delicately snseible to the purest partialities of friend
ship.—John xi. 33—36 : When Jesus therefore ar
her weeping, and the Jews also veeping who ame
with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.
and said, Where have ye laid aim? They ay into
him, Lord, come and see.
Jesus rest.

the Jews, Behold how he loved him

xiii. 23. 25; xix. 26, 27;

2

17. And no one ever evinced a dier mrt of Cal ger than Jesus of Nazareth.-Like 15: An event down with them, and came a Nazaret ad me sh ject unto them." Joan az 26 27

therefore saw his mother, and he

by whom he loved, he saith unto sa torner

behold thy son! Then saith le a te tane toot

21. At one moment he seemed reluctant to enter on the most arduous and trying scenes of his sufferings; at another, he submitted himself unreservedly to the will of his Father.-Matt. xxvi. 39, 42, 44: "O my Father if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou [wilt]," &c. -See John xii. 27.

22. He was removed, at last, from a state of humiliation, pain, and death, to eternal life; to the most exalted honours, and the highest felicity.-Eph. i. 19-23: ...." His mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church," &c.--See Mark xvi. 19. Acts ii. 33-36; iii. 13; v. 31. Rom. viii. 34. Phil. ii. 9—11. Col. iii. 1. Heb. i. 3; viii. 1; x. 12; xii. 2. 1 Pet. i. 21; iii. 22. Rev. iii. 21.

(5) Christ not Omnipresent.

23. For it is not recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, that he ever was personally present in more than one place, at one and the same time.

(6) Christ not Good in the same sense in which the attribute of Goodness is ascribed to the Deity.

24. For he was subject to temptation.-Heb. iv. 15: “We have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin."-See chap

ii. 18. Matt. iv. 1-11. Mark i. 13. Luke iv. 113; xxii. 28.

25. And refused the epithet good, by declaring that none was worthy of being so called but God only.-Mark x. 17, 18: "There came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto

him, Why callest thou me good? [There is] NONE GOOD BUT ONE, [that is] GOD."-Par. Pas. Matt. xix. 16, 17. Luke xviii. 18.

OBSERVATIONS ON OUR SAVIOUR'S DISAVOWAL OF THE ATTRIBUTE OF SUPREME ⚫ GOODNESS.

It is only justice to state, that, on the authority of GRIESBACH, and other eminent critics, Matt. xix. 16, 17 is thus or similarly rendered by Dr. ADAM CLARKE, EDGAR TAYLOR, and SAMUEL SHARPE:-"O Teacher (or Good Master), what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good (or, he who is good is one)," &c. It is, however, worthy of special remark, that the parallel passages contained in the Gospels of Mark and Luke remain unaltered by any authority; the reading in the common text being supported by external, as well as by internal evidence. We may therefore, with the utmost propriety, argue from those passages, the integrity of which cannot be, and are never, called in question. The Saviour, then, was undoubtedly called "Good Master by a certain ruler amongst the Jews; and there can be as little doubt, that he inquired of that distinguished person, “Why callest thou me good?" declaring, in the same breath, that there was "NONE GOOD"-originally and perfectly good"BUT THE ONE GOD." What is the import of such language?

Unitarians are of opinion, that, in this conversation, the

holy and humble Jesus the Son and Servant of the Most High, spoke of the disparity that existed between himself and his Father, to whom alone he attributed absolute, inherent goodness; and we do think, that any one coming to the perusal of the record without being influenced by the tenets of a particular theology, would arrive at the same conclusion. Trinitarians, however, strenuously assert, that Christ did not disavow the attribute of supreme goodness; and they allege, that, in putting the question, "Why callest thou me good?" he meant either to censure the Jewish doctors who were fond of being complimented by flattering titles, or to inquire into the views of the ruler concerning his own personal dignity; as if he had said, "Do you mean by your address to ascribe this goodness to me?-to acknowledge and honour me in my divine character? I and my Father are one.' Dost thou believe this? Or is your salutation a mere title of flattering courtesy, to be understood as when addressed to your own Rabbies ?"* But, from the scope of the passage, there is no reason to understand our Saviour as having put any such interrogatory, particularly in the sense which it is here intended to convey; for to the question, or rather the exclamation, "Why callest thou me good?" it does not appear from the Gospels, that he waited for any reply. He declared one. Being alone to be good, namely God-that Being whom he and his countrymen worshipped-by whose power he did his mighty works-whose holy and sublime doctrines he taught-whose allperfect will he made it his invariable practice to perform. He proceeded, not to represent himself as of one and the same essence with the Almighty, but to instruct the respectful petitioner in those duties, the discharge of which he deemed necessary for the attainment of eternal life. Nor

* Dr. Wardlaw's "Discourses on the Socinian Controversy," p. 546, fourth edition.

did he who accosted Jesus by the title of "Good Master" seem to understand him as asking his opinion concerning the person of the Messiah; for the answer which he gave referrred not to this subject, but to the observance of the commandments that Christ had specified;" Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

It is not, indeed, improbable that our Lord designed to humble the pride of the chief men among the Jews. For, if he who did no sin-in whose mouth was found no guile -refused the titles that were currently paid to the Rabbies, a more pointed censure he could not have passed on Pharisaical pomp and hypocrisy; but from his solemn declaration, that none was good but the one God, we infer that he intended to carry the thoughts of the ruler away from himself to the Source of all good. This view of the passage will be confirmed, when we take into consideration, that the best, the wisest, and the most gifted of men have an humble opinion of their own goodness or wisdom,—their moral and intellectual powers. And the reason for such modesty is obvious; for those who are most highly distinguished in religion or in philosophy-in the walks of literature or in such arts and sciences as require for their attainment uncommon talent or extraordinary genius-have before their eyes a perfect though sometimes an ideal standard, by which they measure themselves,-a model of artistic or spiritual excellence, the faultless imitation of which they feel to lie beyond their grasp. Now, there never appeared in the world's history a person of greater purity and elevation of character, and at the same time of less self-righteousness, than Jesus of Nazareth,-never one whose conception of moral and spiritual worth was so profoundly graven on the soul, as on that of him who imaged forth the love and mercy of the universal Parent,-never one whose heart and whose conduct were more thoroughly