6 The Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

There are some who have entertained the idea-and those, too, who are no contemptible handlers of sacred eloquence-that the Apostle John was more loved by Christ on the ground that he never married a wife, and lived in perfect chastity from early boyhood. There is, indeed, no distinct evidence of this in the canonical Scriptures: nevertheless it is an idea that contributes not a little to the suitableness of the opinion expressed above, namely, that that life was signified by him, where there will be no marriage.

(Tract. cxxiv) He calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, because Jesus had a greater and more familiar love for him, than for the rest; so that He made him lie on His breast at supper. In this way John the more commends the divine excellency of that Gospel which he preached. Some think, and they no contemptible commentators upon Scripture, that the reason why John was loved more than the rest, was, because he had lived in perfect chastity from his youth up. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Peter, turning around, saw that disciple etc. Here secondly, Peter, knowing his own death, inquires about the death of John: for he desired that he to whom he had been joined in life through great love might be joined to him in a likeness of death. And because Peter knew that the Lord loved John, he wanted to know by what death he wished him to die: therefore he says: Peter, turning around, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved, following, namely John. And a sign of special love is shown when it is added: who also reclined at the Supper upon his breast, above in chapter thirteen, and said: Lord, who is it that will betray you? He asked him what was secret: and this was a sign of love, because it was revealed to him, as is said above in chapter thirteen: and this is a sign of friendship, as is said above in chapter fifteen: "I have called you friends, because whatever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you."

It is asked about what he says: That disciple whom Jesus loved. How did he dare to say this, when it is said in Ecclesiastes nine: No one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred? Likewise, since Christ loved all, why did John attribute this to himself, namely that he was loved more? This seems false: because Peter loved more; therefore he was better; but God loves the better more; therefore he loved Peter more than John. To this it can be answered that John knew by revelation or by certain signs that he was loved. To the second, Augustine seems to say that John was loved more, but Peter loved more; and therefore he asks who was better; and he says that Peter was better, but John was happier; and he turns these words to allegory, saying that through John the contemplative life is signified, and through Peter the active life. But this increases the question further; whence Augustine himself says that justice is hidden here, and mercy is manifest. Therefore it must be said that to love more is understood in two ways: either with respect to a greater reward, and thus Jesus loved Peter more, this being understood in the sense that Peter always loved the Lord more. In another way, to love more refers to a greater outward demonstration, because he showed more signs of love: and thus he loved John more.

It is asked: why did he show himself more to John, since he loved Peter more than John? — It seems that there would be pretense in the Lord. To this it can be responded that although Peter merited a greater reward, nevertheless it was fitting for Christ to show greater familiarity to John, because John was young and was a virgin and innocent: and these are things which in a wondrous way, both in the sight of God and of men, make a person lovable and more pleasing. Whence Bede says: "This is John, who by the privilege of surpassing love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest; and the special prerogative of chastity had made him worthy of a more abundant love." And the Gloss says that "John was more intimate, because he was more tender."

For in Asia also great luminaries have fallen asleep who will rise again on the last day of the advent of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall search out all the saints.… And this is also where John is, who leaned on the bosom of the Lord, who was a priest wearing the miter, a martyr and a teacher, and he sleeps at Ephesus.

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts.

Imitate, therefore, the ambassador of our Lord, and be his follower in every thing. That John, again, who "reclined on the bosom of our Lord, and whom He greatly loved," [John 21:20] — he, too, was a holy person. For it was not without reason that our Lord loved him. Paul, also, and Barnabas, and Timothy, with all the others, "whose names are written in the book of life," [Philippians 4:3] — these, I say, all cherished and loved sanctity, and ran in the contest, and finished their course without blemish, as imitators of Christ, and as sons of the living God. Moreover, also, Elijah and Elisha, and many other holy men, we find to have lived a holy and spotless life. If, therefore, you desire to be like these, imitate them with all your power.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.

Why does the evangelist mention that he leaned on His breast and asked, "Who is it that will betray You?" Not simply or by chance, but to show that Peter, even after his denial, had boldness before the Lord. For he who before the Cross did not dare to ask about the betrayer, but entrusted the question to another, namely John, is now entrusted with the care of all, and not only does he not entrust the question about himself to another, but even concerning that very disciple who enjoyed a special love above all the others, he asks the Lord and becomes, as it were, an intercessor before Him.

Now we see that John is commended: first, as to his past; then with respect to his future (v 21). John is commended on three points in his past.

First, John had the privilege of having Christ's special love. The Evangelist says, Peter turned, for he had begun to follow Jesus even bodily, and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved. Here we see that Peter, already made a shepherd, was intent on the care of others: "And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32). Now Jesus loved John without excluding the others, for above he said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you" (15:9). But he loved John above the others with a special love. There were three reasons for this. First, because of his penetrating understanding: for teachers especially love their intelligent students: "A servant who deals wisely has the king's favor" (Prv 14:35). Secondly, because of his purity, for he was a virgin: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Thirdly, because of his youth, for we have tender feelings for the young and the weak, and act with friendship towards them. And this is the way Christ acted with the youthful John: "When Israel was a child, I loved him" (Hos 11:1). We can see from this that God especially loves those who serve him from their youth: "My soul desires the first ripe figs" (Mic 7:1).

But this seems to go against Proverbs (8:17): "I love those who love me." Peter loved Christ more than the others: "Do you love me more than these?" (21:15). Therefore, Christ should have loved Peter more than John. I answer: it could be said that John, because he was more loved, was happier; while Peter, because he loved more, was better. But this would be a violation of justice. Consequently, this refers to a mystery: that is, Peter and John stand for two kinds of life, the active and the contemplative, and the end and object of each is Christ. The active life, which Peter signifies, loves God more than the contemplative life (which is signified by John) because it feels more keenly the difficulties of this present life, and more intensely desires to be freed from them and to go to God. But God loves the contemplative life more, because he preserves it longer: it does not come to an end with death, as does the active life: "The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob" (Ps 87:2).

Some try to solve this problem using the literal sense. They distinguish two kinds of love in Christ, according to his two wills, his human and divine will. They say that Christ loved Peter more with his divine love, but he loved John more with his human love. The objection to this is that Christ's human will was entirely conformed to his divine will; and so the more he loved one with his divine will, so also he loved that one more with his human will. Therefore, we should say that he loves that one the more to whom he wills more good. He loved Peter more in the sense that he made Peter love him more; Christ loved John more in another sense, that is, by giving him a keener understanding. "The Lord will fill him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding" (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, Peter is better because charity is better than knowledge (cf. 1 Cor 13:8); but John is better in keenness of understanding. However, only God can weigh their merits: "The Lord weighs the spirit" (Prv 16:2).

And so others say, and this is better, that Peter loved Christ more in his members; and in this way he was also more loved by Christ. For this reason the Church was entrusted to him. But John loved Christ more in Himself, and in this way was more loved by Christ, who entrusted his mother to John's care. Or, one could say that Peter loved Christ more readily and fervently. While John was more loved by being given tokens of intimate friendship, which Christ gave him on account of his youth and purity.

John adds, who had lain close to his breast at the supper, which commends him to us on the second point, his special intimacy with Christ. This was just explained.

Thirdly, John is commended on account of the special confidence he had in Christ, so that he could question Christ with more assurance than all the others. Thus he adds that this disciple had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray you? This was also explained before (13:25).

John is recalling his own privileges in order to exalt Peter. One might suppose that because Peter had denied Christ he would not be allowed back to his former intimacy. To reject this, John shows that he was admitted to a greater intimacy. The one who did not dare to question Christ at the supper, but asked John to do it, was made head over his brethren after the passion, and is now questioning Christ not only for himself, but also for John. We can understand from this that those who fall into sin sometimes rise in greater grace: "For just as you purposed to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him" (Bar 4:28).

When Peter therefore had seen him, whom he knew to be specially beloved, he says to Jesus: Lord, but what about this man? supply: will he suffer, in order to come to you? Chrysostom: "Peter loved John greatly: because therefore the Lord had foretold great things to Peter, wishing to receive this one also as a sharer, he says: Lord, but what about this man?"

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts. When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spake beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, desiring to have John also to share with him, he said, "And what shall this man do?" "Shall he not come the same way with us?" And as at that other time not being able himself to ask, he puts John forward, so now desiring to make him a return, and supposing that he would desire to ask about the matters pertaining to himself, but had not courage, he himself undertook the questioning. What then saith Christ? "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Since he spake from strong affection, and wishing not to be torn away from him, Christ, to show that however much he might love, he could not go beyond His love, saith, "If I will that he tarry—what is that to thee?" By these words teaching us not to be impatient, nor curious beyond what seemeth good to Him. For because Peter was ever hot, and springing forward to enquiries such as this, to cut short his warmth, and to teach him not to enquire farther, He saith this.

Our Lord then having foretold such great things of him, and committed the world to him, and prophesied his martyrdom, and made known his greater love, Peter wishing to have John admitted to a share of this calling, says, And what shall this man do? as if to say, Will he not go the same way with us? For Peter had great love for John, as appears from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, which give many proofs of their close friendship. So Peter does John the same turn, that John had done him; thinking that he wanted to ask about himself, but was afraid, he puts the question for him.

When Peter heard this and was deemed worthy both of having the universe entrusted to him and of being crowned with martyrdom, then, out of his strong love for John, he asks about him as well: "And what about him? Will he not also go the same way as we? Will he not also be a partaker in the care and concern for the sheep?" For the words "follow Me" mean almost the same as: go, receive the sheep, go forth into the universe.

And so the Evangelist immediately shows Peter asking a question, When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? This concerns the future of John. First, we have Peter's question; Christ's answer; and then the interpretation of the answer (v 23).

Regarding the first point, note that when our Lord said to Peter, "Follow me" (v 19), Peter did begin to follow him with bodily steps, and so did John. When Peter noticed John following he asked Christ about him, saying, Lord, what about this man? This was like saying: I am following you in your suffering. But this man, will he die also? John would have asked the same question had he dared.

But according to Chrysostom, Peter was questioning about the leadership of the Church, not about John's martyrdom. For Peter loved John more than all the other disciples, and they are always found together in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. So Peter wanted to have John as his companion in the work of preaching. Peter says, Lord, what about this man? as if to say, "Let him come with me."

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

"This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several other parts also of the divine literature.

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).

To refute those who inferred from Christ's Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.

And the Word was with God.

But they will not prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is no communion betwixt light and darkness, no concord between Christ and Belial. For who ever heard such things? or who, now hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John saying, "In the beginning was the Word," does not condemn those who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words of the Gospel, "the only-begotten Son;" and, "by Him were all things made," will not hate those who declare He is one of the things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him?

Now that also the Word of God is not comprehended in the number of things that were created "from things which are not," the same John says, "All things were made by Him." For he set forth His proper personality, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time Himself was not? For the Word which makes is not to be defined as being of the same nature with the things which are made; since He indeed was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and fashioned "from things which are not." Moreover, that which is seems to be contrary to and far removed from those things which are made "from things which are not." For that indeed shows that there is no interval between the Father and the Son, since not even in thought can the mind imagine any distance between them. But that the world was created "from things which are not," indicates a more recent and later origin of substance, since the universe receives an essence of this sort from the Father by the Son. When, therefore, the most pious John contemplated the essence of the divine Word at a very great distance, and as placed beyond all conception of those things that are begotten, he thought it not meet to speak of His generation and creation; not daring to designate the Creator in the same terms as the things that are made. Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

"In the beginning," we are told, "God created heaven and earth." And the world was therefore created and that which was not began to exist. And the word of God was in the beginning and always was.

That which was "in the beginning" is not comprehended in time, is not preceded by any beginning. Let Arius, therefore, hold his peace. Moreover, that which was "with God" is not confounded and mingled with him but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished that it has as the Word abiding with God; and so let Sabellius keep silence. And "the Word was God." This Word, therefore, consists not in uttered speech but in the designation of celestial excellence, so that Photinus's teaching is refuted. Furthermore, by the fact that in the beginning he was with God is proven the indivisible unity of eternal Godhead in Father and Son, to the shame and confusion of Eunomius.

Let the soul that wishes to approach God raise itself from the body and cling always to that highest Good that is divine and lasts forever and that was from the beginning and that was with God, that is, the Word of God. This is the divine Being "in which we live and are and move." This was in the beginning, this is "The Son of God, Jesus Christ in you," he says, "in whom there was not yes and no, but only yes was in him." He himself told Moses to say, "He who is has sent me."

[The Arians] whisper, "How can the Son be Word or the Word be God's image? For a human word is composed of syllables, and only signifies the speaker's will and then is over and done with." … But the word of truth confutes them as follows: If they were disputing concerning any human being, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning his Word and his Son. But if their dispute concerns God, who created humanity, let them no longer entertain human thoughts but others that are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring. Whatever the Word's Father is, the Word also must be. Now a man, begotten in time, also himself begets children in time. And since he came to be out of nothing, his word also is over and done with.But God is not like humans as Scripture has said. God is, exists and has always existed. Therefore also his Word exists and is forever with the Father, as radiance accompanies light. The human word is composed of syllables and neither lives nor operates anything but only signifies the speaker's intention. It goes out and then goes away, no more to appear, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken. The word of human beings neither lives nor operates anything. Nor, in short, is it human. And this happens to it, as I said before, because the human being who begets it has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor is it a sound of accents, nor should we think of his Son as his command. Rather he is the radiance of light and so is perfect offspring from perfect being. And so he is also God, since he is God's image. For "the Word was God," says Scripture. Since human words have no power or energy on their own, they work not by means of words but with their hands which they do have. But the human word does not subsist on its own. The "Word of God," however, as the apostle says, "is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened before his eyes." He is then Framer of all, "and without him was not one thing made," nor can anything be made without him. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we are.

There are two births of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one divine, the other human.… Consider that first begetting: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Whose Word? The Father's own. Which Word? The Son himself. The Father has never been without the Son; and yet the one who has never been without the Son begot the Son. He both begot and yet did not begin to do so. There is no beginning for one begotten without beginning. And yet he is the Son, and yet he is begotten. A mere human is going to say, "How is it that he is begotten, and yet he does not have a beginning? If he does not have a beginning, how was he begotten?" How, I do not know. Are you asking a mere human how God was begotten? I am overwhelmed by your questioning, but I appeal to the prophet: "His begetting who can tell the tale of?"

Moses, they tell us, says, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and does not even mention the Son through whom all things were made; whereas John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made through him, and without him was made nothing." Is this contradictory, or are they not rather contradicting themselves when they prefer blindly to find fault with what they do not understand instead of earnestly seeking to understand?… For the Lord says to the unbelieving Jews, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me too; for he wrote about me." So why shouldn't I understand the Lord himself as the beginning in which God the Father made heaven and earth? For Moses certainly wrote, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and it is the Lord's words that confirm that he wrote about the Lord. Or perhaps he himself is not also the beginning? But there need be no doubt about that either, with the Gospel telling us, when the Jews asked the Lord who he was, that he replied, "The beginning, because I am also speaking to you." There you have the beginning in which God made heaven and earth. So God made heaven and earth in the Son, through whom all things were made and without whom was made nothing. And so, since the Gospel is in agreement with Genesis, we may retain our inheritance in line with the consensus of both Testaments and leave fault-finding quibbles to the disinherited heretics.

Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound, but also before the images of its sounds are considered in thought,-for this it is which belongs to no tongue, to wit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which our Latin tongue is one;-whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is able now to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." For of necessity, when we speak what is true, i.e. speak what we know, there is born from the knowledge itself which the memory retains, a word that is altogether of the same kind with that knowledge from which it is born. For the thought that is formed by the thing which we know, is the word which we speak in the heart: which word is neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any other tongue. But when it is needful to convey this to the knowledge of those to whom we speak, then some sign is assumed whereby to signify it. ... Accordingly, the word that sounds outwardly is the sign of the word that gives light inwardly; which latter has the greater claim to be called a word. For that which is uttered with the mouth of the flesh, is the articulate sound of a word; and is itself also called a word, on account of that to make which outwardly apparent it is itself assumed. For our word is so made in some way into an articulate sound of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be manifested to men's senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming that flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men's senses. And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it.

Therefore, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so is our word also, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I should say, born from the Father's knowledge, from the Father's wisdom; or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.

The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. ...

And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it. ... But what is this that can be a word, and is therefore already held worthy of the name of a word? What, I say, is this thing that is formable, but not yet formed, except a something in our mind, which we toss to and fro by revolving it this way or that, while we think of first one thing and then another, according as they are found by or occur to us? And the true word then comes into being, when, as I said, that which we toss to and fro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and is formed by that, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what manner each thing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is said in this manner in the heart, without articulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as no doubt belongs to some particular tongue. And hence if we even admit, in order not to dispute laboriously about a name, that this something of our mind, which can be formed from our knowledge, is to be already called a word, even before it is so formed, because it is, so to say, already formable, who would not see how great would be the unlikeness between it and that Word of God, which is so in the form of God, as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to Him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?

Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to be called a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything in God which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and be revolved in some sense formlessly.

We are not now discussing, brothers and sisters, possible ways of understanding the text, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It can only be understood in ways beyond words; human words cannot suffice for understanding the Word of God. What we are discussing and stating is why it is not understood. I am not speaking in order that it may be understood but telling you what prevents it being understood.You see, it is a kind of form, a form that has not been formed but is the form of all things that have been formed; an unchangeable form that has neither fault not failing, beyond space, standing apart as at once the foundation for all things to stand on and the ceiling of them to stand under. If you say that all things are in it, you are not lying. The Word itself, you see, is called the Wisdom of God; but we have it written, "In wisdom you have made them all." Therefore all things are in it. And yet because it is God, all things are under it.

But let us see what advantage it is that these words have sounded, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." We also uttered words when we spoke. Was it such a word that was with God? Did not those words which we uttered sound and pass away? Did God's Word, then, sound and come to an end? If so, how were all things made by it, and without it was nothing made? how is that which it created ruled by it, if it sounded and passed away? What sort of a word, then, is that which is both uttered and passes not away? Give ear, my beloved, it is a great matter. By everyday talk, words here become despicable to us, because through their sounding and passing away they are despised, and seem nothing but words. But there is a word in the man himself which remains within; for the sound proceeds from the mouth. There is a word which is spoken in a truly spiritual manner, that which you understand from the sound, not the sound itself. Mark, I speak a word when I say "God." How short the word which I have spoken-four letters and two syllables! Is this all that God is, four letters and two syllables? Or is that which is signified as costly as the word is paltry? What took place in thy heart when thou heardest "God "? What took place in my heart when I said "God "? A certain great and perfect substance was in our thoughts, transcending every changeable creature of flesh or of soul. And if I say to thee, "Is God changeable or unchangeable?" thou wilt answer immediately, "Far be it from me either to believe or imagine that God is changeable: God is unchangeable." Thy soul, though small, though perhaps still carnal, could not answer me otherwise than that God is unchangeable: but every creature is changeable; how then weft thou able to enter, by a glance of thy spirit, into that which is above the creature, so as confidently to answer me, "God is unchangeable"? What, then, is that in thy heart, when thou thinkest of a certain substance, living, eternal, all-powerful, infinite, everywhere present, everywhere whole, nowhere shut in? When thou thinkest of these qualities, this is the word concerning God in thy heart. But is this that sound which consists of four letters and two syllables? Therefore, whatever things are spoken and pass away are sounds, are letters, are syllables. His word which sounds passes away; but that which the sound signified, and was in the speaker as he thought of it, and in the hearer as he understood it, that remains while the sounds pass away.

