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: "[He] 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. 1—13; xxii. 28.

25. And he 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. Matt. xix. 16, 17: [Good] Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good.-Griesbach: whose reading is adopted by the Editors of the Improved Version, and similarly by Dr. A. Clarke. The parallel passages, however, contained in the gospels of Mark and Luke are universally deemed genuine.

OBSERVATIONS ON OUR SAVIOUR'S DISAVOWAL of the ATTRIBUTE OF SUPREME GOODNESS.

Unitarians are decidedly of opinion, that, in the conversation as related by two, if not by three of the evangelists, Jesus spoke from a conviction of the disparity that existed between himself and a being of absolute, inherent goodness; and we have no doubt, that any one coming to the perusal of the passage 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?" But, from the scope of the passage, there is no reason to understand our Saviour as having put any such interrogatory; for to the question, or rather the exclamation, "Why callest thou me good?" it does not appear that he waited for any reply. He declared one Being alone to be good, namely God that Being whom he and his countrymen worshippedby whose power he did his mighty works-whose holy and sublime doctrines he taught-whose all-perfect will he made it his invariable practice to perform. He proceeded, not to represent himself as one and the same 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 did he who accosted Jesus by the title of "Good Master," seem to understand him as asking his opinion concerning the person of Christ; for the answer which he gave referred not to this subject, but to the observance of the commandments that Christ had specified: "Master, all these I have 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 by observing that the best and the wisest of men have the humblest opinion of their own goodness and their own wisdom. And the reason for such modesty is quite obvious; for those individuals that are most distinguished in art, in science, in philosophy, or in religion, have a perfect standard to which they refer, and to which they are conscious of being unable to attain. Now, there never was a person who had less selfishness of character than Jesus of Nazareth-never one whose heart and conduct were more thoroughly imbued with the principles of devotion than his: "God was in all his thoughts." And hence do we perceive the beautiful consistency implied in his refusal of the epithet good, with the whole tenor of his life as related by the sacred historians.

But if it still be contended, that on this occasion our Lord did not exemplify that modesty of deportment which characterised his general behaviour, and that he put the question to the young man with a view merely of ascertaining his opinion, the argument for the Unitarian doctrine would lose but little of its strength; for, as we have already observed, Christ pronounced GOD ALONE to be GOOD, in the most unqualified sense of that epithet; and he never represented himself as God, but very frequently spoke of himself as distinct from this being. See pagès 27, 28.

H

(7) Christ not in possession of Omniscience, or of Underived

Knowledge.

26. For, when a boy, he embraced opportunities of acquiring religious information;-Luke ii. 46, 47: "It came to pass, that after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." 27. He, consequently, "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man," Luke ii. 52.

28. He "learned obedience by the things which he suffered," Heb. v. 7, 8. See page 40, No. 15.

29. He wondered at the belief of the Roman centurion, and at the unbelief of some of his countrymen.-Mark vi. 6: "He marvelled because of their unbelief."-See Matt. viii. 10. Luke vii. 9.

30. Although, as respects the possession and communication of religious truth, he was vastly superior to other divine messengers ;John iii. 34: "He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the spirit by measure [unto him]."

31. Yet it was the inspiration of Jehovah that was bestowed upon him. -Luke iv. 18, 19: "The spirit of the LORD [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to preach deliverance to the captives," &c. Col. i. 19: "For it pleased [the Father], that in him should all fulness dwell" (comp. Col. ii. 8, 9).—See Isa. xi. 1, 2; xlii. 1; lxi. 1, 2. Matt. xii. 18. Acts x. 38.

32. He, indeed, expressly asserted that his doctrine was not his own, but His that sent him;-John vii. 15-18: "The Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My DOCTRINE IS NOT MINE, but His that sent me. If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself." Chap. xiv. 24: "THE WORD WHICH YE HEAR IS NOT MINE, but the Father's who sent me."

33. That he did nothing of himself; but spake only what he had seen with the Father, and heard from him; and what he had been shown and taught by the Father. John viii. 26-28: "He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. I DO NOTHING OF MYSELF; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." Ver. 38-40: “I speak that which I have seen with my Father. ... But now ye seek to

...

kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God." Chap. x. 32: "Many good works have I showed you from my Father." Chap. xv. 15: "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." -See chap. xvii. 8.

