John 14:9-10
So long a time have I been with you, and have you not known Me? Philip, he that seeth Me; seeth My Father also, alleluia. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Alleluia, alleluia.
Haydock
Verse 9. He that seeth me, seeth the Father also: that is, he seeth him, who is not a man only, but who also, by my divine nature, am one and the same with the Father: so that he who believes, and as it were sees, or knows by faith, who I am, cannot but know, that I am one with my eternal Father; not one person, as the Sabellians fancied, but one in nature and substance. The ancient Fathers take notice against the Arians, that these words, and others that follow in this chapter, could not be true, if Christ was no more than a creature, though ever so perfect, there being an infinite distance betwixt God and the highest of his creatures. Wi.
Verse 10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? These words confirm the equality of the Father and the Son: nor can they be expounded of an union of affection only, by what Christ told them before. Jo. v. 17. 19. As the Father worketh till now, so I work: and whatsoever things the Father worketh, these also in like manner the Son doth. Wi. — In the Son and in the Father, there is one and the same essence, the same wisdom, the same power; so that what the Son says, he does not say it of himself, and what the Son does, he does not do it of himself; but it is the Father, who abideth in the Son, who both acts and speaks.
Denzinger
51: The Trinity and the Incarnation
ST. DIONYSIUS 259-268 Fragment from epistle against the Tritheists and Sabellians, about the year 260
Neither therefore ought the admirable and divine unity be separated into three godheads, nor ought the dignity and supreme magnitude of the Lord be lessened by the designation of making; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his Son, and in the Holy Spirit, that the Word, moreover, is united to the God of all.
For He said: “I and the Father are one” [John 10:30], and: “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” [John 14:10]. Thus it is evident that the divine Trinity and the holy proclamation of the monarchy will be preserved intact.
49: The Trinity and the Incarnation
ST. DIONYSIUS 259-268 Fragment from epistle against the Tritheists and Sabellians, about the year 260
But none the less they should be blamed who think that the Son is a work, and that the Lord was made just as one of those things which were actually created; since divine statements bear witness that He was begotten, as is proper and fitting, not created or made.
It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great irreverence to say that the Lord was made in some way. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He did not exist; and yet He always was, if He undoubtedly is, as He himself declares, in the Father [John 14:10 f.]. Moreover, and if Christ is the word, the wisdom, and the power (for the divine Scriptures teach that Christ is [John 1:14; 1 Cor. 1:24], as you yourselves know), surely these are the powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these powers did not exist; and so there was a time when God was without them; which is very absurd.
Catena Aurea
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
HILARY. (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, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.He did not deny He could be seen (non visum negavit), but wished to be shewn 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 shewn him, shewn to his understanding, not set before his eyes; and then he will be satisfied: And it sufficeth us.
AUGUSTINE. (i. de Trin. c. viii) For to that joy of beholding His face, nothing can be added. Philip understood this, and said, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. But he did not yet understand that he could in the same way have said, Lord, shew 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?
AUGUSTINE. (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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) He reproves the ignorance of Philip in this respect. For whereas his actions had been strictly divine, such as walking on the water, commanding the winds, remitting sins, raising the dead, He complained that in His assumed humanity, the Divine nature was not discerned. Accordingly to Philip’s request, to be shewn the Father, Our Lord answers, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.
AUGUSTINE. (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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) He does not mean the sight of the bodily eye: for His fleshly part, born of the Virgin, doth not avail towards contemplating the form and image of God in Him; but the Son of God being known with the understanding, it follows that the Father is known also, forasmuch as He is the image of God, not differing from but expressing His Author1. For our Lord’s expressions do not speak of one person solitary and without relationship, but teach us His birth. The Father also excludes the supposition of a single solitary person, and leaves us no other doctrine but that the Father is seen in the Son, by the incommunicable likeness of birth.
AUGUSTINE. (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 shewed 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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) For what excuse was there for ignorance of the Father, or what necessity to shew Him, when the Father was seen in the Son by His essential nature2, while by the identity of unity, the Begotten and the Begetter are one: Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me?
AUGUSTINE. (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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) But the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, not by a conjunction of two harmonizing essences3, nor by a nature grafted into a more capacious substance as in material bodies, in which it is impossible that what is within can be made external to that which contains it; but by the birth of a nature which is life from life; forasmuch as from God nothing but God can be born.
HILARY. (v. de Trin) The unchangeable God follows, so to speak, His own nature, by begetting unchangeable God. Nor does the perfect birth of unchangeable God from unchangeable God forsake His own nature. We understand then here the nature of God subsisting in Him, since God is in God, nor besides Him who is God, can any other be God.
CHRYSOSTOM. (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, Shew 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, Shew 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 shew 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 shew 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 shews 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.
AUGUSTINE. (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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) Wherein He neither desires Himself to be the Son, nor hides the existence1 of His Father’s power in Him. In that He speaks, it is Himself that speaks in His own person; in that He speaks not of Himself, He witnesseth His nativity, that He is God from God.
CHRYSOSTOM. (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.
AUGUSTINE. (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.
HILARY. (vii. de Trin) That the Father dwells in the Son, shews that He is not single, or solitary; that the Father works by the Son, shews that He is not different or alien. As He is not solitary who doth not speak from Himself, so neither is He alien and separable who speaketh by Him. Having shewn then that the Father spoke and worked in Him, He formally states this union: Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: that they might not think that the Father worketh and speaketh in the Son as by a mere agent or instrument, not by the unity of nature implied in His Divine birth.
AUGUSTINE. (Tr. lxxi. 2) Philip alone was reproved before.
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxiv. 2) But if this does not suffice to shew 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.
AUGUSTINE. (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.