3. If we analyse the passage closely, we shall find, not only, that our Saviour is far from denying his divinity; but that his conduct, on this occasion, when compared with his doctrine, furnishes most indubitable evidence of this glorious truth. "Good

Master," is a title which the Jews gave to those who expounded the law, or rather who made the law of God of none effect by their false interpretations and innumerable traditions. But the Jews did not apply this epithet to their teachers as we apply it, when we talk of a good man, or a good citizen. When they accosted their teachers, "Good Master,” they meant to acknowledge that the teachers had a right to determine what is good, and what is evil, what is sinful, and what is righteous, what could merit eternal life, and what would procure eternal death. So far indeed had the Jewish teachers inculcated the notion, that this was their prerogative; and so universally was it acknowledged among the people; that all respect for the authority of God, was lost in their respect for the authority of the teacher; and the law of God actually driven out of its place, to make room for the prescriptions of human finesse. Matth. xv. 3-6. our Saviour charges the Scribes and Pharisees with having annulled the fifth commandment in this way. "God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother," a command which requires not only decent respect, but also competent support from children to their parents. But, say the teachers, "Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his aid, they are of no moment when they make against him : sbos, proves decidedly that there is but one person in the Godhead; but veuμ-exelvos, (John xiv. 26.) is lighter than a feather in demonstrating the personality of the Holy Ghost!

In

mother, he shall be free," i. e. if a parent requires support from any of you, if you take what you might have given to them, and call it a gift to the service of the tabernacle or to the support, of your religious teachers, you are freed from the obligation of "Honouring father and mother."

Believing that Jesus had set himself up for such a teacher, or such a master in Israel, the ruler comes with the question, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do," &c. &c. Would it have been honest in our Saviour, who was commissioned to be an instructor in the truth, to allow those who came for instruction to remain under ruinous mistakes while they betrayed themselves in the very words in which they addressed him? Our Saviour accordingly sets himself to correct this prevalent and ruinous mistake with regard to the authority of the teachers, and asks, "Why callest thou me good?" That in these words he reproves the ruler is plain. But he reproves him not merely for calling him good, but for doing it ignorantly, and with mistaken views of the person whom he was addressing. The point of the question lies in the word why, and not in the word good. Our Saviour's inquiry is, To what purpose do you give me this title? What is your meaning by it? What warrants you in applying it to me? Do you call me. good merely because you view me as a teacher or master in Israel? and while you view me as a mere man, as standing on a level with your other teachers? If so, you are very far wrong. To apply goodness, in the sense in which you understand it, to one who is a mere man, is nothing less than idolatry. It is stripping God of his attributes and prerogatives, and bestowing them upon a creature. Adding, "There is none good but one, that is God." God alone has authority to pronounce what is good, and what is evil; what is sinful, and what is righteous; what will merit eternal life, and what shall lead to eternal

death. But on the other hand, do you view me in my true character, do you acknowledge me to be God as well as man; and do you give me this title as an expression of your faith in my infinite goodness, and supreme authority? Then you are right in giving it to me; for I have a just claim to it: and as a proof that I have a right to this title, and that I, being a divine person, and possessed of supreme authority, have the disposal of eternal life in my own hands, I will decide on the appeal which you have made to me. And accordingly our Saviour proceeds to give his answer in the following verses. "If thou wilt enter into life," &c. &c.

According to this plain and necessary interpretation of our Saviour's words, we see in them no such thing as a denial of his own divinity: but on the contrary, comparing his words with each other, and with his conduct on this occasion, we see in them a plain assertion of it. We say, that in the very fact of our Saviour's answering the ruler's question, it is most undeniably implied, that he is God. For, otherwise, he allows his own conduct to contradict the very doctrine which he had just been uttering. One moment he tells the ruler, No one has a right to acknowledge your appellation, or to answer your question, but he who is God; and the next moment acknowledges his claim to the title, by answering the question which had been proposed to him. If Christ is not God, this conduct had a direct tendency to lead the ruler's judgment astray, with regard to the doctrine of his person: and if there is not here an intended acknowledgment of his divinity, Christ's conduct can hardly be made to correspond with his words. We should, at least, be cautious about admitting a doctrine which leads to such a conclusion.

(To be continued.)

FOR THE CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE.

The following narrative has been communicated by the Rev. C. D. WESTBROOK, minister of the Reformed Dutch Church in Fishkill. In a postscript to the letter inclosing it, he says" Since writing the within, I have read the statement to Mr. BRETT. He has told me, that what I had written was substantially and literally correct-in nothing exaggerated."

ROBERT R. BRETT, was born of respectable

parents, in the town of Fishkill, Dutchess county, state of New-York. Of the moral and religious character of his immediate parents, I have nothing to communicate. His grandmother, by his father's side, generally remembered by the name of Madam Brett, was a woman remarkable for piety and generosity. She was not only a pattern, but also the patron of religion; and her memory is embalmed among us as the principal benefactor of our church. ROBERT R. BRETT, was the youngest child of his Father, and in the blessings of his dying grandmother, he received a Benjamin's portion; "The righteous man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children." This circumstance I should not mention, if I had considered it as a mere common occurrence: The subject of this communication has, since his conversion, feelingly related it to me, and expressed his firm persuasion that he is

Vol. III.-No. IV.

2 E

now reaping the fruits of the dying blessing of his pious ancestor. For a long series of years the blessings of the dying grandmother seemed to be lost upon her favourite grandchild. He was early left to himself to walk in the ways of his heart, and in the sight of his eyes."

During the American revolutionary war, Fishkill village and its vicinity, was in a considerable degree a place of encampment and of much military business. This circumstance, which proved the ruin of many, no doubt contributed its full share to Mr. B.'s irregularity and dissipation. Fifty-three years he lived in the steady and uninterrupted practice of all manner of sin and wickedness; and for as much as thirty years of that time, he further disgraced himself and family, and wounded the feelings of his numerous and respectable connexions, by habitual drunkenness. He was literally a pest to all who knew him. His heart and his tongue were full of cursing and bitterness. He was looked upon as the greatest miscreant then known. His presence, especially when he was intoxicated, was almost as much dreaded as the pestilence; for where he appeared, thence immediately fled all peace and tranquillity. The poison of his unbridled tongue kindled strife, anger, and wrath; and often has the rage of those whom he had provoked inflicted chastisement both severe and unavailing. Having involved his family in distress, and having repeatedly invaded the peace of his neighbours and connexions, he at times became desirous to reform his life; and he thought if he could but "get rid of that cursed thing drunkenness, (I use his own words here,) he would do better." The legion of evil spirits had, however, too firm possession of his heart, to be dislodged by human resolution and strength. The first idle moment, the sight of a bottle-companion, or the temptation of a tavern, disarmed all