Dr. WHITBY'S

LAST THOUGHTS.

I

PART. II.

Proceed now to expound fome Paffages of Scripture, which feem to have been mifunderstood by most modern Expofitors, and fometimes alfo by my felf. As,

First, Those Words of Chrift, Luk. x. 22. No Man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father, and who the Father is, but the Son, and be to whom the Son will reveal him. And Job. i. 18. No Man hath feen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the Bofom of the Father, that is, who is intimately acquainted with his Mind and Will, he hath declared him.

That

That thefe Words cannot concern the me taphyfical Nature of the Father and the Son, is evident, becaufe our Saviour hath made no fuch Declaration, or Revelation, of that Nature, to us, or his Difciples. They therefore only can concern the Difpenfation of the New Teftament, and Salvation by Jefus Chrift, and the Knowledge of the Will of the Father, and the way by which he would be worshipped, delivered to us by his Son.

Hence when St. Peter had declared, that Jefus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, (or as it is, Mark viii. 29. Thou art the Christ,) Chrift faid unto him, Flesh and Blood have not revealed this unto thee; but my Father which is in Heaven, Matth. xvi. 17. And John xvii. 6. Chrift alfo faith, I have manifefted thy Name unto the Men which thou gavest me, and they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee, and have known furely, that thou haft fent me,

From which two Places it appears, that God the Father, by revealing to St. Peter, that Jefus was the Chrift, the Son of the living God, revealed the Son to him; and that Chrift himself, by manifefting unto his Disciples that he came from God, and that he had fent him, manifefted his Father's Name to them. And John xvi. as. He promised hereafter to fhew them plainly of the Father; and yet he did this, not by giving them any Inftructions con

cerning

cerning the Metaphyfical Nature of the Father, or any Declarations of that Nature, but only by giving them a clear Infight into the Tenor of the Gospel-Difpenfation, and into the Counfel of his Will.

Secondly, To proceed to thofe Words, Joh. x. 30. I and my Father are one.

The great Queftion here is, whether thefe Words are to be understood of the Unity of the Father and Son, as to their fame monadical Effence, or, (as many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers did interprct them) of an Unity in Will, Defign, Affection and Concord?

That they could not be intended to declare an Unity of their individual Effence, feems highly probable both,

From the Context,

From the like Expreffions in the Scripture,

and

From the very Nature of the thing.

First, From the Context: For there, our Saviour faith, The Works that I do in my Father's Name, that is, by his Authority and Power imparted to me, bear Witness of me, v. 25. Which Words are evidently repugnant to a numerical Unity of Effence in them both. Since, where the Effence is one, the Actions must be one, and done by the fame Authority

and Power.

To which add, that the Words, I and my Father, are Words plainly importing two Perfons. For the Word, Father, is perfonal, and

the

the Word, I, is a Pronoun perfonal; fo that if these two are one and the fame God by Vertue of this Text, they must be one in Perfon as well as Effence.

Moreover, v. 29. My Father which gave them me, (faith Chrift) is greater than all. Which again deftroys the numerical Unity of Effence betwixt both; fince no one Effence can give any thing to itself, and much less a Divine and All-perfect Effence: Nor can one Effence be greater than itself. Whereas our Lord exprefly faith, My Father is greater than I, Joh. xiv. 28.

Secondly, This will be farther evident from the parallel Expreffions used by our Lord, in the fame Gospel, where he prays, that his Difciples may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they might be made perfect in one: And yet doubtless, he could not pray that his Difciples might be one in Effence with the Father and Son, but only that they might be one by having the Spirit of the Father and Son dwelling in them. In which Senfe (a) Athenagoras fays, the Father and Son are one, (viz.) ἐνότητι τὸ πνεῦμα @ by Unity of the Spirit.

Thus (b) Origen Interprets this Verse. For having cited thefe Words, I and my Father are one; if any one, faith he, is difturbed at thefe Expreffions, as if we favoured the Opi

nion

nion of the Noetians, who deny the Father and the Son to be δύο ὑποτάσεις, two fingular Existences; let him confider this Text, Acts iv. 34. All that believed were of one Heart, and one Soul, and then he will understand this, I and my Father are one thing: We ferve therefore, as amodedánaμev, as we formerly explained it, one God the Father, and the Son; we Worship the Father of the Truth, and alfo the Son who is the Truth, being indeed two things in Subfiftence, but in Agreement and Content, and Sameness of Will, they are one.

Here indeed, he only faith we worship the Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth and Wifdom: But in his Comment on John, p. 70. he adds, that the Father is w μείζων αλήθεια, a fuller and greater Truth, and, being the Father of Wisdom, is greater and more excellent, as he is Wisdom, than the Son. Then he proceeds, p. 387, to fhew, that among the Multitude of Believers, fome, differing from the reft, rafhly affirmed, as the Noetians did, that our Saviour was the God over all; which, faith he, we Chriftians, or we of the Church, do not believe; as giving Credit to the fame Saviour, who faid, My Father is greater than 1. And lastly, he faith, p. 38, We Chriftians manifeftly teach, that the Son is not stronger than the Father, who is the Creator of the World, ἀλλ ̓ ὑποδεέτερG, but inferiour in Power to him. Which Words afford the cleareft Demonftration, that the Church

E