norance which it betrays of the Greek language.

As

far as I see, this judgment is too severe. Still the tract may not be Fulgentius's. Indeed it seems rather the work of an earlier writer.

The title of the Chapter is, Testimonia de Æqualitate Patris et Filii: and in the series of these testimonies, as we find them closely strung together, he writes (Adver sus Pintam Arianum p. 720) "In Epistola Joannis (2 Joan. v. 9.) Omnis qui non manet in doctrina Christi, Deum non habet. Qui permanet in doctrina, et Filium et Patrem habet. Filius prius. In Epistola Jude; Dominatorem et Deum nostrum Jesum Christum negantes, Et Deus et Dominus. In Apocalypsi dicunt Montibus et Petris, &c. (Apoc, vi. 16.)”

In the other writers where I find this verse quoted, it is always without the Ocov. Even then the clause must be allowed to be an important one; it may, therefore, be worth our while, and is by no means stepping out of our way, to see how, in that case, the words are interpreted.

4. The following is the text, and commentary of Didymus Alexandrinus.

"Subintroierunt enim quidam homines, impii, qui olim præscripti et prædestinati erant in hoc judicium Domini nostri gratiam transferentes in luxuriam et solum dominatorem, et cet.

gratiam

gratiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi in luxu riam mutaverunt, per ipsam spurcitiam suam, negantes 'unum dominatorem Dominum Jesum Christum eorum, qui per evangelium sunt vocati." And again, afterwards

per quam luxuriam, et effectus ejus negant solum 'dominatorem et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Animadvertendum est solum dominatorem esse Christum, to quod solus verus sit Deus. Sic enim, cum solus sit dominator et Dominus Jesus, non expellit auctoritate Patrem, dicens ei, Domine cœli et terræ (Matt. c. xi. 25.) Sic neque Pater, cum solus sit verus Deus (John c. xvii. 3.) extraneum facit a verà dictate Filium."

There can be no doubt but that Didymus understood the τον μόνον δεσποτην και κυριον of one person.

5. And we may say the same also of Cyrillus Alexandrinus.

- και τον μονον δεσπότην και κυριον ήμων Ιησουν Χριστού αρνούμενοι. Κατά τινα τρόπον αρνήσεται τις των άπαξ πεπιστευκότων τον κύριον ήμων Ιησουν τον Χριστόν ; Και το παραδεξαμεθα τον της ενανθρωπήσεως λόγον, ἀλλ ̓ ει φαμεν, ὅτι ἕτερος μεν εστι υἱος ὁ εκ Θεου Πατρος Λογος, ἕτερος δε κατ' ιδιαν ὁ εκ γυναικος, ηρνησάμεθα τον μόνον δεσπότην. εἷς γαρ κυριος Ιησους Χριστος, καθ' ένωσιν οίκονομικήν, την προς γε, φημι, του εκ Θεού Λογον, εις την της θεότητος δόξαν αναφοιτωσης αυτου της σαρκος. εἷς συν αρα Χριστος και υἱος· εσται γαρ οὕτω των όλων δεσποτης. (De Rectà Fide, vol. 5. part ii. p, 78.)

6. Again,

6. Again the same writer (vol. v. part ii. p. 190. Epistol.)

Περι των τοιούτων, ὡς γε οιμαι, γεγραφασι του Σωτηρος οἱ μαθηται. Παρεισέδυσαν γαρ τινες κ. τ. έξ.και τον μο τον δεσπότην και κυριον ἡμων Ιησουν Χριστον αρνούμενοι. Ιησούς δε Χριστος ονομάζοιτω αν εικοτως εν ανθρωπου μορ Φη πεφηνως ὁ Λογος. Επει φραζέτωσαν κ. τ. ἑξ. 8 this example can hardly be said to be determinate.

But

7. The verse is also quoted by Ephraim Syrus (vol. i. p. 113 of the Latin translation of Gerard Vossius); and by a writer, later than Nestorius, among the works of Chrysostom (vol. viii. p. 76. Appendix.) these however I need not transcribe, as they contain nothing of explanation.

8. The Latin writers which leave out the "Deum," are Lucifer Calaritanus, and a writer among the works of St. Augustin. The latter discloses nothing for our purpose (Vol. x. p. 30. Appendix. Also Augustine's Speculum vol. iii. p. 612. omits the " Deum") but Lucifer evidently understood the words of Christ only.

