relative to His relationship to the Father, to wit:

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye love me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 14, 28.

These are simple, plain words of obvious intent, and can be construed to mean nothing less than, that, in their relationship, one to the other, the Father was greater than the Son. These are the words written by John, who also wrote,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1, 1-2.

The hidden or obscure meaning of these words has been explained by comparing other words of obvious intent with them. The word, the "Word," means the "Son," and the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit, compose the Trinity, or "Three in One," in the Deity, and this trinity of persons in the Deity "consists with the unity of the Divine Essence." It has been found that three personalities compose this Trinity, the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit; that these three are potentially equal, but by reason of some understanding or agreement among them, the modus operandi of which is not disclosed, the supremacy of the Father is established and acknowledged by the others.

We think it can be safely stated, that a fair construction placed upon the contents of this document will not warrant any one in holding that "the second person in the God-head" had come down to earth to be sacrificed to Himself, but that He, as the Son, was sent by the Father, to the world to save it from some impending evil, which would require great sacrifice on His part. The nature of this will be further explained.

DIVISION V.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW AS TO
THE DIVINE SACRIFICE

"As the second person in the God-head he had come down to earth in order to be offered as a sacrifice to himself, and so appease his own wrath.”

This is neither a proper statement of the orthodox belief in the purpose of the divine sacrifice, nor a correct construction of the law governing the case. The Second Person of the God-head, the Son, did not "come" down to earth, but was "sent" down to earth by the First Person of the God-head, the Father. He did not "come down to the earth to be offered as a sacrifice to Himself," but was "sent down" to be offered as a sacrifice, if necessary, for the good of the world. The difference in construction is very obvious, and that difference is the dividing line between truth and error.

The record as to this, states as follows, to wit:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave

his only begotten Son, that whosoever believ eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3, 16-17.

To this program, the Son assented, as may be seen from the following quotation from the record, to wit:

"I can of mine own self 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 which hath sent me." John 5, 30.

In other words, the Son came to do the will of the Father, and not His own. He did as He was told, for He clearly states, that "as I hear, I judge."

The record shows that He followed His instructions through the darkest hours, keeping in constant touch with the Father, consenting to every sacrifice which was required of Him, no matter how bitter it might be. This may be seen from the following excerpt taken from the record, to wit:

"And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into

temptation. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Luke 22, 39-42.

If this means anything, in the light of the circumstances described, it means that the program, as outlined to Him at that time, was hard for Him to accept and follow, but if there were no other way acceptable to the Father, He was willing and ready to undertake its execution. The program, as outlined in the record (Luke 22 and 23; Matt. 26 and 27; Mark 13, 14 and 15; John 18 and 19) provided for His crucifixion, with the agony it would bring to His mother, His friends and followers, and the destruction of Jerusalem with all of its attending horrors. But He was told, by the Father, that there was no other way by which the world could be saved from its impending doom, and He heroically met the issue squarely; that is to say, the presumption is that the Father told Him that there was no other way consistent with the Father's judg ment and will, for He asked three different times that the program be changed, but it was not. Matt. 26, 36-46.