Perhaps some one now answers me, "Who so conceives this Word?" Do not then imagine, as it were, some paltry thing when thou hearest "the Word," nor suppose it to be words such as thou hearest them every day-"he spoke such words," "such words he uttered," "such words you tell me;" for by constant repetition the term word has become, so to speak, worthless. And when thou hearest, "In the beginning was the Word," lest thou shouldest imagine something worthless, such as thou hast been accustomed to think of when thou weft wont to listen to human words, hearken to what thou must think of: "The Word was God."

Now some unbelieving Arian may come forth and say that "the Word of God was made." How can it be that the Word of God was made, when God by the Word made all things? If the Word of God was itself also made, by what other Word was it made? But if thou sayest that there is a Word of the Word, I say, that by which it was made is itself the only Son of God. But if thou dost not say there is a Word of the Word, allow that that was not made by which all things were made. For that by which all things were made could not be made by itself. Believe the evangelist then. For he might have said, "In the beginning God made the Word:" even as Moses said, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth;" and enumerates all things thus: "God said, Let it be made, and it was made." If "said," who said? God. And what was made? Some creature. Between the speaking of God and the making of the creature, what was there by which it was made but the Word? For God said, "Let it be made, and it was made." This Word is unchangeable; although changeable things are made by it, the Word itself is unchangeable.

Do not then believe that that was made by which were made all things, lest thou be not new-made by the Word, which makes all things new. For already hast thou been made by the Word, but it behoves thee to be new-made by the Word. If, however, thy belief about the Word be wrong, thou wilt not be able to be new-made by the Word. And although creation by the Word has happened to thee, so that thou hast been made by Him, thou art unmade by thyself: if by thyself thou art unmade, let Him who made thee make thee new: if by thyself thou hast been made worse, let Him who created thee re-create thee. But how can He re-create thee by the Word, if thou boldest a wrong opinion about the Word? The evangelist says, "In the beginning was the Word;" and thou sayest, "In the beginning the Word was made." He says, "All things were made by Him;" and thou sayest that the Word Himself was made. The evangelist might have said, "In the beginning the Word was made:" but what does he say? "In the beginning was the Word." If He was, He was not made; that all things might be made by it, and without Him nothing be made. If, then, "in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" if thou canst not imagine what it is, wait till thou art grown. That is strong meat: receive thou milk that thou mayest be nourished, and be able to receive strong meat.

Consider the body: it is mortal, earthy, weak, corruptible; away with it. Yes, perhaps thou sayest, but the body is temporal. Think then of other bodies, the heavenly; they are greater, better, more magnificent. Look at them, moreover, attentively. They roll from east to west, they stand not; they are seen with the eyes, not only by man, but even by the beast of the field. Pass beyond them too. And how, sayest thou, pass beyond the heavenly bodies, seeing that I walk on the earth? Not in the flesh dost thou pass beyond them, but in the mind. Away with them too: though they shine ever so much, they are bodies; though they glitter from heaven, they are bodies. Come, now that perhaps thou thinkest thou hast not whither to go, after considering all these. And whither am I to go, sayest thou, beyond the heavenly bodies; and what am I to pass beyond with the mind? Hast thou considered all these? I have, sayest thou. By what means hast thou considered them? Let the being that considers appear in person. The being that considers all these, that discriminates, distinguishes, and in a manner weighs them in the balance of wisdom, is really the mind. Doubtless, then, better is the mind with which thou hast contemplated all these things, than these things which thou hast contemplated. This mind, then, is a spirit, not a body. Pass beyond it too. And that thou mayest see whither thou art to pass beyond, compare that mind itself, in the first place, with the flesh. Heaven forbid that thou shouldest deign so to compare it! Compare it with the brightness of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars; the brightness of the mind is greater. A great thing, therefore, is the mind. But the mind, notwithstanding it be better than every kind of body, is itself changeable. Now it knows, now knows not; now forgets, now remembers; now wills, now wills not; now errs, now is right. Pass therefore beyond all changeableness; not only beyond all that is seen, but also beyond all that changes. For thou hast passed beyond the flesh which is seen; and hadst come to thy mind, there thou didst find the changeableness of thy mind. Is God at all changeable? Pass then, beyond even thy mind. Pour out thy soul "above thee," that thou mayest reach unto God, of whom it is said to thee, "Where is thy God?"

Do not imagine that thou art to do something beyond a man's ability. The Evangelist John himself did this. He soared beyond the flesh, beyond the earth which he trod, beyond the seas which he looked upon, beyond the air in which the fowls fly, beyond the sun, the moon, the stars, beyond all the spirits unseen, beyond his own mind, by the very reason of his rational soul. Soaring beyond all these, pouring out his soul above him, whither did he arrive? What did he see? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." If, therefore, thou seest no separation in the light, why seekest thou a separation in the work? See God, see His Word inhering to the Word speaking, that the speaker speaks not by syllables, but this his speaking is a shining out in the brightness of wisdom. What is said of the Wisdom itself? "It is the radiance of eternal light." Observe the radiance of the sun. The sun is in the heaven, and spreads out its brightness over all lands and over all seas, and it is simply a corporal light.

If, indeed, thou canst separate the brightness from the sun, then separate the Word from the Father. I am speaking of the sun. One small, slender flame of a lamp, which can be extinguished by one breath, spreads its light over all that lies near it: thou seest the light generated by the flame spread out; thou seest its emission, but not a separation. Understand, then, beloved brethren, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are inseparably united in themselves; that this Trinity is one God; that all the works of the one God are the works of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

(lib. lxxxiii. Quæst. q. 63) The Greek word "logos" signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.

(Tract. super Joan. i. c. 8) Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remaineth inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound. (de Trin. l. xv. c. 19. [x.]). Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it... (Ibid. cap. 20. [xi.]). Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.

(xv. de Trin. c. 22. [xiii.]) As our knowledge differs from God's, so does our word, which arises from our knowledge, differ from that Word of God, which is born of the Father's essence; we might say, from the Father's knowledge, the Father's wisdom, or, more correctly, the Father Who is Knowledge, the Father Who is Wisdom. (c. 23. (xiv.)) The Word of God then, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is in all things like and equal to the Father; being altogether what the Father is, yet not the Father; because the one is the Son, the other the Father. And thereby He knoweth all things which the Father knoweth; yet His knowledge is from the Father, ever as is His being: for knowing and being are the same with Him; and so as the Father's being is not from the Son, so neither is His knowing. Wherefore the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things as uttering forth Himself. For had there been more or less in His Word than in Himself, He would not have uttered Himself fully and perfectly. With respect however to our own inner word, which we find, in whatever sense, to be like the Word, let us not object to see how very unlike it is also. (cap. 25. (xv.)) A word is a formation of our mind going to take place, but not yet made, and something in our mind which we toss to and fro in a slippery circuitous way, as one thing and another is discovered, or occurs to our thoughts. When this, which we toss to and fro, has reached the subject of our knowledge, and been formed therefrom, when it has assumed the most exact likeness to it, and the conception has quite answered to the thing; then we have a true word. Who may not see how great the difference is here from that Word of God, which exists in the Form of God in such wise, that It could not have been first going to be formed, and afterwards formed, nor can ever have been unformed, being a Form absolute, and absolutely equal to Him from Whom It is. Wherefore in speaking of the Word of God here nothing is said about thought in God; lest we should think there was any thing revolving in God, which might first receive form in order to be a Word, and afterwards lose it, and be carried round and round again in an unformed state.

(de Verb. Dom. Serm. 38) Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.

(de Trin. vi. c. 3 [ii]) Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.

(de verb. Dom. Serm. 38. [117.] §. 6) They say, however, if He is the Son, He was born. We allow it. They rejoin: if the Son was born to the Father, the Father was, before the Son was born to Him. This the Faith rejects. Then they say, explain to us how the Son could be born from the Father, and yet be coeval with Him from whom He is born: for sons are born after their fathers, to succeed them on their death. They adduce analogies from nature; and we must endeavour likewise to do the same for our doctrine. But how can we find in nature a coeternal, when we cannot find an eternal? However, if a thing generating and a thing generated can be found any where coeval, it will be a help to forming a notion of coeternals. Now Wisdom herself is called in the Scriptures, (Wisd. 7:26) the brightness of Everlasting Light, the image of the Father. Hence then let us take our comparison, and from coevals form a notion of coeternals. Now no one doubts that brightness proceeds from fire: fire then we may consider the father of the brightness. Presently, when I light a candle, at the same instant with the fire, brightness ariseth. Give me the fire without the brightness, and I will with thee believe that the Father was without the Son. An image is produced by a mirror. The image exists as soon as the beholder appears; yet the beholder existed before he came to the mirror. Let us suppose then a twig, or a blade of grass which has grown up by the water side. Is it not born with its image? If there had always been the twig, there would always have been the image proceeding from the twig. And whatever is from another thing, is born. So then that which generates may be coexistent from eternity with that which is generated from it. But some one will say perhaps, Well, I understand now the eternal Father, the coeternal Son: yet the Son is like the emitted brightness, which is less brilliant than the fire, or the reflected image, which is less real than the twig. Not so: there is complete equality between Father and Son. I do not believe, he says; for thou hast found nothing whereto to liken it. However, perhaps we can find something in nature by which we may understand that the Son is both coeternal with the Father, and in no respect inferior also: though we cannot find any one material of comparison that will be sufficient singly, and must therefore join together two, one of which has been employed by our adversaries, the other by ourselves. For they have drawn their comparison from things which are preceded in time by the things which they spring from, man, for example, from man. Nevertheless, man is of the same substance with man. We have then in that nativity an equality of nature; an equality of time is wanting. But in the comparison which we have drawn from the brightness of fire, and the reflexion of a twig, an equality of nature thou dost not find, of time thou dost. In the Godhead then there is found as a whole, what here exists in single and separate parts; and that which is in the creation, existing in a manner suitable to the Creator.

This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last ofall? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word. Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself. Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom. The Holy Spirit foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, he was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Spirit says, In the beginning was the Word. Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing. Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.

(Hom. in princ. Joan.) This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.

(Hom. in Princ. Joan. c. 3) Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.

(Hom. in princ. Joan. c. 3) Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.

(Hom. in Princ. Joan.) The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, He was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, In the beginning was the Word.

(Hom. in princ. Joan. §. 4) Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.

(Hom. i. in princ. Joan. c. 4) Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.

(in loc.) The other Evangelists describe Christ as born in time; John witnesseth that He was in the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word. The others describe His sudden appearance among men; he witnesseth that He was ever with God, saying, And the Word was with God. The others prove Him very man; he very God, saying, And the Word was God. The others exhibit Him as man conversing with men for a season; he pronounces Him God abiding with God in the beginning, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. The others relate the great deeds which He did amongst men; he that God the Father made every creature through Him, saying, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made.

It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. The former said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and, in Augustine's opinion, this means the Son. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

In the mystery of the redemption of man, Christ is pointed to as a meek man in Matthew; as a triumphant lion in Mark; as a sacrificed calf in Luke; as a flying eagle indicating His divinity, in John: "In the beginning was the Word," etc.

This book, which concerns the incarnate Word, in whom a twofold nature is considered, namely divine and human, is first divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the Word in himself; in the second, insofar as he is united to flesh, and that part begins there: "There was a man sent from God." And because "word" denotes operative power, as Augustine says, and has relation both to the one speaking and to that which is said through the word: therefore the first part has two sections. In the first, the Word is treated in comparison to the one speaking; in the second, in comparison to those things which are spoken through the Word: "All things were made through him."

In the first part four clauses are set forth, in which the incarnate Word is described with respect to four conditions, which are: unity in essence, otherness in person, equality in majesty, coeternity in duration. And through these conditions four errors are refuted.

The first condition, therefore, is unity in essence, and it is noted in the first clause, when it is said: "In the beginning was the Word": as Augustine says: "There is a principle not from a principle, and this is the Father; and there is a principle from a principle, and this is the Son." Here "principle" is taken by antonomasia for the Father: whence the sense is: "In the beginning," that is, in the Father, is the Son, not separated from the Father in essence, below in the fourteenth chapter: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," as undivided: because as is said below in the tenth chapter: "I and the Father are one." And in this the unbelief of the pagans is refuted, who are indignant with us because we say three persons and not three gods: as Augustine says in On the Christian Combat; and this, because they do not understand how the Word was in the beginning.

The second condition is otherness in person, and this is touched upon in the second clause, when it is said: "The Word was with God": because, as the Grammarian says, and also Victor, prepositions are transitive; therefore this preposition "with" implies distinction insofar as it is a preposition, but by reason of its special signification it denotes authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son, because the lesser is said to be with the greater and not conversely, according to the common manner of speaking. But there, although there is no lesser and greater, nevertheless there is authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son. By the name "word," however, is understood the emanation of generation. And these three are touched upon in Ecclesiasticus twenty-four: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature": "of the Most High," behold authority; from "the mouth," behold generation; "I came forth," behold distinction. And in this the heresy of the Sabellians is refuted, who hold that the Father and the Son are one and the same: because they did not understand how the Word was with God.

The third condition is equality in majesty, and this is touched upon in the third clause, where it says: "And the Word was God." For if, as Anselm says, "God is that than which nothing greater can be thought"; if the Word was God, then he was that than which nothing greater could be thought, and thus he was equal to the Father in majesty; below in the fourteenth chapter he said to the disciples: "You believe in God, believe also in me." If one must believe in God alone as in the highest truth, and one must believe in the Word, it follows that the Word was God. And in this the heresy of the Arians is refuted, who held the Son to be a creature and lesser than the Father, as Augustine says. For they did not understand how the Word was God.

Since "Son" conveys the most distinctive property, why does he describe the Son of God under the name "Word" rather than under the name "Son"? For it seems that he ought to have done the contrary. It must be said that "son" expresses a relation only to the father, but "word" expresses a relation to the one speaking, expresses a relation to that which is said through the word, expresses a relation to the voice which it assumes, and also expresses a relation to the teaching which is effected in another through the word. And since the Son of God ought to be described here not only in relation to the Father, from whom he proceeds, but also in relation to the creatures which he made, and to the flesh which he assumed, and to the teachings which he provided, he ought most nobly and most fittingly to be described under the name Word, because that name regards all these things, nor could a more fitting name be found in the world.

Likewise it is asked about the fact that he is described by the verb "was." For if "was" is of the imperfect past tense, it is entirely repugnant to eternity, because there is no passing away there. If you say, as Augustine says in the Gloss, that the verb "is" sometimes implies time according to the analogy of other verbs, but here it does not denote time, but designates essence without any temporal motion: this does not solve the difficulty, because when it is said: "the Son is begotten" or "has been begotten," time is not implied there; yet it is better said "always begotten" than "always being begotten." Likewise the Lord says thus: "Before Abraham was made, I am," below in the eighth chapter; He does not say "I was" or "I used to be": therefore even now He ought to speak through the present tense.

It must be said that because the being of the Word is described here as permanent, it is described as immutable, as preceding all other things, because this word "was," according as such, imports these three things: therefore he most elegantly said "was." For since it is a mean between the present and the past, and "a mean partakes of the nature of the extremes," from the present it has permanence, from the past immutability, from itself precedence and order, namely of eternity in relation to time. Therefore "was" is rightly said.

But the heretic objects: if the Word proceeds from the speaker as a son from a father, and the son is posterior to the father, therefore the Word was not in the beginning with God. If it is compared as splendor to light, another heretic objects: if light is much more luminous and nobler than the splendor which proceeds from it, therefore also the Father is greater than the Word. It must be said that the taking of a likeness, namely in creatures, is nowhere fully found with respect to God, because every creature is more dissimilar than similar; and therefore the heretics erred who wished to assimilate entirely, but the likeness must be taken from many sources. For the Word is compared to the speaker as a son to a father on account of likeness in nature and equal perfection; it is compared as splendor to light on account of coeternity. And therefore in all such arguments there is a fallacy of the consequent.

The place of writing he says was in Asia; the time indeed was, because it was last, after the Apocalypse: and thus the Gospel of John was the last written among the books of Sacred Scripture. And it was fitting that, just as in the first book written, which is the beginning of the canon, an incorruptible beginning is prefixed, so also in the last book written: "In the beginning was the Word," just as there: "In the beginning He created," and this, with the Lord saying in the Apocalypse: "I am the Alpha and the Omega."

Now the intellect is said to truly comprehend the meaning of propositions when it knows with certitude that they are true; and this knowing is knowing that it cannot be deceived in that comprehension. For it knows that that truth cannot be otherwise; it knows therefore that that truth is unchangeable. But since our mind itself is changeable, it cannot see that truth shining so unchangeably except through some light radiating altogether unchangeably, which it is impossible to be a changeable creature. It knows therefore in that light which illumines every man coming into this world, which is the true light and the Word in the beginning with God.

Neither Will nor Reason is the product of Nature. Therefore either I am self-existent (a belief which no one can accept) or I am a colony of some Thought and Will that are self-existent. Such reason and goodness as we can attain must be derived from a self-existent Reason and Goodness outside ourselves, in fact, a Supernatural.

A question at once arises. Is it still God speaking when a liar or a blasphemer speaks? In one sense, almost Yes. Apart from God he could not speak at all; there are no words not derived from the Word; no acts not derived from Him who is _Actus purus_. And indeed the only way in which I can make real to myself what theology teaches about the heinousness of sin is to remember that every sin is the distortion of an energy breathed into us—an energy which, if not thus distorted, would have blossomed into one of those holy acts whereof "God did it" and "I did it" are both true descriptions. We poison the wine as He decants it into us; murder a melody He would play with us as the instrument. We caricature the self-portrait He would paint. Hence all sin, whatever else it is, is sacrilege.

Even within the Holy One Himself, it is not sufficient that the Word should be God, it must also be with God. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Ghost proceeds: deity introduces distinction within itself so that the union of reciprocal loves may transcend mere arithmetical unity or self identity.

