Hilary of Poitiers

4th century · AD 367 · Western · 758 passages

In his own words on John

John 1:1
Consider and decide whether it were the greater feat to raise the dead or impart to an untrained mind the knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." What does this "in the beginning was" mean? He ranges backward over the spaces of time, centuries are left behind, and ages are cancelled. Fix in your mind what date you will for this "beginning"; you miss the mark, for even then he of whom we are speaking "was." Survey the universe; note well what is written of it: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." This word beginning fixes the moment of creation; you can assign its date to an event that is definitely stated to have happened "in the beginning." But this fisherman of mine, unlettered and unread, is untrammeled by time, undaunted by its immensity; he pierces beyond the beginning. For his "was" has no limit of time and no commencement; the uncreated Word "was in the beginning."
On the Trinity, Book 2, Section 13
John 1:1
[The Son], being God, is nothing else than God. For when I hear the words "And the Word was God," they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that he is God. In those previous instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods, there was the mere addition of a name by way of title. Here a solid essential truth is stated: "The Word was God." That was indicates no accidental title but an eternal reality, a permanent element of his existence, an inherent character of his nature.
On the Trinity, Book 7, Section 11
John 1:1
You will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thought.… The nature of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, "In the beginning was the Word," when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker's mouth nonexistent until they are spoken and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound that commences to that which ends a word.… Even though your unpracticed ear failed to catch the first clause, "In the beginning was the Word," why complain of the next, "And the Word was with God"? Was it "and the Word was in God" that you heard?… Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that which was in the beginning was with, not in, another.… Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.
On the Trinity, Book 2, Section 15
John 1:1
He "was," and he "is," since he is from him who always is what he is.… Now since it is the special characteristic of his being that his Father always exists and that he is always his Son, and since eternity is expressed in the name "he that is," therefore, since he possesses absolute being, he possesses also eternal being.… There can be no doubt that no one who already was in existence could be born. For no cause of birth can accrue to him who of himself continues eternal. But God Only Begotten … bears witness to the Father as the source of his being.
On the Trinity, Book 12, Section 25
John 1:1
(ii. de Trin. c. 13) Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was. (ii. de Trin. c. xiii) Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman (meus piscator [Hil.]) is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was. (ii. de Trin) From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author. (ii. de Trin. c. 15) Thou wilt say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinketh is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through thy inattention lost upon thee, why disputest thou about the next; and the Word was with God? Didst thou hear it said, "In God," so that thou shouldest understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity. (vii. de Trin. c. 9, 10, 11.) But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. (Ps. 82) But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 1:1
I will not endure to hear that Christ was born of Mary unless I also hear, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God."
On the Councils, Section 70
John 1:2
The backward straining of our thoughts can never grasp anything prior to God's property of absolute existence since nothing presents itself to enable us to understand the nature of God, even though we might go on seeking it forever—nothing, that is, except the fact that God always is. That then which has both been declared about God by Moses, that of which our human intelligence can give no further explanation, that [is] the very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God the only begotten since in the beginning was the Word, and since the Word was with God, and since he was the true Light, and since God the only begotten is in the bosom of the Father, and since Jesus Christ is God over all.6Therefore he was and he is, since he is from him who always is what he is. But to be from him, that is to say, to be from the Father, is birth. Moreover, to be always from him, who always is, is eternity; but this eternity is derived not from himself but from the Eternal. And from the Eternal nothing can spring but what is eternal: for if the offspring is not eternal, then neither is the Father, who is the source of generation, eternal.
