LIBRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DR. WHITBY'S LAST THOUGHTS. SECT I. It is observable from Scripture, and from the Fathers of the first three centuries, that whatsoever our blessed Lord is said to have, as to his nature or his attributes, he is said to have by the donation of the Father, or as received from the Father: v. g. he has his life from the Father; for, as he himself saith, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall live by me" (John vi. 57), which cannot be understood of his resurrection, since it was spoken in the present tense; for he doth not say, I shall live, but, I live. He hath his power to raise the dead from him (John v. 25, 26). For our Lord proves, "that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and live;" because, " as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." And he hath also given him power to judge those whom he should thus raise: for, saith he, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, sent by him" (John v. 22, 24). "He hath given him also power over all flesh, to give to them whom God hath given him eternal life" (John xvii. 2). "He gave him all power in heaven and in earth" (Matt. xxviii. 18). Our Saviour also saith, "All that the Father hath is mine" (John xv. 16). "Because the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (John iii. 35). "He is Lord of all" (Acts x. 36). "Because God made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts ii. 36), as St. Peter infers from God's raising him from the dead: "him," saith St. Paul, "hath God appointed heir of all things" (Heb. i. 2), "and hath given him to be Head over all things to the church" (Eph. i. 22 and Phil. ii. 9). "He hath exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" according to these words of the Psalmist, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Ps. cx. 1). "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. ii, 9); because it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell" (Col. i. 19). Agreeably to these Scriptures, the primitive 66 B fathers give us an account of Christ's power and dominion as derived from the supreme God and Father of all things; as you may see in the Agreement of the fathers with these sentiments, Sect. 3. Secondly: All his offices are plainly dependent on, relating to, or received from the Father. The very nature of his prophetic office requires this, a prophet being one who is sent from God and speaketh in his name: whence he declares, during the execution of that office, that he spake not of himself; but as the Father that sent him had given him a command, so he spake (John xii. 49). His priestly office doth also necessarily imply a relation to him whom he was to atone and reconcile by the merits of his sufferings; which sufferings, say the Scriptures, were undergone to reconcile us to God; "we being reconciled by the death of his Son" (Rom. v. 9): which, by the way, shews that 'tis unreasonable and absurd to say it was the same individual Godhead that made satisfaction to the offended Person; for then, both being the same individual God, he must make satisfaction to himself: whereas the Scripture doth inform us, that "there is one Mediator between God and men." From whence Eusebius* infers that he is of a middle nature betwixt God and man. As for his regal office, the Scripture plainly testifies that God hath "given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man" (John v. 27). And the apostle tells us, "that God shall judge the world by Jesus Christ" (Rom. ii. 16). His power to confound all his enemies, and those of the church, is from that God who said unto him, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool." His power to give eternal life to his faithful servants at the last day, is given him of his Father (John. xvii. 2). And when he hath thus crowned his servants, and put his enemies under his feet, then is he to give up the kingdom "to God the Father, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 28). The mighty works he did, were done by the Father, as the Baptist testifies in these words, John iii. 34: "For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." He healed the sick that came unto him, because "the power of God was present to heal them” (Luke v. 17). He himself saith, that "the works which my Father hath given me [power] to do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me" (John v. 36). He also confesseth that he cast out devils "by the finger of God" (Luke xi. 20); that he did these works "by the Spirit of God" * L. i. Cont. Marc. p. 8. (Matt. xii. 18). And again, "The Father," saith he, "that dwelleth in me, he doth the works" (John xiv. 10). That he hath all his attributes also derived from the Father, is generally acknowledged even by those who style themselves the Orthodox. And of necessity it must be so, since all properties flow from the essence, and in reality are only the essence partially considered, or with relation to such powers. So that when the individual essence is one and the same, the actions and powers flowing from that essence must be the same. And hence they constantly assert, that the will, power and wisdom * of the whole Trinity is one and the same; and that what one wills, does and knows, they all do, will and know, by virtue of this unity of essence. The primitive fathers of the first three centuries do also generally agree that the Son received his power from the Father, as it hath been observed already. And particularly Hippolitus,† that "his knowledge was given him by the Father :" to which the Orthodox are forced to say, that he received this power, this dominion and these attributes, by receiving the same individual essence with the Father; which yet is a thing impossible in itself; since an individual essence cannot be communicated, for that very reason, because it is an individual, i. e. one and no more. Nor can three essences be one and no more, by being connexe et conjuncte (as Tertullian's Thecla, or the Spirit of Montanus, taught him), but only three essences joined and connected to one another. Moreover, hence it must follow, that the same numerical essence must be self-existent and not self-existent, communicated and yet incommunicable, (as a self-existing essence must necessarily be,) generated and ungenerated, derived and underived; it being certain that the Father's essence is self-existing, uncommunicated and underived, and that the essence of the Son is not So. So that it must be an express contradiction to predicate these opposite and contradictory assertions of the same numerical essence. And hence it will follow, that this God must be Deus de Deo, and yet Deus de Nullo; or, which is the same thing, a self-existing Being, as he necessarily is in the Father, and yet he must communicate himself to another, who yet only is another by having that essence communicated to him; and he must communicate himself unto another, by continuing invariably the same that he was before ;-to omit many other like absurdities. Accordingly, a learned author very well observes, "that as this doctrine would deprive both the Son and Holy Ghost of any proper essence and attributes of their own, so would it follow * Dr. Waterland, p. 337. † Πᾶσαν τὴν ἐπιςήμην παρὰ τὸ παρὸς λαβὼν. Contra Noetum, p. 9. that they are only names." For the same reason, neither can an individual power be communicated, as the same author proves in these words: "The reason why the individual knowledge or power of God cannot be communicated, any more than his individual existence, is, because they are individual, and nothing that is individual can ever be communicated from one thing to another." Ans. to Remarks, &c., p. 230. Thirdly: The essence of the Father being essentially an intelligent and active essence, and so a personal essence, it is evident it cannot be communicated, unless a personal essence be communicated; and then the Person to whom it is communicated must be two Persons. From hence arise these corollaries : First, that the Son is a real and distinct Person from the supreme God. And also, Secondly, that he is not of one and the same individual essence with him. First: He is a real Person distinguished from him. For Christ every where declares himself not to be the Father, but to come forth from him, to speak by his authority and commission, to do nothing of himself, but every thing by the power of the Father; nothing to his own, but every thing to his Father's glory. And yet he speaks these things of himself considered as coming down from heaven, and with pronouns personal, and sometimes in opposition to the whole Person of the Father, as when he saith, "He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me" (John xii. 44). Secondly: That he is not of the same individual or numerical essence with God the Father, is evident from these considerations: First: That where the numerical essence is one and the same, the will and actions of that essence must be one and the same. And where the will and actions are numerically distinct and diverse, there the individual essence must also be distinct and different. And this Damascen* declares to be the doctrine of the holy fathers. Hence it demonstratively follows, that if the essence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, be numerically one and the same, the will, and all the other actions of these three, must be numerically one and the same: so that what the Father wills and does, the Son and Holy Ghost must will and do also. Now to shew the inconsistency of this with the plain declarations of Holy Scripture, let it be considered, First, that if the essence of the Son (for instance) is one and the same with that of God the Father, his will must of necessity be * Οι Πατέρες δι ἅγιοι ἔφασαν, ὧν ἡ ἐσία μία, τέτων καὶ ἐνέργεια μια, καὶ ὧν διάφορος ὁ ἐσία, τέτων διάφορος καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια. C. xv. de Orthod. Fide, L. iii. p. 331, and C. xix. p. 255. |