Novatian, On the Trinity 27
Opponents constantly appeal to the passage where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), thinking they have an easy victory. But if the Father were Christ, as the heretics imagine, He would have had to say, "I, the Father, am one." Instead, He first says "I," then adds "the Father," declaring "I and the Father." By doing so He distinguishes and separates the property of His own person — that is, of the Son — from the Father's authority, not only in the sound of the name but also in the order of assigned power. He could have said "I am the Father" if He had remembered that He was the Father. And because He said "one" (unum), not "alone" (unus), the heretics should understand the difference. "One" in the neuter expresses the concord of a partnership, not the unity of a single person; it does not refer to number but to a relationship with another. Finally He adds "we are" (sumus), not "I am" (sum), to show that "I and the Father are" means two persons. The word "one" points to their concord, their shared mind, and the very society of love, so that the Father and the Son are rightly one through concord, love, and affection.
Because the Son is from the Father — whatever that means — He remains the Son while the distinction stands: the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. He would not have said "we are" if He had thought of Himself as the Father alone, a solitary Son. The Apostle Paul also knows this unity of concord while maintaining a distinction of persons. Writing to the Corinthians he says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Yet "the one who plants and the one who waters are one." Who does not see that Apollos is one person and Paul another, not the same as Apollos, nor are they a single individual? Their different offices are also set forth: one plants, another waters. Still Paul presents these two as "one" — not because they are one person, but because they are one in mind: truth is one, faith is one, religion is one and the same, the fear of God is one. They are one even though they are two. They are one insofar as they think the same thing. Those whom the reality of persons divides, the reality of religion unites again. Although they are not identical, when they share the same sentiment they are one; and when they are two, they are one, having a partnership in faith even while bearing diversity in persons.
Finally, when Jewish ignorance was stirred by these words of the Lord and rashly inflamed to the point of picking up stones, so that they shouted, "We stone you not for a good work but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, make yourself God," the Lord drew a distinction in His answer to show how He said or wished to be understood as God. "The one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world — you say I blaspheme because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" Here again He declares that He has a Father. Therefore He is the Son, not the Father — for He would have confessed He was the Father if He had remembered He was the Father. While He receives sanctification from the Father, He is the Son. If He were the Father He would have given sanctification, not received it. By professing that He received sanctification from the Father, He proves by that very act — accepting it from the Father as the lesser — that He is the Son, not the Father. Moreover He says He was sent, so that through this obedience, by which the Lord Christ was sent, the Son is proved, not the Father — who would certainly have been the sender if He were the Father. The Father was not sent, lest the Father be shown subject to another God by being sent. Yet after all this He adds the final words that dissolve every ambiguity and extinguish the whole controversy of error: "You say that I blaspheme because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" If the Lord plainly testifies that He is the Son, not the Father, it is an act of great recklessness and immense fury to stir up a controversy over divinity and religion against Christ's own testimony, and to call Christ Jesus the Father, when He has demonstrated that He is not the Father but the Son.
Latin
Sed quia frequenter intendunt illum nobis locum quo dictum sit: ego et pater unum sumus, et in hoc illos aeque facile uincemus. si enim erat, ut haeretici putant, pater Christus, oportuit dicere: ego pater unus sum. at cum ego dicit, deinde patrem infert, dicendo ego et pater, proprietatem personae suae, id est filii, a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositae potestatis; qui potuisset dicere, ego pater, si patrem se esse meminisset. et quia dixit unum, intellegant haeretici quia non dixit unus. unum enim neutraliter positum societatis concordiam non unitatem personae sonat. unum enim non unus esse dicitur, quoniam nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur. denique adicit dicens, sumus, non sum, ut ostenderet per hoc quod dixit, sumus ego et pater, duas esse personas; vnum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis societatem pertinere, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione, ut non sit pater ille qui filius, quia nec filius ille qui pater est. nec enim sumus addidisset, si unum se et solitarium patrem filium factum esse meminisset. Denique nouit hanc concordiae unitatem et apostolus Paulus, cum personarum tamen distinctione. nam cum ad Corinthios scriberet, ego, inquit, plantaui, Apollo rigauit, sed deus inttague neque qui plantat est quicquam, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat deus. qui autem plantat, et qui rigat, unum sunt. quis autem non intellegat alterum esse Apollo, alterum Paulum, non eundem atque ipsum Apollo pariter et Paulum? denique et diuersa uniuscuiusque sunt officia prolata: alter enim guz plantat, et alter qui rigat. hos tamen duos, non quod unus sit, sed quod unum sint, proposuit apostolus Paulus, ut alter quidem sit Apollo, alter uero Paulus, quantum ad personarum distinctionem pertinet; [quantum uero duorum una sententia est, ueritas una est, fides una est, una atque eadem religio est, unus etiam dei timor est, unum sunt, etiam si duo sint. ipsum sunt, dum ipsum sapiunt. etenim quos personae ratio inuicem diuidit, eosdem rursus inuicem religionis ratio conducit. et quamuis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt; et cum duo sint, unum sunt, habentes in fide societatem, etiam si gerant in personis diuersitatem. Denique cum ad has uoces domini imperitia fuisset Iudaica commota et temere ad usque saxa succensa, ita ut discurrerent et dicerent: on te lapidamus propter bonum opus, sed propter blasphemiam, et quia tu, cum homo sis, facis te deum, distinctionem posuit dominus in ratione reddenda, quomodo se deum aut dixisset aut intellegi uellet. quem pater sanctificauit, inquit, et misit in hunc mundum, uos dicitis, quia blasphemas, quia dixi, filius dei sum? etiam hic patrem habere se dixit. filius est ergo, non pater—patrem enim confessus se fuisset, Si patrem se esse meminisset—et sanctificatum se a suo patre esse proponit. dum ergo accipit sanctificationem a patre, est, sed filius. pater enim si fuisset, sanctificationem dedisset, non accepisset. nunc autem profitendo se accepisse sanctificationem a patre, hoc ipso, quo patre se minorem accipiendo ab ipso sanctificationem probat, filium se esse, non patrem monstrauit. missum praeterea se esse dicit, ut per hanc oboedientiam, qua uenit dominus Christus missus, non pater sed filius probetur, qui misisset utique, si pater fuisset. missus autem non fuit pater, ne pater subditus alteri deo, dum mittitur, probaretur. et tamen post haec adicit, quod omnem omnino ambiguitatem dissolueret et totam controuersiam erroris exstingueret. ait enim in ultima parte sermonis: vos dicitis, guia blasphemas, quia dixt, filius dei sum? ergo si euidenter filium dominus se, non patrem, esse testatur, magnae temeritatis et ingentis est furoris exemplum contra ipsius Christi domini testimonium controuersiam diuinitatis et religionis agitare, et Christum Iesum patrem esse dicere, cum animaduertat illum non patrem se, sed filium, comprobasse.