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 me, thou hast believed." (Ibid. 29.) And let him be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of an apostle.

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 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.”* (1 John v. 20.) As therefore we read in the Acts, of the "word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all:” (x. 36.) where it is acknowledged that the Lord of all is by the pronoun he 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. As when "another king arose which knew not Joseph, the same dealt subtilly with our kindred;" (Acts vii. 18, 19.) 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 eminence, with an article prefixed, as the

66

Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ alávioç. Hic agitur non solum de vero Deo, sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in Græco additus indicat.' Catech.

Racov. sect. iv. c. 1.

† Οὗτος for ὃς, as Acts viii. 26, ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλὴμ εἰς Γάζαν, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, qua est deserta.

hrst Christian writers which immediately followed the apostles did both speak and write.*

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 magnify the Jews, "out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen." (Rom. ix. 5.) First, it is evident that Christ is called God,† even he who came of

• Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεόν. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 1. 'Ev bexhuari toł Πατρὸς, καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Id. Ep. ad Eph. init. Ο γὰς θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. Ib. c. 18. Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν Πατρὶ ὧν μᾶλλον φαίνεται. Εp. ad Rom. c. 3. Τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τὰ λογικὰ πλάσματα ἡμεῖς. Clem. Ales. adv. Gentes, c. i. p. 3. And it was well observed by the author of the Mixpà Aaßignes, written about the beginning of the third century, that not only the ancienter fathers before him, as Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, Irenæus, Melito, &c. did speak of Christ as God; but that the hymns also penned by Christians from the beginning did express Christ's Divinity ; Ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ᾠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν λόγω τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. And the epistle of Pliny to Trajan testifies the same, 1. x. ep. 97. Quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere.'

Though some would leave God out of the text, upon this pretence, because St. Cyprian, in lib. ii. adv. Judæos, §. 6. 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, Er quibus Christus, qui est (inquit) Deus super cania benedictus in avum omne.' Adv. Praz. c. 13. And again in the same book: 'Hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum ? Christum autem et ipsum Deum cognominavit: Quorum Patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est per (vel super) omnia Deus benedictus in avum.' 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 Apostolo, Er quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula.' So also St. Augustin: 'Non solum Pater Deus est, sicut etiam omnes Hæretici concedunt, sed etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, coguntur fateri, dicente Apostolo, Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula.' De Trin. 1. ii. c. 13. et contra Faustum, l. xvi. c. 15. As for the objection, that St. Chrysostom doth not signify in his commentaries that he read soç in the text: I answer, that neither does he signify that he read ó éπì πάντων, for in his exposition he passeth over wholly ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, but it doth not follow that he read not ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων in the text. But when he repeats the words of the apostle, he agrees wholly with the Greek text, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητός: and Theodoret, who lived not long after him, doth not only acknowledge the words, but give a full exposition of them: "Hpx μὲν ἡ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα προσθήκη παραδηλῶσαι τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ τὴν θεότητα· ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ εἰρηκὼς, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, ἐπήγαγε, τοῦ ὁρισε θέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει· οὕτως ἐνταῦθα εἰπὼν, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, προστέθεικε τὸ, ἂν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. t. iii. p. 74. 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 of the father. For how he read it, he hath clearly expressed in his books de Trinitate: Nos ignorat Paulus Christum Deum, dicens, Quorum sunt Patres, et ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus. Non hic creatura in Deum deputatur, sed creaturarum Deus est, qui super omnia Deus est.' l. viii. c. 37. The pretence therefore of Erasmus from the fathers is vain; and as vain is that of Grotius from the Syriac translation, which hath in it the name of God expressly, as well as all the copies of the original, and all the rest

דאיתוהי אלהא דעל כל,of the translations

the 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, which of itself elsewhere signifieth the supreme God, 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 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore ;" (2 Cor. xi. 31.) of" the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen;" (Rom. i. 25.) and thereby doth signify the supreme Deity, which was so glorified by the Israelites; and doth also testify that we worship the same God under the Gospel, which they did under the Law: so doth he speak of Christ in as sublime a style, "who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen;" (Rom. ix. 5.) and thereby doth testify the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we consider the scope of the apostle, which is to magnify the Israelites by the enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen nation (the most eminent of which was contained in the genealogy of our Saviour), we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born of them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose

Τὸ κατὰ σάρκα opposed unto τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα. As Rom. i. 3. where κατὰ σάρκα is used without an article, because xarà TVEμa, 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 rò, signifying of itself a distinction or exception, sheweth that it is to be understood.

† Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Not in omnibus, as Erasmus, nor super omnes, as Beza, with reference to the fathers, which should have been ἐπὶ πάντων αὐτῶν: but, as the Vulgar translation, and the ancient fathers before that, super omnia, inì for ináva, as John iii. 31. ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων

Tì, which signifieth no less than by the ordinary name of God, Tos, the most high, as it is taken for the supreme God by itself, Acts vii. 48. and is described, Psal. xcvii. 9. Ὅτι σὺ εἶ Κύριος, ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, σφόδρα ὑπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς θεούς.

+ As Mark xiv. 61. Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς 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. 51. Ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς rous alavas 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 priests 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 Israel. Hence are so frequent

the Holy הקדוש ברוך הוא,in the Rabbins

Blessed One, and

the Blessed One, that they are written by abbreviation nap or 'an and the infinite Blessed One, "Dx, Blessed be God for ever, Amen and

Godhead is referred not to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the peculiar glory of that nation, that the most high God blessed for ever should "take on him the seed of Abraham," and come out of the Israelites as concerning the flesh." Thus every way it doth appear, the apostle spake of Christ as of the one eternal God.

He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whose glory Esaias saw as the glory of the God of Israel; he who is styled Alpha and Omega, without any restriction or limitation; he who was truly subsisting in the form of God, and equal with him before he was in the nature of man; he who being man is frequently called God, and that in all those ways by which the supreme Deity is expressed he had a being before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one eternal and indivisible divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in whom we believe, Jesus Christ, as hath been proved by clear testimonies of the sacred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived of the Virgin, was not any created, but the divine essence; nor was he any creature, but the true eternal God: which was our second assertion, particularly opposed to the Arian heresy.*

The third assertion, next to be demonstrated, is, That the divine essence which Christ had as the Word, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one essence properly divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power, and majesty; that there can be but one person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being,+ because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of gods; that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not

* This heresy was so called from two who bare the same name, and fell at the same time into the same opinion; one of them being a presbyter, and rector of a church in Alexandria, the other a deacon: as Alexander the bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle extant in Theodoret: Elol δὲ οἱ ἀναθεματισθέντες αἱρεσιῶται, ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων μὲν, ̓́Αρειος, ἀπὸ διακόνων δὲ, ̓Αχιλλᾶς, Εὐζώτος, "Αρειος ἕτερος, &c. Eccl. Hist. 1.i. c. 3. fin. In the epistle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Presbyters: "Αρειος, Αειθαλής, ̓Αχιλλας, Καρπώνης, Σαρματάς, "Αρειος, πρεσβύ Tiga. Of these two Phœbadius contra Arian. c. 25. Patrem et filium esse non unam personam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substantias, ut Arii.' The heresy is so well known, that it needs no explication: and indeed it cannot be better described

than in the anathematism of the Nicene Council: Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιῶν τὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ Καθολικὴ καὶ ̓Αποστολικὴ Ἐκ nania. Thus translated by St. Hilary: Eos autem qui dicunt, erat quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur non erat, et quod de non exstantibus factus est, vel ex alia substantia aut essentia, dicentes esse convertibilem et immutabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Catholica Ecclesia.' de Synod. c. 84.

† Ἕνα γὰρ οἴδαμεν ἀγέννητον, καὶ μίαν τῶν πάντων ἀρχὴν τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. S. Basil, Ep. 78. Εν ἀγέννήτου, Пarhg. Alex. Ep. apud Theodo

retum.