Chapter VII

Containing an examination of the divine testimony respecting the inferiority of the highest character of the Son to that of the Father.

John 14:28. My Father is greater than I. The views of some of our dear christian brethren oblige them to consider this declaration as referring to the mediatorial character of Jesus Christ, in distinction from his highest nature. This is conceding that Jesus Christ, as mediator, is not the supreme God; consequently, the argument, that he must be the supreme God in order to be a competent mediator, and to make an adequate atonement, is given up. Let it, however, be seriously considered, whether Jesus Christ could in truth say this, if he is supreme God and man in one person. Must not the pronoun I, in reference to that one person, necessarily include all the attributes of that one person, if Jesus Christ makes no distinction here between one nature and another, nor between a lower and higher character? The connection of the passage, clearly shows, that our Saviour here spoke in reference to his highest character. "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto my Father, for my Father is greater than I." Does not Jesus here teach his disciples, that they ought to rejoice because he was going to enjoy a happier state, and that his felicity in the society of his Father, would arise from the superior glory of the Father? Does not the connection plainly teach, that the Father would be greater than the Son in that stale to which he was going? If we do not admit this, the whole force and propriety of the passage is destroyed. If it is admitted, it proves the inferiority of the Son, in his highest nature; for as certainly as his prayer was answered, John 17:5, he was immediately glorified with the glory he had with the Father "before the world was," which was the glory of his divine nature.

John 10:27—29. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. If Jesus Christ is the supreme God, could he add any thing to this declaration to show the perfect and eternal security of his sheep? Yet he adds, "My Father which gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Is it not in his highest nature and character that the Son of God gives his sheep eternal life? And does he not in the most unequivocal manner testify, that he is in that nature and character inferior to the Father? If, however, we suppose Jesus Christ did not here speak of himself in his highest nature, (for which supposition I cannot perceive the least shadow of evidence,) still, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, he could not say, "My Father — is greater than all; for, according to that doctrine, the Father is neither greater than the Word, or the Holy Spirit, who are considered distinct persons from him. John 5:17—23. Here we find the unbelieving Jews charging the holy Jesus with "making himself equal with God," because he said, "that God was his Father." Did Jesus Christ admit their inference to be a just one? Certainly it was a just one, if Jesus Christ is "the only true God." Let us again hear "the faithful witness" in his answer to this charge: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do."¹ There can be no reasonable doubt that the highest nature and character of the Son was here the subject of dispute. At the very same time that Jesus in the most solemn, plain, and positive manner, declared his entire dependence on his Father, he assures us he is to be honoured as the Father on account of all judgment being committed to him: which honour and worship is certainly to be paid to his highest character.

John 10:30, 38. Here the Jews charged our blessed Redeemer with blasphemy, and with making himself God, because he said unto them, "I and my Father are one:" notwithstanding Jesus in the very next verse before, had assured them that his Father was "greater than all." But let us hear the reply of the Saviour: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father" — what? declares to be the supreme God, or the second in a trinity of equal persons? No; but "whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?" Observe that the highest title Jesus here claims, or indeed ever claimed in his conferences with the Jews, is the Son of God.

Mr. Stuart supposes that the term Son of God is not expressive of the highest nature of our Lord, and admits that the Jews misconstrued the words of Christ on these occasions. He represents that "prudence would not permit" of "his advancing claims to a truly divine character" on these occasions. But how does this sentiment agree with the fact, that what he did say enraged them so much, that they sought to kill him immediately by stoning? As Jesus "knew what was in man," he must have known that his advancing the claim of being "the Son of God," would actually produce the same effect in their minds, as if he had really claimed to be "equal with God:" for this was the fact, and their utmost rage was excited. It is equally evident, that they were in no more favourable condition, to hear with candor the claims Jesus did advance, than to hear and examine claims to a higher character. It appears to me, therefore, that the motive which Mr. Stuart supposes to have influenced our Saviour to withhold his testimony to his highest character on this occasion, did not exist.²