On the Trinity, Book 12, Sections 24-25
John 1:2
(ii. de Trin. c. 16) Whereas he had said, the Word was God, the fearfulness, and strangeness of the speech disturbed me; the prophets having declared that God was One. But, to quiet my apprehensions, the fisherman reveals the scheme of this so great mystery, and refers all to one, without dishonour, without obliterating [the Person], without reference to timeb, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God; with One Unbegotten God, from whom He is, the One Only-begotten God.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 1:2
But I tremble to say it; the audacity staggers me. I hear, "And the Word was God"—I, who have been taught by the prophets that God is one. To save me from further apprehension, my friend, the fisherman, needs to provide a fuller understanding of this great mystery. Show me that these assertions are consistent with the unity of God; that there is no blasphemy in them, no explaining away, no denial of eternity. And so he continues, "He was in the beginning with God." This "He was in the beginning" removes the limit of time; the word God shows that he is more than a voice; that "he is with God" proves that he neither encroaches nor is encroached on, for his identity is not swallowed up in that of Another, and he—that is, his one and only begotten Son—is clearly stated to be present with the one unbegotten God as God.
On the Trinity, Book 2, Section 16
John 1:3
(ii. de Trin. c. 17) Or thus: [It is said], the Word indeed was in the beginning, but it may be that He was not before the beginning. But what saith he; All things were made by him. He is infinite by Whom every thing, which is, was made: and since all things were made by Him, time is likewisec. (lib. ii. de Trin. c. 18) Or thus; That all things were made by him, is pronouncing too much, it may be said. There is an Unbegotten Who is made of none, and there is the Son Himself begotten from Him Who is Unbegotten. The Evangelist however again implies the Author, when he speaks of Him as Associated; saying, without Him was not any thing made. This, that nothing was made without Him, I understand to mean the Son's not being alone, for 'by whom' is one thing, 'not without whom' another.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 1:3
"All things were made through him" needs qualification. There is the Unbegotten who no one made; there is also the Son, begotten of the unborn Father. "All things" is an unguarded statement, admitting no exceptions. While we are silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, you [John] break in with, "And without him was nothing made." You have restored the author of the Godhead to his place while proclaiming that he has a companion. From your saying that nothing was made "without him," I learn that he was not alone. He through whom the work was done is one; he without whom it was not done is another: a distinction is drawn between Creator and Companion.Reverence for the one unbegotten Creator distressed me, lest in your sweeping assertion that all things were made by the Word you had included him. You have banished my fears by your "without him was nothing made." Yet this same "without him was nothing made" brings its own trouble and distraction. There was, then, something made by that other; not made, it is true, "without him." If the other did make anything, even if the Word were present at the making, then it is untrue that "through him all things were made." It is one thing to be the Creator's Companion, quite another to be the Creator's self. I could find answers of my own to the previous objections; in this case, fisherman, I can only turn at once to your words, "All things were made through him." And now I understand, for the apostle has enlightened me with these words: "Things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all are "through" him and "in him."
On the Trinity 2.18-19
John 1:4
Since then, all things were made through him, come to our help and tell us what it was that was made not without him. "That which was made in him is life." That which was in him was certainly not made without him, for that which was made in him was also made through him. All things were created in him and through him. They were created in him, for he was born as God the Creator. Again, nothing that was made in him was made without him, for the reason that God the begotten was life and was born as life, not made life after his birth; for there are not two elements in him, one inborn and one afterwards conferred. There is no interval in his case between birth and maturity. None of the things that were created in him was made without him, for he is the life that made their creation possible. Moreover God, the Son of God, became God by virtue of his birth, not after he was born. Being born the Living from the Living, the True from the True, the Perfect from the Perfect, he was born in full possession of his powers. He did not need to learn in the time that followed what his birth was, but was conscious of his Godhead by the very fact that he was born as God of God.
On the Trinity 2.20
John 1:4
Or it can be understood thus. In that he had said, without Him was not any thing made, one might have been perplexed, and have asked, Was then any thing made by another, which yet was not made without Him? if so, then though nothing is made without, all things are not made by Him: it being one thing to make, another to be with the maker. On this account the Evangelist declares what it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. This then it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. And that which was made in Him, was also made by Him. For all things were created in Him and by Him. Now things were made in Him, because He was born God the Creator. And for this reason also things that were made in Him, were not made without Him, viz. that God, in that He was born, was life, and He who was life, was not made life after being born. Nothing then which was made in Him, was made without Him, because He was life, in Whom they were made; because God Who was born of God was God, not after, but in that He was bornh.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 1:14
[The dignity of the Godhead is preserved] so that in the fact that the Word was made flesh, the Word, in becoming flesh, has not lost through being flesh what constituted the Word, nor has it become transformed into flesh, so as to cease to be the Word. But the Word was made flesh in order that the flesh might begin to be what the Word is.… God, knowing no change when made flesh, lost nothing of the prerogatives of his substance.
