English · Geneva

Hilary of Poitiers

Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500

625 passages across 25 books of the Bible · Who was this?

On John

20 of 164
  1. John 10:29
    (de Trin. vii. c. 22) This is the speech of conscious power. Yet to show, that though of the Divine nature He hath His nativity from God, He adds, My Father which gave Me them is greater than all. He does not conceal His birth from the Father, but proclaims it. For that which He received from the Father, He received in that He was born from Him. He received it in the birth itself, not after it; though He was born when He received it.

    (vii. de Trin. c. 22) The hand of the Son is spoken of as the hand of the Father, to let thee see, by a bodily representation, that both have the same nature, that the nature and virtue of the Father is in the Son also.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  2. John 10:30
    (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: a…
    (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.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  3. John 10:30
    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 ab…
    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.

    ON THE TRINITY 8.5, 17-19

  4. John 10:31
    (vii. de Trin. c. 23) The heretics now, as unbelieving and rebellious against our Lord in heaven, show their impious hatred by the stones, i. e. the words they cast at Him; as if they would drag Him down again from His throne to the cross.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  5. John 10:33
    (vii. de Trin. c. 23) The Jew saith, Thou being a man, the Arian, Thou being a creature: but both say, Thou makest Thyself God. The Arian supposes a God of a new and different substance, a God of another kind, or not a God at all. He saith, Thou art not Son by birth, Thou art not God of truth; Thou art a superior creature.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  6. John 10:33
    The Jew says, "You being a man"; you [Arians] say, "You being a creature." You both join in the cry, "You make yourself God," with the same insolence of blasphemy. You deny that he is God begotten of God; you deny that he is the Son by a true birth; you deny that his words "I and the Father are one" contain the assertion of one and the same nature in both. You foist upon us instead a modern, strange, alien god. You make him God of another kind from the Father, or else not God at all, as not subsisting by a birth from God.… You say, in effect, "You are not a Son by birth; you are not God in truth; you are a creature excelling all other creatures."

    ON THE TRINITY 7.23-24

  7. John 10:36
    He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of G…
    He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name on many people; and he who was sanctified and sent by the Father did no more than proclaim himself the Son of God.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.24

  8. John 10:36
    (vii. de Trin. c. 24) Before proving that He and His Father are one, He answers the absurd and foolish charge brought against Him, that He being man made Himself God. When the Law applied this title to holy men, and the indelible word of God sanctioned this use of the incommunicable name, it could not be a crime in Him, even though He were man, to make Himself God. The Law called those who were mere men, gods; and if any man could bear the name religiously, and without arrogance, surely that man could, who was sanctified by the Father, in a sense in which none else is sanctified to the Sonship; as the blessed Paul saith, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness. (Rom. 1:4) For all this reply refers to Himself as man; the Son of God being also the Son of man.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  9. John 10:38
    (vii. de Trin. 26) What place hath adoption, or the mere conception of a name then, that we should not believe Him to be the Son of God by nature, when He tells us to believe Him to be the Son of God, because the Father's nature showed itself in Him by His works? A creature is not equal and like to God: no other nature has power comparable to the divine. He declares that He is carrying on not His own work, but the Father's, lest in the greatness of the works, the nativity of His nature be forgotten. And as under the sacrament of the assumption of a human body in the womb of Mary, the Son of God was not discerned, this must be gathered from His work; But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works. Why doth the sacrament of a human birth hinder the understanding of the divine, when the divine birth accomplishes all its work by aid of the human? Then He tells them what they should gather from His works; That ye may know and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. The same declaration again, I am the Son of God: I and the Father are one.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  10. John 10:38
    What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name or for denial that he was born from the nature of God when the proof that he is God's Son is that he does the works that belong to the Father's nature? No creature is equal or similar to God, no nature external to his is comparable in might to him. It is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and make equal to him.… The Son performs the Father's works and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for he bases it on his works and asks us to examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own but his Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the body that he had taken, the humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name.… First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God, except on the evidence of Go…
    What room is there here for adoption, or for permission to use the name or for denial that he was born from the nature of God when the proof that he is God's Son is that he does the works that belong to the Father's nature? No creature is equal or similar to God, no nature external to his is comparable in might to him. It is only the Son, born from himself, whom we can without blasphemy liken and make equal to him.… The Son performs the Father's works and on that ground demands that we should believe that he is God's Son. This is no claim of mere arrogance; for he bases it on his works and asks us to examine them. And he bears witness that these works are not his own but his Father's. He would not have our thoughts distracted by the splendor of the deeds from the evidence for his birth. And because the Jews could not penetrate the mystery of the body that he had taken, the humanity born of Mary, and recognize the Son of God, he appeals to his deeds for confirmation of his right to the name.… First, he would not have them believe that he is the Son of God, except on the evidence of God's works, which he does. Next, if he does the works yet seems unworthy in his bodily humility to bear the divine name, he demands that they believe the works. Why should the mystery of his human birth hinder our recognition of his birth as God when he that is divinely born fulfills every divine task by the agency of that manhood that he has assumed? If we do not believe the man for the works' sake when he tells us that he is the Son of God, let us believe the works when they—which are beyond a doubt the works of God—are clearly done by the Son of God. For the Son of God possesses by virtue of his birth everything that is God's. Therefore the Son's work is the Father's work because his birth has not excluded him from that nature that is his source and in which he abides, and because he has in himself that nature to which he owes his eternal existence.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.26

  11. John 11:41
    When He was about to restore Lazarus, He prayed to the Father: but what need had He of prayer, Who said, Father, "I thank Thee, that Thou hast heard Me; and I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the multitude I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me"? He prayed then for us, that we may know Him to be the Son; the words of prayer availed Him nothing, but He said them for the advancement of our faith. He was not in want of help, but we of teaching.

