Hilary of Poitiers

It is not possible by the laws of bodies for the same object to remain and to descend. The one is the change of downward motion, the other the stillness of being at rest. The infant wails but is in heaven: the boy grows but remains ever the immeasurable God. By what perception of human understanding can we comprehend that he ascended where he was before, and he descended who remained in heaven? The Lord says, “What if you should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?” The Son of man ascends where he was before. Can sense apprehend this? The Son of man—who is in heaven—descends from heaven. Can reason cope with this? The Word was made flesh—can words express this? The Word becomes flesh, that is, God becomes man. The man is in heaven: the God is from heaven. He ascends who descended, but he descends and yet does not descend. He is as he ever was, yet he was not ever what he is. We pass in review of the causes, but we cannot explain the manner. We perceive the manner but cannot understand the causes. Yet, if we understand Christ Jesus even in this way, we shall know him. If we seek to understand him further, we shall not know him at all.

"Descended from heaven" refers to his origin from the Spirit. For though Mary contributed to his growth in the womb and birth all that is natural to her sex, his body did not owe to her its origin. The “Son of man” refers to the birth of the flesh conceived in the Virgin; “who is in heaven” implies the power of his eternal nature—an infinite nature, which could not restrict itself to the limits of the body—of which it was itself the source and base. By the virtue of the Spirit and the power of God the Word, though he sojourned in the form of a servant, he was ever present as Lord of all within and beyond the circle of heaven and earth. So he descended from heaven and is the Son of man, yet is in heaven. For the Word made flesh did not cease to be the Word. As the Word, he is in heaven, as flesh he is the Son of man. As Word made flesh, he is at once from heaven, and Son of man and in heaven. For the power of the Word, abiding eternally without body, was present still in the heaven he had left. The flesh owed its origin to him and to no one else. So the Word made flesh, though he was flesh, nonetheless never ceased to be the Word.

We see that the woman, her mind full of inherited tradition, thought that God must be worshiped either on a mountain, as at Samaria, or in a temple, as at Jerusalem.… The prejudices of both confined the all-embracing and illimitable God to the crest of a hill or the vault of a building. God is invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable. The Lord said that the time had come when God should be worshiped neither on mountain nor in temple. For the Spirit cannot be shut up, as if in a cabin, or confined. It is omnipresent in space and time, and under all conditions it is present in its fullness. Therefore he said that they are the true worshipers who shall worship in the Spirit and in truth. And these who are to worship God the Spirit in the Spirit shall have the One for the means, the Other for the object, of their reverence. For each of the two stand in a different relation to the worshiper. The words “God is Spirit” do not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit has a name of his own and that he is the gift to us.… The imparted gift and the object of reverence were clearly shown when Christ taught that God, being Spirit, must be worshiped in the Spirit, and revealed what freedom and knowledge, what boundless scope for adoration, lay in this worship of God the Spirit, in the Spirit.

(vii. de Trin. c. 17) He refers to the charge of violating the sabbath, brought against Him. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; meaning that He had a precedent for claiming the right He did; and that what He did was in reality His Father's doing, who acted in the Son. And to quiet the jealousy which had been raised, because by the use of His Father's name He had made Himself equal with God, and to assert the excellency of His birth and nature, He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.

(vii. de Tr. c. 17.) Lest then that assertion of His equality, which must belong to Him, as by Name and Nature the Son, might throw doubt upon His Nativityf, He says that the Son can do nothing of Himself.

(vii. de Tr. c. 17) That the wholesome order of our confession, i. e. that we believe in the Father and the Son, might remain, He shows the nature of His birth; viz. that He derived the power of acting not from an accession of strength supplied for each work, but by His own knowledge in the first instance. And this knowledge He derived not from any particular visible precedents, as if what the Father had done, the Son could do afterwards; but that the Son being born of the Father, and consequently conscious of the Father's virtue and nature within Him, could do nothing but what He saw the Father do: as he here testifies; God does not see by bodily organs, but by the virtue of His nature.

(vii. de Tr. c. 18) Or thus; All things and the same, He says, to show the virtue of His nature, its being the same with God's. That is the same nature, which can do all the same things. And as the Son does all the same things in a like way, the likeness of the works excludes the notion of the worker existing aloneg. Thus we come to a true idea of the Nativity, as our faith receives it: the likeness of the works bearing witness to the Nativity, their sameness to the Nature.

(vii. de Trin. c. 19) It must not be supposed that the Only Begotten God needed such showing on account of ignorance. For the showing here is only the doctrine of the nativityh; the self-existing Son, from the self-existing Father.