In the second place he convinced me that the positions we had hitherto held left no room for any satisfactory theory of knowledge. We had been, in the technical sense of the term, "realists"; that is, we accepted as rock-bottom reality the universe revealed by the senses. But at the same time we continued to make for certain phenomena of consciousness all the claims that really went with a theistic or idealistic view. We maintained that abstract thought (if obedient to logical rules) gave indisputable truth, that our moral judgment was "valid", and our aesthetic experience not merely pleasing but "valuable". The view was, I think, common at the time; it runs through Bridges' Testament of Beauty, the work of Gilbert Murray, and Lord Russell's "Worship of a Free Man". Barfield convinced me that it was inconsistent. If thought were a purely subjective event, these claims for it would have to be abandoned. If one kept (as rock-bottom reality) the universe of the senses, aided by instruments and co-ordinated so as to form "science", then one would have to go much further--as many have since gone--and adopt a Behaviouristic theory of logic, ethics, and aesthetics. But such a theory was, and is, unbelievable to me. I am using the word "unbelievable", which many use to mean "improbable" or even "undesirable", in a quite literal sense. I mean that the act of believing what the behaviourist believes is one that my mind simply will not perform. I cannot force my thought into that shape any more than I can scratch my ear with my big toe or pour wine out of a bottle into the cavity at the base of that same bottle. It is as final as a physical impossibility. I was therefore compelled to give up realism. I had been trying to defend it ever since I began reading philosophy. Partly, no doubt, this was mere "cussedness". Idealism was then the dominant philosophy at Oxford and I was by nature "against Government". But partly, too, realism satisfied an emotional need. I wanted Nature to be quite independent of our observation; something other, indifferent, self-existing. (This went with the Jenkinian zest for rubbing one's nose in the mere quiddity.) But now, it seemed to me, I had to give that up. Unless I were to accept an unbelievable alternative, I must admit that mind was no late-come epiphenomenon; that the whole universe was, in the last resort, mental; that our logic was participation in a cosmic Logos.

Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know—because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. But, of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person.

Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one-that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God." If then He hates none of the things which He has made, it follows that He loves them. Much more than the rest, and with reason, will He love man, the noblest of all objects created by Him, and a God-loving being. Therefore God is loving; consequently the Word is loving.

The Father begot me, creative Wisdom, before the ages; He established me as the beginning of his ways For the works now mystically accomplished For though I am the uncreated Word by nature, I make my own the voice Of the nature I have now assumed. As I am a man In reality, not a mirage, So divinized is the nature which, By the manner of the exchange, Is united to me. Wherefore know that I am one Christ Who saves that of which and in which I am.

(Gest. Conc. Eph.) Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the coeternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.

That the same Christ is the Word of God. In the forty-fourth Psalm: "My heart hath breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King." Also in the thirty-second Psalm: "By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth." Also in Isaiah: "A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth." Also in the cvith Psalm: "He sent His Word, and healed them." Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Also in the Apocalypse: "And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God."

That Christ is God. In Genesis: "And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau." Also in Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion." Likewise in the same: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it." Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men." Also in Zechariah God says: "And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord." Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: "I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God." Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness." Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name." Also in the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word." Also in the same: "The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." Also Paul to the Romans: "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore." Also in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst." And again in the same place: "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men." But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: "Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us."

Exact of a truth, and God-taught is the mind of the holy Evangelists, from the splendour of their power to behold, as from some lofty mountain-spur and watch-peak, on all sides observing what is of profit to the hearers, and tracking with intent zeal whatever may seem to be of profit to those who thirst after the truth of the Divine dogmas and with good purpose search after the mind that is hidden in the Divine Scriptures. For not in those who search too curiously, and take pleasure in the many-tangled wiles of reasonings, rather than rejoice in the truth, does the Spirit make His revelation, since neither does He enter into a malicious soul, nor otherwise does He suffer His precious 'pearls to be rolled at the feet of swine. But with exceeding pleasure does He have fellowship with simpler minds, as having a more guileless motion, and shunning superfluous subtleties, whereto specially pertains the meeting with sudden fear, and from too great turning aside unto the right hand to err from the straight and royal road. For he that walketh simply walketh surely, as saith Solomon.

But while the holy Evangelists have a marvellous exactness in writing (for it is not they that speak, as the Saviour saith, but the Spirit of the Father which is in them): reasonably may one grant that the Book of John has been composed beyond all marvel, looking both to the supereminence of his thoughts, the keenness of his intellect, and the constant and |8 close-succeeding cumulation of conceptions. For course-fellows are they one with, another in the exposition of the Divine dogmas, and loosing as it were from the starting line they course charioteers to one goal. But a diverse fashion of speech is wrought out by them, and they appear to me to resemble persons, who are ordered to come together unto one city, but care not to approach it by one and the same beaten road. Thus one may see the other Evangelists with great exactness giving the account of our Saviour's genealogy in the Flesh, and bringing down step by step those from Abraham unto Joseph, or again carrying up those from Joseph to Adam. But we find the blessed John not caring to be over-studious about these, but with a most fervent and fire-full motion of intellect endeavouring to lay hold of those very things that are above human mind, and daring to explain the unspeakable and unutterable Generation of God the Word. For he knew that the glory of God hideth speech, and greater than our idea and utterance is the God-befitting dignity, and hard to utter and most difficult of unfolding are the properties of the Divine Nature.

But since it was necessary in some sort to mete out heaven with the span, and to suffer the scant measures of human nature to approach to what is by all unattainable and hard to be explained, that the approach might not be opened out for those who teach otherwise to come against the more simple, in that no voice of the saints who have been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word held in check their ill-surmisings, keen comes he to the very essence of the Divine dogmas, crying aloud, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, was with God and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God.

But I think that those who are engaged on the Holy Scriptures ought to admit all writings that are honest and good and free from harm. For thus collecting together the varied thoughts of many and bringing them together into one scope and understanding, they will mount up to a good measure of knowledge, and imitating the bee, wise workwoman, will compact the sweet honeycomb of the Spirit.

Some then of those of most research, say that after our Saviour's Cross and Ascension into Heaven, certain false shepherds and false teachers falling like wild beasts on the Saviour's flocks terrified them not a little, speaking out of their own heart, as it is written, and not out of the mouth of the Lord; yea rather, not merely out of their own heart, but out of the teachings of their own father, I mean the devil. For if no one can call Jesus Anathema, save in Beelzebub, how is not what we say of them clearly true? What things then are they which these men belched forth against their own head? They ignorantly and impiously affirmed that the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Eternal Light, in Whom we both move and are, was then first called into being, when He was born Man of the Holy Virgin, and taking this our common fashion, showed Himself upon earth, as it is written, and conversed with men. On those then who are thus disposed, and who dare to slander the ineffable and eternal Generation of the Son, the word of the Prophet comes heavily, saying thus: But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulteress and the whore, against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth and draw out the tongue? not bringing forth good things out of a good heart, but spueing forth the venom of the blood-defiled dragon, of whom saith the Psalmist unto the one God That is over all: Thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

But since there was no slight disturbance in regard to these things amongst them that had believed, and the ill of the scandal thereof was consuming like a plague the souls of the simpler (for some drawn away from the true doctrines by their prattle imagined that the Word was then barely called to the beginning of Being, when He became Man), those of the believers who were wiser being assembled and met together, came to the Disciple of the Saviour (I mean this John) and declared the disease that was pressing upon the brethren, and unfolded to him the prattle of them that teach otherwise, and besought that he would both strenuously assist themselves with the illumination through the Spirit, |10 and stretch forth a saving hand to those who were already within the devil's meshes.

The disciple grieving then over them that were lost and corrupted in mind, and at the same time thinking it most unnatural to take no forethought for those that should succeed and come after, betakes himself to making the book: and the more human side, the genealogy of the legal and natural Birth according to the flesh, he left to the other Evangelists to tell at fuller length; himself with extreme ardour and courage of soul springs upon the prattle of those who are introducing such things, saying, IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.

THE LORD will give utterance to them who evangelize with much power, declareth exceeding well the Psalmist. But I deem that they who ought to approach this, are, not mere chance persons, but those who have been illumined with the grace that is from above, seeing that both All wisdom is from the Lord, as it is written, and Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights. For a thing unsure and not unfraught with peril to the many, is the speaking concerning the Essence that is above all, and the Mysteries belonging thereunto, and silence on these subjects is free from danger. Us nevertheless albeit deeming that we have much need of silence, God Who is over all excludes from this, saying to one of the Saints (this was Paul), Speak and hold not thy peace. And no less does the ordinance of the Law show this, indicating things spiritual in the grosser type. For it enjoins those who have been called to the Divine Priesthood, to declare to the people by the sound of trumpets, about those things which they ought to learn. For God, when He willed to set forth in His laws most excellent things, did not I deem intend that the leaders of the people should lay their hand on their mouth, as it is written, and, in fear of appearing rashly to attempt things above the mind of man, hold back from the doctrine that is so necessary for those who are being instructed in piety and the knowledge of God, and choose a silence perilous to those who are their disciples. But the Disciple of Christ again terrifies us, saying Be not many masters, and moreover the |2 most wise Preacher too, darkly showing the peril that exists in the teaching of such things. For, says he, he that cleaveth wood, shall be endangered thereby; if the iron head fall, both himself hath troubled his face and he shall strengthen powers. For he likens the keenness of the mind to the iron-head, in that it is of a nature to pierce through, and sinks in to the innermost parts, even though it be resisted by the thickness and close texture of the wood. Wood again he in a figure calls the thoughts that are in Holy Scripture, which render the Books wherein they are a kind of Spiritual Paradise, and yet more than this, full with the fruitfulness that comes of the Holy Ghost. He that endeavours therefore to unfold the spiritual wood, that is the Divine and Mystic thoughts of Divinely-inspired Scripture by means of insearch, and most accurate grasp and keenness of mind, will run very deep risk, saith he, when the iron-head slippeth, that is when the mind not carried to a true understanding of the things which are written, misses the right perception, and having left, as it were, the straight path, is borne on some other way of thought turned aside from what is fitting. Whereupon he will place in jeopardy the face of his soul, that is, his heart, and will invigorate against himself the bad opposing powers, who with their bitter perverse words sophisticate the mind of those who have gone astray; not suffering it to behold the beauty of truth, but manifoldly perverting it and persuading it to go astray after mad thoughts. For no one calleth Jesus Anathema save in Beelzebub.

And let no one deem, himself astray, that the exposition of the above is astray, or otherwise of false reasoning. For Divine Scripture does sometimes, as we said before, call the thoughts of Holy Scripture wood. And indeed the God Who is over all says something on this sort through the all-wise Moses to those at that time: When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them, for thou mayest eat of them and thou shalt not cut them down: (is the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade?) Only the trees which thou knowest that they be |3 not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down, But that the God of all would not have deemed it worth to prescribe to us such things, if it were to be understood only of trees of the earth, is I suppose clear to every one, yet I think one ought to show from another command also that He is very unsparing of these, and takes not account of them. For what I pray does He enjoin should be done to the false-called gods? Ye shall destroy their altars, saith He, and break down their images, and cut down their groves. And by His own altar He no way suffers any tree to be cultivated. For He plainly declares: Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God. And if one must add anything to this, I will speak after the manner of most wise Paul. Both God take care for trees? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? by grosser examples leading us by the hand to the idea of spiritual things.

Let us now say that the writings of the unholy heretics may be considered as cities, and fortified, haply not without skill, by the wisdom of the world, and the intricate deceits of their cogitations. There comes to storm them, and in some sort environs and sits round them taking the shield of the faith and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, every one who agonizes for the holy dogmas of the Church, and sets himself in array with all his strength against their false-speaking, studying to cast down imaginations, as Paul saith, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. When then, He says, such a soldier of Christ compasses, as a land of aliens, the bitter writings of heresies, and lights upon the best cultivated trees, that is, if he find words from the Divinely-inspired Scripture, or things spoken by the Prophets or even testimonies from the New Testament, wrested unto their own purpose, let him not apply his mental acumen, like a sort of tool, to destroy and cut them down. For not because taken hold of by those who know not to interpret it aright, is therefore that which proceeds of the Mouth of God to be wholly rejected too: but since it is fruit-bearing, it shall be to thee rather as a help |4 and for food. For turning round unto the right argument of the faith that which is sometimes foolishly taken by them, not only shall we not be caught unstrung, but rather are we nerved into words against heresy. But he subjoins forthwith an argument persuading the hearers, that the onslaught of the advocate for the truth should be made, not for the overthrow of the Divine oracles, but for the destruction of what is non-rightly said by the opponents. For is, it says, the tree of the forest a man, to go before thee unto the palisade? For do you suppose, he says, that the utterance of the holy writings, will of its own self rise up against thee to battle, like one of the arch-heretics, and is not rather wronged by their madness? Do not then cut it down, says it, but let it be to thee as food also; only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down. For uneatable by them who would think aright, is the fruit of those men's writings: against them let every tool come: there let the might of the spiritual wood-men be shown, upon them let the axe of strength in advocacy glitter. For the uselessness and unprofitableness of the babbling of the heterodox the Prophet Hosea also most excellently interprets to us saying: A stalk having no strength to yield meal; if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. For they that are diligent to estrange themselves from friendship with God, shall feast themselves on the weak and old-wife tale of those people's unlearning. As then I was saying at the beginning (for I think we must go back to that), most exceeding hard is the exposition of the Divine mysteries, and better perchance were silence, but since thy much speech persuadeth us, O most labour-loving brother, to offer the work, as a sort of fruit of our lips, and spiritual sacrifice, this too will I not shrink from doing, encouraging myself in God who maketh wise the blind, and seeketh at our hands not surely that which is above us, but accepteth equally the offerings of poor men. For him that would offer a gift for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord, as is put in the beginning of Leviticus, the lawgiver having enjoined an offering of the herd and having moreover herein set down |5 the measure of the honour of the type, he again lowers it, saying that they who cannot attain to this, should sacrifice of the flock. And well did he know that sad and inexorable poverty will render some powerless even to this: therefore he says, he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of young pigeons. But him that comes yet short of these too, and approaches with the most insignificant offerings, he honours. For says he, his offering shall be fine flour, defining an offering easily procurable I suppose by every one and not too oppressive to the deepest poverty. For the lawgiver well knew (I think) that better and more excellent is it to bear fruit even a little, than to be wholly bereft of it and through shame of seeming to come short of others' gifts, to rush forward to the conclusion that it needs not to honour the Lord of all.

Persuaded then with reason by all these things, and having dismissed from my mind unreadiness, the ally of silence, I will deem it my duty to honour my Lord with what I have, discourse wholesome and joyous to the readers, like fine flour bedewed with oil: and we will begin the Book of John, taking in hand an exceeding great work, yet by reason of faith, not unstrung. And that we shall say and think less than is meet, we must unhesitatingly confess. But the great difficulty of the book, or to speak more truly, the weakness of our understanding, will persuade us to ask meet pardon for this.

Turning about on every hand our discourse to the more dogmatical exposition, we will set it in array, according to our power, against the false doctrines of them that teach otherwise, not stretching it forth to its full extent, but even retrenching superfluity, and studying to render it not lacking fitness. The subjoined subscription of the chapters, will show the subjects over which our discourse extends, to which we have also annexed numbers, that what is sought may be readily found by the readers.

CHAPTER III. That the Son is both God by Nature and in no wise either inferior to or unlike the Father.

And the Word was God.

He who bare within him the Spirit was not ignorant that there should arise some in the last times who should accuse the Essence of the Only Begotten and deny the Lord that bought them, by supposing that the Word Who appeared from God the Father is not by Nature God, but should bring in besides Him some so to speak spurious and false-called god, having about him the name of Sonship and Deity, but not so in truth. Such do they, who give the Jewish impiety of Arius an abode in their own mind; wherefore they put forth out of a dead heart, no life-giving word of pious thought, but that which looketh and tendeth unto death. Their tongue verily is as an arrow shot out; deceitful the words of their mouth.

As though then some one were already resisting the words of truth, and were almost saying to the Holy Evangelist; The Word was with God, Sir, be it so, we agree fully to what you have written as to this. Be the Father and Exist He separately, and the Son likewise. What now ought one to suppose that the Word is by Nature? for His Being with God, does not at all reveal His Essence. But since the Divine Scriptures proclaim One God, we will allot this to the Father only, with Whom the Word was. What then replies Truth's herald? Not only was the Word with God, but He was also God, that through His being with God, He might be known to be Other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by Himself; through being God, He might be conceived of as Consubstantial and of Him by Nature, as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be One, that the Holy Trinity should not in every wise arrive at Sameness of Essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He was then also God. He did not become so at last, but He was, if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God: for that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by Nature God.

Seeing then that God the Word has Eternity through the word was, Consubstantiality with the Father through being God, how great punishment and vengeance must we needs think that they shall be found to incur, who think that He is in ought whatever inferior, or unlike Him who begat Him, and shudder not to go forward to that height of impiety, as even to dare to utter such things to others also, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm?

But that the Son Who is of Him of a truth is in no wise inferior to the Father, we shall know again from the accompanying considerations.

Another. By many and varied names do the Divine Scriptures call the Son. For they say that He is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, according to what is said by Paul, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. He is called again both His Light and His Truth, as is sung in the Psalms by one of the Saints, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. He is called also Righteousness, as, Quicken me in Thy Righteousness: for the Father quickens in Christ those who believe on Him. He is called also the Counsel of the Father, as it is said, Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel, and again, The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever. Since then the Son is all these to God the Father, let them tell us who fawn on the error of Arius and are filled with that man's folly, how He is lesser than He. For if they be right, it is time to say that the Father is not wholly wise, not wholly Mighty, not wholly Light, not wholly Truth, not wholly Righteous, yea, not even Perfect in Counsel, if the Son Who is all these to Him, by reason of being inferior is shown to be not Perfect. But to think or say thus is impious. Perfect is the Father, because He has all things perfectly in Himself: Perfect then clearly the Son too, the Wisdom and the Power, the Light and the Truth, the Righteousness and the Counsel of the Father. But He Who fulfilleth Perfection in His own Father, how can He be conceived of as inferior?

Another. If the Son having inferiority to God the Father, is worshipped both by us and by the Holy Angels, we shall be taken in the act of serving two gods, since that which lacks perfection will never attain to sameness of essence with the Perfect; but vast is the difference sundering unto alienship things unlike as regards their nature. But the faith is not in plurality of gods, but One is God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost attaining unto unity with Him. The charge against the Son then comes to nothing. For how yet will that which is inferior be admitted into unity with the Perfect Father, and be united as to Nature in unity of Essence?

Another. If the Son is fulness (for of His fulness have all we received) how will what is inferior have a place? for things that are contrary to one another are irreconcileable in one subject at the same time.

Another. If the Son who has the lesser filleth all things, where will the greater of the Father have place? For the argument shall be used in more corporeal form, in the way of example, while the superiority and inferiority in the unembodied is otherwise conceived of.

Another. If God is That Which is above every name, and the Son Who is His Heir attains not to be Perfect by reason of the lesser, there is no greatness in that which is above all things, that is God. But it is absurd either to think or to say this: Perfect therefore is the Son, as being above every name, and God.

Another. If the Divine Nature is without quantity, and the lesser is cognizant of degree, how can the Son Who is by Nature God be conceived of as inferior? For He will not be beyond the province of quantity, if they say that He has inferiority to the Father.

Another. The blessed John says of the Son that He giveth not the Spirit by measure, to those that is who are worthy. Since then there is not measure in the Son, He is immeasurable, and surpasses all comprehension in quantity as being God. How then is the not-measured less?

Another. If the Son is lesser, the Father greater, differently, it is plain, and in proportion to the measures that Either hath, will they contribute to our sanctification. And the Father will sanctify in a greater degree, the Son in a less and separately. The Spirit therefore will be twofold, and less in the Son, greater in the Father. And they who are sanctified by the Father will be sanctified perfectly, they who by the Son, not perfectly. But great is the absurdity of reasoning herein. For One is the Holy Ghost, one and perfect the Sanctification, freely given by the Father through the Son Naturally. Not lesser then is He Who has the same operation with the Perfect Father, and Who has the Spirit of Him Who begat Him, a good of His own Nature, Living and inexisting, even as the Father hath.