    On the Trinity, Book 10, Section 71

  12. John 11:42
    When he was about to restore Lazarus, he prayed to the Father. But he did not need to pray.… "But for the benefit of the people standing nearby I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me." He prayed then for us so that we might know that he is the Son. His prayer did not benefit himself but benefited our faith. He did not need any help, but we needed instruction.

    ON THE TRINITY 10.71

  13. John 11:42
    (lib. x. de Trin.) He did not therefore need to pray: He prayed for our sakes, that we might know Him to be the Son: But because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. His prayer did not benefit Himself, but benefited our faith. He did not want help, but we want instruction.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  14. John 12:30
    We remember, indeed, that a voice was sometimes uttered from heaven for us so that the power of the Father’s words might confirm for us the mystery of the Son.… But the divine nature can dispense with the various combinations necessary for human functions, the motion of the tongue, the adjustment of the mouth, the forcing of the breath and the vibration of the air. God is a simple being: we must understand him by devotion and confess him by reverence. He is to be worshiped, not pursued by our senses, for a conditioned and weak nature cannot grasp with the guesses of its imagination the mystery of an infinite and omnipotent nature.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.72

  15. John 13:31
    In the words, "Now is the Son of Man honoured, and God is honoured in Him," we have first the glory of the Son of Man, then the glory of God in the Son of Man. So there is first signified the glory of the body, which it borrows from its association with the divine nature: and then follows the promotion to a fuller glory derived from an addition to the glory of the body. "If God hath been honoured in Him, God hath honoured Him in Himself, and straightway hath God honoured Him." God has glorified Him in Himself, because He has already been glorified in Him. "God was glorified in Him:" this refers to the glory of the body, for by this glory is expressed in a human body the glory of God, in the glory of the Son of Man is seen the divine glory. "God was glorified in Him, and therefore hath God glorified Him in Himself:" that is, by His promotion to the Godhead, whose glory was increased in Him, God has glorified Him in Himself. Already before this He was reigning in the glory which springs from the divine glory: from henceforth, however, He is Himself to pass into the divine glory. "God h…
    In the words, "Now is the Son of Man honoured, and God is honoured in Him," we have first the glory of the Son of Man, then the glory of God in the Son of Man. So there is first signified the glory of the body, which it borrows from its association with the divine nature: and then follows the promotion to a fuller glory derived from an addition to the glory of the body. "If God hath been honoured in Him, God hath honoured Him in Himself, and straightway hath God honoured Him." God has glorified Him in Himself, because He has already been glorified in Him. "God was glorified in Him:" this refers to the glory of the body, for by this glory is expressed in a human body the glory of God, in the glory of the Son of Man is seen the divine glory. "God was glorified in Him, and therefore hath God glorified Him in Himself:" that is, by His promotion to the Godhead, whose glory was increased in Him, God has glorified Him in Himself. Already before this He was reigning in the glory which springs from the divine glory: from henceforth, however, He is Himself to pass into the divine glory. "God hath glorified Him in Himself:" that is, in that nature by which God is what He is. "That God may be all in all:" that His whole being, leaving behind the Dispensation by which He is man, may be eternally transformed into divinity. Nor is the time of this hidden from us: "And God hath glorified Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him." At the moment when Judas arose to betray Him, He signified as present the glory which He would obtain after His Passion through the Resurrection, but assigned to the future the glory with which God would glorify Him with Himself. The glory of God is seen in Him in the power of the Resurrection, but He Himself, out of the Dispensation of subjection, will be taken eternally into the glory of God, that is, into God, the all in all.

    On the Trinity, Book 11, Section 42

  16. John 13:31-32
    (xi. de. Trin. c. 42) That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God's glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God i…
    (xi. de. Trin. c. 42) That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God's glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God is glorified in Him? The Son of man is not another Person from the Son of God, for, the Word was made flesh. (John 1:14) How is God glorified in this Son of man, who is the Son of God? The next clause helps us; If God is glorified in Him, God also will glorify Him in Himself. A man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God who is glorified in man, because He receives glory, cease to be God. So the words, God is glorified in Him, either mean that Christ is glorified in the flesh, or that God is glorified in Christ. If God means Christ, it is Christ who is glorified in the flesh; if the Father, then it is the Sacrament of unity, the Father glorified in the Son. Again, God glorifies in Himself God glorified in the Son of man. This overthrows the impious doctrine that Christ is not very God, in verity of nature. For how can that which God glorifies in Himself be out of Himself? He whom the Father glorifies must be confessed to be in His glory, and He who is glorified in the glory of the Father, must be understood to be in the same case with the Father.

