The text before us is one of those which are justly quoted, as an unanswerable proof of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is called " God " in the presence of ten witnesses, and He accepts the language, and does not say one word to re- prove the person who uses it. Unless a person is prepared to deny the inspiration of St. John's Gospel generally, or the gen- uineness and correctness of this text in particular, it is hard to see how the force of the sentence in favor of Christ's divinity can be evaded. The suggestion of Theodoras of Mopsuestia, and some modern Socinians, that Thomas only used a kind of oath or exclamation, which he did not mean to apply to Christ Himself, is utterly untenable, and almost profane. It is un- reasonable to suppose that a pious Jew, like Thomas, would take God's name in vain and break the third commandment, however much he might be surprised. Moreover, there is no proof whatever, although a careless Greek, Romau, or English- man, might say " My God," when suddenly taken by surprise, that any such expression was in use among the Jews. In short there is, in my judgment, but one way of regarding the text, if we treat it honestly. It is an incontrovertible proof that Thomas looked on Christ as God, and addressed Him to His face as God, and that our Lord made no objection, and did not re- prove him.
Bullinger remarks how emphatically Thomas says, " My Lord and MY God," showing the reality of his faith.
Rollock says, " If we compare Thomas with the other Apos- tles, we shall see that as he surpassed them all in unbelief, so he surpassed them far in believing and confessing the Lord." But he adds, " Jesus praises not Thomas for his faith, because he tied his faith to his senses. He calls him not blessed for it, but pronounces them blessed who believe without seeing."
Whether, after all, Thomas did actually touch our Lord's wounds, as he was told to do, is an open question, which we have no means of deciding. "There is certainly, as Augustine observes, no proof that he did, and his exclamation reads as if it was sudden and immediate, and not the result of examina- tion and deliberation. May we not well believe that the dis- covery of our Lord's perfect acquaintance ^with every word that he had said on the previous Sunday, combined with the evidence of his own eyes that he saw before him a material body, and not a spirit, would be enough to convince him ? The question is an open one, and every reader must form his own opinion about it. We are neither told that Thomas did touch our Lord, nor yet that he did not. Certainly our Lord says in the next verse, " Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast be- lieved."
29. — [Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, etc.'] This verse contains a grave and solemn rebuke to Thomas, and a warning to all who are disposed to demand an excessive amount of evidence before ihej believe. The first part of our Lord's words would be