I and My Father are One by Winthrop Bailey 1822
CHRISTIANs agree in admitting the truth of all that is taught in the oracles of God. The opposite opinions, which they hold on many subjects, are to be traced to their different interpretations of the sacred volume. The Calvinist and Arminian, the Trinitarian and Unitarian, adopt, each, their peculiar views of doctrine, not because each rejects the passages, on which the other relies; but because each prefers his own explanation of those passages. In order then to know what is the truth, we must inquire, not merely respecting the words of scripture, but respecting the meaning also; we must understand, not so much the literal, as the real, import; we must ascertain, not only what the language is capable of denoting, but what it actually denotes. There is reason to think, that the sound is sometimes more regarded, than the sense; and that, in support of a favourite theory, expressions are advanced in a sense different from what they are admitted to bear in other passages.
These remarks have been suggested by the use, which has often been made, and which is still made, of the passage, selected for the theme of this discourse. It is often quoted to prove the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ; or that he and the Father are one and the same God. As it is found in the scriptures, however, it proves no such doctrine. In order to be made a proof of this, something must be added to it by human authority. Our Lord did not say; I and my Father are one being, or one God; nor does his language naturally lead to such a result. I shall endeavour to show, that the passage is not to be understood in this sense; and that, on the other hand, Christ and the Father are two distinct beings. In order to show, that the text is not to be understood as implying, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God, I would observe,
First, that, in the verses preceding, and following, our Lord plainly represented himself as one being, and his Father as another. As a proof of the safety of his followers, he said, “My Father, who gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. But, after having mentioned himself as their protector, nothing could be added to the assurance of their safety by representing the Father as engaged in their defence, if he were the same being. If God said, ‘I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand,’ what more could be said: But if this was said by a being distinct from God, and inferior to him, we see the propriety of what follows respecting the Father, and their safety in his hand.
If it be said, that there is a personal distinction between Christ and the Father; this is admitted; and the consequence is, they are not equal. “My Father is greater than all.” Of course, whether he is God, or a divine person, no other person can be equal to him. On another occasion Christ said; 'My Father is greater than I.’ Who then shall undertake to say they are equal, and the same" When Christ said, ‘I and my Father are one;’ and “My Father is greater than I; he doubtless uttered that which is consistent with itself. Both expressions are consistent with the Unitarian doctrine, as they now stand; or in the sense, in which similar phrases are known to be used. But the Trinitarian is under the necessity of putting an arbitrary construction on both. The first, he supposes to mean, ‘I and my Father are one being.' This interpretation, it is presumed, cannot be supported by any similar example. The other he explains to signify, that the Father is greater in office than the Son. But with what apparent reason is such an interpretation given to the words:
When the Jews accused our Lord of representing himself to be God; he answered by showing that the word, God, is not limited to the Supreme Being. ‘If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,’ &c. Had he called himself, therefore, by this name, it would not follow, either that he was guilty of blasphemy, or that he was the Supreme God. Our Saviour added, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ All this implies, as distinctly as language can, that Christ considered himself as one being, and his Father, as another. If, in this whole paragraph, he does not speak of two distinct beings, it is impossible to
know by any language, when two beings are spoken of. As a further proof, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,
Secondly, that, through the whole of the New Testament, they are uniformly represented as two. One is said to have been with the other; to have been sent by the other; to return to the other; to know and love the other; to do the will of the other; and to receive power from the other. If the language of the scriptures does not prove, that the Father is one being, and the Son another; every individual mentioned in the bible may be the same; or rather nothing can be known by language. We cannot have more evidence, that David was a different man from Solomon; than we have, that the Father is a different being from the Son. If it be irrational to suppose, that any being sends himself, commands himself, prays to himself, comes from himself, returns to himself, is the son of himself, and the father of himself, sits on the right hand of himself, gives power to himself, and receives power from himself; then it is irrational to suppose, that Christ and the Father are the same being. If it be said, this is human reasoning, and must not be set in opposition to an express declaration of Christ; I reply; this objection may be worthy of consideration, when Trinitarians cease to reason. If the terms, Father and Son, do not denote two distinct beings, they are only two names, given to the same being; and in this case, either of the names may be used without changing the truth of what is said; or all, that is true respecting the Son, is equally true respecting the Father. The Son became a partaker of flesh and blood; was born; is the only mediator between God and men; was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power; suffered and died; rose from the dead. If the Father be the same being with the Son, all this is equally true of the Father. If any thing, which our Saviour ever said, or which any sacred writer ever said respecting him, was intended to prove, that he and the Father are one and the same being, these consequences will necessarily follow; because it is impossible, that the same being should be born, and not be born; should be mediator, and not be mediator; should suffer, and not suffer; should rise from the dead, and not rise. As a further proof that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,
