John 14:8

Whence, also, to Philip, who then was desirous to see Him, the Lord shows this abundantly. For when he said, "Show us the Father," He answered: "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father," since the Father was Himself seen through the spotless and living mirror of the divine image. Similar to which is what the saints say in the Psalms: "In Thy light shall we see light." Wherefore he that honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father also; and with reason, for every impious word which they dare to speak against the Son, has reference to the Father.

(vii. de Trin) A declaration so new startled Philip. Our Lord is seen to be man. He confesses Himself to be the Son of God, declares that, if He were known, the Father would be known, that, if He is seen, the Father is seen. The familiarity of the Apostle therefore breaks forth into questioning our Lord, Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.He did not deny He could be seen (non visum negavit), but wished to be shown him; nor did he wish to see with his bodily eyes, but that He whom he had seen might be made manifest to his understanding. He had seen the Son in the form of man, but how through that form He saw the Father, he did not know. This he wants to be shown him, shown to his understanding, not set before his eyes; and then he will be satisfied: And it sufficeth us.

When he hears the words, He that hath, seen Me hath seen the Father also, he jumps to the blasphemous conclusion of an inseparable and indistinguishable identity of nature in Father and Son, because he fails to see that the revelation of the birth is the mode in which Their unity of nature is manifested to us. For the fact that the Father is seen in the Son is a proof of the Son's Divinity, not a disproof of His birth. Thus our knowledge of Each of Them is conditioned by our knowledge of the Other, for there is no difference of nature between them and, since in this respect they are One, a reverent study of the character of Either will give us a true insight into the nature of Both.

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father?" That is, "I am seen in that Essence."

"The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself," Seest thou the exceeding nearness, and the proof of the one Essence?

"The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." How, beginning with words, doth He come to works? for that which naturally followed was, that He should say, "the Father speaketh the words." But He putteth two things here, both concerning doctrine and miracles. Or it may have been because the words also were works. How then doeth He them? In another place He saith, "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not." How then saith He here that the Father doeth them? To show this same thing, that there is no interval between the Father and the Son. What He saith is this: "The Father would not act in one way, and I in another." Indeed in another place both He and the Father work; "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"; showing in the first passage the unvaryingness of the works, in the second the identity. And if the obvious meaning of the words denotes humility, marvel not; for after having first said, "Believest thou not?" He then spake thus, showing that He so modeled His words to bring him to the faith; for He walked in their hearts.

What saith Christ? Very reprovingly He saith, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He said not, "hast thou not seen," but, "hast thou not known Me." "Why," Philip might say, "do I wish to learn concerning Thee? At present I seek to see Thy Father, and Thou sayest unto me, hast thou not known Me?" What connection then hath this with the question? Surely a very close one; for if He is that which the Father is, yet continuing a Son, with reason He showeth in Himself Him who begat Him. Then to distinguish the Persons He saith, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," lest any one should assert that the same is Father, the same Son. For had He been the Father, He would not have said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen Him." Why then did He not reply, "thou askest things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible"? Because Philip had said, "it sufficeth us," as though knowing Christ, He showeth that he had not even seen Him. For assuredly he would have known the Father, had he been able to know the Son. Wherefore He saith, "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." "If any one hath seen Me, he shall also behold Him." What He saith is of this kind: "It is not possible to see either Me or Him." For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus showeth him that he had not even seen Himself.

When Philip said to Christ, "Show us the Father," He replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" And yet there are some who even after these words separate the Father from the Son. What proximity dost thou require closer than this? Indeed from this very saying some have fallen into the malady of Sabellius. But let us, leaving both these and those as involved in directly opposite error, consider the exact meaning of the words. "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He saith. What then? replieth Philip, "Art thou the Father after whom I enquire?" "No," He saith. On this account He said not, "hast thou not known Him," but, "hast thou not known Me," declaring nothing else but this, that the Son is no other than what the Father is, yet continuing to be a Son.

And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, "he that hath known Me," saith Christ, "hath known the Father." Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, "he that knoweth My Essence, knoweth that of the Father also." "And what is this?" saith some one; "for he who is acquainted with creation knoweth also God." Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answereth, "He that hath seen Me." Now he that hath seen the creation, hath not also seen the Essence of God. "If any one hath seen Me, he hath seen the Father," He saith. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another.