    (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

  17. John 13:32
    The meaning of his opening words can hardly be disputed when he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” He was saying that all the glory that [the Son of man] obtains is not for the Word but for his flesh.… What, then, is the meaning of what follows … when he says that “God is glorified in him,” that is, in the Son of man? Tell me, then, is the Son of man the same as the Son of God? And since the Son of man is not one entity and the Son of God another—but he who is the Son of God is himself also the Son of man—who, pray tell, is the God who is glorified in this Son of man who is also the Son of God?… The third clause helps us with this when he adds, “If God is glorified in him, God has also glorified him in himself.” … Now, a man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God, who is glorified in the man, cease being God just because he receives glory.… “God is glorified in him” must certainly be referring either to Christ, who is glorified in the flesh, or to the Father, who is glorified in Christ. If it is Christ, Christ is clearly God who is glorified in the flesh…
    The meaning of his opening words can hardly be disputed when he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” He was saying that all the glory that [the Son of man] obtains is not for the Word but for his flesh.… What, then, is the meaning of what follows … when he says that “God is glorified in him,” that is, in the Son of man? Tell me, then, is the Son of man the same as the Son of God? And since the Son of man is not one entity and the Son of God another—but he who is the Son of God is himself also the Son of man—who, pray tell, is the God who is glorified in this Son of man who is also the Son of God?… The third clause helps us with this when he adds, “If God is glorified in him, God has also glorified him in himself.” … Now, a man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God, who is glorified in the man, cease being God just because he receives glory.… “God is glorified in him” must certainly be referring either to Christ, who is glorified in the flesh, or to the Father, who is glorified in Christ. If it is Christ, Christ is clearly God who is glorified in the flesh. If it is the Father, we are face to face with the mystery of the unity, since the Father is glorified in the Son.… But when we consider that God glorifies in himself God who is glorified in the Son of man, by what loophole, pray tell, can your profane doctrine escape from the confession that Christ is very God according to the truth of his nature?… The Father glorifies him, not with a glory from without but in himself. By taking him back into that glory that belongs to himself and that [the Son] had with him before, the Father glorifies [the Son] with himself and in himself.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.40-42

  18. John 14:1
    Our Lord speaks in words deliberately chosen, so that whatever he claims for the Father, he signifies in modest language to be appropriate to himself. Take for example the command, “Believe in God, and believe in me.” He is identified with God in honor. How, I ask you, can he be separated from his nature? He says, “Believe in me also,” just as he said “Believe in God.” Do not the words “in me” signify his nature? Separate the two natures, but then you must also separate the two beliefs. If it is life that we should believe in God without Christ, strip Christ of the name and qualities of God. But if perfect life is given to those who believe in God only when they believe in Christ also, let the careful reader ponder the meaning of the saying, “Believe in God, and believe in me also,” for these words, uniting faith in him with faith in God, unite his nature to God’s. He enjoins first of all the duty of belief in God but adds to it the command that we should believe in himself also, which implies that he is God, since those who believe in God must also believe in him. Yet he excludes th…
    Our Lord speaks in words deliberately chosen, so that whatever he claims for the Father, he signifies in modest language to be appropriate to himself. Take for example the command, “Believe in God, and believe in me.” He is identified with God in honor. How, I ask you, can he be separated from his nature? He says, “Believe in me also,” just as he said “Believe in God.” Do not the words “in me” signify his nature? Separate the two natures, but then you must also separate the two beliefs. If it is life that we should believe in God without Christ, strip Christ of the name and qualities of God. But if perfect life is given to those who believe in God only when they believe in Christ also, let the careful reader ponder the meaning of the saying, “Believe in God, and believe in me also,” for these words, uniting faith in him with faith in God, unite his nature to God’s. He enjoins first of all the duty of belief in God but adds to it the command that we should believe in himself also, which implies that he is God, since those who believe in God must also believe in him. Yet he excludes the suggestion of a unity contrary to religion, for the exhortation “Believe in God, believe in me also” forbids us to think of him as alone in solitude.

    ON THE TRINITY 9.19

  19. John 14:6
    He who is the way does not lead us into by-paths or trackless wastes. He who is the truth does not mock us with lies. He who is the life does not betray us into delusions, which are death. He himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods that he has appointed for our salvation. As the way, he will guide us to the truth. As the truth, he will establish us in the life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what the mysterious mode is that he reveals for attaining this life. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” The way to the Father is through the Son.

    ON THE TRINITY 7.33

  20. John 14:6
    Except through him there is no approach to the Father. But there is also no approach to him unless the Father draws us. Understanding him to be the Son of God, we recognize in him the true nature of the Father. And so, when we learn to know the Son, God the Father calls us. When we believe the Son, God the Father receives us. For our recognition and knowledge of the Father is in the Son who shows us in himself God the Father. The Father draws us by his fatherly love, if we are devout, into a mutual bond with his Son.

    ON THE TRINITY 11.33

All writers