Thirdly, that language, similar to the text, is used in other cases, where no person supposes, that any such idea is conveyed; and where, by universal consent, nothing more than a moral union is intended. Christ said; “I and my Father are one.' We have no doubt of the truth of this assertion. The only question is; what does it mean? To decide this question, we should have recourse to other passages, where similar language is employed. With such we are furnished from the mouth of Christ himself. He prayed for his disciples; ‘That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us. And the glory, which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.' Now, if this language does not prove, that all the disciples are one being; the text does not prove, that Christ and the Father are one being. If the language in the former instance, refers merely to a union of affection, interests, purposes; why does it not refer to a similar union in the latter? Would it be more repugnant to the dictates of common sense, to reason seriously in support of the doctrine, that all the disciples of Christ are mysteriously one man; than to reason seriously in favour of the doctrine, that Christ and the Father are one God If there be nothing in the latter doctrine, incapable of being proved; neither is there in the former. If one rest on the declaration of Christ; so does the other. If mystery be a sufficient shield for the one; so it is for the other.
St. Paul said; “I have planted; Apollos watered. Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one.’ I and Apollos are one. One in what sense One apostle; one man; one person? Certainly not. Whatever else St. Paul meant, he could not intend to convey this idea. They were one, as to the object, which they had in view; the work which they were accomplishing. The same questions are applicable in relation to the text. “I and my Father are one.” One, in what respect? One God; one Being? Surely not. Whatever other meaning should be attributed to the passage; this cannot be its import.
It is not once asserted in the scriptures, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God. In every place, where this is supposed to be implied, the supposition is adopted without necessity, and in opposition to the current language of the bible. The words of Christ to Philip; “he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,’ are thought by some to imply this doctrine. But this mode of reasoning would prove, that Christ and the apostles are one being; for he said to them, “he that heareth you, heareth me.” If the inference be unwarrantable in the latter case it is equally so in the former; for the mode of expression is the same in both.
The first verse in John's Gospel is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ and the Father are one God. “The word was with God, and the word was God.” Any mode of interpretation, which is consistent with the use of language, and which will render this passage agreeable to the general tenor of scripture, should be preferred to the literal meaning. It has been already observed, that our Saviour authorized the application of the name, god, to inferior beings. “Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?' Each one, addressed, then, was a god. It is, therefore, strictly conformable to the scriptural use of language to render this passage as follows:—‘The word was with God, and the word was a god.’ He was one of those beings, to whom this title was applicable.— The foregoing translation is exactly suited to the original of the passage. But, if the common translation be preferred, we are under no necessity of understanding the latter clause in the literal sense. Christ said, ‘this is my body; this is my blood.' St. Paul, speaking of the rock, which followed the Israelites, said;— 'that rock was Christ.’ In these three plain assertions, the meaning simply is:—this represents my body; this represents my blood; that rock represented Christ.’ Let a similar explanation be given to the phrase; “the word was God; and the difficulty vanishes. ‘The word was with God; and the word represented God.” This agrees with the declaration of St. Paul, that Christ 'is the image of the invisible God.' Is this taking an unauthorized liberty with the passage? Is this taking greater liberty with the passage, than Trinitarians take with one before quoted; “My Father is greater than I?” May not Roman Catholics bring the same charge against Protestants, in reference to the words; ‘this is my body?'
We are often referred to the following passage in Isaiah, as proving, beyond a doubt, that Christ and the Father are one God.— “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Of this passage, a late writer [Rev. Mr. Sparks, of Baltimore] has given the following translation, derived, as he observes, from the critical expositions of Trinitarians, “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace.” See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html. If this be a fair translation, the passage ceases to be an argument in favour of the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. Even if the common translation be preferred, this doctrine is not supported by it. We are told by Cruden, that Elijah signifies, God the Lord; and we know it was the name of a man. If, then, a man was called, God the Lord, without actually being God; Christ might be called, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, without being the supreme God.