34. The great object to which he devoted his heart and soul was to act in conformity with the instructions of his Father. John iv. 34: "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work." Chap. v. 30: "I can of mine ownself do nothing: As I HEAR, I judge; and my judgment is just; because I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, but the will of the Father who hath sent me." Chap. vi. 38: "I came down from heaven, NOT TO DO MINE OWN WILL, but the will of Him that sent me." Chap. xii. 49, 50: “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, HE GAVE ME A COMMANDMENT what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, EVEN AS THE FATHER SAID UNTO ME, so I speak." Chap. xvii. 4: "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work WHICH THOU GAVEST ME TO DO.” Chap. xviii. 11: "Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: THE CUP WHICH MY FATHER HATH GIVEN ME, shall I not drink it?"_See chap. x. 18; xiv. 31; xv. 10. Matt. xxvi. 39-44. et al.

35. Jesus Christ declared his ignorance of the precise period of his own coming; Matt. xxiv. 36: "But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, BUT MY FATHER ONLY." Mark xiii. 32: "But of that day and [that] hour (or that hour. Griesb.) knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father."

ουδεις, no man. Com. Ver. none. - Imp. Ver. no one. Wakefield, Carpenter, Wardlan.

36. And affirmed that an acquaintance with certain events belongs to the Father only. - Acts i. 7: "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which THE FATHER HATH PUT IN HIS OWN POWER."

quas Pater in sua ipsius auctoritate statuit

Beza.

which the Father hath reserved in his own power

Doddridge.

which the Father hath appointed, or determined, by his own power.... Kypke (in Parkhurst).

which the Father hath put in his own disposal

which are at the disposal of the Father alone

Imp. Ver.
Norton.

37. The knowledge which he possessed, even in his glorified state, was derived from the Almighty. Rev. i. 1: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," &c.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE IGNORANCE OF JESUS RESPECTING THE PRECISE TIME

OF HIS COMING.

I. The opinion generally entertained by Trinitarian commentators is, that, when our Lord declared ignorance of the precise time of his coming, he spoke only in his human nature. This opinion is well known to be founded on the hypothesis, that Christ possesseth two naturesthe one human, and the other divine: the former including the sinless properties of humanity; and the latter, every thing essential to the nature and perfections of Deity. But as neither prophet, nor apostle, nor evangelist, nor any inspired person whatever, nor Jesus himself, ever announced that he was in possession of these two natures, we dare not take for granted the truth of this opinion, even supposing the texts under consideration could be explained in consistency with it. The assumption, however, we are bold to say, would not answer the purpose intended. The strict integrity of our Lord's character-the moral perfection that shone so conspicuously in his discourses and behaviour, forbids our conceiving him to assert, without the least apparent hesitation-without the slightest modification of his own language, that he did not know the exact time of that event of which he had been treating; while he was conscious-as on Trinitarian principles he must have been consciousof being acquainted with the precise moment of the fulfilment of his prophecy. To attribute to the righteous Jesus such an assertion of ignorance, and such a consciousness of knowledge, is surely imputing to him conduct which it will be difficult to clear from the charge of culpability. But, in truth, no plausible reason can be assigned for supposing Christ to know perfectly the exact time of an event, while he disclaimed all knowledge of it; except that which arises from the necessity of the case -a necessity created only by the mysteries and contradictions involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.

On this subject, the observations of Mr. Emlyn are worthy of being quoted: "Though we should suppose he [our Lord Jesus Christ] consists of two infinitely distinct natures, and so had two capacities of knowledge, &c. yet since himself includes them both, it follows that the denying a thing of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words, or other obvious circumstances, does plainly imply a denial of its belonging to any part of his person, or to any nature in it. For, though we may affirm a thing of a person, which belongs only to a part of him; as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it be only in one member, suppose an arm; - yet I cannot justly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another : as I cannot say a man is not wounded, because though one arm be shot or wounded, yet the other is whole. For instance: I have two organs