Another. If the Son were in the Form and Equality of God, as Paul saith, how is He lesser that He? For the mode of the dispensation with Flesh and the humiliation thereupon mentioned, which has the Second Appearance from Heaven as its termination, will not, I suppose, bare the Son of the dignity by Nature belonging to Him. For He will surely come, as we heard Him say, in the glory of His Father. How then is he at all in the glory of the Perfect Father who is inferior to Him?

Another. God the Father is somewhere found to say by one of the prophets, I will not give My glory unto another. We must ask therefore those who impiously dishonour the Son, nay rather through Him the Father too (for he that honoureth not the Son, neither doth he honour the Father), whether the Son being, as they suppose, less than God the Father is Consubstantial with Him, or no? If then they shall say that He is Consubstantial, why do they for nought put on Him the less? For things that are of the same essence and nature, will never have the greater in themselves, as regards the mode of their being: for this altogether is it that is under consideration.

But they will not perhaps agree, nor will grant that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, He being according to them less: He will therefore be wholly other and alien from the Father. How then has He His glory? For there was given Him, says blessed Daniel, glory and a kingdom. For either God the Father will lie in saying, I will not give My glory unto another: or if He is true, and did give His glory to the Son, then is He not other than He, the Fruit of His Essence and His True Offspring. And He Who is so situated towards the Father in regard of Essence, how will He be less than He?

Others, simple and without connection. If the Father is Almighty, and the Son likewise Almighty, how is He lesser than He? for I do not suppose that according to the law of sequence, the imperfect will mount up to the measure of the perfect. And if the Father is Lord, and the Son likewise Lord; how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly free, if He be less in lordship, and have not the full dignity in Himself. And if the Father be Light, and the Son likewise Light, how is He less than He? For He will be not perfectly Light, but will be in part comprehended by darkness, and the Evangelist will lie in saying, The darkness comprehended it not. And if the Father is Life, and the Son likewise Life, how is He less than He? For in us life will not exist in perfect measure, even if Christ dwell in the inner man: but they who believe are still to some degree dead, if so be that the Son having the less, is not perfectly life. But since one must needs put as far away as possible the absurdity of this, we say that Perfect is the Son, being . made equal to the Perfect Father by reason of the exact Likeness of His Essence.

Another. If the Son be less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial; He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien: hence He is not Son, yea not even God at all. For how will he be called Son who is not of the Father, or how will he be any longer God who is not of God by Nature? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still it seems in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Ghost. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him, by reason of being of Him by Nature, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If God the Word Who beamed forth from God the Father is in truth Son, of necessity must our opponents even against their will confess that He is of the Essence of the Father; for this is what sonship in truth means. Then how is Such inferior to the Father, if He be Fruit of His Essence, Which is nowise receptive of the lesser within Itself? For all things are in perfect degree in God. But if He be not of the Essence of the Father, neither is He Son, but some counterfeit and falsely-called: yea neither will the Father Himself be rightly and truly called Father. For if there be no Son by Nature, on account of Whom He is Father, how is He conceived of as Father? But this is absurd, for God is Very Father; for so do all the Divine Scriptures cry aloud. He Who is of Him by Nature is therefore surely Son: if so, not lesser; for He is Consubstantial as Son.

Another. The name of family or fathership not God has of right from us, but we rather clearly received it from Him. And trusty is the word of Paul crying on this wise, Of Whom every family in heaven and earth is named. But since God is that which is most ancient of all, by imitation are we fathers, who are called to His Pattern by reason of our being made after His Image. Then how, tell me, are we who are made after His Likeness, by nature fathers of our own children, if this be not the case in the Archetype, after Which we too have been formed? How will any one |28 grant that the name of family or fathership passed even unto the rest from God, if He be not in very deed a Father? For, if it were so, the nature of the thing would be wholly overturned and we should rather give to Him to be called Father in imitation of us, than He give it to us. For this the argument will compel the heretic even against his will to admit. The witness therefore of the truth lies in saying that from Him is every family both in heaven and earth. But to say this is most absurd: for true is he who is bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and from God does the name of family flow down to us also. He is therefore by Nature the Father of the Word, He begat Him in all respects not unlike Himself, through His having the lesser than whatever Himself has. For we who are made after an imitation of Him, do not so have those that are begotten of us, but altogether equal, as regards the nature.

Another. Let not the heretic manifold in arguments deal subtilly with the truth, nor confessing that the Word of God is Son, honour Him in mere words, saying that He is not of the Essence of the Father. For how is He Son at all, except He be so by Nature? Let them then either, stripping off the mask of hypocrisy, blaspheme openly, confessing that He is neither God nor Son: or if convicted by the whole Divine Scripture and wounded by the words of the Saints as by sling-stones they feel shame in presence of the truth, and say that He is Son and God, let them not think that He is lesser than He Who begat Him. For how will the Word, being God, admit of the lesser, compared to God the Father? although man too is both called and is son of man, yet will he not be inferior to his father so far as he is man. For man will not be greater or less than man, in respect of his being man, nor yet angel than angel, in regard of his being angel, nor ought else of things that are that is con-natural to any-thing whatsoever, and has a share of the same essence allotted to it. Therefore if He is truly Son, one must needs say that He is of the Essence of the Father, having all His Father's properties in Himself of Nature. And if the Father be God by Nature, God by Nature plainly is also the Word Who is begotten of That Nature. How then will God be less than God in regard to being God?

Another. Whence, sirs, did ye get the daring to say that the Son is in lesser condition than He Who begat Him? How will He admit the lesser? As regards the date of being, no one I suppose, even though exceeding silly, would surmise. For before the ages is the Son, and Himself is the Maker of the ages: and it will be with reason conceived that He Who has His Generation elder than all time, will not be defined by time. But neither is He lesser than He in the dimension that belongs to size: for the Divine Nature is conceived of and is without size, dimension and body. How then is the lesser to be taken of Him Who is begotten? In glory, perhaps one will say, in power, in wisdom. Let them say then, how great and large the Father is herein (if one must speak thus), in order that the Son may be conceived of as less, when measured with Him? Or if the Father is in good inconceiveable and immeasurable, and that far outstrips the measure of our understanding, whence do the Arians, readily daring all things, say that the Son is lesser, to the overthrow of the dignity that belongs to Him by nature? For the lesser is proved by the juxtaposition of the greater; but if the Dignity of the Father is unmeasured, what is the proof of its diminution in the Son?

Another. One may indeed with truth reply to the abomination of the unholy heretics, Our enemies are without understanding. For how are they not full of all unlearning, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, as Paul saith? The reason why we think it needful to accuse them is this. If they say that the Son is of a truth begotten God of God the Father, and so believe, how is He lesser than the Father? For great absurdity of ideas will hence be generated, on every side containing blasphemy, and such that one would refuse only to hear them. For if the Son being God by Nature can any whit admit in Himself the lesser, we must needs at length conceive that there is something greater than God. The Essence then of the Father is not conceived of as being in Perfection of every thing, even though He be by Nature God, but He will Himself progress in some direction towards the greater, convicted in the Son His Image that He Himself too is of the essence that admits the lesser. And He will suffer this virtually, even if He have not yet suffered it; since things that are capable of ought, will altogether admit the things whereof they are capable, and when the time calls them to suffer it, they will not refuse it. But great is the blasphemy that is apparent herein. For neither will the Father advance in any direction towards the greater, nor yet will He admit of the lesser, by reason that He is by Nature God. Therefore neither will the Son admit in Himself the lesser, in that He too is God by Nature, lest the syllable or two which was devised by the unlearning of the heretics, should be imagined to be an accusal of the Essence that is above all.

Another. If the Word of God the Father being by Nature His Son is lesser than He, either in regard of God-befitting Dignity, or as not by Nature Unchangeable, or in any sort of inferiority, the accusal will be not so much of Him as of the Essence Whereof He is believed to be, if It altogether generate the lesser, or the worse, than Itself, although the originate and constructed creation would not endure to do such a thing. For everything that is fruit-bearing, brings forth what is wholly like itself. But if they say that the Divine Nature of the Father is above all passion, It will manifestly be beyond this charge, and being the Archetype of the good things that are in us, will beget the Son not lesser, but Equal and Consubstantial, lest the God That is so far above us be inferior even to us.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum. Christ showing that He is Equal with God the Father says to His own Disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Then how will He that is by Nature Such, and so IS as Himself with truth declares, have the lesser, according to the uncounsel of some? For if being lesser He shows in Himself the Father, without any intervening change, the lesser will reach to the Father, as appearing in His Unchanged Image, the Son. But this is absurd: therefore not lesser is the Son, in whom the Father being Perfect is imaged. Another. And how will the Son admit the lesser, than wherein is the Father, seeing that He says without blame, All things that the Father hath are Mine: and again, as to God the Father, All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine? For if indeed the Son is, according to the uncounsel of some, lesser; since He speaks truth in saying to the Father, Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine, the lesser will make its way to the Father too, and likewise the greater to the Son, the order of things being indifferent, if what belongs to either are seen in the other, and whatsoever is the Father's, this is the Son's also, and again whatever appears as the special property of the Son, this is the Father's too. Nothing then will hinder our saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father. But this is most absurd only to conceive of: Equal therefore and not lesser is He Who hath the Prerogatives of Essence in common with the Father.

Another of the same. If all that the Father hath, are wholly the Son's, and the Father hath Perfection, Perfect will be the Son too, Who hath the properties and excellencies of the Father. Therefore is He not lesser, according to the impiety of the heretics.

Another by the method of reductio ad absurdum, with combination of arguments. Let them tell us who are pouring down the flame unquenchable on their own head, and who reject the uprightness that is in the Divine Dogmas, devising wiles of many-coloured arguments unto the deceiving and overthrow of the simpler, whether the Father is superior to the Son, having the greater in comparison with Him, if He be less, as they in their silly talk say, or not? But I entirely suppose that they will say, He is superior: or let them say what advantage the Father hath in possessing the greater, if He be not superior. For if nothing at all, the whole charge against the Son immediately comes to nought: but if there is any great difference, He is then superior, as having the greater. Let them answer then and tell us, if they are indeed wise, why the Father begetting the Son, begat Him not Equal to Himself but lesser. For if it were clearly better to beget the Son in all things Equal to Himself, who hindered His doing it? For if there is ought that hindered as of necessity, they will admit even against their will, that there is somewhat greater than the Father. But if there were nothing at all to hinder, but having the power and knowing that it is better to beget the Son equal He begot Him lesser, this is plainly envy towards Him and an evil eye: for He chose not to give equality to the Son. Either then the Father is impotent in regard to His Begetting, or it will be evil eye, according to the result collected out of the arguments, if the Son have the lesser according to their account. But this is absurd; for the Divine and Untaint Nature is above all passion. Therefore not less is the Son, that He lose not the equality, the Father being in no wise powerless to beget His Offspring equal to Himself, nor yet hindered by evil eye from choosing the better.

Another. The Saviour Himself somewhere says that He is in the Father and the Father likewise in Him. But it is plain to every one, that we are not to suppose that like as one body is in another, or one vessel in another, so the Father is contained in the Son, or the Son again in some way placed in the Father: but One appears in the Other, and He in Him in the Unchanged Sameness of Essence, and in the Unity and Likeness that belongs to Nature. As though a person beholding his own form in an image were to say truly to any, and marvelling at the finished likeness of his figure to cry out, I am in this picture and this picture in me.

Or in another way:----As if the sweetness of the honey when laid on the tongue should say of itself, I am in the honey and the honey in me; or as though again the heat that proceeds naturally from fire, emitting a voice were to say, I am in the fire and the fire in me. For each of the things mentioned is I suppose divisible in idea, but one in nature, and the one proceeding by a sort of indivisible and continuous forthcome from the other, so as to seem to be even severed from that wherein it is. Yet though the force of ideas regarding these things takes this form, still one appears in the other and both are the same as regards essence. If then by reason of the unchangeableness of Their Essence, and the entire exactness in express Image, the Father is in the Son, how will the greater find place and appear in the Son Who is according to them lesser? But since He is wholly in Him, altogether Perfect is the Son, Who is able to contain the Perfect and is the express Image of the Mighty Father.

CHAPTER I. That Everlasting and before the ages is the Only-Begotten.

What do they say to this [namely, In the beginning was the Word] who introduce to us the Son, as one new and of late, that so He may no longer be believed to be even God at all. For, says the Divine Scripture, there shall no new God be in thee. How then is He not new, if He were begotten in the last times? How did He not speak falsely when He said to the Jews, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am? For plain is it and confessed by all, that many ages after the blessed Abraham was Christ born of the Holy Virgin. How at all will the words was in the beginning remain and come to anything, if the Only-Begotten came into being at the close of the ages? See I pray by the following arguments too how great absurdity, this cutting short the Eternal Being of the Son, and imagining that He came into being in the last times, yields.

But this same word of the Evangelist shall be proposed again for a finer test:

In the Beginning was the Word.

Than the beginning is there nothing older, if it have, retained to itself, the definition of the beginning (for a beginning of beginning there cannot be); or it will wholly depart from being in truth a beginning, if something else be imagined before it and arise before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly beginning, our language respecting it will go off to infinity, another beginning ever cropping up before, and making second the one under investigation.

There will then be no beginning of beginning, according to exact and true reasoning, but the account of it will recede unto the long-extended and incomprehensive. And since its ever-backward flight has no terminus, and reaches up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time, but rather invisibly existing with the Father: for in the beginning was He. But if He was in the beginning, what mind, tell me, can over-leap the force of the was? When will the was stay as at its terminus, seeing that it ever runs before the pursuing reasoning, and springs forward before the conception that follows it?

Astonishment-stricken whereat the Prophet Isaiah says, Who shall declare His generation? for His Life is lifted from the earth. For verily lifted from the earth is the tale of the generation of the Only-Begotten, that is, it is above all understanding of those who are on the earth and above all reason, so as to be in short inexplicable. But if it is above our mind and speech, how will He be originate, seeing that our understanding is not powerless to clearly define both as to time and manner things originate?

To look in another way at the same, In the Beginning was the Word.

It is not possible to take beginning, understood in any way of time, of the Only-Begotten, seeing that He is before all time and hath His Being before the ages, and, yet more, the Divine Nature, shuns the limit of a terminus. For It will be ever the same, according to what is sung in the Psalms, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end. From what beginning then measured in respect of time and dimension will the Son proceed, Who endureth not to hasten to any terminus, in that He is God by Nature, and therefore crieth, I am the Life? For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is so called in reference to end, end again in reference to beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. Hence, since the Son is elder than the ages themselves, He will be free of any generation in time; and He ever was in the Father as in a Source, according to that which He Himself said, I came forth from the Father and am come. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Word was in Him, being His Wisdom and Power and Express Image and Radiance and Likeness. And if there was no time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom and Express Image and Radiance, needs is it to confess too that the Son Who is all these to the Everlasting Father, is Everlasting. For how at all is He Express Image, how Exact Likeness, except He be plainly formed after that Beauty, Whose Likeness He also is?

Nor is it any objection to conceive of the Son being in the Father as in a Source: for the word source here only means the "whence." But the Son is in the Father, and of the Father, not as made externally, nor in time, but being in the Essence of the Father and flashing forth from Him, as from the sun its radiance, or as from fire its innate heat. For in such examples, one may see one thing generated of another, but yet ever co-existing and inseparable, so that one cannot exist of itself apart from the other, and yet preserve the true condition of its own nature. For how can there be sun which has not radiance, or how radiance without sun being within to irradiate it? how fire, if it have not heat? whence heat, save from fire, or from some other thing not removed from the essential quality of fire? As then in these, the in-existence of the things that are of them does not take away their co-existence, but indicates the things generated ever keeping pace with their generators and possessed of one nature so to speak with them, so too is it with the Son. For even if He be conceived and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He will not come before us as alien and strange and a Being second to Him, but as in Him and co-existing ever, and shining forth from Him, according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation.

But that God the Father is spoken of by the saints too as the Beginning of the Son in the sense only of "whence," hear the Psalmist through the Holy Ghost foretelling the second Appearance of our Saviour and saying as to the Son: With Thee the Beginning in the Day of Thy Power in the beauty of Thy Saints. For the day of the Son's Power is that whereon He shall judge the world and render to every one according to his works. Yerily shall He then come, Himself in the Father, and having in Himself the Father, the so to say unbeginning Beginning of His Nature in regard only to the "whence," by reason of His Being of the Father.

In the Beginning was the Word.

Unto many and various ideas does our discourse respecting the here signified beginning diversify itself, on all sides zealous to capture things that tend to profit, and after the manner of a hound, tracking the true apprehension of the Divine dogmas, and exactitude in the mysteries. For search, saith the Saviour, the Holy Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me. The Blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Ἀρχὴ 1, that is the Power over all, that the Divine Nature Which is over all may be shown, having under Its feet every thing which is originate, and borne above those things which are by It called into being.

In this Ἀρχὴ then that is above all and over all was the Word, not, with all things, under Its feet, but apart from all things, in It by Nature as Its Co-Eternal Fruit, having the Nature of Him Who begat Him as it were a place the most ancient of all. Wherefore He Begotten Free of Free Father, will with Him possess the Sovereignty over all. What then now too will be the nature of the argument in this, it is meet to see.

Hazardful have certain, as we said above, asserted that the Word of God was then first called into being, when taking the Temple that is of the Holy Virgin He became Man for us. What then will be the consequence, if the Son's Nature be thus, or originate and made and of like nature with all things else, to which birth out of not being, and the name and fact of servitude, are rightfully and truly predicated? For what of things that are made can with impunity escape servitude under the God That is Lord of all? what does not stoop under the sovereignty and power and lordship that is over all, which Solomon himself too signifies to us when he says, For the throne of Sovereignty is established with righteousness? For ready and exceeding prepared unto righteousness is the Throne of the Sovereignty, that I mean which is over all. And what throne that is of which we are now speaking, hear God saying by one of the Saints, The Heaven is My Throne. Ready therefore unto righteousness is the Heaven, that is, the holy spirits in the heavens.

Since then one must needs confess that the Son is with the rest of the creatures subject to God the Father, as having the position of a servant, and together with the rest falling under the authority of the Ἀρχὴ, if He be according to them late in Birth and one of those who have been made in time:----of necessity does the Blessed Evangelist spring with energy on those who teach otherwise, and withdraw the Son from all bondage. And he shows that He is of the Essence that is Free and Sovereign over all, and declares that He is in Him by Nature saying, In the beginning was the Word.

But to the word Ἀρχὴ he fitly annexes the was, that He may be thought of as not only of renown, but also before the ages. For the word was is here put, carrying on the idea of the thinker to some deep and incomprehensible Generation, the Ineffable Generation that is outside of time. For that was, spoken indefinitely, at what point will it rest, its nature being ever to push forward before the pursuing mind, and whatever point of rest any might suppose that it has, that it makes the starting point of its further course? The Word was then in the Ἀρχὴ, that is in Sovereignty over all things, and possessing the dignity of Lord, as being by Nature from It. But if this be true, how is He any longer originate or made? And where the was wholly is, how will the "was not" come in, or what place will it have at all as regards the Son?

CHAPTER II. That the Son being Consubstantial with the Father is also God in His Own Person, even as also the Father.

And the Word was with God.

Having sufficiently shown that already out of date and astray from the truth is the senseless mind of those who hold such opinions, and having, by saying In the beginning was the Word, closed every loophole to those who say that the Son is of the things that are not, and having utterly stripped off all their nonsense in these words, he goes to another akin and most perverse heresy. And like as some gardener at once most excellent and enduring, delights much in the toils of the mattock, and girding his loins, and in the working-dress befitting him, gives all diligence to present the appearance of his park free from the unseemliness of thorns, and ceases not throwing one upon another, and, ever going round about, removes the troublesome root, applying the stern tooth of the mattock; so the blessed John too, bearing in his mind the quick and powerful and most sharp word of God and considering with keenest glance and clearest attention the bitter shoots of the naughtiness of those who think otherwise, comes upon them so to speak at a run, and with mighty resolution cuts them off on every side, to those who read his books ministering defence in the right faith.

For see now again I pray, the vigilance of this bearer within him of the Spirit. He taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in Ἀρχὴ, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But since, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant, as we may suppose, that certain would arise, of their great ignorance saying that the Father and Son are one and the same, and distinguishing the Holy Trinity only by name, but not suffering Them to exist in Their several Persons, so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by Himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is:----needs against this heresy too as already confronting him, and mooted at that time, or about so to be, does he arm himself, and for its destruction, by the side of In the beginning was the Word he puts forthwith, And the Word was with God: every where adding of necessity the was on account of His Generation before the ages, yet by saying that the Word was with God, showing that the Son is One, having existence by Himself, God the Father again, with Whom was the Word, Another. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?

But that the reasoning of the heretics about these things also will be found without learning, we will teach by the considerations below, making an exact test of the questions regarding it.

Proof by demonstration and Scripture testimonies, that the Father is in His Own Person, and the Son likewise, the Holy Ghost being counted with Them as God, even though nothing is for the present enquired into regarding Him.

Consubstantial is the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son, wherefore They arrive at an unchangeable Likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and Each flashes forth in the Other, even as the Saviour Himself says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and again, I in the Father and the Father in Me. But even though He be in the Father, and have again the Father in Him, Himself full well, as has been already said, perfectly exact unto the Form of Him Who begat Him, and depicting again in Himself without any shortcome, the Father whence He is:----not therefore will He be deprived of His separate existence, nor will the Father lose His own special Being; but neither will the surpassing Likeness and Resemblance work any confusion of Persons, so that the Father Who begat and the Son Who is Begotten of Him should be considered as one in number. But sameness of Nature will be confessed of Both, yet the Individual Existence of Each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father, and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Ghost being numbered with them and counted as God, the Holy and Adorable Trinity will have Its Proper Fullness.

Another. If the Son Himself is Father too, what place has the distinction of names? For if He begat not at all, why is He called Father? How Son, if He were not begotten of the Father? For the Names ask as of necessity such an idea regarding them. But since the Divine Scriptures preach that the Son was Begotten, and the truth is so, He has therefore an existence by Himself. The Father too is again by Himself, if indeed that which is begotten is plainly one thing from another as regards that which begets.

Another. The blessed Paul writing his letter to the Philippians says of the Son, Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God. Who then is He Who would not that His being Equal with God should be thought robbery? For must one not needs say, that One is He Who is in the Form of God, Another again He Whose Form it was? But this is clear and confessed by all. Therefore not one and the same in number are Father and Son, but of distinct Being and beheld in One Another, according to sameness of Essence, even if They be One of One, to wit the Son of the Father.

Another. I and My Father are One, said the Saviour, as knowing, that is, that Himself has a separate existence and the Father too. But if the truth of the fact be not so, why did He not, keeping what belongs to oneness, say, I and My Father am One? But since He explains what He means by the plural number, clearly He overthrows the surmise of those who think otherwise. For we are will not be with sense taken of one.

Another. At the fashioning of man the voice of God is introduced saying, Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our likeness. If then the amplitude, if I may so call it, of the Holy Trinity is contracted into a One in number, and they impiously take away from the Father and the Son Their separate Existence: who is he who says, and to whom, Let us make man in Our Image? For He ought forsooth to say, if it be as they in their silly nonsense say, Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. But now the writer of the Book, not saying this indeed, but allotting the creation to the plural number and adding Our image, well-nigh with clear and mighty voice proclaims the enumeration of the Holy Trinity to be above One.

Another. If the Son is the Brightness of the Father, as Light of Light, how is He not other than Him, as of distinct Being? For that which is the embrightened, is so in very deed from other, that namely which brightens it, and not itself from itself.

Another. The Son showing Himself of the Essence of God the Father says again, I came forth from the Father and am come; again I go to the Father. How then will He not be Other than the Father in Person and number, when all reason persuades us to conceive of that which proceeds from ought as other than that from whence it proceeded? Not true therefore is the contrary argument.

Another. Believing in God the Father, in His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost we are justified. Wherefore the Saviour Himself too enjoins His own Disciples saying Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. If then the difference of the Names is to contribute nothing to our conception, but when one says the Father, he means the Son, and in naming the Son makes mention of the Father, what need was there of bidding that the believers should be baptized not into Unity but into Trinity? But since the tale of the Divine Nature runs forth into the number three, it is I suppose wholly manifest to all that Each of those so numbered exists in His Own Person, but by reason of there being no change in the Nature, It arrives at One Godhead and has the same worship.

Another. The Divine Scripture says that the cities of the Sodomites were burned by the Anger of God, and explaining how the Divine wrath was brought upon them, and clearly describing the mode of the destruction, The Lord, it says, rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from, the Lord, since this too is the portion of the cup most befitting those who are wont to commit such sins. What Lord then from what Lord sent the fire on and consumed the cities of the Sodomites? It is clear that it was the Father Who worketh all things through the Son, since He is too His Might and His Arm, Who caused Him to rain the fire upon the Sodomites. Since therefore the Lord sends the fire from the Lord upon them, how is not the Father Other, in respect to His own Being, than the Son,, and the Son again than the Father? For the One is here signified as being from One.

Another. Moved by prophetic spirit, and through it foreknowing things to come, the blessed Psalmist had perceived that the human race could no otherwise be saved, except by the alone Appearing of the Son of God, Who is able easily to trans-order all things to whatsoever He will. Wherefore he besought that the Son might be sent to us, as alone able to save those who were under subjection and oppression of the devil, and said, as though to God the Father, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. What then the Light is, and what the Truth, hear the Son Himself saying, I am the Light and I am the Truth. But if the Light and the Truth of the Father, that is the Son, be sent to us, how is He not Other than He, as far as His own Being, even if He be One with Him as regards Sameness of Essence? For if any imagine that it is not so, but that Father and Son are one and the Same, why does not he who bears within him the Spirit make the fashion of his prayer different and cry, Come to us, O Light and Truth? But since he says O send out, plainly he knew that One is the Sender, Another the Sent: be the mode of the Sending conceived of as befits God.

Another. The Divine Scriptures say, that through the Son were made all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, and thus believing, we the worshippers of the truth go on our way in rightness of conception, and within the dogmas of piety. Let us then scrutinize the expression through the Son, and examine what sense it gives us. It is clear that it would have us conceive of the Doer and Worker as One, Him through Whom all things are wrought as Another. For the expression through the Son gives, as of necessity, a sort of exhibition of two Persons. Else let them say how the word through the Son in His being said to do anything, will rightly and truly admit the one in number and in the reckoning thereto pertaining, if none other be conceived of with Him and concurring with Him. But I suppose that our opponent will be wholly at a loss. But since both the Divine Scriptures proclaim that the Father hath wrought all things through the Son, and we believe it and I suppose that they too: how is it not of necessity to conceive that the Father exists separately and by Himself, and in like manner the Son, nor does this any way overthrow the fact that the Holy Trinity is seen in sameness of Essence.

There is nothing older than "the beginning" if we stay with the definition of beginning (for there cannot be a beginning of a beginning), or else it would diverge from being in truth a beginning if there is something else one can imagine before it or that arises before it. Otherwise, if anything can precede what is truly "beginning," our language respecting it will go on into infinity with beginnings continually cropping up and making the one we are looking at a "second." … And since its ever-backward flight has no termination, reaching up to the limit of the ages, the Son will be found to have been not made in time but rather invisibly existing with the Father. For "in the beginning was" the Son. But if he "was in the beginning," what mind, tell me, can leap over the force of that word was? When will the "was" stay within a boundary, seeing that it always runs before … whatever conception follows it?

It is not possible to take "beginning" (archē) of the Only Begotten as being understood in any way dealing with time, seeing that the Son is before all time and has his being before the ages, and, what is even more, that the divine nature shuns such a boundary.… For no beginning will ever be conceived of by itself that does not look to its own end, since beginning is called this in reference to an end, and end again in reference to a beginning. But the beginning we are pointing to in this instance is that relating to time and dimension. And so, since the Son is older than the ages themselves, he will be free of any generation in time, and he always was in the Father as in a source. The Father then being considered as the Source, the Logos was in him being his wisdom, power, express image, radiance and likeness. If there was no time when the Father was without Logos, wisdom, image, radiance and likeness, it is necessary to confess also that the Son, who is all these to the eternal Father, is eternal.

The blessed Evangelist, then, seems here to name the Father Archē, that is, the power over all, that the divine nature that is over all may be shown, having under its feet everything that is originate and borne above those things that are called by it into being. In this Archē, then, that is above all and over all, was the Word. The Word was not with all things under its feet, but [it was] apart from all things. It was in the Archē by nature as its co-eternal fruit, having the nature of him who begot him (as it were) the most ancient place of all. So then, he who is begotten free of a Father, who is also himself free, will with him possess the sovereignty over all.… The blessed Evangelist shows that the Son is of the essence that is free and sovereign over all and declares that he is in the Father by nature saying, "In the beginning was the Word."

John taught in the foregoing, that the Word was in archē, that is, in God the Father, as we said. But, with the eye of his understanding illumined, he was not ignorant that certain people would arise who, out of their great ignorance, would say that the Father and Son are one and the same and distinguish the Holy Trinity in name only. Thus, they wouldn't allow them to exist in their several Persons so that the Father should be conceived of as in truth Father and not Son, the Son again to be by himself Son, not Father, as the word of truth is. Since John knew this would happen and that, perhaps, this heresy was already confronting him and being debated at that time—or was about to be so—John arms himself for its destruction. And so, by the side of "In the beginning was the Word," he put, "And the Word was with God" everywhere adding of necessity the "was" on account of his generation before the ages. And yet, by saying that the Word was with God, he shows both that the Son is One, having his existence by himself, and that God the Father is another, with whom the Word was. For how can that which is one in number be conceived of as itself with itself, or beside itself?…The Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Son, which is why they arrive at an unchangeable likeness, so that the Father is seen in the Son, the Son in the Father, and each flashes forth in the other, even as the Savior himself says: "He that has seen me has seen the Father," and again, "I in the Father and the Father in me."

[The] sameness of nature will be confessed of both [Father and Son], yet the individual existence of each will surely follow, so that both the Father should be conceived of as indeed Father and the Son as Son. For thus, the Holy Spirit being numbered with them and counted as God, the holy and adorable Trinity will have its proper fullness.

The one who bore within him the Spirit was not ignorant that some should arise in the last times who would accuse the essence of the Only Begotten and "deny the Lord that bought them." These suppose that the Word who appeared from God the Father is not by nature God but rather bring in besides him some, so to speak, spurious and false-called god having the name of Sonship and Deity, but this not really being the case.…It was almost as though someone was already resisting the words of truth and almost saying to the holy Evangelist: " 'The Word was with God.' And so it was. We agree fully to what you have written concerning this. The Father has being and exists separately, and the Son is the same way. What now should one suppose that the Word is by nature? For his being with God does not at all reveal his essence. But since the divine Scriptures proclaim one God, this pertains to the Father only with whom the Word was." What then does truth's herald reply? Not only was "the Word" with God, but he was also "God." Through his being with God, he might be known to be other than the Father and might be believed to be Son distinct and by himself. Through being "God," he might be conceived of as consubstantial and of him by nature as being both God and coming forth from God. For it were inconceivable, since the Godhead is by all confessed to be one, that the holy Trinity should not in every possible way arrive at sameness of essence and so reach one relation of Godhead. He "was" then also "God." He did not become so at last, but he "was," if indeed eternal being will most specially and surely follow on being God. For that which became in time, or was at all brought from not being into being, will not be by nature God. Seeing then that God the Word has eternity through the word was, consubstantiality with the Father through being "God," how great punishment and vengeance must we necessarily think that they shall be found to incur who think that he is in any way inferior or unlike him who begat him.

The things that were hidden were revealed through him [our Lord], just as the secrets of the heart are made known by a word.

Who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light that was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom that existed before the ages, the living Word that was in the beginning with the Father and that was God, the first and only begotten of God that was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father's unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father.

The same fallacy is employed with the same partisan motive in the case of the Gospel of St. John; which critics say could not have been written by one of the first few Christians because of its Greek transcendentalism and its Platonic tone. I am no judge of the philology, but every human being is a divinely appointed judge of the philosophy: and the Platonic tone seems to me to prove nothing at all. Palestine was not a secluded valley of barbarians; it was an open province of a polyglot empire, overrun with all sorts of people of all kinds of education. To take a rough parallel: suppose some great prophet arose among the Boers in South Africa. The prophet himself might be a simple or unlettered man. But no one who knows the modern world would be surprised if one of his closest followers were a Professor from Heidelberg or an M.A. from Oxford.

There never was a time when [the Father] was without his Word, or when he was not the Father.

[He] is not contained in any place; the timeless, the bodiless, the uncircumscribed, the same who was and is; who was both above time and came under time, and was invisible and is seen. He was in the beginning and was with God and was God. The word was occurs the third time to be confirmed by number. What he was, he laid aside; what he was not, he assumed; not that he became two, but he deigned to be one made out of the two. For both are God, that which assumed and that which was assumed; two natures meeting in one, not two sons (let us not give a false account of the blending).

[John] declares, "And the Word was with God." Once more the Evangelist fears for our untrained state, once more he dreads our childish and untaught condition. He does not yet entrust to our ears the appellation of "Father," in case any of the more carnally minded, learning of "the Father," may be led by his understanding to imagine also by consequence a mother. Neither does he yet name in his proclamation the Son, for he still suspects our customary tendency to the lower nature and is concerned that if someone hears of the Son, that person might humanize the Godhead by an idea of passion. For this reason, resuming his proclamation, he again calls him "the Word," making this the account of his nature to you in your unbelief. For as your word proceeds from your mind, without requiring the intervention of passion, so here also, in hearing of the Word, you shall conceive that which is from something and shall not conceive passion.

You know, dearest brothers, that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father, as John testifies when he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And from your own manner of speaking you recognize that the voice sounds first, so that the word may afterward be heard. Therefore John asserts that he is the voice, because he precedes the Word. And so, going before the coming of the Lord, he is called a voice, because through his ministry the Word of the Father is heard by men.

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord's body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him." Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance.

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."

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."

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.

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.

[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.

(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.

This, he says, is the great beginning respecting which Scripture has spoken. Concerning this, he says it has been declared: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him, and without Him was not one thing that was made. And what was formed in Him is life." And in Him, he says, has been formed Eve; (now) Eve is life. This, however, he says, is Eve, mother of all living, -a common nature, that is, of gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational creatures, (and) rational ones. For, he says, the expression "all" he uttered of all (existences). And if the eyes of any, he says, are blessed, this one, looking upward on the firmament, will behold at the mighty summit of heaven the beauteous image of the serpent, turning itself, and becoming an originating principle of every (species of) motion to all things that are being produced. He will (thereby) know that without him nothing consists, either of things in heaven, or things on earth. or things under the earth. Not night, not moon, not fruits, not generation, not wealth, not sustenance, not anything at all of existent things, is without his guidance. In regard of this, he says, is the great wonder which is beheld in the firmament by those who are able to observe it. For, he says, at this top of his head, a fact which is more incredible than all things to those who are ignorant, "are setting and rising mingled one with other."...

Acting then in these (prophets), the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: "I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me." And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?-whom the Father sent, and in whom He showed to men the power proceeding from Him. Thus, then, was the Word made manifest, even as the blessed John says. For he sums up the things that were said by the prophets, and shows that this is the Word, by whom all things were made. For he speaks to this effect: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." And beneath He says, "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." If, then, said he, the world was made by Him, according to the word of the prophet, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made," then this is the Word that was also made manifest. We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. Let us then look at the testimony of Scripture. with respect to the announcement of the future manifestation of the Word.

Now Jeremiah says, "Who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived His Word?" But the Word of God alone is visible, while the word of man is audible. When he speaks of seeing the Word, I must believe that this visible (Word) has been sent. And there was none other (sent) but the Word. And that He was sent Peter testifies, when he says to the centurion Cornelius: "God sent His Word unto the children of Israel by the preaching of Jesus Christ. This is the God who is Lord of all." If, then, the Word is sent by Jesus Christ, the will of the Father is Jesus Christ.

These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. The disciples recognised the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.

But some one will say to me, You adduce a thing strange to me, when you call the Son the Word. For John indeed speaks of the Word, but it is by a figure of speech. Nay, it is by no figure of speech. For while thus presenting this Word that was from the beginning, and has now been sent forth, he said below in the Apocalypse, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him (was) Faithful and True; and in righteousness He doth judge and make war. And His eyes (were) as flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written that no man knew but He Himself. And He (was) clothed in a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called the Word of God." See then, brethren, how the vesture sprinkled with blood denoted in symbol the flesh, through which the impassible Word of God came under suffering, as also the prophets testify to me. For thus speaks the blessed Micah: "The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger. These are their pursuits. Are not His words good with them, and do they walk rightly? And they have risen up in enmity against His countenance of peace, and they have stripped off His glory." That means His suffering in the flesh. And in like manner also the blessed Paul says, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be shown in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." What Son of His own, then, did God send through the flesh but the Word, whom He addressed as Son because He was to become such (or be begotten) in the future? And He takes the common name for tender affection among men in being called the Son. For neither was the Word, prior to incarnation and when by Himself, yet perfect Son, although He was perfect Word, only-begotten. Nor could the flesh subsist by itself apart from the Word, because it has its subsistence in the Word. Thus, then, one perfect Son of God was manifested.

Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for "all things were made by Him." "When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily." And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: "Sit Thou at My right hand? " And how, again, could such an one declare: "Before Abraham was, I am? " And, "Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was? " What man could ever say, "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me? " And of what man could it be said, "He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not? " How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in another place, "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me."

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says [the Scripture], "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world.

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." "All things," he says, "were made by Him;" therefore in "all things" this creation of ours is [included], for we cannot concede to these men that [the words] "all things" are spoken in reference to those within their Pleroma. For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book; but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be "all things:" therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma].

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.

John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord's passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that they had given the history of only one year, the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in which he was put to death. So passing by this year the events of which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others... In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Seest thou the great boldness and power of the words, how he speaks nothing doubting nor conjecturing, but declaring all things plainly? For this is the teacher's part, not to waver in anything he says, since if he who is to be a guide to the rest require another person who shall be able to establish him with certainty, he would be rightly ranked not among teachers, but among disciples.

But if any one say, "What can be the reason that he has neglected the first cause, and spoken to us at once concerning the second?" we shall decline to speak of "first" and "second," for the Divinity is above number, and the succession of times. Wherefore we decline these expressions; but we confess that the Father is from none, and that the Son is begotten of the Father. Yes, it may be said, but why then does he leave the Father, and speak concerning the Son? Why? because the former was manifest to all, if not as Father, at least as God; but the Only-Begotten was not known; and therefore with reason did he immediately from the very beginning hasten to implant the knowledge of Him in those who knew Him not.

Besides, he has not been silent as to the Father in his writings on these points. And observe, I beg of you, his spiritual wisdom. He knows that men most honor the eldest of beings which was before all, and account this to be God. Wherefore from this point first he makes his beginning, and as he advances, declares that God is, and does not like Plato assert, sometimes that He is intellect, sometimes that He is soul; for these things are far removed from that divine and unmixed Nature which has nothing common with us, but is separated from any fellowship with created things, I mean as to substance, though not as to relation.

And for this reason he calls Him "The Word." For since he is about to teach that this "Word" is the only-begotten Son of God, in order that no one may imagine that His generation is passible, by giving Him the appellation of "The Word," he anticipates and removes beforehand the evil suspicion, showing that the Son is from the Father, and that without His suffering (change).

Seest thou then that as I said, he has not been silent as to the Father in his words concerning the Son? And if these instances are not sufficient fully to explain the whole matter, marvel not, for our argument is God, whom it is impossible to describe, or to imagine worthily; hence this man nowhere assigns the name of His essence, (for it is not possible to say what God is, as to essence,) but everywhere he declares Him to us by His workings. For this "Word" one may see shortly after called "Light," and the "Light" in turn named "Life."

Although not for this reason only did he so name Him; this was the first reason, and the second was because He was about to declare to us the things of the Father. For "all things," He saith, "that I have heard from my Father, I have made known unto you." (John xv. 15.) He calls Him both "Light" and "Life," for He hath freely given to us the light which proceeds from knowledge, and the life which follows it. In short, one name is not sufficient, nor two, nor three, nor more, to teach us what belongs to God. But we must be content to be able even by means of many to apprehend, though but obscurely, His attributes.

And he has not called Him simply "Word," but with the addition of the article, distinguishing Him from the rest in this way also. Seest thou then that I said not without cause that this Evangelist speaks to us from heaven? Only see from the very beginning whither he has drawn up the soul, having given it wings, and has carried up with him the mind of his hearers. For having set it higher than all the things of sense, than earth, than sea, than heaven, he leads it by the hand above the very angels, above cherubim and seraphim, above thrones and principalities and powers; in a word, persuades it to journey beyond all created things.

What then? when he has brought us to such a height as this, is he in sooth able to stop us there? By no means; but just as one by transporting into the midst of the sea a person who was standing on the beach, and looking on cities, and beaches, and havens, removes him indeed from the former objects, yet does not stay his sight anywhere, but brings him to a view without bound; so this Evangelist, having brought us above all creation, and escorted us towards the eternal periods which lie beyond it, leaves the sight suspended, not allowing it to arrive at any limit upwards, as indeed there is none.

For the intellect, having ascended to "the beginning," enquires what "beginning"; and then finding the "was" always outstripping its imagination, has no point at which to stay its thought; but looking intently onwards, and being unable to cease at any point, it becomes wearied out, and turns back to things below. For this "was in the beginning," is nothing else than expressive of ever being and being infinitely.

Seest thou true philosophy and divine doctrines? Not like those of the Greeks, who assign times, and say that some indeed of the gods are younger, some eider. There is nothing of this with us. For if God Is, as certainly He Is, then nothing was before Him. If He is Creator of all things, He must be first; if Master and Lord of all, then all, both creatures and ages, are after Him.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Why, when all the other Evangelists had begun with the Dispensation; (for Matthew says, "The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David"; and Luke too relates to us in the beginning of his Gospel the events relating to Mary; and in like manner Mark dwells on the same narratives, from that point detailing to us the history of the Baptist;) why, when they began with these matters, did John briefly and in a later place hint at them, saying, "the Word was made flesh"; and, passing by everything else, His conception, His birth, His bringing up, His growth, at once discourse to us concerning His Eternal Generation?

Because the other Evangelists had dwelt most on the accounts of His coming in the flesh, there was fear lest some, being of grovelling minds, might for this reason rest in these doctrines alone, as indeed was the case with Paul of Samosata. In order, therefore, to lead away from this fondness for earth those who were like to fall into it, and to draw them up towards heaven, with good reason he commences his narrative from above, and from the eternal subsistence. For while Matthew enters upon his relation from Herod the king, Luke from Tiberius Caesar, Mark from the Baptism of John, this Apostle, leaving alone all these things, ascends beyond all time or age. Thither darting forward the imagination of his hearers to the "Was in the Beginning," not allowing it to stay at any point, nor setting any limit, as they did in Herod, and Tiberius, and John.

But thou, beloved, when thou hast heard of "The Word," do not endure those who say, that He is a work; nor those even who think, that He is simply a word. For many are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words none is God; they all are prophecies or commands, (for in Scripture it is usual to call the laws of God His commands, and prophecies, words; wherefore in speaking of the angels, he says, "Mighty in strength, fulfilling His word"); but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself. For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term "Word." As therefore the expression, "In the beginning was the Word," shows His Eternity, so "was in the beginning with God," has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear "In the beginning was the Word," suppose Him to be Eternal, and yet imagine the life of the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a beginning to the Only-Begotten, he adds, "was in the beginning with God"; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person.

How then, one says, does John assert, that He was in the world, if He was with God? Because He was both with God and in the world also. For neither Father nor Son are limited in any way. Since, if "there is no end of His greatness", and if "of His wisdom there is no number", it is clear that there cannot be any beginning in time to His Essence. Thou hast heard, that "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth"; what dost thou understand from this "beginning"? clearly, that they were created before all visible things. So, respecting the Only-Begotten, when you hear that He was "in the beginning," conceive of him as before all intelligible things, and before the ages.

But if any one say, "How can it be that He is a Son, and yet not younger than the Father? since that which proceeds from something else needs must be later than that from which it proceeds"; we will say that, properly speaking, these are human reasonings; that he who questions on this matter will question on others yet more improper; and that to such we ought not even to give ear. Still, for the assurance of the weaker sort, we will speak even to these points.

Tell me, then, does the radiance of the sun proceed from the substance itself of the sun, or from some other source? Any one not deprived of his very senses needs must confess, that it proceeds from the substance itself. Yet, although the radiance proceeds from the sun itself, we cannot say that it is later in point of time than the substance of that body, since the sun has never appeared without its rays. Now if in the case of these visible and sensible bodies there has been shown to be something which proceeds from something else, and yet is not after that from whence it proceeds; why are you incredulous in the case of the invisible and ineffable Nature? This same thing there takes place, but in a manner suitable to That Substance. For it is for this reason that Paul too calls Him "Brightness"; setting forth thereby His being from Him and His Co-eternity. Again, tell me, were not all the ages, and every interval created by Him? Any man not deprived of his senses must necessarily confess this. There is no interval therefore between the Son and the Father; and if there be none, then He is not after, but Co-eternal with Him. For "before" and "after" are notions implying time, since, without age or time, no man could possibly imagine these words; but God is above times and ages.

Moreover, if He be not Co-eternal with the Father, how can you say that His Life is infinite? For if it have a beginning from before, although it be endless, yet it is not infinite; for the infinite must be infinite in both directions. As Paul also declared, when he said, "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"; by this expression showing that He is both without beginning and without end. For as the one has no limit, so neither has the other. In one direction there is no end, in the other no beginning.

And how again, since He is "Life," was there ever when He was not? For all must allow, that Life both is always, and is without beginning and without end, if It be indeed Life, as indeed It is. For if there be when It is not, how can It be the life of others, when It even Itself is not?

"How then," says one, "does John lay down a beginning by saying, 'In the beginning was'?" Tell me, have you attended to the "In the beginning," and to the "was," and do you not understand the expression, "the Word was"? What! when the Prophet says, "From everlasting and to everlasting Thou art", does he say this to assign Him limits? No, but to declare His Eternity. Consider now that the case is the same in this place. He did not use the expression as assigning limits, since he did not say, "had a beginning," but "was in the beginning"; by the word "was" carrying thee forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning.

What then do they say when we assert what we have asserted? "That the words, 'in the beginning was the Word,' do not denote eternity absolutely, for that this same expression was used also concerning heaven and earth." What enormous shamelessness and irreverence! I speak to thee concerning God, and dost thou bring the earth into the argument, and men who are of the earth? At this rate, since Christ is called Son of God, and God, Man who is called Son of God must be God also. For, "I have said, Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." (Ps. lxxxii. 6.) Wilt thou contend with the Only-Begotten concerning Sonship, and assert that in that respect He enjoys nothing more than thou? "By no means," is the reply. And yet thou doest this even though thou say not so in words. "How?" Because thou sayest that thou by grace art partaker of the adoption, and He in like manner. For by saying that He is not Son by nature, thou only makest him to be so by grace.

For tell me, what has the word "was" in common with the word "made"? What hath God in common with man? Why dost thou mix what may not be mixed? Why confound things which are distinct, why bring low what is above? In that place it is not the expression "was" only which denotes eternity, but that One "was in the beginning." And that other, "The Word was"; for as the word "being," when used concerning man, only distinguishes present time, but when concerning God, denotes eternity, so "was," when used respecting our nature, signifies to us past time, and that too limited, but when respecting God it declares eternity. It would have been enough then when one had heard the words "earth" and "man," to imagine nothing more concerning them than what one may fitly think of a nature that came into being, for that which came to be, be it what it may, hath come to be either in time, or the age before time was, but the Son of God is above not only times, but all ages which were before, for He is the Creator and Maker of them, as the Apostle says, "by whom also He made the ages."

For I can mention even another thing by way of going further. What is it? It is, that if it had been said of the earth, "In the beginning was the earth," and of man, "In the beginning was the man," we must not even then have imagined any greater things concerning them than what we have now determined. For the terms "earth" and "man" as they are presupposed, whatever may be said concerning them, do not allow the mind to imagine to itself anything greater concerning them than what we know at present. Just as "the Word," although but little be said of It, does not allow us to think respecting It anything low or poor. Since in proceeding he says of the earth, "The earth was invisible and unformed." For having said that "He made" it, and having settled its proper limit, he afterwards declares fearlessly what follows, as knowing that there is no one so silly as to suppose that it is without beginning and uncreated, since the word "earth," and that other "made," are enough to convince even a very simple person that it is not eternal nor increate, but one of those things created in time.

Besides, the expression "was," applied to the earth and to man, is not indicative of absolute existence. But in the case of a man it denotes his being of a certain place, in that of the earth its being in a certain way. For he has not said absolutely "the earth was," and then held his peace, but has taught how it was even after its creation, as that it was "invisible and unformed," as yet covered by the waters and in confusion. So in the case of Elkanah he does not merely say that "there was a man," but adds also whence he was, "of Armathaim Zophim." But in the case of "the Word," it is not so. I am ashamed to try these cases, one against the other, for if we find fault with those who do so in the case of men, when there is a great difference in the virtue of those who are so tried, though in truth their substance be one; where the difference both of nature and of everything else is so infinite, is it not the extremest madness to raise such questions?

What then do I say? That this first "was," applied to "the Word," is only indicative of His eternal Being, (for "In the beginning," he saith, "was the Word,") and that the second "was," ("and the Word was with God,") denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was "in the beginning," should assert, that He was "unbegotten" also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was "with God." And he has prevented any one from supposing, that this "Word" is simply such a one as is either uttered or conceived, by the addition, as I before said, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was "in God," but was "with God": declaring to us His eternity as to person. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this "Word" also "was God."

"But yet created," it may be said. What then hindered him from saying, that "In the beginning God made the Word"? at least Moses speaking of the earth says, not that "in the beginning was the earth," but that "He made it," and then it was. What now hindered John from saying in like manner, that "In the beginning God made the Word"? For if Moses feared lest any one should assert that the earth was uncreated, much more ought John to have feared this respecting the Son, if He was indeed created. The world being visible, by this very circumstance proclaims its Maker, ("the heavens," says the Psalmist, "declare the glory of God"-Ps. xix. 1), but the Son is invisible, and is greatly, infinitely, higher than all creation. If now, in the one instance, where we needed neither argument nor teaching to know that the world is created, yet the prophet sets down this fact clearly and before all others; much more should John have declared the same concerning the Son, if He had really been created.

But now, since He was Begotten, with good reason neither John nor any other, whether apostle or prophet, hath asserted that He was created. Neither had it been so would the Only-Begotten Himself have let it pass unmentioned. For He who spoke of Himself so humbly from condescension would certainly not have been silent on this matter. And I think it not unreasonable to suppose, that He would be more likely to have the higher Nature, and say nothing of it, than not having it to pass by this omission, and fail to make known that He had it not. For in the first case there was a good excuse for silence, namely, His desire to teach mankind humility by being silent as to the greatness of His attributes; but in the second case you can find no just excuse for silence.

For why should He who declined many of His real attributes have been, if He were created, silent as to His having been made? He who, in order to teach humility, often uttered expressions of lowliness, such as did not properly belong to Him, much more if He had been indeed created, would not have failed to speak of this. Do you not see Him, in order that none may imagine Him not to have been begotten, doing and saying everything to show that He was so, uttering words unworthy both of His dignity and His essence, and descending to the humble character of a Prophet? For the expression, "As I hear, I judge" (John 5:30); and that other, "He hath told Me what I should say, and what I should speak" (John 12:49), and the like, belong merely to a prophet. If now, from His desire to remove this suspicion, He did not disdain to utter words thus lowly, much more if He were created would He have said many like words, that none might suppose Him to be uncreated; as, "Think not that I am begotten of the Father; I am created, not begotten, nor do I share His essence." But as it is, He does the very contrary, and utters words which compel men, even against their will and desire, to admit the opposite opinion.

Solomon also shows that it is the Word of God, and no other, by whose hands these works of the world were made. "I," He says, "came forth out of the mouth of the Most High before all creatures: I caused the light that faileth not to arise in the heavens, and covered the whole earth with a cloud. I have dwelt in the height, and my throne is in the pillar of the cloud." John also thus taught: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."

Now, since He truly was and is, being in the beginning with God, and being God, He is the chief Commander and Shepherd of the heavenly ones, whom all reasonable creatures obey and attend, who tends in order and numbers the multitudes of the blessed angels. For this is the equal and perfect number of immortal creatures, divided according to their races and tribes, man also being here taken into the flock.

He [Methodius] says, concerning the words "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," that one will not err who says that the "Beginning" is Wisdom. For Wisdom is said by one of the divine band to speak in this manner concerning herself: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works: of old he laid my formulation." It was fitting and more seemly that all things that came into existence should be more recent than Wisdom, since they existed through her. Now consider whether the saying "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God"—whether these statements are not in agreement with those. For we must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom it was. And the words "The same was in the beginning with God" seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which he had with the Father before the world came into existence; "beginning" signifying his power. And so, after the peculiar unbeginning beginning, who is the Father, he is the beginning of other things, by whom all things are made.

One will discover many different meanings of the expression ["beginning"] even in the Word of God. One meaning involves change that has to do with a way or a length, as revealed in Scripture, "The beginning of the right path is to do justice." … There is also a "beginning" of creation … in the statement "In the beginning God made heaven and earth." But I think what is meant is more clearly stated in Job, "This is the beginning of the Lord's creation." … We can also understand what is meant by the beginning of creation in Proverbs: "For God," [Wisdom] says, "created me the beginning of his ways for his works." …But someone will say with good reason that the God of all things is clearly a beginning too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the Son, and the Creator is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is the beginning of the things that exist.… And third, that from which something comes, as the underlying matter is thought to be a "beginning" by those who understand matter to be uncreated.… In addition to these definitions, that "according to which" something is made, as according to its form, is also a "beginning." … Christ, for instance, is the beginning of those made according to the image of God.… There is also a beginning that pertains to doctrine … where the apostle says, "Although, because of the time, you should be teachers, you need for someone to teach you again the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God." Now there are two kinds of beginning pertaining to doctrine. One involves its nature, and the other its relation to us.… We say that in nature Christ is the beginning of doctrine insofar as he is "the wisdom" and "power of God." But in his relation to us the beginning of doctrine is "the Word became flesh," that he might dwell among us who are able to receive him only in this way at first.

Although so many meanings of "beginning" have occurred to us at the present time, we are investigating how we ought to take the statement "In the beginning was the Word." It is clear that we are not to understand it in its meaning related to change or a way and length. And we should certainly not take it in its meaning related to creation.But it is possible that he is the "by which," which is effective, since "God commanded and they were created." For Christ is perhaps the creator to whom the Father says, "Let there be light" and "Let there be a firmament."

But it is as the beginning that Christ is Creator, according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, "God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works," that "the Word might be in the beginning," in wisdom. It is wisdom that is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of contemplation and the thoughts of all things, but it is the Word that is received, taken in relation to the communication of the things that have been contemplated to spiritual beings...

Since, then, our purpose is to perceive clearly the statement, "In the beginning was the Word," and wisdom, with the aid of testimonies from the Proverbs, has been explained to be called "beginning," and wisdom has been conceived as preceding the Word that announces it, we must understand that the Word is always in the beginning, that is, in wisdom. Being in wisdom, however, which is called "beginning," does not prevent the Word from being "with God," and himself being God and not merely being "with God," but since he is "in the beginning," that is in wisdom, that Word is "with God."

The same verb, "was," is predicated of the Word when he "was in the beginning" and when he "was with God." He is neither separated from the beginning, nor does he depart from the Father. And again, he does not "come to be" "in the beginning" from not being "in the beginning," nor does he pass from not being "with God" to coming to be "with God," for before all time and eternity "the Word was in the beginning," and "the Word was with God." … Perhaps John, seeing some such order in the argument, did not place "the Word was God" before "the Word was with God," so that we might not be hindered in seeing the individual meaning of each proposition in the affirmation of the series.