The following passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ is equal with the Father. ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' It is generally admitted, I believe, that our translation of this passage is not correct; though, probably, all would not agree in any other, which could be offered. In the improved version, the passage is as follows:—‘Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus also ; who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God; but divested himself of it.' Wakefield translates the passage thus; ‘Let the same disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, though in a divine form, did not think of eagerly retaining this divine likeness; but emptied himself of it, by taking a servant's form.' [See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html] If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so. Macknight's translation is as follows. ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was even in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God.' Macknight was a learned Trinitarian; and he observes, that Whitby has proved in the clearest manner, that the original word rendered, equal, is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, to express likeness but not equality. Whatever may be thought of the comparative merit of these different translations; it seems evident from the whole passage, that the apostle here speaks of two distinct beings; of whom, one only is the supreme God, and the other bears a resemblance to God; such a resemblance, however, that he was capable of undergoing the greatest changes, and did actually die. You will observe, the apostle does not say, that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with the Father, or like the Father. Had this been his language, it would probably have been said, that he teaches us the equality between the first and second persons in the Godhead. He uses the term, God; and thus shows, that Christ is a being distinct from God, not a person in the divine nature. Whether it can be supposed, that one divine person is equal to another, or not; does any man believe, that any being can, with truth and propriety, be said ‘to be equal with God?”
The following words of St. John have been thought to prove, that Christ is the true God. “We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” But it does not appear, that this last clause refers to Jesus Christ. The word, this, may as well relate to him that is true; and this seems the more natural construction. We are in him that is true, or in the true one, even in the Son of him (that is true.) This is the true God and eternal life. To say the least, there is no conclusive evidence, to show, that the apostle here meant to assert the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. That this was not his design will appear, if we consider,
Fourthly, that in several passages of scripture the Father alone is declared to be God. Our Lord, addressing his Father, said:— ‘This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This is addressed to the Father, whom all admit to be but one person; and he is expressly said to be the only true God. To represent St. John as asserting, that Jesus Christ is the true God, is to represent him as contradicting the plain declaration of our Lord himself; for, if Christ be the true God, then the Father is not the only true God. The words of Christ necessarily exclude every person, human or divine, from being the true God, except the Father, to whom his prayer was offered. The language of St. Paul is equally explicit. “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” As if on purpose to exclude the notion, that Christ will retain the kingdom as God, though he will relinquish it as man, or as mediator, the apostle has expressly told us, that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God, the Father. He has thus limited the former term by the latter. The kingdom will not be delivered up to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or to a triune God: but to God even the Father. “For, though there be, that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth; but to us there is but one God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ.' No language could express more accurately the sentiments of Unitarians, respecting the unity of God. We are not under the necessity of correcting the expression of the apostle, or of making any addition to it, in order to convey our opinions. In this plain and decisive manner, are we taught, that the Father is the only true God: and that Jesus Christ is another being, distinct from him.
If any further proof were necessary to show, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I might refer you to such expressions as the following. “Why callest thou me good? None is good, but one; that is, God. All are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. The head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If, then, he who sends, be not the same with him, who is sent; if he who prays, be not the same with him, to whom the prayer is offered; if he who gave his only begotten Son, be not the Son, thus given; if he, by whose power Christ was raised from the dead, be not the same with him, who thus arose; if he, who exalted Christ at his own right hand, be not the same with him, who was thus exalted; if he, who, at the end, will receive the kingdom, be not the same with him, who will then deliver up the kingdom; it follows, that Christ is one being; and the Father, another.
