Again. The Works, faith he, which I do in my Father's Name, that is, by his Authority, and the Work which my Father hath given me [Power] to do, they bear witness of me, Joh. V. 36. But how can one of the fame individual Effence with the Father act in his Name, and not in his own allo? Again, As the Father hath taught me, so I speak. (a) Joh. viii. 28. And, the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always the Things that are most pleafing to him. Now can one of the fame numerical Effence with the Father be taught by another, and not by himself? Or can he do thofe Things which are pleafing to ano ther, and not to himself? In a word, if the Effence of the Father and Son be one and the fame, and confequently the Actions flowing from that Effence be one and the fame in both; hence it demonftratively follows, that if to beget, and to communicate an Effence, be to act, the Son must as truly beget and communicate his Effence to himself, as the Father doth, and fo must be both Father and Son to himself.

Thirdly, One individual Effence can give nothing to, and receive nothing from it self, because it can give nothing but what it hath already, and therefore cannot receive by way of Gift. And this in an All-perfect and Selffufficient Being is the more certain, because it is incapable of any Acceffion to its abfolute Perfection.

(a) Vide Eufeb. de Eccles. Theol. 1. 1. c. 20, p. 90.

If

If then God the Son hath the fame numerical Effence which the Father hath, he could not properly and truly fay, Matth. xi. 17. (a) All things are delivered to me by my Father. For could the Father either give or reveal any thing to his own Effence, which it had not, or knew not, before? And again, Matth. xxviii. 18. All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth: feeing the fame Effence must have always the fame Power. The Father, faith Chrift, loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands, Joh. iii. 35.

.

even into the hands of that Son who came down from Heaven, hath he given all things; not by Communication of his own numerical Effence to him, but from that Affection which he bore to him. So again, Jefus knowing that the Father had given all things into his bands, and that he came down from Heaven, washed the Disciples Feet, Joh. xiii. 3. And yet if he that came down from Heaven had the fame numerical Effence with the Father, he must give all Things into his own hands, or give it to him who always had it. Again, Job. v. 22. The Father judgeth no Man, but bath committed all Judgment to the Son, even to that Son which he had fent down from Heaven,

(α) το δ παρ' ἑτέρα λαμβάνον τί, ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν διδόνα νοεῖται, Eufeb. Eccles. Theol. 1. 3. c. 4. p. 169. Tasÿ 4xápis “Y TOũ DIO~ Scuro syer άandas. ibid. 1. 1. c. 20. p. 90. & plenius, 1. 2. c. 7. p. 110. Nam nec qui accipit unus eft cum dante, nec qui traditum accipit equalis eft ei qui tradidit. Opus imperf. in Math. P. 97.

Heaven, V. 23. and therefore to him who had a Divine Nature, by which alone he could be enabled to execute that Judgment. And chap. xvii. 2, Thou (Father, V. 1.) haft given him (thy Son, ibid.) Power over all Flesh, that he may give eternal Life to all that thou haft given him. An earthly Parent may give the Power to his Son to give Gratuities to his Servants committed to him, because he is in Effence, numerically diflinct from him: But were they numerically one in Effence, the Power of both must be one; and what was given, must be given by both.

Laftly, Chrift answers thus to the Sons of Zebedee, (a) Matth. xx. 25. To fit 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. And yet where the Effence is one and the fame, the Gift must proceed from one and the fame Effence in both, and be prepared for them, to whom it is given by both.

Fourthly, The fame numerical Effence cannot send it felf; or be fent from, and return to its felf. And yet how frequently doth our Lord inform us that the Father had fent him into the World, and, that he came forth from the Father? And came into the World? To

fele&

(a) Inter cujus non eft, & inter cujus eft, nec Perfona una eft, nec æqualis Poteftas. Si Pater & Filius unus eft, certé aut poteft Filius, aut non poteft Pater. Opus imperf. in Math. Ho. 53. p. 128.

felect a few of his Sayings: He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that fent me, Matth. x. 40. Joh. xiii. 20. He that defpifeth you, defpifeth me; and he that defpifeth me, defpifeth him that fent me.

In which Words there feems to be a plain Gradation from the leffer to the greater. He that receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that fent me, Mar. ix. 37. He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that fent me, Joh. xii. 14. Could this Negation be truly spoken by one and the fame 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 fent me on his Meffage? Is not this his own interpretation, when he faith, The Word which you hear, is not mine, but the Father's which fent me, Joh. xiv. 24 And is not this the import of the like Phrafes used both in the Old and New Testament? As when 'tis faid, Exod. xvi. 8. Tour Murmurings, are not against us, but against the Lord. And, 1 Sam. viii. 7. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, Theff. iv. 8. He that defpifeth our Commandment, despiseth not Man, but God. Again, chap. viii. 17, 18. Chrift fpeaketh thus; In your Law it is written, the Teftimony of two Men is true; I am one that bear witness of my felf, and the Father that fent me, beareth witness of me.

Where

Where observe, that the Doctrine of the numerical Unity of the Father and the Son in Effence and in Actions, deftroys Chrift's Argument, and turns it into a Paralogifm; for upon this Suppofition the Pharifees might have anfwered, that the Testimony of two Men, might well be deem'd the Teftimony of two Witneffes, because they were as to Nature numerically different, and their Teflimony contained two different Actions, the Teftimony of one being not the Teftimony of the other; whereas the Teftimony of the Father and Son, were only the fame numerical Action of them both; and fo could not properly be faid to be two Teftimonies. And Joh. x. 37. (a) Say you of him whom the Father hath fanctified, and fent into the World, thou blafphemeft, becaufe I faid I am the Son of God? From this Answer 'tis evident, first, that they accused our Lord of Blafphemy, not for saying, v. 30. I and the Father are one, but for ftyling God his Father, and fo in effect faying, he was the Son of God: For this is the Reason of that Accufation which our Lord here speaks of. Secondly, our Lord here proves himself to be the Son of God, because the Father had fancti

fied

(a) Sanétificatum fe a Patre proponit, dum ergo Sanctificationem accipit a Patre, minor Patre eft, minor autem Patre confequenter fed Filius. Pater enim fi fuiffet, Sanctificationem dediffet, non accepiffet; nunc autem proftendo fe accipere Sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipfo, quo Patre se minorem accipiendo ab ipfo Sanctificationem probat, Filium fe esse, non Patrem monftravit. Novat, C. 22.