Hilary of Poitiers

John, who especially brings out the working of spiritual causes in the Gospel, preserves this prayer of the Lord for the apostles that all the others passed over. Notice how he prayed, namely, “Holy Father, keep them in your name.… While I was with them, I kept them in your name: those whom you gave me I have kept.” That prayer was not for himself but for his apostles. He was not in sorrow for himself since he asks them to pray that they won’t be tempted.… And when he prays, he prays for those whom he preserved, so long as he was with them, whom he now hands over to the Father to preserve. Now that he is about to accomplish the mystery of death, he begs the Father to guard them. The presence of the angel who was sent to him (if this explanation is true) is no doubt significant. Jesus showed his certainty that the prayer was answered when, at its close, he commands the disciples to sleep. The effect of this prayer and the security that prompted the command, “sleep,” is noticed by the Evangelist in the course of the passion, when he says of the apostles just before they escaped from the hands of the pursuers, “That the word might be fulfilled which he had spoken, ‘Of those whom you have given me, I lost not one of them.’ ” He himself fulfills the petition of his prayer, and they are all safe. But he asks that those whom he has preserved the Father will now preserve in his own name. And they are preserved; the faith of Peter does not fail: it cowered, but repentance followed immediately.

The words of Christ, "I and the Father are one," [heretics] endeavour to refer to a mere concord of unanimity, so that there may be in them a unity of will not of nature, that is, that they may be one not by essence of being, but by identity of will. And they apply to the support of their case the passage in the Acts of the Apostles, "Now of the multitude of them that believed the heart and soul were one," in order to prove that a diversity of souls and hearts may be united into one heart and soul through a mere conformity of will.... Or again, they quote the prayer of our Lord for the salvation of the nations who should believe in Him: "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe on Me through their Word; that they all may be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us," to shew that since men cannot, so to speak, be fused back into God or themselves coalesce into one undistinguished mass, this oneness must arise from unity of will, while all perform actions pleasing to God, and unite one with another in the harmonious accord of their thoughts, and that thus it is not nature which makes them one, but will.

(vii de Trin) And this unity is recommended by the great example of unity: As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, i. e. that as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so, after the likeness of this unity, all may be one in the Father and in the Son.

(viii. de Trin) Heretics endeavouring to get over the words, I and My Father are one, as a proving unity of nature, and to reduce them to mean a unity simply of natural love, and agreement of will, bring forwards these words of our Lord's as an example of this kind of unity: That they may be all one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee. But though impiety can cheat its own understanding, it cannot alter the meaning of the words themselves. For they who are born again of a nature that gives unity in life eternal, they cease to be one in will merely, acquiring the same nature by their regeneration: but the Father and Son alone are properly one, because God, only-begotten of God, can only exist in that nature from which He is derived.

(viii. de Trin) Or, the world will believe that the Son is sent from the Father, for that reason, viz. because all who believe in Him are one in the Father and the Son.

Now I ask whether glory is identical with will, since will is an emotion of the mind while glory is an ornament or embellishment of nature. So then, it is the glory received from the Father that the Son has given to all who shall believe in him, and certainly not will. Had will been given, faith would carry with it no reward, for a necessity of will attached to us would also impose faith on us. However, he has shown what is effected by the bestowal of the glory received: “that they may be one, even as we are one.” It is then with this object that the received glory was bestowed, that all might be one. So now all are one in glory, because the glory given is none other than that which was received; nor has it been given for any other reason than that all should be one. And since all are one through the glory given to the Son and by the Son bestowed on believers, I ask how the Son can be of a different glory from the Father’s, since the glory of the Son brings all that believe into the unity of the Father’s glory. Now it may be that the utterance of human hope in this case may be somewhat immoderate, yet it will not be contrary to faith. For though to hope for this were presumptuous, yet not to have believed it is sinful, for we have one and the same author both of our hope and of our faith.

