[2.] But how is the doctrine His and not His? For He said not, “This doctrine is not Mine”; but having first said, “it is Mine,” and having claimed it as His own, He then added, “it is not Mine.” How then can the same thing be both “His” and not “His”? It is “His,” because He spake it not as one who had been taught; and it is “not His,” because it was the doctrine of the Father. How then saith He, “All that is the Father’s is Mine, and Mine His”? ( c. xvii. 10.) “For if because the doctrine is the Father’s, it is not thine, that other assertion is false, for according to that it ought to be thine.” But the “is not Mine,” affords a strong proof that His doctrine and the Father’s are one; as if He had said, “It hath nothing different, as though it were another’s. For though My Person be different, yet so do I speak and do as not to be supposed to speak or do anything contrary to the Father, but rather the very same things that the Father saith and doeth.” Then He addeth another incontrovertible argument, bringing forward something merely human, and instructing them by things to which they were accustomed. And what is that?