On the Councils, Section 48
John 1:14
(x. de Trin. c. 21, 22) Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilly, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, notr of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 1:18
In the nature of God, God is one, yet in such a way that the Son also is God, because in him there is not a different nature. And since he is God of God, both must be God, and since there is no difference of kind between them, there is no distinction in their essence. The idea of having a number of titular gods is rejected because there is no diversity in the quality of the divine nature. Therefore he is anathema who says there are many gods, and he is anathema who denies that the Son is God. It is fully shown that the fact that each has one and the same name arises from the real character of the similar substance in each.… In confessing the unborn God the Father, and the only begotten God the Son, with no dissimilarity of essence between them, each is called God. And yet, God must be believed and be declared to be one. So by the diligent and watchful care of the bishops the creed guards the similarity of the nature begotten and the nature begetting, confirming it by the application of one name.
On the Councils, Section 36
John 1:18
It seemed to [John] that the name of Son did not set forth with sufficient distinctness his true divinity, unless he gave an external support to the peculiar majesty of Christ by indicating the difference between him and all others. And so he not only calls him the Son but adds the further designation of the Only Begotten. In this way he cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that he is Only Begotten is proof positive of his right to the name of Son.
On the Trinity, Book 6, Section 39
John 1:18
(de Trin. vi. 39) The Truth of His Nature did not seem sufficiently explained by the name of Son, unless, in addition, its peculiar force as proper to Him were expressed, so signifying its distinctness from all beside. For in that, besides Son, he calleth Him also the Only-Begotten, he cut off altogether all suspicion of adoption, the Nature of the Only-Begotten guaranteeing the truth of the name.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 2:5
On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.
On the Trinity 3.5
John 2:9
(iii. de Trin. c. 5) Water is poured into the waterpots; wine is drawn out into the chalices; the senses of the drawer out agree not with the knowledge of the pourer in. The pourer in thinks that water is drawn out; the drawer out thinks that wine was poured in. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavour of wine was produced; not that a weak dilution was obtained, by means of some strong infusion, but that which was, was annihilated; and that which was not, came to be.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 2:9
Such powers are there in God; powers which the methods of our reason cannot comprehend, but of which our faith, on the sure evidence of His action, is convinced. We shall find instances of this action in the bodily sphere as well as in the spiritual, its manifestation taking, not the form of an analogy which might illustrate the Birth, but of a deed marvellous yet comprehensible. On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.
ON THE TRINITY 3.5
John 2:19
I remember that the Apostle often refers to God the Father as raising Christ from the dead; but he is not inconsistent with himself or at variance with the Gospel faith, for the Lord Himself says:—"Therefore doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one shall take it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command have I received from the Father": and again, when asked to shew a sign concerning Himself, that they might believe in Him, He says of the Temple of His body, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." By the power to take His soul again and to raise the Temple up, He declares Himself God, and the Resurrection His own work: yet He refers all to the authority of His Father's command. This is not contrary to the meaning of the Apostle, when He proclaims Christ, the "power of God and the wisdom of God," thus referring all the magnificence of His work to the glory of the Father: for whatever Christ does, the power and the wisdom of God does: and whatever the power and the wisdom of God does, without doubt God Himself does, Whose power and wisdom Christ is. So Christ was raised from the dead by the working of God; for He Himself worked the works of God the Father with a nature indistinguishable from God's. And our faith in the Resurrection rests on the God Who raised Christ from the dead.