It may be thought by some, that I have been attempting to prove what is self-evident; what is intuitively certain; what no person can doubt. I would remind them, however, that there are multitudes, who hold, as one of the essential doctrines of the gospel, that Christ and the Father are one and the same being, one and the same God. It is true, they admit that Christ and the Father are two distinct persons. But, if to be two distinct persons, is any thing less, than to be two distinct beings, the same difficulties still remain; for in this case the same being sent himself, was the son of himself, &c. Until Trinitarians will explain the difference between two distinct persons, and two distinct beings, in relation to this subject, I must believe, that there is no difference; especially as the scriptures have given no intimation of any such thing. As we profess to take them for our guide, in all matters of faith and duty, let us study them with diligence, care, and impartiality. Let us imbibe the spirit, which they inculcate; and, while we dare to think for ourselves, unshackled by human creeds, and uninfluenced by human authority or human censure, let us freely concede to others, what we claim for ourselves; and never, either in our words or actions, condemn them for the errors, which they may embrace. - metatron3@gmail.com
These remarks have been suggested by the use, which has often been made, and which is still made, of the passage, selected for the theme of this discourse. It is often quoted to prove the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ; or that he and the Father are one and the same God. As it is found in the scriptures, however, it proves no such doctrine. In order to be made a proof of this, something must be added to it by human authority. Our Lord did not say; I and my Father are one being, or one God; nor does his language naturally lead to such a result. I shall endeavour to show, that the passage is not to be understood in this sense; and that, on the other hand, Christ and the Father are two distinct beings. In order to show, that the text is not to be understood as implying, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God, I would observe,
First, that, in the verses preceding, and following, our Lord plainly represented himself as one being, and his Father as another. As a proof of the safety of his followers, he said, “My Father, who gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. But, after having mentioned himself as their protector, nothing could be added to the assurance of their safety by representing the Father as engaged in their defence, if he were the same being. If God said, ‘I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand,’ what more could be said: But if this was said by a being distinct from God, and inferior to him, we see the propriety of what follows respecting the Father, and their safety in his hand.
If it be said, that there is a personal distinction between Christ and the Father; this is admitted; and the consequence is, they are not equal. “My Father is greater than all.” Of course, whether he is God, or a divine person, no other person can be equal to him. On another occasion Christ said; 'My Father is greater than I.’ Who then shall undertake to say they are equal, and the same" When Christ said, ‘I and my Father are one;’ and “My Father is greater than I; he doubtless uttered that which is consistent with itself. Both expressions are consistent with the Unitarian doctrine, as they now stand; or in the sense, in which similar phrases are known to be used. But the Trinitarian is under the necessity of putting an arbitrary construction on both. The first, he supposes to mean, ‘I and my Father are one being.' This interpretation, it is presumed, cannot be supported by any similar example. The other he explains to signify, that the Father is greater in office than the Son. But with what apparent reason is such an interpretation given to the words:
When the Jews accused our Lord of representing himself to be God; he answered by showing that the word, God, is not limited to the Supreme Being. ‘If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,’ &c. Had he called himself, therefore, by this name, it would not follow, either that he was guilty of blasphemy, or that he was the Supreme God. Our Saviour added, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ All this implies, as distinctly as language can, that Christ considered himself as one being, and his Father, as another. If, in this whole paragraph, he does not speak of two distinct beings, it is impossible to
know by any language, when two beings are spoken of. As a further proof, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,
Secondly, that, through the whole of the New Testament, they are uniformly represented as two. One is said to have been with the other; to have been sent by the other; to return to the other; to know and love the other; to do the will of the other; and to receive power from the other. If the language of the scriptures does not prove, that the Father is one being, and the Son another; every individual mentioned in the bible may be the same; or rather nothing can be known by language. We cannot have more evidence, that David was a different man from Solomon; than we have, that the Father is a different being from the Son. If it be irrational to suppose, that any being sends himself, commands himself, prays to himself, comes from himself, returns to himself, is the son of himself, and the father of himself, sits on the right hand of himself, gives power to himself, and receives power from himself; then it is irrational to suppose, that Christ and the Father are the same being. If it be said, this is human reasoning, and must not be set in opposition to an express declaration of Christ; I reply; this objection may be worthy of consideration, when Trinitarians cease to reason. If the terms, Father and Son, do not denote two distinct beings, they are only two names, given to the same being; and in this case, either of the names may be used without changing the truth of what is said; or all, that is true respecting the Son, is equally true respecting the Father. The Son became a partaker of flesh and blood; was born; is the only mediator between God and men; was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power; suffered and died; rose from the dead. If the Father be the same being with the Son, all this is equally true of the Father. If any thing, which our Saviour ever said, or which any sacred writer ever said respecting him, was intended to prove, that he and the Father are one and the same being, these consequences will necessarily follow; because it is impossible, that the same being should be born, and not be born; should be mediator, and not be mediator; should suffer, and not suffer; should rise from the dead, and not rise. As a further proof that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,
Thirdly, that language, similar to the text, is used in other cases, where no person supposes, that any such idea is conveyed; and where, by universal consent, nothing more than a moral union is intended. Christ said; “I and my Father are one.' We have no doubt of the truth of this assertion. The only question is; what does it mean? To decide this question, we should have recourse to other passages, where similar language is employed. With such we are furnished from the mouth of Christ himself. He prayed for his disciples; ‘That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us. And the glory, which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.' Now, if this language does not prove, that all the disciples are one being; the text does not prove, that Christ and the Father are one being. If the language in the former instance, refers merely to a union of affection, interests, purposes; why does it not refer to a similar union in the latter? Would it be more repugnant to the dictates of common sense, to reason seriously in support of the doctrine, that all the disciples of Christ are mysteriously one man; than to reason seriously in favour of the doctrine, that Christ and the Father are one God If there be nothing in the latter doctrine, incapable of being proved; neither is there in the former. If one rest on the declaration of Christ; so does the other. If mystery be a sufficient shield for the one; so it is for the other.