One of the declarations of our Lord, which occasioned the charge of the Jews, was, "I and my Father are one." Now, if he meant, as some suppose, that he and his Father are one being, the Jews did not misconstrue his words; but then it would have been necessary for Jesus to have supported this sense of the passage by a very different reason than that the Father had sanctified and sent him into the world; which is the language of' dependence and inferiority, and can never be construed to afford any argument in favour of supreme divinity. A Trinitarian would argue, Jesus Christ and the Father are one, because they are "the same numerical essence," or because they are equal persons in the Godhead; and if this were true, no doubt Jesus Christ would have argued in the same manner. The holy Son of God is perfectly one with the Father, that is, united with him in the glorious work of redeeming love, and in every thing appertaining to the divine government. It is impossible for me to reconcile the solemn asseveration, that "the Son can do nothing of himself," with either "prudence" or truth; (considering that Jesus said this, when his highest character was the subject of disputation, and when he claimed to be honoured in some sense as the Father ;) without believing that he is, in his most exalted nature, inferior to the Father.

Suppose a number of persons were now assembled to discuss the important subject under consideration. Some affirm, and others deny that Jesus Christ is the supreme God. Suppose "the faithful witness" himself should come into this assembly, and say, "Verily, verily, the Son can do nothing of himself;" would not this suffice to terminate the discussion? My brethren, the words of Jesus Christ must determine the point, whether we admit that determination or not.

Matt. 20:23. To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matt. 26:53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels. John 14:13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. John 8:49—58. I honour my Father, etc. I seek not mine own glory. — If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me. — I know him and keep his saying. — Before Abraham was I am. The last declaration, which certainly refers to the highest character of the Saviour, is in immediate connection with the preceding expressions of inferiority to the Father, and manifestly teaches us that the very same nature that was before Abraham, is dependent on the Father, and in all things seeks, as his first object, his Father's honour and not his own. Jesus does not give the Jews the least intimation, whereby they might understand that in one sentence he referred to one nature, and in another sentence to a different nature.

Mark 13:32. But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Observe here the gradation in the scale of being. Man, Angels, Son, Father. It is easy, indeed, to say that the Saviour did not know of that day as man, but he knew it as God. But for the truth's sake, let us first reflect what authority we have for saying this. Did Jesus Christ say this? Certainly if this were the truth, it was perfectly easy for the faithful and true witness to have declared it. Could his disciples have understood him in this sense? He first told them no man knew it; it would, therefore, have been a needless repetition to have added, "neither the Son," if the import was as man. Surely this is one of the last passages in which we are to expect a repetition of ideas, where there is such a marked distinction in the scale of being. Besides, our Lord teaches us that the Father only knew of that day. But this is not true, if, as some suppose, the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God; for, according to this, the Word or Son knew it equally with the Father. It makes no difference whether we consider the term Word or Son, as the distinctive appellation in the Godhead; in either case, it would still be untrue that the Father only knew of that day. Here then, we have the testimony of Jesus himself, that he is, in his highest nature,inferior to the Father in knowledge. We have also the same divine testimony, John 5:19; John 17:2; Matt. 28:18, etc., that he is inferior to him in power. He has indeed, (as Mr. Stuart acknowledges a derived being may have) "such an unlimited communication of power and knowledge and wisdom, that he may govern worlds." He knows all things, in a vastly higher sense than christians "know all things." 1 John 2:20.

John 6:38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Jesus Christ does not say he entered "upon the duties of any public office," not to do his own will, etc., but I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, etc. It is indeed said of John the Baptist, as Mr. Stuart remarks, "there was a man sent from God;" "and the same came to witness," etc. But was it ever said of John, or any other prophet but Jesus Christ, that he "came down from heaven?" Surely, then, these words of our dear Redeemer, which fully express inferiority to the Father, must be referred to the Word, which "was with God" before he was made flesh. Mr. Stuart indeed, implicitly admits that Christ's being sent by the Father, refers to his highest nature; for he considers the terms "sending and being sent," as proof of distinct persons in the Godhead.³

Heb. 1st chap. We have already remarked, that the design of the apostle in this chapter, is to exhibit the Son of God in his highest nature and most glorious character. In order to excite the attention of the Hebrews to Him who is "the body" of all those ceremonies and sacrifices which were only the "shadows of good things to come;" he rejoices to set him forth in his unrivalled glory above all other creatures. But the inspired writer as clearly teaches us, that for these high titles and perfections the Son is dependent on the Father, and inferior to him. Is he "heir of all things?" He is "appointed" such by the Father. Has he "made the worlds?" It was the Father who made the worlds by him. Is he "better than the angels?" He is "made" so by the Father. Is he the Son of God, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person? He is the "first begotten" of the Father. Is he the object of angelic worship? It is by the command of the Father. Is he called God? It is as "the Son" who is begotten of the Father, who is declared to be his God, and to have anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows.