But how came Philip to ask this question? Christ had said, "If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also" and He had often said the same to the Jews. Since then Peter and the Jews had often asked Him, "Who is the Father?" since Thomas had asked Him, and no one had learnt anything clear, but His words were still not understood; Philip, in order that He might not seem to be importunate and to trouble Him by asking in his turn after the Jews, "Show us the Father," added, "and it sufficeth us," "we seek no more." Yet Christ had said, "If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also," and by Himself He declared the Father. But Philip reversed the order, and said, "Show us the Father," as though knowing Christ exactly. But Christ endureth him not, but putteth him in the right way, persuading him to gain the knowledge of the Father through Himself, while Philip desired to see Him with these bodily eyes, having perhaps heard concerning the Prophets, that they "saw God." But those cases, Philip, were acts of condescension. Wherefore Christ said, "No man hath seen God at any time"; and again, "Every man that hath heard and hath learned from God cometh unto Me." "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape." And in the Old Testament, "No man shall see My face, and live."

(Hom. lxxiv. 1) Or thus: Philip, because [he thought] he had seen the Son with his bodily eye, wished to see the Father in the same way; perhaps too remembering what the Prophet said, I saw the Lord, and therefore he says, show us the Father. (Isa. 6:1) The Jews had asked, who was His Father; and Peter and Thomas, whither He went; and neither were told plainly. Philip therefore, that he might not seem burdensome, after saying, show us the Father, adds, And it sufficeth us: i. e. we seek for no more. Our Lord in reply does not say, that he asked an impossible thing, but that he had not seen the Son to begin with, for that if he had seen Him, he would have seen the Father: Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me? He does not say, not seen Me, but, not known Me; not known that the Son, being what the Father is, does in Himself fitly show the Father. Then dividing the Persons, He says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; that none might maintain that He was both the Father and the Son. The words show too that even the Son was not seen in a bodily sense. So if any one takes seeing here, for knowing, I will not contradict him, but will take the sentence as if it was, He that hath known Me, hath known the Father. He shows here His consubstantiality with the Father: He that hath seen My substance, hath seen the Father. Whence it is evident He is not a creature: for all know and see the creature, but not all God; Philip, for instance, who wished to see the substance of the Father. If Christ then had been of another substance from the Father, He would never have said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. A man cannot see the substance of gold in silver: one nature cannot be made apparent by another.

(Hom. lxxiv. 2) Mark the abundant proof of the unity of substance. For He continues; But the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. As if He said, My Father and I act together, not differently from each other; agreeing with what He said below: If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But why does He pass from words to works? Why does He not say as we might have expected, He speaketh the words? Because He means to apply what He says both to His doctrine, and to His miracles; or because His words are themselves works.

(Hom. lxxiv. 2) But if this does not suffice to show ray consubstantiality, at least learn it from My works: Or else believe Me for the very works' sake. Ye have seen My miracles, and all the proper signs of My divinity; works which the Father alone worketh, sins remitted, life restored, and the like.

"Believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." "Ye ought not, when ye hear of 'Father' and 'Son,' to seek anything else to the establishing of the relationship as to Essence, but if this is not sufficient to prove to you the Condignity and Consubstantiality, ye may learn it even from the works." Had the, "he that hath seen Me, hath seen My Father," been used with respect to works, He would not afterwards have said, "Or else believe Me for the very works' sake." And then to show that He is not only able to do these things, but also other much greater than these, He putteth them with excess. For He saith not, "I can do greater things than these," but, what was much more wonderful, "I can give to others also to do greater things than these."

Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, "Am I so long with you?" Hast thou enjoyed such teaching, hast thou seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone worketh, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and hast thou not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, "Hast thou not known Me?"

Thou hast seen the Father; seek not to see more; for in Him thou hast seen Me. If thou hast seen Me, be not over-curious; for thou hast also in Me known Him.

The words of the holy Gospel, brethren, are rightly understood only if they are found to be in harmony with those that precede; for the premises ought to agree with the conclusion, when it is the Truth that speaks. The Lord had said before, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also:" and then had added, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" and showed that all He said was that they knew himself. What, therefore, the meaning was of His going to Himself by Himself,-for He also lets the disciples see that it is by Him that they are to come to Him,-we have already told you, as we could, in our last discourse. When He says, therefore, "That where I am, there ye may be also," where else were they to be but in Himself? In this way is He also in Himself, and they, therefore, are just where He is, that is, in Himself. Accordingly, He Himself is that eternal life which is yet to be ours, when He has received us unto Himself; and as He is that life eternal, so is it in Him, that where He is there shall we be also, that is to say, in Himself. "For as the Father hath life in Himself," and certainly that life which He has is in no wise different from what He is Himself as its possessor, "so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself," inasmuch as He is the very life which He hath in Himself. But shall we then actually be what He is, (namely), the life, when we shall have begun our existence in that life, that is, in Himself? Certainly not, for He, by His very existence as the life, hath life, and is Himself what He hath; and as the life, is in Him, so is He in Himself: but we are not that life, but partakers of His life, and shall be there in such wise as to be wholly incapable of being in ourselves what He is, but so as, while ourselves not the life, to have Him as our life, who has Himself the life on this very account that He Himself is the life. In short, He both exists unchangeably in Himself and inseparably in the Father. But we, when wishing to exist in ourselves, were thrown into inward trouble regarding ourselves, as is expressed in the words, "My soul is cast down within me:" and changing from bad to worse, cannot even remain as we were. But when by Him we come unto the Father, according to His own words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me," and abide in Him, no one shall be able to separate us either from the Father or from Him.