St. Paul said; “I have planted; Apollos watered. Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one.’ I and Apollos are one. One in what sense One apostle; one man; one person? Certainly not. Whatever else St. Paul meant, he could not intend to convey this idea. They were one, as to the object, which they had in view; the work which they were accomplishing. The same questions are applicable in relation to the text. “I and my Father are one.” One, in what respect? One God; one Being? Surely not. Whatever other meaning should be attributed to the passage; this cannot be its import.
It is not once asserted in the scriptures, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God. In every place, where this is supposed to be implied, the supposition is adopted without necessity, and in opposition to the current language of the bible. The words of Christ to Philip; “he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,’ are thought by some to imply this doctrine. But this mode of reasoning would prove, that Christ and the apostles are one being; for he said to them, “he that heareth you, heareth me.” If the inference be unwarrantable in the latter case it is equally so in the former; for the mode of expression is the same in both.
The first verse in John's Gospel is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ and the Father are one God. “The word was with God, and the word was God.” Any mode of interpretation, which is consistent with the use of language, and which will render this passage agreeable to the general tenor of scripture, should be preferred to the literal meaning. It has been already observed, that our Saviour authorized the application of the name, god, to inferior beings. “Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?' Each one, addressed, then, was a god. It is, therefore, strictly conformable to the scriptural use of language to render this passage as follows:—‘The word was with God, and the word was a god.’ He was one of those beings, to whom this title was applicable.— The foregoing translation is exactly suited to the original of the passage. But, if the common translation be preferred, we are under no necessity of understanding the latter clause in the literal sense. Christ said, ‘this is my body; this is my blood.' St. Paul, speaking of the rock, which followed the Israelites, said;— 'that rock was Christ.’ In these three plain assertions, the meaning simply is:—this represents my body; this represents my blood; that rock represented Christ.’ Let a similar explanation be given to the phrase; “the word was God; and the difficulty vanishes. ‘The word was with God; and the word represented God.” This agrees with the declaration of St. Paul, that Christ 'is the image of the invisible God.' Is this taking an unauthorized liberty with the passage? Is this taking greater liberty with the passage, than Trinitarians take with one before quoted; “My Father is greater than I?” May not Roman Catholics bring the same charge against Protestants, in reference to the words; ‘this is my body?'
We are often referred to the following passage in Isaiah, as proving, beyond a doubt, that Christ and the Father are one God.— “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Of this passage, a late writer [Rev. Mr. Sparks, of Baltimore] has given the following translation, derived, as he observes, from the critical expositions of Trinitarians, “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace.” See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html. If this be a fair translation, the passage ceases to be an argument in favour of the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. Even if the common translation be preferred, this doctrine is not supported by it. We are told by Cruden, that Elijah signifies, God the Lord; and we know it was the name of a man. If, then, a man was called, God the Lord, without actually being God; Christ might be called, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, without being the supreme God.