(vii. de Trin. c. 19) Nor did the heavenly discourse lack the caution, to guard against our inferring from these words any difference in the nature of the Son and the Father. For He says that the works of the Father were shown to Him, not that strength was supplied Him for the doing of them, in order to teach that this showing is substantially nothing else than His birth; for that simultaneously with the Son Himself is born the Son's knowledge of the works the Father will do through Him.

(de Trin. vii. c. 19) For to will is the free power of a nature, which by the act of choice, resteth in the blessedness of perfect excellence.

(de Trin vii. c. 20) Having said that the Son quickeneth whom He will, in order that we might not lose sight of the nativity, and think that He stood upon the ground of His own unborn power, He immediately adds, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment unto the Son. In that all judgment is given to Him, both His nature, and His nativity are shewn; because only a self-existent nature can possess all things, and nativity cannot have any thing, except what is given it.

(vii. de Trin. c. 20) All judgment is given to Him, because He quickens whom He will. Nor can the judgment be looked on as taken away from the Father, inasmuch as the cause of His not judging is, that the judgment of the Son is His. For all judgment is given from the Father. And the reason for which He gives it, appears immediately after: That all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.

(vii. de Trin. c. 21) The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He is the Son, because He does nothing of Himself: He is God, because, whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same; They are one, because They are equal in honour: He is not the Father, because He is sent.

The heretics, driven hard by Scripture proofs, are obliged to attribute to the Son at any rate a likeness, in respect of virtue, to the Father. But they do not admit a likeness of nature, not being able to see that a likeness of virtue, could not arise but from a likeness of nature; as an inferior nature can never attain to the virtue of a higher and better one. And it cannot be denied that the Son of God has the same virtue with the Father, when He says, What things soever (the Father) doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise. But an express mention of the likeness of nature follows: As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. In life are comprehended nature and essence. And the Son, as He hath it, so hath He it given to Him. For the same which is life in both, is essence in both; and the life, i. e. essence, which is begotten from life, is born; though not born unlike the other. For, being life from life, it remains like in nature to its origin.

(vii. de Trin. c. 27, 28) Living born from living, hath the perfection of nativity, without the newness of nature. For there is nothing new implied in generation from living to living, the life not coming at its birth from nothing. And the life which derives its birth from life, must by the unity of nature, and the sacrament of a perfect birth, both be in the living being, and have the being who lives it, in itself. Weak human nature indeed is made up of unequal elements, and brought to life out of inanimate matter; nor does the human offspring live for some time after it is begotten. Neither does it wholly live from life, since much grows up in it insensibly, and decays insensibly. But in the case of God, the whole of what He is, lives: for God is life, and from life, can nothing be but what is living.

For the person of the receiver, is distinct from that of the giver: it being inconceivable that one and the same person, should give to and receive from Himself. He who lives of Himself is one person: He who acknowledges an Author of His life is another.

The heretics, driven hard by Scripture proofs, are obliged to attribute to the Son at any rate a likeness, in respect of virtue, to the Father. But they do not admit a likeness of nature, not being able to see that a likeness of virtue, could not arise but from a likeness of nature; as an inferior nature can never attain to the virtue of a higher and better one. And it cannot be denied that the Son of God has the same virtue with the Father, when He says, What things soever (the Father) does, the same does the Son likewise. But an express mention of the likeness of nature follows: As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. In life are comprehended nature and essence. And the Son, as He has it, so has He it given to Him. Forthe same which is life in both, is essence in both; and the life, i.e. essence, which is begotten from life, is born; though not born unlike the other. For, being life from life, it remains like in nature to its origin.
Living born from living, has the perfection of nativity, without the newness of nature. For there is nothing new implied in generation from living to living, the life not coming at its birth from nothing. And the life which derives its birth from life, must by the unity of nature, and the sacrament of a perfect birth, both be in the living being, and have the being who lives it, in itself. Weak human nature indeed is made up of unequal elements, and brought to life out of inanimate matter; nor does the human offspring live for some time after it is begotten. Neither does it wholly live from life, since much grows up in it insensibly, and decays insensibly. But in the case of God, the whole of what He is, lives: for God is life, and from life, can nothing be but what is living.
For the person of the receiver, is distinct from that of the giver: it being inconceivable that one and the same person, should give to and receive from Himself. Hew ho lives of Himself is one person: He who acknowledges an Author of His life is another.