ON THE TRINITY 9.12
John 3:7-8
For in Thy spiritual things I am dull, as Thy Only-begotten says, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born anew. The Spirit breathes where it will, and thou hearest the voice of it; but dost not know whence it comes or whither it goes. So is every one who is born of water and of the Holy Spirit." Though I hold a belief in my regeneration, I hold it in ignorance; I possess the reality, though I comprehend it not. For my own consciousness had no part in causing this new birth, which is manifest in its effects. Moreover the Spirit has no limits; He speaks when He will, and what He will, and where He will. Since, then, the cause of His coming and going is unknown, though the watcher is conscious of the fact, shall I count the nature of the Spirit among created things, and limit Him by fixing the time of His origin?
ON THE TRINITY 12.56
John 3:13
(de Trin. c. 16.) Or, His descending from heaven is the source of His origin as conceived by the Spirit: Mary gave not His body its origin, though the natural qualities of her sex contributed its birth and increase. That He is the Son of man is from the birth of the flesh which was conceived in the Virgin. That He is in heaven is from the power of His everlasting nature, which did not contract the power of the Word of God, which is infinite, within the sphere of a finite body. Our Lord remaining in the form of a servant, far from the whole circle, inner and outer, of heaven and the world, yet as Lord of heaven and the world, was not absent therefrom. So then He came down from heaven because He was the Son of man; and He was in heaven, because the Word, which was made flesh, had not ceased to be the Word.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 3:13
"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.
On the Trinity 10.16
John 3:13
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.
On the Trinity 10.54
John 3:16
God, who loved the world, gave his only begotten Son as a manifest token of his love. If the evidence of his love is this, that he bestowed a creature on creatures, gave a worldly being on the world's behalf, granted one raised up from nothing for the redemption of objects equally raised up from nothing, such a cheap and petty sacrifice is a poor assurance of his favor toward us. Gifts of price are the evidence of affection: the greatness of the surrender is evidence of the greatness of the love. God, who loved the world, gave no adopted son but his own, his only begotten [Son]. Here is personal interest, true sonship, sincerity; not creation, or adoption, or pretence. Here is the proof of his love and affection, that he gave his own, his only begotten Son.
ON THE TRINITY 6.40
John 3:16
(vi. de Trin. c. 40) If it were only a creature given up for the sake of a creature, such a poor and insignificant loss were no great evidence of love. They must be precious things which prove our love, great things must evidence its greatness. God, in love to the world, gave His Son, not an adopted Son, but His own, even His Only Begotten. Here is proper Sonship, birth, truth: no creation, no adoption, no lie: here is the test of love and charity, that God sent His own and only begotten Son to save the world.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 3:18
"He who believes," says Christ, "is not judged." And is there any need to judge a believer? Judgment arises out of ambiguity, and where ambiguity ceases, there is no call for trial and judgment. And so, not even unbelievers need to be judged, because there is no doubt about their being unbelievers. But after exempting believers and unbelievers alike from judgment, the Lord added a case for judgment of the human agents on whom it must be exercised. For there are some who stand midway between the godly and the ungodly, having affinities to both but strictly belonging to neither class, because they have come to be what they are by a combination of the two.… For many are kept within the pale of the church by the fear of God, yet they are tempted all the while to worldly faults by the allurements of the world. They pray, because they are afraid; they sin, because it is their will.… These, then, are they whom the judgment awaits that unbelievers have already had passed on them and believers do not need.
HOMILY ON PSALM 1.21-22
John 4:6
It may perhaps be said, "We find Him giving way to weeping, to hunger and thirst: must we not suppose Him liable to all the other affections of human nature?" But if we do not understand the mystery of His tears, hunger, and thirst, let us remember that He Who wept also raised the dead to life: that He did not weep for the death of Lazarus, but rejoiced; that He Who thirsted, gave from Himself rivers of living water. He could not be parched with thirst, if He was able to give the thirsty drink. Again, He Who hungered could condemn the tree which offered no fruit for His hunger: but how could His nature be overcome by hunger if He could strike the green tree barren by His word? And if, beside the mystery of weeping, hunger and thirst, the flesh He assumed, that is His entire manhood, was exposed to our weaknesses: even then it was not left to suffer from their indignities. His weeping was not for Himself; His thirst needed no water to quench it; His hunger no food to stay it. It is never said that the Lord ate or drank or wept when He was hungry, or thirsty, or sorrowful. He conformed to the habits of the body to prove the reality of His own body, to satisfy the custom of human bodies by doing as our nature does. When He ate and drank, it was a concession, not to His own necessities, but to our habits.