The Lord stoops to the level even of our feeble understanding. He works a miracle of his invisible power in order to satisfy the doubts of unbelieving minds. Explain, my critic, the ways of heaven—explain his action if you can. The disciples were in a closed room. They had met and held their assembly in secret since the passion of the Lord. The Lord presents himself to strengthen the faith of Thomas by meeting his challenge. He gives him his body to feel, his wounds to handle. He, indeed, who would be recognized as having suffered wounds must necessarily produce the body in which those wounds were received. I ask at what point in the walls of that closed house the Lord bodily entered. The apostle has recorded the circumstances with careful precision: “Jesus came when the doors were shut and stood in the midst.” Did he penetrate through bricks and mortar or through stout woodwork—substances whose very nature it is to bar progress? For there he stood in bodily presence; there was no suspicion of deceit. Let the eye of your mind follow his path as he enters. Let your intellectual vision accompany him as he passes into that closed dwelling. There is no breach in the walls; no door has been unbarred. Yet, see how he stands in the midst whose might no barrier can resist. You are a critic of things invisible; I ask you to explain a visible event. Everything remains firm as it was. No body is capable of insinuating itself through the interstices of wood and stone. The body of the Lord does not disperse itself, to come together again after a disappearance. Yet where does the one who is standing in their midst come from? Your senses and your words are powerless to account for it. The fact is certain, but it lies beyond the region of human explanation. If, as you say, our account of the divine birth is a lie, then prove that this account of the Lord’s entrance is a fiction. If we assume that an event did not happen, because we cannot discover how it was done, we make the limits of our understanding into the limits of reality. But the certainty of the evidence proves the falsehood of our contradiction. The Lord did stand in a closed house in the midst of the disciples; the Son was born of the Father. Deny not that he stood, because your puny wits cannot ascertain how he came there; renounce instead a disbelief in God the only-begotten and perfect Son of God the unbegotten and perfect Father that is based only on the incapacity of sense and speech to comprehend.

He orders them to await the promise of the Father, which has been heard from his mouth. Certainly, the discourse even now is concerned with the promise of his Father. Consequently, the manifestation of the Spirit is through the effects which these powers produce. [Awaiting the promise of the Father,] the gift of the Spirit is not hidden where there is the word of wisdom and where the words of life are heard. The effects of the powers produced by the Spirit are not fully manifest where there is the [rational] perception of the divine knowledge in order that we may not be like the animals, unaware of the author of our life through our ignorance of God, nor even through our faith in God in order that we may not be outside the gospel of God by not believing the gospel of God. The Spirit is not manifested only through the gift of healing in order that by the cure of infirmities we may render testimony to the grace of him who has granted these gifts; or through the performance of miracles in order that the power of God may be recognized in what we are doing; or through prophecy in order that through our knowledge of the doctrine it may be known that we have been taught by God; or through the distinguishing of spirits in order that we may perceive whether anyone speaks through a holy or an evil spirit; or through the various kinds of languages in order that the sermons in these languages may be offered as a sign of the Holy Spirit who has been given; or in the interpretation of the languages in order that the faith of the hearers might not be endangered through ignorance, since the interpreter of a language makes it intelligible for those who are not familiar with the language. Rather it is through all the diversities of these gifts that the effects of the Spirit are poured out for the profit of everyone.

The Son is not lacking in the knowledge of anything that the Father knows, and the Son is not ignorant, because the Father alone knows, since the Father and the Son remain in the unity of the nature. What the Son, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, does not know is in harmony with the divine plan for maintaining silence. The Lord bore testimony to this when he replied to the apostles who had questioned him about the times, “It is not for you to know the times or dates which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”The knowledge is denied them. Not only is it denied, but they are forbidden to be anxious about the knowledge, since it is not for them to know these times. Naturally, after the resurrection, they now interrogate him about the times, since they had been informed previously when they broached the question, that not even the Son knows, and they could not believe that the Son did not know in the literal meaning of the term, because they again question him as one who does not know. Since they are aware that the mystery of not knowing is according to the divine plan for maintaining silence, they conclude that now, after the resurrection, the time for speaking has at length arrived, and they bring forth their questions.
And the Son does not tell them that he does not know but that it is not for them to know, because the Father has settled this matter by his own authority. Consequently, if the apostles realize that this statement, that the Son does not know, is in keeping with the plan of salvation and is not a weakness, shall we assert that the Son, therefore, does not know the day because he is not God? God the Father has determined it by his own authority, therefore, in order that it may not come to the knowledge of our human comprehension, and the Son, when previously interrogated, had said that he did not know and now he does not make the same reply that he does not know, but that it is not for them to know, and that the Father, however, has decided upon these times not in his knowledge but in his authority. Since the day and moment are included in the idea of time, it is impossible to believe that the day and moment for restoring the kingdom of Israel is unknown to him who is to restore it. But, to lead us to the knowledge of his birth through the Father’s unique power, he answered that it was known to him and, while revealing that the right to acquire this knowledge had not been conferred on them, he declared that this knowledge itself is dependent upon the mystery of the Father’s authority.