(tom. i. in Joan. c. 16. et sq.) There are many significations of this word beginning. For there is a beginning of a journey, and beginning of a length, according to Proverbs, The beginning of the right path is to do justice. (Prov. 16. Vulg. Job. 40:19) There is a beginning too of a creation, according to Job, He is the beginning of the ways of God. Nor would it be incorrect to say, that God is the Beginning of all things. The preexistent material again, where supposed to be original, out of which any thing is produced, is considered as the beginning. There is a beginning also in respect of form: as where Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. And there is a beginning of doctrine, according to Hebrews; When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God. (Heb. 5:12) For there are two kinds of beginning of doctrine: one in itself, the other relative to us; as if we should say that Christ, in that He is the Wisdom and Word of God, was in Himself the beginning of wisdom, but to us, in that He was the Word incarnate. (c. 22). There being so many significations then of the word, we may take it as the Beginning through Whom, i. e. the Maker; for Christ is Creator as The Beginning, in that He is Wisdom; so that the Word is in the beginning, i. e. in Wisdom; the Saviour being all these excellences at once. As life then is in the Word, so the Word is in the Beginning, that is to say, in Wisdom. Consider then if it be possible according to this signification to understand the Beginning, as meaning that all things are made according to Wisdom, and the patterns contained therein; or, inasmuch as the Beginning of the Son is the Father, the Beginning of all creatures and existencies, to understand by the text, In the beginning was the Word, that the Son, the Word, was in the Beginning, that is, in the Father.

(Hom. ii. divers. loc.) The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.

(Hom. ii. in Joan. c. 1) It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.

(tom. ii. in Joan. in princ.) We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is Goda. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.

But those who speak of nature instead of God, and declare that all things were made by nature, do not perceive the mistake of the name which they use. For if they think that nature is irrational, it is most foolish to suppose that a rational creature can proceed from an irrational creator. But if it is Reason — that is, Logos — by which it appears that all things were made, they change the name without purpose, when they make statements concerning the reason of the Creator. If you have anything to say to these things, my father, say on.

The Life of the Evangelist John John, the beloved disciple [see Jn. 13:23], was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James, who was beheaded by Herod after the Passion of the Lord [see Acts 12:1-2]. John was the last of the Evangelists to write a Gospel. At the request of the bishops of Asia, he wrote his Gospel to combat the teachings of Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially the newly appeared doctrine of the Ebionites, who claimed that Christ did not exist until Mary gave birth to Him. This prompted John to expound on Christ's divine generation. There is another reason why he wrote. After examining the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke from beginning to end, John confirmed that they had recorded the truth [in contrast to authors of other, so-called gospels then in circulation]. Then he composed his own Gospel, focusing on the final year of the Lord's earthly ministry and on His Passion. John omitted most of the events of the previous two years because these had already been faithfully recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke. A careful study of the four Gospels will resolve the apparent discrepancies between John's narrative and the narratives of the other three Evangelists. John also wrote an epistle, which begins, That which was from the beginning. This epistle is accepted as John's by all ecclesiastical and scholarly authorities. The other two epistles bearing his name—the first, beginning, The elder unto the elect lady; and the second, The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius—are considered by some to be the work of a certain John the Elder, whose tomb (one of two bearing the name John) still exists in Ephesus to this day. Others, however, maintain that these two epistles are also the work of John the Evangelist. We will say more about this in the Life of Papias, the disciple of John. [This Life was not included here]. Now in the fourteenth year of his reign, the emperor Domitian initiated the second major persecution of Christians (Nero's persecution was the first). John was banished to the island of Patmos and there wrote the Apocalypse, later translated by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. After Dometian was murdered, his decrees were annulled by the Senate on account of their inhuman cruelty. Nerva ascended the throne, and John was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he lived until [101 AD, the fourth year of] Trajan's reign. During this time, John founded and built up churches throughout Asia. In the sixty-eighth year after the Passion of the Lord, John reposed in great old age near Ephesus.

Certain people affirm that in Hebrew Genesis begins, "In the beginning God made for himself a son." Against the ratification of this I am persuaded by other arguments from God's ordinance in which he was before the foundation of the world until the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone, himself his own world and location and everything—alone however because there was nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone; for he had with him that Reason that he had in himself—his own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression we also designate discourse, and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that "Discourse was in the beginning with God," though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.… And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God, how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having made a living soul. See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness.… So in a sort of way you have in you as a second [person] discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another [than you]. How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God, whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason and in [that] reason discourse. So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made another beside himself by activity within himself.

Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. Because the Son is the Word, and "the Word is God," and "I and my Father are one.

Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made." Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.

Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." It is written, "Thou shalt not take God's name in vain.

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; " and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; " and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one.

Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.) "The Word was God," then you have two Beings-One that commands that the thing be made.

That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was.

For "the Father who loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand," loves Him indeed from the beginning, and from the very first has handed all things over to Him. Whence it is written, "From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God; " to whom "is given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth.

The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the beginning was the Word; " and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things.

So, too, the two letters of Greece, the first and the last, the Lord assumes to Himself, as figures of the beginning and end! which concur in Himself: so that, just as Alpha rolls on till it reaches Omega, and again Omega rolls back till it reaches Alpha, in the same way He might show that in Himself is both the downward course of the beginning on to the end, and the backward course of the end up to the beginning; so that every economy, ending in Him through whom it began,-through the Word of God, that is, who was made flesh, -may have an end correspondent to its beginning.

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call "beginning" that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name "beginning" is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He did not say "they were in the beginning," because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say "in the beginning." Rather, he said, "In the beginning God created," thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, "In the beginning was the Word." You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as "the beginning." This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was. Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase "he was in the beginning" to be taken in the same sense as the phrase "in the beginning God created." Indeed, there the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, "He was in the beginning." And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase "in the beginning" to show that he was indicating without any qualification the "beginning" of the things that exist, which indeed is the "first being" and the "ever-being" and the "never not being."

The strength of the Holy Spirit is made perfect in weakness (II Cor. 12:9): so it is written and so we believe. It is made perfect in weakness of the body, and especially in feebleness of understanding (logos) and of speech. This has been proven time and again, but nowhere so clearly as in the life of John, the great theologian and brother of Christ by grace. John was a fisherman and the son of a fisherman, not just ignorant of higher Greek and Judaic learning, but completely illiterate, as the divine Luke says in the book of Acts (4:3). His native town, Bethsaida, was lowly and obscure: a "place of fishing," not of learning. Behold how a man like this—unlettered, unknown, and insignificant—acquired such spiritual power that he thundered forth doctrines taught by none of the other Evangelists. Their Gospels dealt with the life of Christ in the flesh and made no clear declaration of His existence before the ages. From this arose the danger that certain contemptible men, with minds fixed on the physical world and unable to comprehend anything exalted, would imagine that Christ first came into existence when He was born of Mary, and that He was not begotten of the Father before all ages. Paul of Samosata fell to exactly that temptation. Realizing this, the great John clearly set forth the spiritual begetting of Christ, without neglecting to record that the Word was made flesh (Jn 1:14). Some maintain that the Orthodox—the rightly believing Christians—asked John to write about Christ's eternal generation in order to refute certain heretics who had already begun to teach that the Saviour was merely a man. It is also said that when the saint read the books of the other Evangelists, he marveled at the accuracy of their narratives on every point, and judged them to be sound and unbiased towards any of the apostles. But what the other Evangelists had not stated clearly, or had omitted, John clarified, developed, or added to his own Gospel, which he wrote thirty-two years after the Ascension of Christ, while living in exile on the island of Patmos. The Lord loved John more than any of the disciples, because of his simplicity, meekness and goodness, and especially because he was a virgin and pure of heart. It was on account of his purity in particular that John was entrusted with the gift of theology. Blessed are the pure in heart, the Lord says, for they shall see God (Mt 5:8); and, indeed, John delighted in mysteries which most men do not perceive.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

What I said in the preface, I will now repeat, namely: whereas the other evangelists narrate at length the earthly birth of the Lord, His upbringing and growth, John passes over these events, since enough has been said about them by his fellow disciples, and speaks instead of the Divinity of Him who became man for our sake. However, upon careful examination you will see that just as they did not pass over in silence the Divinity of the Only-begotten, but mentioned it, though not extensively, so too John, having fixed his gaze upon the Word on high, did not entirely neglect the economy of the incarnation. For one Spirit guided the souls of all. John speaks to us about the Son, and mentions the Father as well. He points to the eternity of the Only-Begotten when he says, "In the beginning was the Word," that is, was from the beginning. For that which exists from the beginning assuredly has no time when it did not exist. "How," someone will say, "is it evident that the expression 'in the beginning was' means the same as 'from the beginning'?" How? Both from the common understanding and especially from this very evangelist himself. For in one of his epistles he says, "that which was from the beginning, which we... have seen" (1 John 1:1). Do you see how the beloved one explains himself? So the questioner will say; but I understand this "in the beginning" in the same way as in Moses: "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1). Just as the expression "in the beginning" there does not give the idea that heaven is eternal, so here too I will not understand the words "in the beginning" as though the Only-Begotten is eternal. So the heretic will say. To this insane insistence we shall say nothing other than this: O wise man of malice! Why did you pass over what follows in silence? But we shall say it even against your will. There Moses says that in the beginning God "created" heaven and earth, but here it says that in the beginning the Word "was." What then do "created" and "was" have in common? If here too it were written "in the beginning God created the Son," I would have kept silent; but now, since it says here "in the beginning was," I conclude from this that the Word exists from eternity and did not subsequently receive being, as you idly prattle. Why did John not say "in the beginning was the Son," but rather "the Word"? Listen. It was on account of the weakness of the hearers, so that we, hearing of the Son from the very start, might not conceive of a passionate and fleshly birth. He called Him "the Word" so that you would know that just as a word is born from the mind without passion, so also He is born from the Father without passion. Furthermore, he called Him "the Word" because He declared to us the properties of the Father, just as every word reveals the disposition of the mind; and also in order to show that He is co-eternal with the Father. For just as one cannot say that the mind is ever without a word, so the Father and God was never without the Son. John used this expression because there are many other words of God as well — for example, prophecies, commandments — as it is also said of the angels: "mighty in strength, who fulfill His word" (Ps. 102:20), that is, His commands. But the Word in the proper sense is a personal being. Here the Evangelist shows even more clearly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Lest you think that the Father once existed without the Son, he says that the Word was with God, that is, with God in the bosom of the Father. For the preposition "with" you should understand as meaning "together with," as it is also used in another place: are not His brothers and His sisters "among us," that is, "living with us"? (Mark 6:3). So here too, understand "with God" as meaning: He was with God, together with God, in His bosom. For it is impossible that God should ever have been without the Word, or wisdom, or power. Therefore we believe that the Son, since He is the Word, wisdom, and power of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24), was always with God, that is, He existed contemporaneously and together with the Father. "But how," you will say, "is the Son not after the Father?" How? Learn from a material example. Does not the radiance of the sun come from the sun itself? Indeed it does. Is it then also later than the sun, so that one could supposedly imagine a time when the sun existed without radiance? One cannot. For how would it even be the sun if it had no radiance? If we think this way about the sun, then all the more should we think this way about the Father and the Son. One must believe that the Son, being the radiance of the Father, as Paul says (Heb. 1:3), always shines together with the Father, and not after Him. Note also that by this expression Sabellius the Libyan is also refuted. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person, and that this single person at one time appeared as the Father, at another time as the Son, and at yet another time as the Spirit. So babbled the son of the father of lies, filled with the spirit of the evil one. But by these words, "and the Word was with God," he is clearly exposed. The Evangelist here says in the most evident manner that the Word is one and God, that is, the Father, is another. For if the Word was together with God, then obviously two persons are introduced, although both share one nature. And that there is one nature, listen. Do you see that the Word is also God! This means that the Father and the Son have one nature, just as they have one divinity. Therefore, let both Arius and Sabellius be put to shame. Let Arius, who calls the Son of God a creation and a creature, be confounded by the fact that the Word was in the beginning and was God. And let Sabellius, who does not accept a trinity of persons but only a singularity, be confounded by the fact that the Word was with God. For here the great John clearly proclaims that the Word is one person and the Father is another person, though not one thing and another thing. For "one and another" is said of persons, while "one thing and another thing" is said of natures. For example, to set forth the thought more clearly, Peter and Paul are one and another, for they are two persons; but not one thing and another thing, for they have one nature—humanity. In the same way one must teach concerning the Father and the Son: on the one hand, They are one and another, for They are two persons; but on the other hand, They are not one thing and another thing, for They have one nature—divinity.

(in loco.) Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another. And the Word was God

Or combine it thus. From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.

John the Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the divinity of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two parts. In the first he states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In regard to the first, he does two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets forth the manner in which Christ's divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of the incarnation of the Word of God (1:6).

Because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and its operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his divine nature; secondly of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first he does four things. First he shows when the Word was: In the beginning was the Word; secondly where he was: and the Word was with God; thirdly what he was: and the Word was God; fourthly, in what way he was: He was in the beginning with God. The first two pertain to the inquiry "whether something exists"; the second two pertain to the inquiry "what something is."

With respect to the first of these four we must examine the meaning of the statement, In the beginning was the Word. And here three things present themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this statement. First it is necessary to investigate the name Word; secondly the phrase in the beginning; thirdly the meaning of the Word was in the beginning.

To understand the name Word we should note that according to the Philosopher vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul. It is customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their signs, as in the statement, "And the rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). It is fitting that what is within our soul, and which is signified by our external word, be called a "word." But whether the name "word" belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is not our concern at present. However, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual cause. Therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words.

Now there are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species of the thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect what the species of a color is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word: for the name "stone" does not signify the substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; nor does it signify the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an action remaining within. Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one understanding forms when understanding.

Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its operation which is called "the understanding of indivisibles," it forms a definition; while according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or something of that sort. Hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies. So the Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition. Hence, what is thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word. Consequently it is compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the thing understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name "word."

Secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something that proceeds from an intellect existing in act; and furthermore, that a word is always a notion (ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. So if the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. On the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing understood, as the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone. But when the intellect understands itself, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (On the Trinity IX, 5) sees a likeness of the Trinity in the Soul insofar as the mind understands itself, but not insofar as it understands other things.

It is clear then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is of the very nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something. Now what is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in every being which understands there must be a word.

However, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): "The fool said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" The angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah (1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, "And the angel said to me." The third is the divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, "And God said, 'Let there be light.'" So when the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, we cannot understand this as a human or angelic word, because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause and principle of their existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which John speaks here is the Word of God.

We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning. And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first principles which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any discourse of reason. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our mind there is both a "cogitation," meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term "cogitation" does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (On the Trinity XV): "The Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in God." Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: "For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating."

The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the Persons but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: "If there were less in the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the One speaking it, the Word would be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one." "God speaks once" (Jb 33:14).

The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to form about some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words are concepts in our mind.

From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a Person in the Divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance.

It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a "Son," and its production is called a generation.

So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word.

There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why did John the Evangelist omit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, In the beginning was the Word?

There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son.

The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: "Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me" (below 17:6). And so wishing to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the Father when he says, and the Word was with God.

The second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say Word and not "Son," since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?

There are also two answers to this. First, because "son" means something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say "Son," but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word.

The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name "Word" than in the name "Son," he preferred to use the name Word.

The third question is raised by Augustine in his book Eighty-three Questions; and it is this. In Greek, where we have "Word," they have "Logos"; now since "Logos" signifies in Latin both "notion" and "word," why did the translators render it as "word" and not "notion," since a notion is something interior just as a word is?

I answer that "notion," properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but "word" signifies a reference to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said "Logos," intended to signify not only a reference to the Son's existence in the Father, but also the operative power of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to translate it "Word," which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than "notion" which implies merely a concept of the mind.

The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds "of God," saying, "the Word of God," or "of the Lord": "The Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom" (Sir 1:5); "His name is the Word of God" (Rv 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, "In the beginning was the Word of God," but said In the beginning was the Word?

I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute Truth, which is Truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being (esse); and by this Truth all words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. So in order that the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition.

And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name (as the Platonists, wishing to signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them the good per se, or man per se), so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name "Logos," so that if it were stated in Latin we would say "the Word."

Secondly, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, In the beginning. We must note that according to Origen, the word principium has many meanings. Since the word principium implies a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a principium in all those things which have an order. First of all, order is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a "beginning" of time, or of duration. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a "beginning": "By this time you ought to be teachers" (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by his incarnation. Fourth, in order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there can be a principium on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another principium is on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three "principles": of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. Considering these various ways of using the term, we now ask how principium is used here when it says, In the beginning was the Word.

We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way so that principium is understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into existence. Hence we read: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). And so the Lord said about himself: "I am the principium who also speaks to you" (below 8:25). Taking principium in this way, we should understand the statement, In the beginning was the Word, as though he were saying, "The Word was in the Son," so that the sense would be: The Word himself is the principium, principle, in the sense in which life is said to be "in" God, when this life is not something other than God.

And this is the explanation of Origen. And so the Evangelist says In the beginning here in order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored.

In a second way principium can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, "Yours is princely power (principium) in the day of your birth" (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads In the beginning was the Word as though it means, "The Son was in the Father." This is Augustine's understanding of it, as well as Origen's. The Son, however, is said to be in the Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his own essence, then the Son is in whomsoever the Son's essence is. Since, therefore, the essence of the Son is in the Father by consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): "I am in the Father and the Father is in me."

In a third way, principium can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense of In the beginning was the Word is that the Word was before all things, as Augustine explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the eternity of the Word.

The phrase In the beginning was the Word shows that no matter which beginning of duration is taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which is the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back for many ages, at that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (On the Trinity VII): "Go back season by season, skip over the centuries, take away ages. Set down whatever you want as the beginning in your opinion: the Word already was." And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything." But what is prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.

And thus the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word; and the third explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.

Now we should consider that it says that the Word was (erat), which is stated in the past imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time. For what is future is not yet in act; but what is at present is in act, and by the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as having been. Now the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already come to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other hand, indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has ceased to be, but still endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he expressly says "was" (erat, past imperfect tense), but when he refers to anything temporal he says "has been" (fuit, past perfect tense), as will be clear later.

But so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the present tense, which indicates that some thing is in act, and this is always the characteristic of eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): "I am who am." And Augustine says: "He alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future."

We should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. Thus it is also called a substantive verb.

Someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father.

I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that which derives from that principle. First of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time. Secondly, if an action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time. Thirdly, by the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as the beginning of a creature's coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed before any creature.

Yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not first exist and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency before understanding in act, which is impossible. Again, it is impossible that the generation of the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was formed (as happens in us who form words by "cogitating"), which is false, as was said. Again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by his own will, because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.

An example of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. Again, if the fire were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the brightness of the Father: "the brightness of his glory" (Heb 1:3). But this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough.

The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for "brightness" indicates his unchangeability, "birth" points to the Word himself, but the name "Son" suggests his consubstantiality.

And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. We call him "Son" to show that he is of the same nature as the Father; we call him "image" to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way; we call him "brightness" to show that he is coeternal; and he is called the "Word" to show that he is begotten in an immaterial manner.

Then the Evangelist says, and the Word was with God, which is the second clause in his account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did not appear in the first clause, that is, God, and with; for we have already explained the meanings of "Word," and "beginning." Let us continue carefully by examining these two new words, and to better understand the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the meaning of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.

