως ἐνταῦθα εἰπών, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, προστέ θεικε τό, ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. In loc. Vol. II. p. 100. As for the omission of Deus in St Hilary on the Psalms, it must of necessity be attributed to the negligence of the scribe, not to the reading *No MS. is cited by Hartel as omitting the word Deus. Jews, though not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh, which is here distinguished from his Godhead'. Secondly, he is so called God as not to be any of the many gods, but the one supreme or most high God; for he is God over all. Thirdly, he hath also added the title of blessed, 133 which of itself elsewhere signifieth the supreme God3, and was always used by the Jews to express that one God of Israel. Wherefore it cannot be conceived St Paul should write unto the Christians, most of which then were converted Jews or proselytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Israel, and to none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the same God whom they always in that manner, and under that notion, had adored. As therefore the apostle speaketh of the God and 2 Cor. xi. 31. Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore; of the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen; and thereby Rom. i. 25. of the father. For how he read it, he אלהא דעל כל: 1 Τὸ κατὰ σάρκα opposed unto τὸ κатà TνеÛμа. As Rom. i. 3. where κατὰ σάρκα is used without an article, because κατὰ πνεῦμα, to which it is opposed, followeth, and so the opposition is of itself apparent. But here being κατὰ πνεῦμα is not to be expressed in the following words, the article ró, signifying of itself a distinction or exception, sheweth that it is to be understood. 2 Ο ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων. Not in omnibus, as Erasmus, nor super omnes, as Beza, with reference to the fathers, which should have been ἐπὶ πάντων aur: but, as the Vulgar translation, OTOs, the Most High; as it is taken 3 As Mark xiv. 61, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστ τὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Εὐλογητοῦ ; Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? where the vulgar attribute is taken for God himself, which is usually added to the name of God, as 2 Cor. xi. 31.'0 Ocósὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· or to any description of him, as: ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Αμήν. Rom. i. 25. And these expressions of St Paul are consonant to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the priest in the sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, were wont to answer, Blessed be his Name for ever. Insomuch as the Blessed One did signify in their language as much as the Holy One, and both, or either of them, the God of |