Dear christian brethren, let us not be so positive that our present views are correct, as to prevent our perceiving the true import of the divine testimony, endeavouring only to reconcile that testimony with our system. Let us feel that it is possible at least, that our system may be erroneous; and that the opposition we feel to a particular doctrine, may arise from wrong inferences drawn from that doctrine. It is indeed easy to say, that every passage relating to Christ which expresses inferiority, refers to his human nature. But shall we say this without any regard to the connection of truth, in manifest violation of the testimony of the Holy Spirit in that connection? Is it not a violation of scripture and reason, to refer those passages which clearly teach the inferiority of the Son in that state in which he existed before his incarnation, to a nature which had then no existence? The word of truth plainly shows us that when he made the worlds, he was used as the grand agent of the Father. Heb. 1:2. Eph. 3:9. That he enjoyed glory with the Father before the world was, for which he was dependent on the Father. John 17:5. And that before he "was made flesh," his own will was perfectly subjected to that of his Father. Ps. 40:7, 8.

My esteemed brother Stuart, of whose sincere desire to advocate the pure truth of God, I have no doubt, makes some remarks on this chapter, which I desire, "in the spirit of meekness," to notice. He admits that the same person who is called God, here calls another person his God; and observes, that "as the Messiah, the anointed King, he might, with the greatest propriety call Jehovah his God; for as Messiah he is to be considered as incarnate; and of course subordinate." Now let it be candidly considered, whether it is not as "the anointed King," that he is called God in the 45th Psalm, which is quoted in the first chapter to the Hebrews? It is evident to me that the term God is here used as a relative title, signifying his glorious dominion and high authority in that very mediatorial kingdom in which he is acknowledged to be subordinate. If so, is there not the same evidence, that as God he is subordinate, as that he is so as Messiah or anointed King? And is not this the obvious import of the passage, if read without regard to any system? "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity; therefore God thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The objection which may be made to his being called God, unless he is supreme Deity, vanishes, when we consider that the same title is applied to rulers of a vastly inferior order. Ps. 82:1, etc.

Must not all the prayers of our Lord be considered as proof of his dependence on the Father, in respect even to his highest nature? How can we account for his always praying to the Father, rather than to the Word, if both are perfectly equal? Or rather, how can we account for his praying at all, if he was the supreme God and man in one person? Did Martha believe that she was addressing the eternal God, when she said, "I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee?"

John 10:17, 18. Here Jesus declares he had power to lay down his life, and power to take it again. Must not this be the power of his highest nature? Yet he adds, "this commandment have I received of my Father." John 5:26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. I do not know any passage, referable to Christ, which expresses any thing like self-existence so much as this. If he is supreme God and man in one person, why did he not say, as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself? But how careful is "the faithful witness" to assure us, that the life he has in himself, is given him of the Father. If he was supreme Deity, could he need life from another? Let the serious enquirer after truth, read this passage and the connection, from the 19th to the 30th verses, and he will observe that the very same person who is to be honoured as the Father, and who is to raise the dead, declares, "I can of mine own self do nothing. — I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

Phil. 2:6. This passage is urged with the greatest confidence, as conclusive proof of the supreme Deity of Christ; as if the term "equal" is never used but in the most literal and unlimited sense. But is this the case? Ps. 55:13. David speaks of "a man mine equal." Now, whoever this person was, he certainly was not perfectly equal with the king. So Luke 20:36. The saints in glory are said to be "equal unto the angels;" but surely this cannot mean perfect equality.

