Greek, word for word, occurs in Mark II. 7.

μn $150 DEO, rendered by our

but God only: so it is Translators and we have a plain matter of fact, that us in this place cannot possibly admit the sense of one person, because Christ, who is another person, took upon him to forgive sins. In the parallel place of St. Luke's Gospel, the expression is varied, so as to make it still clearer un μovos o Iε ει μη μόνος ο not us, but μov, another adjective of the masculine gender; which though it agree with its substantive 9, is rightly construed as an adverb either the alone God, or God only, And the Greek itself uses one for the other indifferently — as ' agry μovw, by Bread only Ev how 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 we are all agreed,) and that there is none good beside him; which nobody will dispute. Whether in this God, there be one person, or three, remains yet to be considered: and the Scripture is so express in other places as to settle it beyond all dispute.

If it should here be asked, for what reason Christ put this Question "Why callest "thou me good?" I answer; for the same reason that he asked the Pharisees, why David in Spirit called him LORD; and that was to try if they were able to account for it. This ruler, by addressing our Saviour under the name of good Master, when the inspired Psalmist 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, since 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 case be considered, this man was a very proper subject for such a trial. Fully convinced of his own sufficiency, he comes to Christ in the presence of his disciples, to know what good thing he might do to merit everlasting life. Whence our Saviour takes occasion to correct his mistake as to the nature of goodness; and having tried this good

a Matt. XXII. 43.

b
↳ Psalm XIV. 3.

and

and perfect man in a tender point, sent him away grievously dissatisfied.

XXV.

† 1 Cor. XV. 24. Then cometh the END, when HE shall deliver up the KINGDom to God, even the FATHER. Luke I, 33. HE (Jesus) shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of HIS KINGDOM there shall be NO END.

This of St. Luke, being a contradiction in terms to that of the Apostle, shews the former to be spoken only of Christ's humanity; as the latter relates only to his Dicinity, When both are laid together, it is evident to a demonstration, that Christ is perfect God, as well as perfect man. As man, he received a kingdom, which again, as man, he shall deliver up, when his inediatorial office, for which he took the nature of man, shall 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, who after the Humanity has delivered up the kingdom shall be all in all. The distinction in this case be

tween

tween the God and man in the joint-person of Christ Jesus, is warranted by another part of the Chapter, wherein the Apostle has given us a key to his own meaning. Since by MAN (says he) came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Here, it is evident, he is drawing a contrast between the man Adam and the man Christ; so that unless it be done on purpose, no reader can easily mistake the meaning of what follows Then cometh the End, when He (that is the man Christ, the second Adam) shall deliver up the kingdom, &c. for so it must be, according to the tenor of the Apostle's discourse.

The New Testament abounds with expressions of this nature: but they have no difficulty in them, if it only be remembered that Christ is man as well as God; which the Arians are willing upon all occasions to forget. And it has been chiefly owing to an abuse of these texts, that they have been able to put any tolerable gloss upon their Heresy, The Old Testament seldom speaking of Christ, but as a Person of the Godhead before his Incarnation, does not afford them so many opportunities: and hence it is, that most of them confine

confine their enquiries to the New, which is the history of him after his incarnation, when he appeared, as the first-born of many brethren, anointed above his Fellows (Mankind) receiving authority and dominion from God, who by a power superior to that of his human soul and body, put all things in subjection under the feet of it.

But some, for whose sakes he thus humbled himself, and became obedient in the flesh, instead of receiving it with humility and devotion, even cast it in his teeth, and make it an argument against him: vainly imagining that they do honour to their supreme God, while they say with Peter ----- Lord, be it far from thee: this shall not, it cannot be unto thee. And it is worth their while to consider, whether they may not fall under the same rebuke, when it will be too late to retract and change their opinion.

A solemn advocate of theirs, whom I take to be a dissenter, tells us his present concern is with the New Testament only. And another writer of some figure, who, you are to suppose, is addressing himself to a young Clergyman, puts it into his head, that he " may

Rom. VIII, 29.

A Sequel to the Essay on Spirit, p. 8. " reject