"Subintraverunt enim quidam homines, olim quidem præscripti ad hoc judicium, impii, qui Dei gratiam transferunt ad impudicitiam, et qui est dominator noster et Dominus Jesus Christus, eum negantes. Cum negato

See Appendix, No. 6.

Q

ribus

ribus vobis blasphemis fuerit nefas convenire, &c." (P. 222. De non conveniendo cum Hereticis.)

Now that I have produced my collections upon St. Jude, you are, perhaps, surprized to find, that there is still something more to come.

But, while I was examining my Greek Testament, with your Remarks in view, I could not help asking myself, whether St. James might not mean, in his first verse (Ιακωβος Θεου και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, &c.) to call Jesus Christ, God and Lord.

I saw, indeed, that this passage was produced as the first example of your 5th rule, which tells us, that when no article is prefixed to the former of two nouns connected by the copulative xa, these nouns denote different. persons.

Yet it seemed to me, that the several forms and meanings respecting the nature of the article, might be arranged in the following manner, and rules adapted to them accordingly *, thus:

The reader may not be displeased to see some part of these forms verified by extracts from Greek writers. First (1st and 2d) Kai radi ws Deguos ó Пelgos

προπηδα, καὶ ὁμολογεῖ αληθως αύτον είναι τον υἷον του Θεου. Ου γας είπε, Συ ει ὁ Χριστος υἱος του Θεού, χωρίς του ‘Ο άρθρου, αλλα μετα του αρθρου, Ο υἱος, τουτεστιν, αυτός εκείνος ὁ εἷς και μονος. ου χαριτι υἱος, αλλ ̓ ὁ εξ αυτης της ουσίας του Πατρός γεννηθείς. Επει και Χριστοι πολλοι ησαν, οἱ ἱερεις παντες και οἱ βασιλεις.

αλλ'

1. A Lord, or Lord. 2. The Lord.

3. The Lord and the Saviour.

4. The Lord and Saviour.

5. A Lord and a Saviour, or, a Lord and Saviour.

The third and the last forms may be used indifferently of one, or two persons: just as in English we may apply the corresponding expressions, "The Lord and the Saviour," and "A Lord and a Saviour," either to one, or two persons; while (according to your first rule) the fourth form (like our English, “ The Lord and Saviour”) is invariably spoken of one only.

ἀλλ ̓ ὁ Χριστος μετα του άρθρου εἷς εστιν. (Theophylact. in Matt. c. xvi. v. 16. P. 93.) See also Euseb. contra Marcell. De Eccles. Theol. lib. 2. p. 133. Again, (3d.) ‘Oρα δε τον πρώην απιστον (speaking of St. Thomas) πως απο του άψασθαι της πλευρας θεολογος αρίστος ανεδείχθη. Τας γαρ δύο φύσεις, και την μιαν ὑποστασιν του ένος Χριστου εδίδαξεν εν μεν τῳ ειπειν Κύριον, την ανθρωπίνης φυσιν (και γαρ επ' ανθρωπων το Κυριος λεγεται, ὡς το, Κυριε, ει συ εβαστάσας αυτόν, Joann. c. xx. 15.) δια δε το ειπειν Θεος μου, την θειαν ουσιαν, ένα μεντοι και τον αυτόν είναι Κυριον και Θεον. Δεικνύων δε, &c. (Theophylact. in Joann. c. xx. 28.) Also, Nicet. Paphlagon. ap. Combefis Auctar. Biblioth. Pat. 1672.) Ο κυριος μου, και ὁ θεος μου. Ουκ αλλος ὁ κύριος, και αλλος ὁ θεος· οὐκ ἄλλος ὁ ψηλαφωμεν νος, και αλλος ὁ ἀναφης, αλλ' ὁ τῳ προσλημματι ληπτος κύριος, αυτος οὗτος μου θεος ακρατητος τη θεοτητι και αληπτος. With respect to the 4th form, we may refer back to Letter 5. No. 31. p. 80-81. Lastly (5th) in the following passage, two personal nouns are predicated of one subject :-Επει και “Ο Χριστος δυο φύσεις έχει, Θεος και Ανθρωπος ων. Theophylact. in Matt. c. xvii. 27. p. 102.