But it is conceded by pious and learned christians of different sentiments, that our translation of this passage is neither a just expression of the sense of the original, nor consistent with the scope of the apostle's reasoning. Mr. Doddridge in his Family Expositor, considers the words "to be equal with God," as an improper translation: and that they ought to be rendered, "to be and appear as God." "So, (he remarks) ισα Θεω is most exactly rendered, agreeable to the force of ισα in many places in the Septuagint, which Dr. Whitby has collected in his note on this place. The proper Greek phrase for equal to God is ισον τω Θεω, which is used at John 5:18. Mr. Pierce thus paraphrases the clause before us, "He was not eager in retaining that likeness to God, of which he was before possessed."

The learned Macknight in his translation of the Epistles, agrees with Doddridge. He renders the passage, "To be like God. So (he says) το ειναι ισα Θεῳ, literally signifies. For Whitby hath proved in the clearest manner, that ισα is used adverbially by the LXX to express likeness, but not equality, the proper term for which is ισον. So that if the apostle had meant to say, equal with God, the phrase would have been ισον Θεῳ, as we have it in John 5:18, ισον ἑαυτον ποιων τῳ Θεῳ, making himself equal with God." He further remarks, "if μορφη Θεου, signifies the nature of God, and ισα Θεῳ, the being equal with God, the apostle hath said of Christ, Who having the same nature and perfections with God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God in nature and perfections. But this is a tautology, which cannot be imputed to so accurate a writer as St. Paul."

The whole scope of this interesting testimony is inconsistent with the idea of perfect equality, which would certainly be immutable; whereas the apostle exhibits a real and great change in the condition of the Son of God as an example of humility to the Philippians. Let the same mind be in you which was in Jesus Christ, who being in the form (or "the image) of the invisible God," thought not the being like God, a thing to be seized, or "a thing to be greedily sought or appropriated;" but made himself of no reputation, etc. "He divested himself. Ἑαυτον εκενωσε, literally, he emptied himself."⁴ There was once an awful example of pride exhibited to the "powers in the heavenly places," by "the angels that kept not their first estate." But the counsels of redeeming love unfolded to the intelligent universe, the most affecting example of humility that ever was, or probably ever will be exhibited. He who "is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature," the well beloved, and only begotten Son of God, moved with compassion for our miserable race, "came down from heaven," "was made flesh." "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," to declare the righteousness of God, "that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Thus he opened the door of our prison, and Justice permitted the Angel of mercy to enter, "to proclaim liberty to the captives." Oh, what love is here!" He who was rich became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich." Here was real humility; not a mereshow or appearance of it. What a spectacle was presented to the intelligent universe when the Son of God, "the first born of every creature," actually expired on the cross!

But does not all the beauty and glory of this affecting scene vanish, and does not all the force of the apostle's reasoning sink away, if we suppose that Jesus Christ never existed, before "he took upon him the form of a servant;" or if we suppose he existed only as the supreme immutable Jehovah? Can we possibly believe that the real change of condition, the real humbling, or emptying of himself, ascribed in the word of truth to the Son, in reference to his coming down from heaven, can ever be ascribed to him "with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning?" Can we believe that the supreme Deity "made himself of no reputation?" Does the inspired apostle teach us this? Does he not teach us that the very same person who humbled himself, is exalted by God as the reward of humiliation and suffering? Is not the worship offered him, "to the glory of God the Father?" If we read this portion of divine truth, unbiased by preconceived opinion, can we possibly avoid the conclusion, that the person who humbled himself, is a distinct being from him who exalted him as the reward of his humiliation? Or can we avoid the conclusion, that he who has the name given him, is a distinct being from him who gave him that name? Or, that he who is worshipped, is a distinct being from him, for whose glory he is worshipped? If Jesus Christ is the supreme Deity; who is that other being of whom the apostle speaks, who exalted him, who gave him a name, and for whose glory he is worshipped?

It is evident, that it was the voluntary actual parting with the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and for which he afterwards prayed; and in his unparalleled sufferings and death, that the real humility consisted, which the apostle exhibits to christians, as an example worthy, as far as possible, of their imitation.