Connecting, therefore, His previous words with those that follow, He proceeded to say, "If ye had known me, ye should certainly have known my Father also." This conforms to His previous words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me." And then He adds: "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." But Philip, one of the apostles, not understanding what he had just heard, said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." And the Lord replied to him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? he that seeth me, seeth also the Father."

Here you see He complains that He had been so long time with them, and yet He was not known. But had He not Himself said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" and on their saying that they knew it not, had convinced them that they did know, by adding the words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"? How, then, says He now, "Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me?" when, in fact, they knew both whither He went and the way, on no other grounds save that they really knew Himself? But this difficulty is easily solved by saying that some of them knew Him, and others did not, and that Philip was one of those who did not know Him; so that, when He said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," He is understood as having spoken to those that knew, and not to Philip, who has it said to him, "Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me, Philip?" To such, then, as already knew the Son, was it now also said of the Father, "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him:" for such words were used because of the all-sided likeness subsisting between the Father and the Son; so that, because they knew the Son, they might henceforth be said to know the Father.

Already, therefore, they knew the Son, if not all of them, those at least to whom it is said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" for He is Himself the way. But they knew not the Father, and so have also to hear, "If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also;" that is, through me ye have known Him also. For I am one, and He another. But that they might not think Him unlike, He adds, "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." For they saw His perfectly resembling Son, but needed to have the truth impressed on them, that exactly such as was the Son whom they saw, was the Father also whom they did not see. And to this points what is afterwards said to Philip, "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father." Not that He Himself was Father and Son, which is a notion of the Sabellians, who are also called Patripassians, condemned by the Catholic faith; but that Father and Son are so alike, that he who knoweth one knoweth both. For we are accustomed to speak in this way of two who closely resemble each other, to those who are in the habit of seeing one of them, and wish to know what like the other is, so that we say, In seeing the one, you have seen the other. In this way, then, is it said "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father." Not, certainly, that He who is the Son is also the Father, but that the Son in no respect disagrees with the likeness of the Father. For had not the Father and Son been two persons, it would not have been said, "If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also."

Why, then, Philip, dost thou say, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us? Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the Father also." If it interests thee much to see this, believe at least what thou seest not. For "how," He says, "sayest thou, Show us the Father?" If thou hast seen me, who am His perfect likeness, thou hast seen Him to whom I am like. And if thou canst not directly see this, "believest thou not," at least, "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" But Philip might say here, "I see Thee indeed, and believe Thy full likeness to the Father; but is one to be reproved and rebuked because, when he sees one who bears a likeness to another, he wishes to see that other to whom he is like? I know, indeed, the image, but as yet I know only the one without the other; it is not enough for me, unless I know that other whose likeness he bears. Show us, therefore, the Father, and it sufficeth us." But the Master really reproved the disciple because He saw into the heart of his questioner. For it was with the idea, as if the Father were somehow better than the Son, that Philip had the desire to know the Father: and so he did not even know the Son, because believing that He was inferior to another. It was to correct such a notion that it was said, "He that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Show us the Father?" I see the meaning of thy words: it is not the original likeness thou seekest to see, but it is that other thou thinkest the superior. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" Why desirest thou to discover some distance between those who are thus alike? why cravest thou the separate knowledge of those who cannot be separated?

