Page images
PDF
EPUB

which is to come, the Almighty. For who is the Almighty that is to come, but Chrift? •

XXIV.

The Texts that folow, with this mark (†) prefixed to them, are fuch as have been abused by the Arians to fupport their Heresy: and to the best of my knowlege, there are some of every fort. But when the Scripture is brought to declare its own sense of them, they will either appear to be nothing to the purpose, or confirm and preach the faith they have been supposed to deftroy.

+ Matth. XIX. 17. Why calleft thou me GOOD? there is none good but one, that is GOD.

The objection is founded upon the Greek, which runs thus Ουδείς εςιν αγαθος, σε μη εις, ο Jeos. There is none good, but, es, one; and that (one) is, o Jeos, God. Whence it is argued, that

a Ut autem unam & eandem omnipotentiam Patris & Filii esse cognofcas, ficut unus atque idem eft cum Patre Deus & Dominus, audi hoc modo Joan. in Apocalypfi dicentem: Hæc dicit Dominus Deus qui eft, & qui erit, & qui venturus eft omnipotens. Qui enim venturus eft omnipotens, quis eft alius nifi Chriftus ? — De principiis Lib. I. C. 2.

the

the adjective as being in the mafculine Gender, cannot be interpreted to fignifie one Being or Nature (for then it should have been EN, in the Neuter) but one Perfon: fo that by confining the attribute of goodness to the fingle perfon of the Father, it must of courfe exclude the perfons of the Son and Holy Ghoft from the Unity of the Godhead.

argu

To fay the truth, I think this is the most plaufible objection I have ever met with; and I have fincerely endeavoured to do it justice. If it is capable of being fet in a stronger light, any man is welcome to add what he pleases to it. For fuppofing the word as to fignifie one perfon, (and in that lies the whole force of the ment,) then if one perfon only is good, and that perfon is God; it muft alfo follow that there is but one person who is God: the name of God being as much confined hereby to a fingle perfon, as the attribute of goodness. But this is utterly false; the names of God, Lord, Lord of Hofts, the Almighty, moft High, Eternal, God of Ifrael, &c. being alfo afcribed to the fecond and third Perfons of the bleffed Trinity. Take it this way therefore, and the objection by proving too much, confutes itself, and proves nothing.

The truth is, this criticism, upon the strength of which some have dared to undeify their Sa

viour, has no foundation in the Original. The word as is so far from requiring the fubftantive

εις

perfon to be understood with it, that it is put in the masculine gender to agree with its substantive 90s, and is best conftrued by an adverb. If you follow the Greek by a literal tranflation, it will be thus - There is none Good τι μη εις ο θεός but the one God; that is, in common English -but God only. And it happens, that the fame Greek, word for word, occurs in Mark II.7.Who can forgive fins · -es pen ers o Deos - but God only: fo it is rendred by our Translators: and we have a plain matter of fact, that as in this place cannot poffibly admit the sense of one perfon, because Chrift, who is another perfon, took upon him to forgive fins. In the parallel place of St. Luke's Gofpel, the expreffion is varied, fo as to make it ftill clearer-es μen μovos o

[ocr errors]

a

μη τις ο θεός

μη μονος Θεος

not es, but μovos, another adjective of the mafculine gender; which though it agree with its substantive Fɛos, is rightly conftrued as an adverb-either the alone God, or, God only. And the Greek itself uses one for the other indifferently-as, ' επι αρτῳ μονῳ, by Bread only λoyw μovov, in word only. The utmost that can be gathered, therefore, from these words, is no more than this; that there is one God (in which

[ocr errors]

b

a Luke V. 21. b Matt. IV.4
.4. c 1 The. I. 5.

--

εν

we

we are all agreed,) and that there is none good befide him ; which nobody will dispute. Whether in this God, there be one perfon, or three, remains yet to be confidered: and the Scripture is so express in other places, as to settle it beyond all difpute.

If it fhould here be afked, for what reafon Chrift put this Question-"Why calleft thou "me good?" I answer; for the fame reafon that he asked the Pharifees, why David in Spirit called him LORD: and that was, to try if they were able to account for it. This ruler, by addreffing our Saviour under the name of good Master, when the infpired Pfalmift had affirmed long before, that there is none that doeth GOOD, no NOT ONE;' did in effect allow him to be God; no mere man, fince the fall of Adam, having any claim to that Character. And when he was called upon to explain his meaning, for that God only was good; he should have replied in the words of St. Thomas "My Lord and my "GOD:" which would have been a noble Instance of Faith, and have cleared up the whole difficulty. If the cafe be confidered, this man was a very proper fubject for fuch a trial. Fully convinced of his own fufficiency, he comes to Christ in the presence of his difciples, to know a Matth. XXII. 43. b Pfalm XIV. 3.

[ocr errors]

what

what good thing he might do to merit everlasting life. Whence our Saviour takes occafion to correct his mistake as to the nature of goodness; and having tried this good and perfect man in a tender point, sent him away grievously diffatisfied.

XXV.

+1 Cor. XV. 24. Then cometh the END, when HE shall deliver up the KINGDOM TO GOD, even the FATHER. Luke 1.33. HE (Jesus) fhall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of HIS KINGDOM there fhall be NO END.

This of St. Luke, being a contradiction in terms to that of the Apoftle, fhews the former to be spoken only of Chrifts humanity; as the latter relates only to his Divinity. When both are laid together, it is evident to a demonstration, that Chrift is perfect God, as well as perfect man. As man, he received a kingdom, which again, as man, he shall deliver up, when his mediatorial office, for which he took the nature of man, fhall be at an end. But there is a kingdom pertaining to him, which shall have no end. And this cannot be true, unless he is a person in that

God

« PreviousContinue »