FOR THE CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE,

Explication and vindication of MATT. xix. 16-22.

Some of the following observations we take from the United States Christian Magazine.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."

THIS passage, with its parallels in Mark x. 17

22, and Luke xviii. 18-23, has sometimes perplexed the serious Christian. His perplexity has been increased by those false glosses by which the text has been abused for the support of errour. He need hardly be informed that the opposers of our Saviour's divinity, triumph in it as one of their strong holds; while those who teach, that we are justified in the sight of God, by our own personal obedience, produce a part of it, as unanswerable proof of their peculiar doctrine. At present, we will examine the in

terpretation of Socinus and his followers, and hope to show, not only that their reasoning is incorrect; but that they have unhappily stumbled on a passage which makes directly against them.

They tell us, that Christ, in the forcible question Why callest thou ME good? There is none good but ONE, that is, GOD;" reproved the ruler for applying to him a title which he could not claim; marked the epithet good, as the peculiar attribute of his father; and therefore peremptorily rejected the honours of divinity. But two or three observations will show, that this argument, plausible as it appears, is very far from establishing the conclusion which is so confidently drawn from it...

1. To rest the proof of an essential article of be lief upon a term of general and indefinite significa tion, is at all times dangerous, and affords just ground of suspicion, that more unequivocal evidence is wanting. Good is such a term. The nature and extent of its meaning vary with its connexion and its subject. It is from a proper consideration of these that we are to determine, with precision, its particular sense. We grant, however, that in the present case it does designate the infinite excellence of the living God. This is evident from the subject to which the assertion relates-from the occasion, on which it was uttered-and from the absolute, and unqualified manner in which the ascription of goodness is made. Yet all this will not justify an inference against the proper divinity of our Lord Jesus., For, in another part of scripture we find the epithet GooD, applied, in all its latitude, to the Spirit of God. "Thy SPIRIT," saith David, "is GooD*." Now, if the absolute and unqualified ascription of goodness demonstrates the true and proper Deity of the Father, to the exclusion of the Son and of the Spirit; an Psalm cxliii. fo.

ascription of goodness, no less unqualified and absolute, equally demonstrates the true and proper Deity of the Spirit, to the exclusion of the Father and of the Son. This conclusion, which, on the principles of the opinion we are combating, there is no possibility of avoiding, is not more absurd in itself, than destructive of the Socinian scheme.

2. The argument under consideration takes for granted, that the Lord Jesus in the text, does really restrict the ascription of goodness to his Father. But this is not clear.

He does not say, as Socinians make him say, there is none good but one, that is, MY FATHER. He restricts his assertion to the DIVINE NATURE. Had he limited it to the PERSON of the Father, he would have contradicted the Psalmist, who affirms, "thy SPIRIT is good." Nor will it be an easy matter for a Socinian interpreter to maintain his argument, and conciliate Christ with David*.

The critical reader may perhaps expect to see another objection noticed. The word is, (one,) we are told, being in the masculine gender, necessarily denotes but one person; and therefore, that Jesus Christ teaches in the text, that there is but one person in the divine essence; renouncing, both for himself and for the Holy Ghost, every pretension to Deity. We are told further, that in order to admit a plurality of persons in the Godhead, the word should have been notis, but by (one being,) in the neuter gender.

It is sufficient to reply, that eos, (God,) is the name of the divine nature, and that being in the masculine gender, it requires its adjective to be masculine also. But had the word been b, instead of us, the Arian or Socinian critic would have contrived some expedient to get rid of an argument on which he now affects to lay so much stress. He would pro bably have said, as he says at present, that it is absurd to admit the existence of more than one person in one essence. For could such an expression as he contends for, have satisfied him, he would have been abundantly satisfied with John x. 30. F and my Father are ONE, ('EN tope.) But howsoever important the genders of words are, when they promise him any

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: sos, proves decidedly that there is but one person in the Godhead; but veuμa-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 in structor 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