ON THE TRINITY 10.24
John 4:24
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.
ON THE TRINITY 2.31
John 4:24
(ii. de Trin. c. 31) Or, by saying that God being a Spirit ought to be worshipped in spirit, He indicates the freedom and knowledge of the worshippers, and the uncircumscribed nature of the worship: according to the saying of the Apostle, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Cor. 3:17)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:17
It is in reference to the charge of breaking the Sabbath that He says, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. He wished them to understand that His practice was justified by Divine authority; and He taught them by the same words that His work must be regarded as the work of the Father, Who was working in Him all that He wrought. And again, it was to subdue the jealousy awakened by His speaking of God as His Father that He uttered those words, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do. Lest this making of Himself equal to God, as having the name and nature of God's Son, should withdraw men's faith from the truth that He had been born, He says that the Son can do nothing but what He sees the Father do.
ON THE TRINITY 7.17
John 5:17
Their anger was so kindled against Him, that they desired to kill Him, because He did His works on the Sabbath. But let us see also what the Lord answered, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. … He speaks that we may recognise in Him the power of the Father's nature employing the nature, which has that power, to work on the Sabbath. The Father works in Him while He works; without doubt, then, He works along with the working of the Father, and therefore He says, My Father worketh even until now, that this present work of His words and actions may be regarded as the working of the Father's nature in Himself. This worketh even until now identifies the time with the moment of speaking, and therefore we must regard Him as referring to that very work of the Father's which He was then doing, for it implies the working of the Father at the very time of His words. And lest the Faith, being restricted to a knowledge of the Father only, should fall short of the hope of eternal life, He adds at once, And I work; that is, what the Father worketh even until now, the Son also worketh. Thus He expounds the whole of the faith; for the work which is now, belongs to the present time; and if the Father works, and the Son works, no union exists between them, which merges them into a single Person.
ON THE TRINITY 9.44
John 5:18
(vii. de Trin. c. 15) The Evangelist here explains why the Jews wished to kill Him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:19-20
(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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:21
(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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:22
(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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. The statement that all judgment is given teaches both His birth and His Sonship; for only a nature which is altogether one with the Father's could possess all things; and a Son can possess nothing, except by gift. But all judgment has been given Him for He quickens whom He will. Now we cannot suppose that judgment is taken away from the Father, although He does not exercise it; for the Son's whole power of judgment proceeds from the Father's, being a gift from Him. And there is no concealment of the reason why judgment has been given to the Son, for the words which follow are, But He hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father.
ON THE TRINITY 7.20
John 5:23
It is only things of the same nature that are equal in honour; equality of honour denotes that there is no separation between the honoured. But with the revelation of the birth is combined, the demand for equality of honour. Since the Son is to be honoured as the Father, and since they seek not the honour of Him, Who is the only God, He is not excluded from the honour of the only God, for His honour is one and the same as that of God: just as He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father also, so he who seeks not the honour of the only God, seeks not the honour of Christ also. Accordingly the honour of Christ is inseparable from the honour of God.
ON THE TRINITY 9.23
John 5:23
(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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:24
(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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:25-26
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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:26
He bore witness that life, to the fullest extent, is his gift from the living God. Now if the living Son was born from the living Father, that birth took place without a new nature coming into existence. Nothing new comes into existence when the living is begotten by the living, for life was not sought out from the nonexistent in order to receive birth. And life, which receives its birth from life, must—because of that unity of nature and because of the mysterious event of that perfect and ineffable birth—live always in [Christ], who lives and has the life of the living in himself.
ON THE TRINITY 7.27
John 5:27
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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:31
The Son speaks thus:—"For the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me; and the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me." God the Only-begotten proves His Sonship by an appeal not only to the name, but to the power; the works which He does are evidence that He has been sent by the Father. What, I ask, is the fact which these works prove? That He was sent. That He was sent, is used as a proof of His sonlike obedience and of His Father's authority: for the works which He does could not possibly be done by any other than Him Who is sent by the Father. Yet the evidence of His works fails to convince the unbelieving that the Father sent Him. For He proceeds, "And the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me; and ye have neither heard His voice nor seen His shape." What was this witness of the Father concerning Him? Turn over the pages of the Gospels and review their contents. Read us other of the attestations given by the Father beside those which we have heard already; "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," and "Thou art My Son." John, who heard these words, needed them not, for He knew the truth already. It was for our instruction that the Father spoke. But this is not all. John in the wilderness was honoured with this revelation; the Apostles were not to be denied the same assurance. It came to them in the very same words, but with an addition which John did not receive. He had been a prophet from the womb, and needed not the commandment, "Hear Him." Yes; I will hear Him, and will hear none but Him and His Apostle, who heard for my instruction. Even though the books contained no further witness, borne by the Father to the Son, than that He is the Son, I have, for confirmation of the truth, the evidence of His Father's works which He does. What is this modern slander that His name is a gift by adoption, His Godhead a lie, His titles a pretence? We have the Father's witness to His Sonship; by works, equal to the Father's, the Son bears witness to His own equality with the Father. Why such blindness to His obvious possession of the true Sonship which He both claims and displays. It is not through condescending kindness on the part of God the Father that Christ bears the name of Son; not by holiness that He has earned the title, as many have won it by enduring hardness in confession of the faith. Such sonship is not of right; it is by a favour, worthy of Himself, that God bestows the title. But that which is indicated by "This," and "My," and "Hear Him," is different in kind from the other. It is the true and real and genuine Sonship.
On the Trinity, Book 6.27
John 5:36
Are they blameless, in that they did not know the testimony of the Father, Who was never heard or seen amongst them, and Whose word was not abiding in them? No, for they cannot plead that His testimony was hidden from them; as Christ says, the testimony of His works is the testimony of the Father concerning Him. His works testify of Him that He was sent of the Father; but the testimony of these works is the Father's testimony; since, therefore, the working of the Son is the Father's testimony, it follows of necessity that the same nature was operative in Christ, by which the Father testifies of Him. So Christ, Who works the works, and the Father Who testifies through them, are revealed as possessing one inseparable nature through the birth, for the operation of Christ is signified to be itself the testimony of God concerning Him.
ON THE TRINITY 9.20
John 5:36
(vi. de Trin. c. 27) The Only-begotten God shows Himself to be the Son, on the testimony not of man only, but of His own power. The works which He does, bear witness to His being sent from the Father. Therefore the obedience of the Son and the authority of the Father are set forth in Him who was sent.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:36
The Son speaks thus:—For the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me; and the Father Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me. God the Only-begotten proves His Sonship by an appeal not only to the name, but to the power; the works which He does are evidence that He has been sent by the Father. What, I ask, is the fact which these works prove? That He was sent. That He was sent, is used as a proof of His sonlike obedience and of His Father's authority: for the works which He does could not possibly be done by any other than Him Who is sent by the Father.
ON THE TRINITY 6.27
John 5:37
(vi. de Trin. c. 27) But the testimony of works not being sufficient evidence, it follows, And the Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Open the Evangelic volumes, and examine their whole range: no testimony of the Father to the Son is given in any of the books, other than that He is the Son. So what a calumny is it in men now saying that this is only a name of adoption: thus making God a liar, and names unmeaning.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 5:43
He comes in the name of the Father: that is, He is not Himself the Father, yet is in the same divine nature as the Father: for as Son and God it is natural for Him to come in the name of the Father. Then, another coming in the same name they will receive: but he is one from whom men will expect glory, and to whom they will give glory in return, though he will feign to have come in the name of the Father. By this, doubtless, is signified the Antichrist, glorying in his false use of the Father's name. Him they will glorify, and will be glorified of him: but the glory of Him, Who alone is God, they will not seek.
ON THE TRINITY 9.22
John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me also, for he wrote of Me. Moses, indeed, will refute you with the whole volume of the Law, ordained through angels, which he received by the hand of the Mediator. Enquire whether He, Who gave the Law, were not true God; for the Mediator was the Giver. And was it not to meet God that Moses led out the people to the Mount? Was it not God Who came down into the Mount? Or was it, perhaps, only by a fiction or an adoption, and not by right of nature, that He, Who did all this, bore the name of God? Mark the blare of the trumpets, the flashing of the torches, the clouds of smoke, as from a furnace, rolling over the mountain, the terror of conscious impotence on the part of man in the presence of God, the confession of the people, when they prayed Moses to be their spokesman, that at the voice of God they would die. Is He, in your judgment, not true God, when simple dread lest He should speak filled Israel with the fear of death? He Whose voice could not be borne by human weakness? In your eyes is He not God, because He addressed you through the weak faculties of a man, that you might hear, and live?
ON THE TRINITY 5.23
John 6:1
In the case of the five loaves a miracle of the same type excites our wonder. By their increase five thousand men and countless women and children are saved from hunger; the method eludes our powers of observation. Five loaves are offered and broken; while the Apostles are dividing them a succession of new-created portions passes, they cannot tell how, through their hands. The loaf which they are dividing grows no smaller, yet their hands are continually full of the pieces. The swiftness of the process baffles sight; you follow with the eye a hand full of portions, and meantime you see that the contents of the other hand are not diminished, and all the while the heap of pieces grows. The carvers are busy at their task, the eaters are hard at work; the hungry are satisfied, and the fragments fill twelve baskets. Sight or sense cannot discover the mode of so noteworthy a miracle. What was not existent is created; what we see passes our understanding. Our only resource is faith in God's omnipotence.
On the Trinity, Book 3.6
John 6:10
And so, taking the loaves and fishes, the Lord looked up to heaven, then blessed and broke them, giving thanks to the Father that, after the law and the prophets, he has himself become the evangelical bread. And when he had commanded the people to sit down on the grass, not to lie prone on the earth, but to sit upheld by the law, each one spread his own good works, like the grass of the earth, under him. The bread is also given to the apostles, because it is through them the gifts of the divine grace are to be given. Then the people ate of the five loaves and two fishes and were filled. And of the fragments of the bread and of the fishes, after all who had sat down were satisfied, there remained over enough to fill twelve baskets: that is, the hunger of the multitude is satisfied by the word of God coming to them from the teaching of the law and the prophets. And the abundance of the divine goodness, kept in reserve for the people of the Gentiles, has overflowed from the source of eternal food unto the filling of the twelve apostles.And the number of those who ate is, we find, the same as that of those who were to believe. For, as we learn from the book of the Acts, out of the numbers of the people of Israel five thousand believed. For, the miracle of these things extends even to the measure of the reason that underlies them. The bread together with the fishes broken for the feeding of the people increased to the need of the number of people who believed, and to the number of apostles chosen to be filled with heavenly graces. The quantity conformed to the number, and the number to the quantity.
Commentary on Matthew 14.11
John 6:11
(iii. de Trin. c. 18) Five loaves are then set before the multitude, and broken. The broken portions pass through into the hands of those who break, that from which they are broken all the time not at all diminishing. And yet there they are, the bits taken from it, in the hands of the persons breakingd. There is no catching by eye or touch the miraculous operation: that is, which was not, that is seen, which is not understood. It only remains for us to believe that God can do all things.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 6:11
In the case of the five loaves a miracle of the same type excites our wonder. By their increase five thousand men and countless women and children are saved from hunger; the method eludes our powers of observation. Five loaves are offered and broken; while the Apostles are dividing them a succession of new-created portions passes, they cannot tell how, through their hands. The loaf which they are dividing grows no smaller, yet their hands are continually full of the pieces. The swiftness of the process baffles sight; you follow with the eye a hand full of portions, and meantime you see that the contents of the other hand are not diminished, and all the while the heap of pieces grows. The carvers are busy at their task, the eaters are hard at work; the hungry are satisfied, and the fragments fill twelve baskets. Sight or sense cannot discover the mode of so noteworthy a miracle. What was not existent is created; what we see passes our understanding. Our only resource is faith in God's omnipotence.
ON THE TRINITY 3.6
John 6:27
(viii. de Trin. c. 44) A seal throws out a perfect impression of the stamp, at the same time that it takes in that impression. This is not a perfect illustration of the Divine nativity: for sealing supposes matter, different kinds of matter, the impression of harder upon softer. Yet He who was God Only-Begotten, and the Son of man only by the Sacrament of our salvation, makes use of it to express the Father's fulness as stamped upon Himself. He wishes to show the Jews He has the power of giving the eternal meat, because He contained in Himself the fulness of God.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
John 6:27
Therefore after this manifold and precise revelation of the presence of the Father's nature in Himself, He goes on to say, For Him hath the Father sealed, even God. It is the nature of a seal to exhibit the whole form of the figure graven upon it, and that an impression taken from it reproduces it in every respect; and since it receives the whole of that which is impressed, it displays also in itself wholly whoever has been impressed upon it. Yet this comparison is not adequate to exemplify the Divine birth, because in seals there is a matter, difference of nature, and an act of impression, whereby the likeness of stronger natures is impressed upon things of a more yielding nature. But the Only-begotten God, Who was also through the Mystery of our salvation the Son of Man, desiring to point out to us the likeness of His Father's proper nature in Himself, said that He was sealed by God; because the Son of Man was about to give the food of eternal life, and that we thereby might perceive in Him the power of giving food unto eternity, in that He possessed within Himself all the fulness of His Father's form, even of the God Who sealed Him: so that what God had sealed should display in itself none other than the form of the God Who sealed it. These things indeed the Lord spoke to the Jews, who could not receive His saying because of unbelief. But in us the preacher of the Gospel by the Spirit of Christ Who spoke through him, instils the knowledge of this His proper nature when he says, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. For He, Whom God had sealed, could be naught else than the form of God, and that which has been sealed in the form of God must needs present at the same time imaged forth within itself all that God possesses. And for this cause the Apostle taught that He Whom God sealed is God abiding in the form of God. As regards His being in the form of God, by virtue of God's seal upon Him, He still remained God. But inasmuch as He was to take the form of a servant and become obedient unto death, not grasping at His equality with God, He emptied Himself through obedience to take the form of a slave. And He emptied Himself of the form of God, that is, of that wherein He was equal with God—not that He regarded His equality with God as any encroachment,—although He was in the form of God and equal with God and sealed by God as God.
ON THE TRINITY 8.44-45
John 6:28-29
For the Lord had said in the gospels, Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto life eternal, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him the Father, even God, hath sealed. They said therefore unto Him, What must we do that we may work the works of God? And He said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent. In setting forth the mystery of His Incarnation and His Godhead our Lord has also uttered the teaching of our faith and hope that we should work for food, not that which perisheth but that which abideth for ever; that we should remember that this food of eternity is given us by the Son of Man; that we should know the Son of Man as sealed by God the Father; that we should know that this is the work of God, even faith in Him Whom He has sent. And Who is it Whom the Father has sent? Even He Whom the Father has sealed. And Who is He Whom the Father has sealed? In truth, the Son of Man, even He who gives the food of eternal life. And further who are they to whom He gives it? They who shall work for the food that does not perish. Thus, then, the work for this food is at the same time the work of God, namely, to believe on Him Whom He has sent.
ON THE TRINITY 8.42
John 6:38
The Son of God, therefore, having the charge of mankind, was first made man, that men might believe on Him; that He might be to us a witness, sprung from ourselves, of things Divine, and preach to us, weak and carnal as we are, through the weakness of the flesh concerning God the Father, so fulfilling the Father's will, even as He says, I came not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. It was not that He Himself was unwilling, but that He might manifest His obedience as the result of His Father's will, for His own will is to do His Father's. This is that will to carry out the Father's will...
ON THE TRINITY 3.9

Quoted verbatim from public-domain English translations of the fathers — Aquinas's Catena Aurea, the Ante-Nicene and Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, and related editions. Each quotation links to its source.