But the disciples, still thinking that the Father is something greater than the Son, seeing only the flesh, and not understanding His divinity, said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us." As much as to say, "We know Thee already, and bless Thee that we know Thee: for we thank Thee that Thou hast shown Thyself to us. But as yet we know not the Father: therefore our heart is inflamed, and occupied with a certain holy longing of seeing Thy Father who sent Thee. Show us Him, and we shall desire nothing more of Thee: for it sufficeth us when He has been shown, than whom none can be greater." A good longing, a good desire; but small intelligence. Now the Lord Jesus Himself, regarding them as small men seeking great things, and Himself great among the small, and yet small among the small, says to Philip, one of the disciples, who had said this: "Am I so long time with you, and ye have not known me, Philip?" Here Philip might have answered, Thee we have known, but did we say to Thee, Show us Thyself? We have known Thee, but it is the Father we seek to know. He immediately adds, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." If, then, One equal with the Father has been sent, let us not estimate Him from the weakness of the flesh, but think of the majesty clothed in flesh, but not weighed down by the flesh. For, remaining God with the Father, He was made man among men, that, through Him who was made man, thou mightest become such as to receive God. For man could not receive God. Man could see man; God he could not apprehend. Why could he not apprehend God? Because he had not the eye of the heart, by which to apprehend Him. There was something within disordered, something without sound: man had the eyes of the body sound, but the eyes of the heart sick. He was made man to the eye of the body; so that, believing on Him who could be seen in bodily form, thou mightst be healed for seeing Him whom thou wast not able to see spiritually. "Am I so long time with you, and ye know me not, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." Why did they not see Him? Lo, they did see Him, and yet saw not the Father: they saw the flesh, but the majesty was concealed. What the disciples who loved Him saw, saw also the Jews who crucified Him. Inwardly, then, was He all; and in such manner inwardly in the flesh, that He remained with the Father when He came to the flesh.

(i. de Trin. c. viii) For to that joy of beholding His face, nothing can be added. Philip understood this, and said, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. But he did not yet understand that he could in the same way have said, Lord, show us Thyself, and it sufficeth us. But our Lord's answer enlightens him, Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip?

(Tr. lxx. 1) But how is this, when our Lord said that they knew whither He was going, and the way, because they knew Him? The question is easily settled by supposing that some of them knew, and others not; among the latter, Philip.

(Tr. lxx) When two persons are very like each, we say, If you have seen the one, you have seen the other. So here, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father; not that He is both the Father, and the Son, but that the Son is an absolute likeness of the Father.

(Tr. lxx. 3) But is he to be reproved, who, when he has seen the likeness, wishes to see the man of whom he is the likeness? No: our Lord rebuked the question, only with reference to the mind of the asker. Philip asked, as if the Father were better than the Son; and so showed that He did not know the Son. Which opinion our Lord corrects: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? as if He said, If it is a great wish with thee to see the Father, at any rate believe what thou dost not see.

(i. de. Trin. 8) He wished him to live by faith, before he had sight, and therefore says, Believest thou not? Spiritual vision is the reward of faith, vouchsafed to minds purified by faith.

(Tr. lxx. 3. and lxxi. 1) He then addresses all of them, not Philip only: The word that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself. What is, I speak not of Myself, but, I that speak am not of Myself? He attributes what He does to Him, from whom He Himself, the doer, is.

(Tr. lxx. 1, 2) For he that edifieth his neighbour by speaking, doth a good work. These two sentences are brought against us by different sects of heretics; the Arians saying that the Son is unequal to the Father, because He does not speak of Himself; the Sabellians, that the same who is the Father is the Son. For what is meant, they ask, by, The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works, but, I that dwell in Myself, do these works.

(Tr. lxxi. 2) Philip alone was reproved before.

(Tr. lxxi. 2) Believe then for My works' sake, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; for, were we separated, we could not be working together.

When Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that is enough for us,” he understood well enough that being shown the Father could satisfy him. But if the one who is equal to the Father was not enough for him, how would the Father be enough? And why wasn’t he enough for him? Because he was not seen. Why wasn’t he seen? Because the eye he could be seen with was not yet whole. As for the Lord’s body, which could be seen with these eyes, it was not only the ones who revered him who saw him but also the Jews who crucified him. So if he wanted to be seen in another way, it means he was requiring other eyes. And that is why he gave this reply to the one who said, “Show us the Father, and that is enough for us: Have I been with you all this time, and you do not know me? Philip, whoever sees me also sees the Father.” And to heal the eyes of faith in the meantime, he is first admonished in terms of faith, so that he may be enabled to attain to sight. And in case Philip should assume that God is to be thought of in the same way as he saw the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh, he immediately added, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?”