Mr. Stuart supposes that Christ, as supreme God, "made himself of no reputation." Apparently convinced of the impropriety of such a sentiment, however, he adds, "Yet, how incompetent must these translations be! So far as Christ is the immutable God he cannot change; that is, he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections," etc.⁵ Here let it be noticed, that Mr. Stuart considers not only our translation, but the original inspired truth incompetent! He says the original "means, as we translate it, made himself of no reputation." I solemnly ask, must not that be an unjustifiable attachment to system, which influences us, when we are brought into the dilemma, either to charge our own system, or to charge the word of God with incompetency, to prefer the latter? I would ask that respected writer, was not Jesus actually divested of that glory which he prayed to be restored to him, John 17:5? And where, I ask, is that example of humility which the apostle sets forth in such an affecting manner, if there was no real change of condition? Mr. Stuart observes, "he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time," etc. But does this representation accord with the scriptures of truth? Are we taught, that when the Son of God appeared, the glories of supreme Deity were veiled for a time? Or did mortals then behold "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," in a manner they never beheld it before? Was it not then that the glory of "the invisible God" shone with such excelling luster that even the angels desired to look into it? Let us then view the incarnate Son of God, not as "an intervening cloud" which obscures for a while the luster of the divine perfections, but rather as "the bright and morning Star," which reflects them with peculiar radiance.

1 Cor. 15:24—28. Here the apostle exhibits to our view that solemn and interesting period, when our glorious King and Mediator, having reigned until all enemies are put under his feet, "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. — "Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Let us examine this testimony as humble enquirers after truth. Are we not here taught, that the Son is a distinct being from the Father, and inferior to him? Is it possible for language to express this more explicitly? Could the inspired apostle have made such a declaration as this, if he had been taught by the Holy Spirit that the Son was "God and man in one person for ever?" Shall we say, that the Son, as it respects his humanity only, shall be subject? But why did not the inspired apostle say this? We have equal proof that something more than humanity will be subject to the Father, as we have that something more than humanity will accomplish all the arduous and glorious work of the mediatorial kingdom. The Son, the very same Son of God, who reigns and triumphs over all enemies, is to be subject to him who put all things under him. Here is a person, a being subject to the eternal Majesty. If then, the Son is God and man in one inseparable person, who, and where is that person, that being of whom the apostle speaks, who is to be subject to him who is all in all? Do we say that it is the man Christ Jesus? Is then the man Christ Jesus, to exist eternally as "the Son," a distinct person or being from his highest nature, whatever that nature may be? We must certainly view him who is subject to the infinite Majesty, as a distinct being; or it is obvious, that our views have no accordance with those of the apostle. Moreover, if "the only true God" is triune, why did not the inspired writer assure us, that Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even theFather, Word, and Holy Ghost? How plainly does his testimony in this passage harmonize with that in another, "to us there is one God the Father?" While it is impossible for me to reconcile this part of divine truth with Trinitarian views, it appears perfectly harmonious with the analogy of truth. The glorious Spirit "called the Word of God;" "the only begotten Son of God;" "the first born of every creature," was made flesh, took the body prepared for him by the Father, accomplished the work given him to do on earth, and now in his glorified body, is "at the right hand of the Majesty on high," reigning until he hath put all enemies under his feet. Then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, and "put down all rule and all authority and power;" and thus be more manifestly subject to the Father, "that God may be all in all."

Although the Son of God, who is King in Zion, is honoured with appropriate titles of dignity and glory, he is distinguished from "the only true God," by the following titles of supremacy which belong to "the invisible God" alone.

The eternal God. Deut. 33:27.

Most high God. Mark 5:7. Dan. 5:18.

God alone. Ps. 86:10. Isa. 37:16. Lord alone. Neh. 9:6.

God of heaven. Dan. 2:44.

Besides me there is no God. Isa. 44:6.

Who only hath immortality. 1 Tim. 6:16.

The only true God. John 17:3.

The King eternal, immortal, invisible. 1 Tim. 1:17.

The only wise God. 1 Tim. 1:17.

Lord God omnipotent. Rev. 19:6.

Blessed and only Potentate. 1 Tim. 6:15.⁶

One God and Father of all. Eph. 4:6.

The only Lord God. Jude 4.

There is but one God, the Father. 1 Cor. 8:6.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 11:31.