The following passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ is equal with the Father. ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' It is generally admitted, I believe, that our translation of this passage is not correct; though, probably, all would not agree in any other, which could be offered. In the improved version, the passage is as follows:—‘Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus also ; who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God; but divested himself of it.' Wakefield translates the passage thus; ‘Let the same disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, though in a divine form, did not think of eagerly retaining this divine likeness; but emptied himself of it, by taking a servant's form.' [See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html] If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so. Macknight's translation is as follows. ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was even in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God.' Macknight was a learned Trinitarian; and he observes, that Whitby has proved in the clearest manner, that the original word rendered, equal, is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, to express likeness but not equality. Whatever may be thought of the comparative merit of these different translations; it seems evident from the whole passage, that the apostle here speaks of two distinct beings; of whom, one only is the supreme God, and the other bears a resemblance to God; such a resemblance, however, that he was capable of undergoing the greatest changes, and did actually die. You will observe, the apostle does not say, that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with the Father, or like the Father. Had this been his language, it would probably have been said, that he teaches us the equality between the first and second persons in the Godhead. He uses the term, God; and thus shows, that Christ is a being distinct from God, not a person in the divine nature. Whether it can be supposed, that one divine person is equal to another, or not; does any man believe, that any being can, with truth and propriety, be said ‘to be equal with God?”
The following words of St. John have been thought to prove, that Christ is the true God. “We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” But it does not appear, that this last clause refers to Jesus Christ. The word, this, may as well relate to him that is true; and this seems the more natural construction. We are in him that is true, or in the true one, even in the Son of him (that is true.) This is the true God and eternal life. To say the least, there is no conclusive evidence, to show, that the apostle here meant to assert the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. That this was not his design will appear, if we consider,
Fourthly, that in several passages of scripture the Father alone is declared to be God. Our Lord, addressing his Father, said:— ‘This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This is addressed to the Father, whom all admit to be but one person; and he is expressly said to be the only true God. To represent St. John as asserting, that Jesus Christ is the true God, is to represent him as contradicting the plain declaration of our Lord himself; for, if Christ be the true God, then the Father is not the only true God. The words of Christ necessarily exclude every person, human or divine, from being the true God, except the Father, to whom his prayer was offered. The language of St. Paul is equally explicit. “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” As if on purpose to exclude the notion, that Christ will retain the kingdom as God, though he will relinquish it as man, or as mediator, the apostle has expressly told us, that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God, the Father. He has thus limited the former term by the latter. The kingdom will not be delivered up to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or to a triune God: but to God even the Father. “For, though there be, that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth; but to us there is but one God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ.' No language could express more accurately the sentiments of Unitarians, respecting the unity of God. We are not under the necessity of correcting the expression of the apostle, or of making any addition to it, in order to convey our opinions. In this plain and decisive manner, are we taught, that the Father is the only true God: and that Jesus Christ is another being, distinct from him.
If any further proof were necessary to show, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I might refer you to such expressions as the following. “Why callest thou me good? None is good, but one; that is, God. All are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. The head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If, then, he who sends, be not the same with him, who is sent; if he who prays, be not the same with him, to whom the prayer is offered; if he who gave his only begotten Son, be not the Son, thus given; if he, by whose power Christ was raised from the dead, be not the same with him, who thus arose; if he, who exalted Christ at his own right hand, be not the same with him, who was thus exalted; if he, who, at the end, will receive the kingdom, be not the same with him, who will then deliver up the kingdom; it follows, that Christ is one being; and the Father, another.
It may be thought by some, that I have been attempting to prove what is self-evident; what is intuitively certain; what no person can doubt. I would remind them, however, that there are multitudes, who hold, as one of the essential doctrines of the gospel, that Christ and the Father are one and the same being, one and the same God. It is true, they admit that Christ and the Father are two distinct persons. But, if to be two distinct persons, is any thing less, than to be two distinct beings, the same difficulties still remain; for in this case the same being sent himself, was the son of himself, &c. Until Trinitarians will explain the difference between two distinct persons, and two distinct beings, in relation to this subject, I must believe, that there is no difference; especially as the scriptures have given no intimation of any such thing. As we profess to take them for our guide, in all matters of faith and duty, let us study them with diligence, care, and impartiality. Let us imbibe the spirit, which they inculcate; and, while we dare to think for ourselves, unshackled by human creeds, and uninfluenced by human authority or human censure, let us freely concede to others, what we claim for ourselves; and never, either in our words or actions, condemn them for the errors, which they may embrace. - metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment