요한복음 10:30 주석

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's parabolical discourse concerning himself as the door of the sheepfold, and the shepherd of the sheep (v. 1-18). II. The various sentiments of people upon it (Joh 10:19-21). III. The dispute Christ had with the Jews in the temple at the feast of dedication (v. 22-39). IV. His departure into the country thereupon (Joh 10:40-42).

Verily, verily, I say unto you,.... To the Scribes and Pharisees, who had taken it ill that they should be thought to be blind; and who had cast out the man that Christ had cured of blindness, for speaking in favour of him; and who had traduced Christ as an impostor, and a deceiver, and set up themselves to be the shepherds of the flock, and the guides and rulers of the people; all which occasion the following parable; the design of which is to show, that Christ is the true and only shepherd, who was appointed, called, and sent of God, whose the sheep are, whose voice they hear, and know, and whom they follow; and that they, the Scribes and Pharisees, were thieves and robbers, and not shepherds of the flock; who were not sent of God, nor did they come in at the right door, but in another way, and usurped a domination, which did not belong to them. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold: the sheepfold, with the Jews, was called and this, as their writers say (o), was an enclosure sometimes in the manner of a building, and made of stone, and sometimes was fenced with reeds, and in it was a large door, at which the shepherd went in and out, when he led in, or brought out the sheep. At tithing, which was done in the sheepfold, they made a little door, so that two lambs could not come out together; and to this enclosure is the allusion here; and by the "sheepfold" is meant the church of God; see Joh 10:16; and a good fold it is, Eze 34:14. The church may be compared to a sheepfold, because it is separated from the world: it is where the people of God, and sheep of Christ are gathered together; where there is a strict union between them; have society with each other; keep one another warm and comfortable; and where they are fed and nourished, and are preserved; and where they lie down and have rest; and which, like a sheepfold, will be taken down, and not always continue in the form it now is: and by "the door" into it, is meant Christ himself, as appears from Joh 10:7; faith in him, a profession of him, and authority from him. Now he that does not come into the church of God, whether as a member of it, or officer in it, at this door, but climbeth up some other way; by hypocrisy and deceit: or, like the prophets of old, who ran and were not sent; prophesied when they were not spoken to, but took their place and post by usurpation: the same is a thief and a robber; steals into the church, or into an office in it, and robs God or Christ of their power and authority; and such were the Scribes and Pharisees: the Persic version renders the words, "whoever does not introduce the sheep through the door of the sheepfold, know that that man is a thief and a robber"; which these men were so far from doing, that they would not suffer those that were entering to go in, Mat 23:13. The difference between a thief and a robber, with the Jews, was, that the former took away a man's property privately, and the latter openly (p). (o) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 7. (p) Maimon. Hilchot Genuba, c. 1. sect. 3.

I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him. The Jew (p) objects, that "if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in Mar 13:32, for saith Jesus, "that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only"; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.'' But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge, &c. but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge; his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in Mar 13:32; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons. (p) Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 50. p. 438, 439.

“[W]e are one thing,” not “one person.” For if he had said “one person,” he might have rendered some assistance to their opinion. Unus, no doubt, indicates the singular number; but [here we have a case where] “two” are still the subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son’s part, who obeys the Father’s will.

Because the Son is the Word, and "the Word is God," and "I and my Father are one." But after all, perhaps, the Son will patiently enough submit to having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; " and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; " and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one." This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him.

For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, "I am God, and beside me there is no God ; " so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, "I and my Father are one; " and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.

And now it may be seen in what sense it was said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," -even in the same in which it was said in a previous passage, "I and my Father are one." Wherefore? Because "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world" and, "I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me; " and, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; " and, "All things are delivered unto me by the Father; " and, "As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son; " and again, "If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also.

These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

That appellation is one both of filial duty and of power. Again, in the Father the Son is invoked; "for I," saith He, "and the Father are One." Nor is even our mother the Church passed by, if, that is, in the Father and the Son is recognized the mother, from whom arises the name both of Father and of Son.

Our Savior and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh or one spirit but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous person is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh or spirit but more honorable than these—God. This then is the sense in which we should understand “I and the Father are one.”

And therefore the Lord, suggesting to us a unity that comes from divine authority, lays it down, saying, "I and my Father are one." To which unity reducing His Church, He says again, "And there shall be one flock, and one shepherd." But if the flock is one, how can he be numbered among the flock who is not in the number of the flock? Or how can he be esteemed a pastor, who,-while the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination,-succeeding to no one, and beginning from himself, becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord's peace and of the divine unity, not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in the Church of God, in which none dwell except they are of one heart and one mind, since the Holy Spirit speaks in the Psalms, and says, "It is God who maketh men to dwell of one mind in a house."

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

This word can be true of no human being, “I and the Father are one.” Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of his divinity.

But since they frequently urge on 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, the Father, am 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 association, not 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, remains 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.

Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of "work" the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For "I," says He, "and the Father are one;" and, "I in the Father and the Father in Me." For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.

Now seeing that the heretics cannot get around these words because they are so clearly stated and understood, they nevertheless try to explain them away. They maintain that the words "I and the Father are one" refer to a mere union of unanimity only; a unity of will, not of nature, that is, that the two are one not by essence of being but by identity of will. … They make use of the example of our own union with God, as though we were united to the Son and through the Son to the Father by mere obedience and a devout will and not through the true communion of our nature [with his] that is promised to us through the sacrament of the body and blood.…But it is not through any mysterious appointment of God that they are one, but through the birth of the nature, for God loses nothing in begetting the Son from himself. They are one, for the sheep not plucked out of the Son's hand are not plucked out of the hand of the Father.… The Father works in the Son's works, for the Son himself is in the Father and the Father is in him. This proceeds from no creation but from birth. It is not brought about by will but by power. It is not an agreement of mind that speaks but nature that does so. For to be created and to be born are not one and the same any more than to will and to be able are the same; neither is it the same thing to agree and to abide. Thus we do not deny the unanimity between the Father and the Son—for heretics falsely say that since we do not accept the concord by itself as the bond of unity we declare the Father and the Son to be in disagreement. We do not deny such a unanimity, [but the unanimity results from the unity]. The Father and the Son are one in nature, honor, power, and the same nature cannot will contrary things.

(viii. de Trin. c. 5) The heretics, since they cannot gainsay these words, endeavour by an impious lie to explain them away. They maintain that this unity is unanimity only; a unity of will, not of nature; i. e. that the two are one, not in that they are the same, but in that they will the same. But they are one, not by any economy merely, but by the nativity of the Son's nature, since there is no falling off of the Father's divinity in begetting Him. They are one whilst the sheep that are not plucked out of the Son's hand, are not plucked out of the Father's hand: whilst in Him working, the Father worketh; whilst He is in the Father, and the Father in Him. This unity, not creation but nativity, not will but power, not unanimity but nature accomplisheth. But we deny not therefore the unanimity of the Father and Son; for the heretics, because we refuse to admit concord in the place of unity, accuse us of making a disagreement between the Father and Son. We deny not unanimity, but we place it on the ground of unity. The Father and Son are one in respect of nature, honour, and virtue: and the same nature cannot will different things.

One, he says of himself, with the Father according to ousia, not according to hypostasis, and he is equal with the Father in all things. For he is to be counted as two according to hypostases, both himself and the Father, who, he said is greater than he.

Lastly, that the Father and the Son are but one God, Isaiah showed in that passage which we have brought forward before, when he said: "They shall fall down unto Thee, and make supplication unto Thee, since God is in Thee, and there is no other God besides Thee." And he also speaks to the same purport in another place: "Thus saith God the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the everlasting God; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." When he had set forth two persons, one of God the King, that is, Christ, and the other of God the Father, who after His passion raised Him from the dead, nevertheless, with reference to each person, he introduced the words, "and beside me there is no God," when he might have said "beside us;" but it was not right that a separation of so close a relationship should be made by the use of the plural number. For there is one God alone, free, most high, without any origin; for He Himself is the origin of all things, and in Him at once both the Son and all things are contained. Wherefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other, or rather, since there is one in both, both are justly called one God; for whatever is in the Father flows on to the Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the Father.

But of those words which signify His natural glory and nobility, and abiding with the Father, they have become unmindful. Such as this: "I and My Father are one," which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father, inasmuch as He has by nature impressed upon Him His similitude in every respect, and is the image of the Father in no way discrepant, and the expressed figure of the primitive exemplar.

(Hom. lxi) Then that thou mayest not suppose that the Father's power protects the sheep, while He is Himself too weak to do so, He adds, I and My Father are one.

"What then? Is it through the power of the Father that no man plucketh them away, and hast thou no strength, but art too weak to guard them?" By no means. And in order that thou mayest learn that the expression, "The Father which gave them to Me," is used on their account, that they might not again call Him an enemy of God, therefore, after asserting that, "No man plucketh them out of My hand," He proceedeth to show, that His hand and the Father's is One. Since had not this been so, it would have been natural for Him to say, "The Father which gave them to Me is greater than all, and no man can pluck them out of My hand." But He said not so, but, "out of My Father's hand." Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, "I and the Father are One." As though He had said "I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One." Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also. And when the Jews used ten thousand means, plotting and casting men out of their synagogues, He telleth them that all their contrivances are useless and vain; "For the sheep are in My Father's hand"; as the Prophet saith, "Upon My hand I have pictured thy walls." (Isa. xlix. 16.) Then to show that the hand is One, He sometimes saith that it is His own, sometimes the Father's. But when thou hearest the word "hand," do not understand anything material, but the power, the authority. Again, if it was on this account that no one could pluck away the sheep, because the Father gave Him power, it would have been superfluous to say what follows, "I and the Father are One." Since were He inferior to Him, this would have been a very daring saying, for it declares nothing else than an equality of power; of which the Jews were conscious, and took up stones to cast at Him. Yet not even so did He remove this opinion and suspicion; though if their suspicion were erroneous, He ought to have set them right, and to have said, "Wherefore do ye these things? I spake not thus to testify that my power and the Father's are equal"; but now He doth quite the contrary, and confirmeth their suspicion, and clencheth it, and that too when they were exasperated. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him.

And when God was feeding them, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit was feeding them. Now he is raised up and becomes like a second shepherd. But he is not a second one. Not a second one in the form of God, because in the form of God he and the Father are one God. But in the form of a servant he is raised up to feed them like a second one, because the Father is greater. Listen to one feeding them, and Christ feeding them: "I and the Father are one."

In his divinity he is equal to the Father; by his incarnation he is subject to the Father.

[We must understand] that the Father is not anything in respect to his own substance. We must also understand that what is said about him—that he is the Father and his very existence as Father—is all said in relation to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, seeing that the Father—in respect to himself—is neither his own essence, nor does he exist at all in respect to himself? Rather, even his very essence exists in relation to the Son. But this establishes even more the fact that [the Son] is of one and the same essence [with the Father], since the Father and Son must be of one and the same essence, seeing that the Father has being itself—not in respect to himself, but to the Son. This is the essence he begot, and the essence by which he is whatever he is. Therefore neither [person] exists in respect to himself alone. And both exist in relationship to one another.

(Tract. xxxvi. non occ.) Mark both those words, one and are, and thou wilt be delivered from Scylla and Charybdis. In that He says, one the Arian, in we are the Sabellian, is answered. There are both Father and Son. And if one, then there is no difference of persons between them. (vii. de Trin. c. 2) We are one. What He is, that am I, in respect of essence, not of relation.

How are the Father and the Son inseparable, since Himself said, "I and the Father are one"? Because the Father and the Son are not two Gods, but one God, the Word and He whose the Word is, One and the Only One, Father and Son bound together by charity, One God, and the Spirit of Charity also one, so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is made the Trinity. Therefore, not only of the Father and Son, but also of the Holy Spirit; as there is equality and inseparability of persons, so also the works are inseparable.

But that there may be no more room for hesitation, hear what follows: "I and my Father are one." Up to this point the Jews were able to bear Him; they heard, "I and my Father are one," and they bore it no longer; and hardened in their own way, they had recourse to stones.

For Christ, having admitted what pertained to His humanity, recurs to His God-befitting dignity, taking pleasure in the advantages of His Nature for the profit of the faithful and for the sake of sound faith, which is, never at all to suspect that the Son is inferior to the Father. For thus He is shown to be the undamaged Image of the Father, preserving in Himself whole and sound the Very Impress of the Father. And we say the Son and the Father are One, not blending their Individualities by the use of that number, as do some who say that the Father and the Son are the same [Person], but believing the Father by Himself and the Son by Himself to personally subsist; and collecting the two into One Sameness of Essence, also knowing them to possess one might, so that it is seen without variation now in One and now in the Other. I and the Father are One. By the word "One" He signifies the Sameness of their Essence: and by the word "are" He severs into two that which is understood, and again binds them up into One Godhead. But this also we must understand, in opposition to the Arians, that in His saying: I and the Father are One, there is signified, not the proof of sameness of will, but the Oneness of their Essence. For indeed the Jews understood that in saying this, He said that Himself was God and equal to the Father; and Christ did not deny that He had said this as they understood it.

We say the Son and the Father “are one,” not to blend their individuality by the use of that number, as some do who say that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. Rather, we believe that the Father and the Son are two unique persons, and we regard the two together in one identical essence, knowing that they possess one might, so that this divine essence is seen without variation in both.

The Lord himself also says: "I and the Father are one." And again he says: "The Father is greater than I." Of whom it is also written that he was subject to his parents. What wonder then if from his humanity he asserts himself less than the Father in heaven, from which he was also subject to his parents on earth?

He only means His perfect agreement with His Father.

For My hand and the Father's hand are one; I and the Father are one, that is, in authority and power. By "hand" He means authority and power. So then, I and the Father are one in Nature and in Essence, and in authority. The Jews also understood it this way, that by these words He declares Himself Consubstantial with God, and because He makes Himself the Son of God, they picked up stones to stone Him.

Thirdly, he affirms his unity with the Father, and from this the conclusion follows. Thus he says, I and the Father are one. As if to say: no one shall snatch them out of my hand, because I and the Father are one, by a unity of essence, for the Father and the Son are the same in nature. This statement rejects two errors: that of Arius, who distinguished the essence of the Father from that of the Son, and that of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the person of the Father from the person of the Son. We escape both Charybdis and Scylla, for by the fact that Christ says, one, he saves us from Arius, because if one, then they are not different in nature. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same person. Yet the Arians, deceived by their wickedness, try to deny this, and say that a creature can in some sense be one with God, and in this sense the Son can be one with the Father. The falsity of this can be shown in three ways. First, from our very manner of speaking. For it is clear that "one" is asserted as "being"; thus, just as something is not said to be a being absolutely except according to its substance, so it is not said to be one except according to its substance or nature. Now something is asserted absolutely when it is asserted with no added qualification. Therefore, because I and the Father are one, is asserted absolutely, without any qualifications added, it is plain that they are one according to substance and nature. But we never find that God and a creature are one without some added qualification, as in 1 Corinthians (6:17): "He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." Therefore, it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the Father as a creature can be. Secondly, we can see this from his previous statement, what my Father has given me is greater than all. He draws the conclusion from this: I and the Father are one. This is like saying: We are one to the extent that the Father has given me that which is greater than all. Thirdly, it is clear from his intention. For our Lord proves that no one will snatch the sheep from his hand precisely because no one can snatch from the hand of his Father. But this would not follow if his power were less than the power of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are one in nature, honor and power.

Christ speaks the parable of the sheepfold, Joh 10:1-6. Proclaims himself the door of the sheepfold, Joh 10:7-10, and the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, Joh 10:11-18. The Jews are again divided, and some revile and some vindicate our Lord, Joh 10:19-21. His discourse with the Jews at the temple, on the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22-29. Having asserted that he was one with the Father, the Jews attempt to stone him, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:31. He vindicates his conduct, and appeals to his works, Joh 10:32-38. They strive to apprehend him; he escapes, and retires beyond Jordan, Joh 10:39, Joh 10:40. Many resort to and believe on him there, Joh 10:41, Joh 10:42.

I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, εγω και ὁ πατηρ ἑν εσμεν - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh 17:11, Joh 17:22.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21) He that entereth not by the door--the legitimate way (without saying what that was, as yet). into the sheepfold--the sacred enclosure of God's true people. climbeth up some other way--not referring to the assumption of ecclesiastical office without an external call, for those Jewish rulers, specially aimed at, had this (Mat 23:2), but to the want of a true spiritual commission, the seal of heaven going along with the outward authority; it is the assumption of the spiritual guidance of the people without this that is meant.

I and my Father are one--Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. "Are" is in the masculine gender--"we (two persons) are"; while "one" is neuter--"one thing." Perhaps "one interest" expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father's hands, as if they had not been given out of them. "Neither have they," says He; "though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever--they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for HE AND I HAVE ALL IN COMMON." Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And AUGUSTINE was right in saying the "We are" condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the "one" (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence).