9. Christ replies, again insisting on His consubstantiality with the Father: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father also* (“also” is probably not genuine.) These words prove clearly, against the Arians, Christ’s consubstantiality, or unity of nature, with the Father; otherwise in seeing Him they could not be said to see the Father even implicitly. Yet it is clear against the Sabellians that the Father and the Son are distinct Persons, for Christ plainly distinguishes Himself from the Father in verse 6 where He says “No man cometh to the Father but by me;” and again in verse 13, where He says that He goes to the Father. There is, then, identity of nature, but distinction of Persons. _Cognovistis_ of the Vulgate ought to be _cognovisti_, Philip being addressed. 10. Non creditis quia ego in 10. Do you not believe that I Patre, et Pater in me est? am in the Father, and the Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a Father in me? The words that I meipso non loquor. Pater autem speak to you, I speak not of in me manens, ipse facit myself. But the Father who opera. abideth in me, he doth the works. 10. *Do you not believe* (_creditis_ ought to be _credis_) *that I am in the Father and the Father in me*? He who saw Christ saw the Father implicitly, in virtue of the unity of nature. The words, and the connection with verse 9, show clearly that such is the identity of nature in the Father and the Son that He who sees the Son, thereby in some sense sees the Father also. “Hoc autem quod dicit,” says St. Thomas on this verse, “ ‘Ego in Patre et Pater in me est,’ dicitur propter essentiae unitatem, de qua dicitur supra x. 30. ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus.’ Sciendum est enim, quod essentia aliter se habet in divinis ad personam, et aliter in hominibus. Nam in hominibus essentia Socratis non est Socrates, quia Socrates est quid compositum, sed in divinis essentia est idem personae secundum rem, et sic essentia Patris est Pater, et essentia Filii, Filius. Ubicumque ergo est essentia Patris, est ipse Pater, et ubicumque est essentia Filii, est ipse Filius. Essentia autem Patris est in Filio et essentia Filii est in Patre. Ergo Filius est in Patre, et Pater in Filio.” Then He goes on to prove that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father, from the fact that His words and works are the words and works of the Father. Instead of “the works” many authorities read “His works;” but the sense is the same, for the works were both Christ’s and the Father’s. 11. Non creditis quia ego in 11. Believe you not that I am Patre, et Pater in me est? in the Father, and the Father in me. 11. According to the Vulgate reading, Christ, for emphasis, repeats the question of verse 10. In the original there is not a question, but simply an injunction addressed to all the Apostles; “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.”