CXLV expository sermons upon the whole 17th chapter of the Gospel according to St.…

Before we raise the Doctrine, this particular must be vindicated: For the Arians and Socinians think this a pregnant place to overthrow the [Greek or Hebrew] all nature of the Father and the Sonne. That therefore here cannot be meant an essential Unity. Thus they argue, Such an Unity the Father and Christ have, as the Disciples are prayed for to have: But that is a Unity and Concord and Agreement, not of Essence: Therefore Christ and the Father are not Essentially One.

Before we raise the Doctrine, this particular must be vindicated: For the Arians and Socinians think this a pregnant place to overthrow the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 all nature of the Father and the Sonne. That therefore here cannot be meant an essential Ʋnity. Thus they argue, Such an Ʋnity the Father and Christ have, as the Disciples are prai'd for to have: But that is a Ʋnity and Concord and Agreement, not of Essence: Therefore Christ and the Father are not Essentially One.

This seemeth to be very specious and plausible. But

First, Grant that we should interpret the Oneness spoken of in the Text of consent in Will and Agreement, as Calvin doth, yet it doth not follow, that other places speaking of their Oneness should be also understood in the same manner, yea from the Oneness of Will between the Father and Son, is necessarily inferred the Oneness of their nature: So that although we should understand this principally of Unity in accord, yet by consequence it would prove Unity of Nature; for in free Agents, where there is the same will, there there is also the same nature; where there is the same humane will, there is the same humane nature; and where is the same divine will, there is the same divine nature, indeed with men it's the same specific nature, not numerical; but because there is one God only, therefore it must be the same numerical nature.