but the will of him that sent me." John vi. 38. And "My meat is, that I may do the will of him that sent me; and that I may finish his work." John iv. 34. For can the numerical essence send itself, and be sent by itself, and become his own legate? Neither can he, that hath the same numerical will with the Father, come down from heaven not to do his own will. And here note, that all this is spoken of the will of him, that came down from heaven, and therefore of the divine will of the Son.

Secondly, where the individual essence is one and the same, the actions of that essence must be one and the same; so that what is done by the Father, must of necessity be done by the same individual essence of the Son, provided both have one essence. And yet this also is plainly inconsistent with the words of Christ, and with the declarations of holy Scripture. As when Christ saith, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John vii. 16. Again, "The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak; as the Father hath given me a commandment, so I speak." John xii. 49, 50.

Now, can the same individual essence send, and command itself? Or could our Lord absolutely deny that doctrine to be his, which proceeded from his own numerical essence? If I and the Father are one, signify one in essence, it must signify one in action also; and so what one sends, the other must

send; what one commands, the other must also command; and the doctrine which one teacheth, must be taught by the other also.*

Again, "The works," saith he, "which I do in my Father's name," that is, by his authority, "and the works which my Father hath given me [power] to do, they bear witness of me." John v. 36. But how can one of the same individual essence with the Father act in his name, and not in his own also? Again, "As the Father hath taught me, so I speak."+ John viii. 28. And, "The Father hath not left me alone, for I do always the things that are most pleasing to him." Now, can one of the same numerical essence with the Father be taught by another, and not by himself? Or can he do those things, which are pleasing to another, and not to himself? In a word, if the essence of the Father and Son be one and the same, and consequently the actions flowing from that essence be one and the same in both; hence it demonstratively follows, that if to beget and to communicate an essence, be to act, the Son must as truly beget and communicate his essence to

* Alium dicam oportet, ex necessitate sensûs, eum qui jubet, et eum qui facit. Nam nec juberet, si ipse faceret, dum juberet fieri per eum. Tamen jubebat, haud sibi jussurus si unus esset; aut sine jussu facturus, quia non expectasset ut sibi juberet. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 12. et 9. Bonum placitum patris filius perfecit; mittit enim Pater, mittitur autem et venit Filius. Iren. L. 4. c. 14. ὁ δὲ ἐντελλόμενος ἑτέρῳ ἐντέλλεται T. Cons. Antioch. Sex Epis. Concil. Tom. 1. Ed. Lab. p. 84. + Vide Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. L. 1. c. 20. p. 90.

himself, as the Father doth, and so must be both Father and Son to himself.

Thirdly, one individual essence can give nothing to, and receive nothing from itself, because it can give nothing but what it hath already, and therefore cannot receive by way of gift. And this in an allperfect and self-sufficient being is the more certain, because it is incapable of any accession to its absolute perfection.

If, then, God the Son hath the same numerical essence, which the Father hath, he could not properly and truly say, "All things are delivered to me by my Father."* Matth. xi. 17. For could the Father either give or reveal any thing to his own essence, which it had not, or knew not, before? And again, "All power is given to me in heaven and earth;" Matth. xxviii. 18. seeing the same essence must have always the same power. "The Father," saith Christ, "loveth the Son, and hath given all thing his hands," John iii. 35. even into the han Son, who came down from IT

Father had given all

things into his hands, and that he came down from Heaven, washed the Disciples' feet." John xiii. 3. And yet, if he that came down from Heaven had the same numerical essence with the Father, he must give all things into his own hands, or give it to him who always had it. Again, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son," John v. 22. even to that Son which "he had sent down from Heaven." V. 23. and therefore to him, who had a divine nature, by which alone he could be enabled to execute that judgment. And, "Thou (Father) hast given him (thy Son) power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all that thou hast given him." Chap. xvii. 2. An earthly parent may give the power to his Son to give gratuities to his servants committed to him, because he is, in essence, numerically distinct from him; but were they numerically one in essence, the power of both must be one; and what was given, must be given by both.

Christ answers thus to the sons of Zebedee, "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."* Matth. xx, 25. And yet, where the essence is one and the same, the gift must proceed from one and the same essence in

* Inter cujus non est, et inter cujus est, nec persona una est, nec æqualis potestas. Si Pater et Filius unus est, certe aut potest Filius, Opus imperf. in Math. Ho. 53. p. 128.

aut non potest Pater.

both, and be prepared for them, to whom it is given by both.

Fourthly, the same numerical essence cannot send itself; or be sent from, and return to itself. And yet how frequently doth our Lord inform us that "the Father had sent him into the world," and that "he came forth from the Father ;" and "came into the world?" To select a few of his sayings; "He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me." Matth. x. 40. John xiii. 20. "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." In which words there seems to be a plain gradation from the lesser to the greater. "He that receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me." Mar. ix. 37. "He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me." John xii. 14.

Could this negation be truely spoken by one and the same God with him that sent him? Is not the import of these words plainly this? He receiveth, or believeth, not only in me his messenger, speaking in his name, but in that God who sent me on his message? Is not this his own interpretation, when he saith, "the word which you hear, is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." John xiv. 24. And is not this the import of the like phrases used both in the Old and New Testament? As when it is said, "Your murmurings are not against us, but