Philip is anxious to learn, but not very keen in that understanding which is adapted to Divine vision; for else he would never have supposed it possible with bodily eyes to behold in its fulness the Divine nature in spite of the plain declaration of God: No man shall see My Face and live. For even if God in days of old appeared to the saints, as the inspired Scripture tells us, yet no one I think would suppose that the Divine nature was ever made manifest in its full perfection, but rather that it moulded itself into that peculiar fashion of outward appearance which was more specially suitable for each occasion. For example, the Prophets have seen Him in different manners, and their description of God varies greatly. For Isaiah beheld Him in one way, and Ezekiel again in a manner not resembling the wonder recorded in Isaiah. Philip therefore ought to have understood that it was absolutely impossible that he could see the Divine Essence in the flesh and yet in no fleshly form; especially as it was far from wise, with the Likeness and Very Exact Image of God the Father present before his eyes, to seek to penetrate onward to the presence of the Archetype, as though it were not then visible before him and manifested in the most fitting manner. For surely the contemplation of Christ is most fully sufficient as a representation of the Essence of God the Father, unfolding most beautifully and most exactly the marvellous grace of the Kingly Essence from which He was begotten. For the tree is known by its fruit, according to the saying of the Saviour Himself. Seeing therefore that to one who is really thoughtful the contemplation of the Son suffices to represent to us in perfect fulness the nature of Himself and of His Father, we may in all probability reckon the saying of the disciple as out of place; but still it will be found meet to be reckoned within the number of things that deserve the highest praise. For I think we must admire him, and that more than moderately, for saying: show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. For it is as though he had said: "We should acknowledge that we were in the enjoyment of every pleasure, and there would be nothing for us to seek to fill our cup of happiness, if we ourselves also were deemed worthy of the longed-for sight of God the Father." But a man who preferred to every blessing, and to everything that could be imagined to contribute to his pleasure, the sight of God the Father, would surely be acknowledged to be worthy of all admiration. In this sense we shall understand the meaning in this passage, as I think, according to the obvious and simpler view taken by most men. But if it is needful to glance at a more elaborated sense, and perhaps to speak of some of the hidden meanings, we may suppose that Philip both spoke and also thought something on this wise. The leaders of the Jews, and besides them the scribes also and Pharisees, were stung to the quick by the Saviour's wondrous works, and pierced as by stones cast into their heart by His immeasurable proofs of Divine power; they were bursting with jealousy and knew that they were utterly powerless either to perform such wonders themselves or to prevent Him from working them. And so they cavilled at His miraculous acts, seeking to make light of His glory by deceitful words; and running up and down the whole territory of Judaea and Jerusalem itself, they spread reports, at one time that He wrought His signs in the power of Beelzebub; at another time, in the fury of their uncontrollable madness, that He had a devil and knew not what He said. For they kept rebuking the multitudes, saying: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear ye Him? Moreover [there was another plan of theirs] devised in an insufferable manner to ruin His good reputation; and what this was, I feel it my duty to explain. For they tried to persuade the people, as we showed just now, not to attend to our Saviour's discourses, but to desert His teaching as contrary to the law; hastening to avoid Him as much as possible, and to adhere more firmly to the precepts given as from God by Moses. And on what grounds did they urge this? They said that the great Moses led forth the people of old to meet with God, as it is written, and presented them at the Mount Sinai, showing to them God in the mountain, and preparing them to hear His words, and assuring them most fully and clearly that God was uttering the laws: whereas Christ gave no such proofs of His authority, and did nothing at all of the like. And that this comparison was currently accepted among them thou wilt learn from hence. For thou wilt behold them saying to the man born blind whom the Saviour healed by ineffable power: Thou art His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. For we know that God hath spoken unto Moses; but as for this Man, we know not whence He is. Those therefore who were arguing with Jewish pleas considered that their argument on this head was difficult to meet and impossible for most men to refute; and, as is probable, they did thereby confound and ensnare many. Bearing this in mind, and thinking that all the gainsaying of the Jews would be stopped if Christ Himself also would show the Father to those who believe on Him, Philip addresses Him in the words: Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. For conceive him to imply this much: "All things, O Master, that are conducive to faith are effected by Thy authority, and by wonders innumerable one might rebuke the immoderate extravagance of the Jewish gibings. But nothing whatever will fail us, if Thou Thyself wilt show forth to us God the Father; for this will be sufficient for Thy disciples, so as to enable them in the future very successfully to arm themselves in defence with the very arguments of those who put forth the former objections." By applying some such view as this to the passage before us, we shall I think succeed in arriving at the argument suitable to the occasion. For Philip himself invites our attention to this view of ths case, by saying, "It sufficeth us to see God the Father," as though this and this alone were wanting to those who have believed. And the Saviour Himself also may seem to suggest the same idea, by saying in what follows: The words that I say unto you, I speak not from Myself: but the Father abiding in Me, He doeth the works. But the sense we should attribute to this saying will be explained not in the present but in the more suitable and neighbouring passage.