Novatian — On the Trinity 27

He Skilfully Replies to a Passage Which the Heretics Employed in Defence of Their Own Opinion. But since they frequently urge upon us the passage where it is said, I and the Father are one, in this also we shall overcome them with equal facility. For if, as the heretics think, Christ were the Father , He ought to have said, I and the Father are one. But when He says I, and afterwards introduces the Father by saying, I and the Father , He severs and distinguishes the peculiarity of His, that is, the Son's person, from the paternal authority, not only in respect of the sound of the name, but moreover in respect of the order of the distribution of power, since He might have said, I the Father , if He had had it in mind that He Himself was the Father. And since He said one thing , let the heretics understand that He did not say one person .

For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. He is said to be one neuter , not one masculine , because the expression is not referred to the number, but it is declared with reference to the association of another. Finally, He adds, and says, We are, not I am, so as to show, by the fact of His saying I and the Father are, that they are two persons . Moreover, that He says one , has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love , and in affection; and because He is of the Father , whatsoever He is, He is the Son; the distinction however remaining, that He is not the Father who is the Son , because He is not the Son who is the Father.

For He would not have added We are , if He had had it in mind that He, the only and sole Father, had become the Son. In fine, the Apostle Paul also apprehended this agreement of unity, with the distinction of persons notwithstanding: for in writing to the Corinthians he said, I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he that plants and he that waters are one. And who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that. Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person? Moreover, also, the offices mentioned of each one of them are different; for one is he who plants, and another he who waters.

The Apostle Paul , however, put forward these two not as being one person , but as being one; so that although Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons , yet as far as respects their agreement both are one. For when two persons have one judgment, one truth , one faith , one and the same religion, one fear of God also, they are one even although they are two persons : they are the same, in that they have the same mind. Since those whom the consideration of person divides from one another, these same again are brought together as one by the consideration of religion. And although they are not actually the self-same people, yet in feeling the same, they are the same; and although they are two, are still one, as having an association in faith , even although they bear diversity in persons .