where he prays that his disciples "may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they might be made perfect in one;" and yet, doubtless, he could not pray that his disciples might be one in essence with the Father and Son, but only that they might be one by having the spirit of the Father and Son dwelling in them. In which sense Athenagoras says, the Father and Son are one, namely, ivórτI TOũ Teóμatos, by unity of the spirit.*

Thus Origen interprets this verse. For having cited these words, I and my Father are one; "if any one," saith he, "is disturbed at these expressions, as if we favoured the opinion of the Noetians, who deny the Father and the Son to be δύο ύποστάσεις, two singular existences; let him consider this text, 'All that believed were of one heart, and one soul,' Acts iv. 34. and then he will understand this, 'I and my Father are one thing.' We serve therefore, as ázodedánaper, as we formerly explained it, one God, the Father and the Son; we worship the Father of the truth, and also the Son who is the truth, being. indeed two things in subsistence, but in agreement and consent, and sameness of will, they are one.

Here, indeed, he only saith we worship the Father of the truth, and the Son who is the truth and wisdom; but in his Comment on John, p. 70, he adds, that the Father is πλείων καὶ μείζων ἀλήθεια, a fuller

and greater truth, and, being the Father of wisdom,

greater and more excellent, as he is wisdom, than the Son. Then he proceeds, p. 387, to show, that among the multitude of believers, some, differing from the rest, rashly affirmed, as the Noetians did, that our Saviour was the God over all; "which," saith he, "we Christians, or we of the church, do not believe; as giving credit to the same Saviour, who said, "My Father is greater than I." And he saith, p. 388, "We Christians manifestly teach, that the Son is not stronger than the Father, who is the Creator of the world, ἀλλ' ὑποδεέστερος, but inferior in power to him." Which words afford the clearest demonstration, that the church of that age did not believe that our Saviour was ô inì távtwv Jeds, the supreme God, or one of the same numerical essence with the Father; and therefore could not interpret those words of such an unity, but only of an unity of concord, mind, and will. Hence, in his Comment upon St John, p. 227, he saith, that this unity of will is the cause why Christ said, I and my Father are one. And his next page adds, that the will which is in Christ is the image of the first will; and the divinity which is in Christ is the image of the true divinity.

Novatian is, if possible, still more express in this interpretation. For, in answer to the objection of the Sabellians from this place, he saith, that "Unum, being here put in the neuter gender, denotes not an unity of person, but a concord of society between them;

they being deservedly styled one, by reason of their concord and love, and because whatsoever the Son is, he is from the Father." "The Apostle," saith he, "knew this unity of concord with the distinction of persons, by writing to the Corinthians thus; 'I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.' For who understands not that Paul is one

person, and Apollos another? And that they had diverse offices, one to plant, and another to water? And yet the Apostle Paul saith of these two, ev tioı, they are one, though as to the distinction of persons they are two;"* with other things of like nature.

And here it is to be observed, that Pamelius' note upon these words, is this; Nempe in hoc loco non satis accuratè scribere Novatianum, quod nullam essentia Patris et Filii communicationem adferat, sed exemplum ab Apostolo unitati essentiæ veluti contrarium; in quo certè hallucinatum fuisse auctorem non vereor dicere, quum postea ecclesia in diversis conciliis diversum definiverit. That is, “Novatian did not write accurately in this place, as making no mention of the communion of the essence between the Father and the Son, but introducing an example from the Apostle, as it were contrary to it; in which thing I doubt not to pronounce him erroneous, seeing the church afterwards in diverse councils defined the contrary."

* De Trinitate, c. 27.

And yet it is certain, that many of the Antenicene Fathers in effect said the same thing. For Justin pronounces the Son to be ἕτερος τοῦ πατρὸς

**

ἀριθμῷ οὐ γνώμῃ, another from the Father in number, but not in consent. And his reason follows thus, because he never would do any thing but what ὁ τὸν κόσμον ποιήσας, ὑπὲρ ὃν ἄλλος οὐκ ἔστι θεὸς, βεβούληται καὶ πρᾶξαι καὶ ὁμιλῆσαι, the maker of the world, above whom there is no other God, would have him do and speak. Where, first, this God the Father is plainly styled another in number from him that made the world; and, secondly, the Son is represented as one not doing his own will, but being in all things subservient to, and delivering the words of that God, from whom he is thus distinguished.

Lactantius saith, that the Father and Son are one, quia unanimes incolunt mundum,† "because they unanimously dwell in the world."

Eusebius pronounces the Father and Son to be one, οὐ καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς δόξης, not as to the essence, but as to communion of glory.

And, lastly, the council of Antioch pronounceth the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be rgía μèv izoorÁGEI, Ty de cuμpariα év, that is, three in subsistence, but one only in consent, or concord. Tertullian declares, in answer to this objection of the Sabellians, that these words, "I and the Father," duorum esse significatio

* Dial. cum Tryph. p. 276. † L. 4. c. 29. ‡ Ecclès. L. 3. c. 19.

nem, "signify two;" and then adds, that, unum, neutrali verbo, non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem, ad similitudinem, ad conjunctionem; ad dilectionem Patris qui Filium diligit, et ad obsequium Filii qui voluntati Patris obsequitur ;* that is, "The word unum, being in the neuter gender, does not denote numerical unity, but union, resemblance, connexion; the love of the Father towards the Son, and the obedience of the Son towards the Father." Which last words show, that it is impossible, that this text should be interpreted of the numerical essence, or unity of the Father and Son; seeing one and the same essence cannot be obsequious or obedient to itself. And yet there is nothing more common among the Ante-nicene Fathers, than to say with Novatian, who having affirmed that the Son, obedierit Patri, et obediat, "always did, and always doth obey the Father," thence makes this inference; Quid tam evidens esse potest hunc non Patrem esse, sed Filium, quam quod obediens Patri Deo proponitur ?+ "What more evidently shews, that Christ is not the Father, but the Son, than this, that Christ is obedient to the Father?" And again, Filius nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, nec ex consilio suo facit, nec a se venit; sed imperiis paternis omnibus et preceptis obedit, ut quamvis probet illum nativitas Filium, tamen morigera obedientia asserat illum

• Adversus Praxeam, c. 22. p. 575. + De Trinitate, c. 26.