At the outset, we should note that the name "God" signifies the divinity concretely and as inherent in a subject, while the name "deity" signifies the divinity in the abstract and absolutely. Thus the name "deity" cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a divine person, but only for the divine nature. But the name "God" can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for any one of the divine persons, just as the name "man" stands for any individual (suppositum) possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its predicate requires that the name "God" stand for the person, then it stands for the person, as when we say, "God begets God." Thus, when it says here that the Word was with God, it is necessary that God stand for the person of the Father, because the preposition with signifies the distinction of the Word, which is said to be with God. And although this preposition signifies a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since the nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist wished to signify the person of the Father when he said God.

Here we should note that the preposition with signifies a certain union of the thing signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its grammatical object, just as the preposition "in" does. However, there is a difference, because the preposition "in" signifies a certain intrinsic union, whereas the preposition with implies in a certain way an extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is in the Father and with the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an expression, since "extrinsic" is improperly employed in divine matters) refers only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the Father by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a consubstantiality in nature and distinction in person: consubstantiality inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain otherness is signified as was said above.

The preposition "in," as was said, principally signifies consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a distinction of persons, inasmuch as every preposition is transitive. The preposition "with" principally signifies a personal distinction, but also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the preposition "with" in order to express the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, saying, and the Word was with God, that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.

We should note further that this preposition with has four meanings, and these eliminate four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent, because things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly said to be "with" another; thus we do not say that a color is with a body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of themselves. But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be "with" another; thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone with a stone.

Secondly, it signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly speaking, say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the king. Thirdly, it asserts a distinction. For it is not proper to say that a person is with himself but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is said to be with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.

Considering these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition with, the Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, this second clause, and the Word was with God. For if we omit one of the three explanations of, In the beginning was the Word (namely, the one in which principium was understood as the Son), certain heretics make a twofold objection against each of the other explanations (namely, the one in which principium means the same as "before all things," and the one in which it is understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer these by the four conditions indicated by this preposition with.

The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was nothing, where then was the Word? This objection arises due to the imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected by John when he says, with God, which indicates the union mentioned in the last four conditions. So, according to Basil, the meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: with God; not in some place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not enclosed by any place.

The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another. This objection is rejected when he says, the Word was with God, taking "with" according to its second condition, as implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist answers: the Word was with God, i.e., although the Word has no beginning of duration, still he does not lack a principium or author, for he was with God as his author.

The third objection, directed to the explanation in which principium is understood as the Father, is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, i.e., the Son was in the Father. But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the whiteness in a body does not subsist. This objection is solved by the statement, the Word was with God, taking "with" in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: In the beginning was the Word, not as an accident, but he was with God, as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis.

The fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the Son is not distinct from the Father. This objection is answered by the statement, and the Word was with God, taking "with" in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according to Alcuin and Bede, is this: The Word was with God, and he was with the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being "with" him through a distinction in person.

And so, and the Word was with God, indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; and the authorship of the Father in relation to the Word, according to Hilary.

We should also note, according to Origen, that the Word was with God shows that the Son has always been with the Father. For in the Old Testament it says that the word of the Lord "came" to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture. But it does not say that the word of the Lord was "with" Jeremiah or anyone else, because the word "comes" to those who begin to have the word after not having it. Thus the Evangelist did not say that the Word "came" to the Father, but was "with" the Father, because, given the Father, the Word was with him.

Then he says, and the Word was God. This is the third clause in John's account, and it follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John had said both when and where the Word was, it remained to inquire what the Word was, that is, the Word was God, taking "Word" as the subject, and "God" as the predicate.

But since one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it is, it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.

Origen answers this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different ways. The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man becomes wise and good: "She makes friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27). But the Word is not with God as though the Father were perfected and enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is with God as receiving natural divinity from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has it that he is the same God with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing that the Word was God.

This clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing. The first is based on the name "Word," and is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that "word" is generally understood to signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.

According to Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above account. Augustine says (Homily I On John) that it is obvious that in this passage "Word" cannot be understood as a statement because, since a statement is in motion and passes away, it could not be said that In the beginning was the Word, if this Word were something passing away and in motion. The same thing is clear from and the Word was with God: for to be "in" another is not the same as to be "with" another. Our word, since it does not subsist, is not "with" us, but "in" us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore "with" God. And so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove the ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, and the Word was God.

The other question comes from his saying, with God. For since "with" indicates a distinction, it could be thought that the Word was with God, i.e., the Father, as distinct from him in nature. So to exclude this he adds at once the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying, and the Word was God. As if to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God.

Note also the special way of signifying, since he says, the Word was God, using "God" absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which the name of the deity is given to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a creature sometimes shares this name with some added qualification, as when it says, "I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1), in order to indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed the god of someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6): "I said, 'You are gods.'" —as if to say: in my opinion, but not in reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely because he is God by his own essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.

We should note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article before every name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of John's Gospel the name "Word" in the statement, In the beginning was the Word, and also the name "God" in the statement, and the Word was with God, are prefixed by the article, so as to read "the Word" and "the God," in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But in the statement, the Word was God, the article is not prefixed to the noun "God," which stands for the person of the Son. Because of this Origen blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not God by essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by essence. And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the name "God" implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the Son, it would never be used with the name "God" when it is used as a predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father. Further, whenever said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. However, we find the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ "God," using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, "the coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ," where "God" stands for the Son, and in the Greek the article is used. Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): "Christ, who is God over all things, blessed forever," and again the article is used with "God" in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true God and eternal life." Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the theory of Origen is clearly false.

Chrysostom gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name "God," namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the article, and so it was not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was implied. Or, a better reason would be that "God" is used here as the predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the article to accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But if "God" were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the persons, as the Son or the Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be used in the Greek.

"The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, failing down before the throne, adored God." The four and twenty elders arethe twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers-twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs.And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declareto us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet; " The voice of one crying in the wilderness," -has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, "The hook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: " this is the form of a man. But Luke said, "There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron: " this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion's whelp. And when for man's salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those bring creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

Wherefore does he use the substantive verb, was? That you might understand that the Word, Which is coeternal with God the Father, was before all time.

It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. The former said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and, in Augustine's opinion, this means the Son. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

The fourth condition is coeternity in duration, and this is touched upon when it is said: "He was in the beginning with God," in which coeternity is noted. For God the Father was from eternity; but if the Son were not coeternal, the Father existed before the Son; therefore the Word was not in the beginning with God. But he was in the beginning, and therefore coeternal. Whence Proverbs 8: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. From eternity I was ordained." And in this the heresy of the Photinians and the Ebionites is refuted, who said that Christ took his beginning entirely from Mary, as Augustine says in On the Christian Combat. For they did not understand how the Word was in the beginning with God.

CHAPTER IV. Against those who dare to say that the conceived and Natural word in God the Father is one, and He that is called Son by the Divine Scriptures another: such is the misconceit of Eunomius' party.

This was in the beginning with God.

The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shown that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant.

Eunomius' opinion as to the Son of God.

"The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word."

Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins.

"If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?"

And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?"

Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, showing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined.

Refutation in order of the misconceit of Eunomius.

Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not.

To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should |38 again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments?

Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human |39 fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer.

Oppositions or objections, as from the heretics.

"If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That |40 is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word."

Refutation of this.

No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are.

Another in equal guise with the objection, by the method of reductio ad absurdum.

The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought.

Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father |42 ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is.

Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God.

Another as of the same, at length.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, showing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son.

Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;----what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will show Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son.

Opposition, or another objection as on the part of the heretics.

"Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept."

Different solutions in order showing clearly that the Son is the Word of God the Father.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father?

Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see.

"We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son?

Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shown to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them show it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise.

Another, showing that not after the conceived word, as they say, is the Son formed, but He is the Likeness of the Father Himself.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him.

Opposition, as from the opponents.

"We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?"

Different solutions to this in order.

Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shows that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe.

Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning.

Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.

For every person imaginable would admit that the truth is one. No one would dare say, in the case of [truth] too, that the truth of God is one thing, and that of the angels is another, and that of people still another. For it belongs to the nature of beings that the truth concerning each is one.… And if truth is one and wisdom is one, the Word also, who announces the truth and wisdom simply and openly to those capable of apprehending it, would be one. And we say these things, not to deny that the truth and wisdom and the Word are of God but to show the advantage of the omission of the phrase "of God."

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.

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.

(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.

This, says he, was alone sufficient for its being understood by men; (I mean) the cup of Anacreon declaring, (albeit) mutely, an ineffable mystery. For dumb, says he, is Anacreon's cup; and (yet) Anacreon affirms that it speaks to himself, in language mute, as to what sort he must become-that is spiritual, not carnal-if he shall listen in silence to the concealed mystery. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which Jesus changing made into wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true beginning of miracles which Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and (thus) manifested the kingdom of heaven. This, says he, is the kingdom of heaven that reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the three measures of meal.

(Hom. ii. [i.] §. 4) Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

(Hom. iv. [iii.] §. 1) Or, lest hearing that In the beginning was the Word, you should regard It as eternal, but yet understand the Father's Life to have some degree of priority, he has introduced the words, The Same was in the beginning with God. For God was never solitary, apart from Him, but always God with God. (ibid. 3). Or forasmuch as he said, the Word was God, that no one might think the Divinity of the Son inferior, he immediately subjoins the marks of proper Divinity, in that he both again mentions Eternity, The Same was in the beginning with God; and adds His attribute of Creator (τδ δημιουργικὸν), All things were made by Him.

After the Evangelist has taught us the three orders through the three propositions that were previously mentioned, he sums up the three under one head, saying, "The same was in the beginning with God."Now we have learned from the three propositions first, in what the Word was, namely, "in the beginning," and with whom he was, namely, "God," and who the Word was, namely, "God." It is as if, therefore, he indicates the previously mentioned God the Word by the expression "the same" and gathers the three, "in the beginning was the Word" and "The Word was with God, and the Word was God," into a fourth proposition and says, "The same was in the beginning with God."

(tom. ii. in Joan. c. 4) Or thus, the Evangelist having begun with those propositions, reunites them into one, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. For in the first of the three we learnt in what the Word was, that it was in the beginning; in the second, with whom, with God; in the third who the Word was, God. Having, then, by the term, The Same, set before us in a manner God the Word of Whom he had spoken, he collects all into the fourth proposition, viz. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; into, the Same was in the beginning with God. It may be asked, however, why it is not said, In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God? Now whoever will admit that truth is one, must needs admit also that the demonstration of truth, that is wisdom, is one. But if truth is one, and wisdom is one, the Word which enuntiates truth and developes wisdom in those who are capable of receiving it, must be One also. And therefore it would have been out of place here to have said, the Word of God, as if there were other words besides that of God, a word of angels, word of men, and so on. We do not say this, to deny that It is the Word of God, but to show the use of omitting the word God. John himself too in the Apocalypse says, And his Name is called the Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

John wanted to persuade by using the name "Word," as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said "he was in the beginning," he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

This God the Word was never separated from God the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, lest anyone be troubled by such a satanic thought: if the Word is also God, did It not at some point rise up against the Father, as the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if It separated from Him, did It not become an adversary to God? — he says that although the Word is indeed God, nevertheless It is again with God the Father, abides together with Him, and was never separated from Him. No less fitting is it to say this also to those who hold to the teaching of Arius: hear, you deaf ones, who call the Son of God a work and a creation of His; understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. But you call Him a work and a creation. He is not a work and not a creation, but the Word. "Word" is of two kinds. One is the internal word, which we have even when we are not speaking, that is, the capacity of speech, for even he who sleeps and does not speak still has the word placed within him and has not lost the capacity. So one word is internal, and the other is the uttered word, which we also pronounce with our lips, putting into action the capacity of speech, the capacity of the mental and inwardly lying word. Although, therefore, "word" is of two kinds, neither of them applies to the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither uttered nor internal. Those words are natural and ours, but the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to earthly subtleties of reasoning. Therefore the cunning syllogism of Porphyry, the pagan, falls apart of itself. He, attempting to overthrow the Gospel, employed such a division: if the Son of God is a word, then He is either an uttered or an internal word; but He is neither one nor the other; therefore He is not the Word. Thus, the Evangelist resolved this syllogism in advance, having said that "internal" and "uttered" are spoken of us and of natural things, but of supernatural things nothing of the sort is spoken. However, this too must be said: the pagan's objection would have had a basis if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and were used of Him in a proper and essential sense. But to this day no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very name "Word" used of Him in a proper and essential sense, but it only shows that the Son was born from the Father without passion, just as a word proceeds from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the Father's will. Why then do you, wretched one, cling to a name and, hearing of Father, Son, and Spirit, descend to material relations and imagine in your mind fleshly fathers and sons, and a wind of the air — perhaps the south wind or the north wind, or some other — producing a storm? But if you wish to learn what kind of word the Word of God is, then listen to what follows next.

Again, to stop any diabolical suspicion, that the Word, because He was God, might have rebelled against His Father, as certain Gentiles fable, or, being separate, have become the antagonist of the Father Himself, he says, The Same was in the beginning with God; that is to say, this Word of God never existed separate from God.

Then he says, He was in the beginning with God. This is the fourth clause and is introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist's statement that the Word was God, two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error (Dt 6:4): "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God; and the Word was God, they could adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one God, and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. And so to exclude this he says, He was in the beginning with God, as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which he is. Further, lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son.

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below (14:28): "The Father is greater than I." And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.

Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held), but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being.

Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, He was in the beginning with God, when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son's and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding was in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding with God, he recalls the second, so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God was in the beginning with God.

If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the Evangelist excludes their errors saying, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin.

Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, and the Word was with God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another.

Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was explained above.

These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. For some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different philosophers maintained. Against these the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.

Plato, however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For example, he thought men existed through the separated Idea of man, which he called Man per se. So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God.

Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was God.

Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, He, the Word alone, was in the beginning with God, in such a way that He does not exclude another person, but only another coeternal nature.

Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (Mt 2:1); but John presents him existing from eternity: In the beginning was the Word. They show him suddenly appearing among men: "Now you dismiss your servant, O Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes have seen your salvation" (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: "They gave glory to God who had given such authority to men" (Mt 9:8); but John says that he is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: "While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them" (Mt 17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father: He was in the beginning with God.

Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was (erat) to show that the Word of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: He was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.

After speaking of the nature of the Son, he proceeds to His operations, saying, All things were made by him, i. e. every thing whether substance, or property.

Who that hears these words of the Gospel, "the only-begotten Son;" and, "by Him were all things made," will not hate those who declare He is one of the things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him?

For he set forth His proper personality, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time Himself was not? For the Word which makes is not to be defined as being of the same nature with the things which are made.

He himself who calls the Son of God the maker even of heavenly things has also plainly said that all things were made in the Son, that in the renewal of his works he might by no means separate the Son from the Father but unite him to the Father.

But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, "And the Word was God," it is said also, "The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." Not simply "all things;" but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but "all things were made by Him," therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God.

We have found the genuine poor person. We have found him to be kind and humble, not trusting in himself, truly poor, a member of the poor man, who became poor for our sake, though he was rich. Look at this rich man of ours, who "for our sake became poor, though he was rich;" see how rich he is: "All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing." There is more to making gold than to having it. You are rich in gold, silver, flocks, household, farms, produce; you were unable to create these things for yourself, though. See how rich he is: "All things were made though him." See how poor he is: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Who can fittingly reflect on his riches, how he makes and is not made, how he creates and is not created, is not formed but forms, forms changeable things while changelessly abiding ephemeral things while he himself is everlasting? Who can fittingly ponder his riches? Let us ponder his poverty instead, in case being poor ourselves we may just be able to grasp it.

Give good heed to what follows, brethren, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made," so as not to imagine that "nothing" is something. For many, wrongly understanding "without Him was nothing made," are wont to fancy that "nothing" is something. Sin, indeed, was not made by Him; and it is plain that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin. An idol also was not made by the Word ;-it has indeed a sort of human form, but man himself was made by the Word;-for the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word, and it is written, "We know that an idol is nothing." Therefore these things were not made by the Word; but whatever was made in the natural manner, whatever belongs to the creature, everything that is fixed in the sky, that shines from above, that flies under the heavens, and that moves in universal nature, every creature whatsoever: I will speak more plainly, brethren, that you may understand me; I will say, from an angel even to a worm. What more excellent than an angel among created things? what lower than a worm? He who made the angel made the worm also; but the angel is fit for heaven, the worm for earth. He who created also arranged. If He had placed the worm in heaven, thou mightest have found fault; if He had willed that angels should spring from decaying flesh, thou mightest have found fault: and yet God almost does this, and He is not to be found fault with. For all men born of flesh, what are they but worms? and of these worms God makes angels. For if the Lord Himself says, "But I am a worm and no man," who will hesitate to say what is written also in Job, "How much more is man rottenness, and the son of man a worm?" First he said, "Man is rottenness;" and afterwards, "The son of man a worm:" because a worm springs from rottenness, therefore "man is rottenness," and "the son of man a worm." Behold what for thy sake He was willing to become, who "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!" Why did He for thy sake become this? That thou mightest suck, who wert not able to chew. Wholly in this sense, then, brethren, understand "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For every creature, great and small, was made by Him: by Him were made things above and things beneath; spiritual and corporeal, by Him were they made. For no form, no structure, no agreement of parts, no substance whatever that can have weight, number, measure, exists but by that Word, and by that Creator Word, to whom it is said, "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and in number, and in weight."

Therefore, let no one deceive you, when perchance you suffer annoyance from flies. For some have been mocked by the devil, and taken with flies. As fowlers are accustomed to put flies in their traps to deceive hungry birds, so these have been deceived with flies by the devil. Some one or other was suffering annoyance from flies; a Manichaean found him in his trouble, and when he said that he could not bear flies, and hated them exceedingly, immediately the Manichaean said, "Who made them?" And since he was suffering from annoyance, and hated them, he dared not say, "God made them," though he was a Catholic. The other immediately added, "If God did not make them, who made them?" "Truly," replied the Catholic, "I believe the devil made them." And the other immediately said, "If the devil made the fly, as I see you allow, because you understand the matter well, who made the bee, which is a little larger than the fly?" The Catholic dared not say that God made the bee and not the fly, for the case was much the same. From the bee he led him to the locust; from the locust to the lizard; from the lizard to the bird; from the bird to the sheep; from the sheep to the cow; from that to the elephant, and at last to man; and persuaded a man that man was not made by God. Thus the miserable man, being troubled with the flies, became himself a fly, and the property of the devil. In fact, Beelzebub, they say, means "Prince of flies;" and of these it is written, "Dying flies deprive the ointment of its sweetness."

What then, brethren? why have I said these things? Shut the ears of your hearts against the wiles of the enemy. Understand that God made all things, and arranged them in their orders. Why, then, do we suffer many evils from a creature that God made? Because we have offended God? Do angels suffer these things? Perhaps we, too, in that life of theirs, would have no such thing to fear. For thy punishment, accuse thy sin, not the Judge. For, on account of our pride, God appointed that tiny and contemptible creature to torment us; so that, since man has become proud and has boasted himself against God, and, though mortal, has oppressed mortals, and, though man, has not acknowledged his fellowman,-since he has lifted himself up, he may be brought low by gnats. Why art thou inflated with human pride? Some one has censured thee, and thou art swollen with rage. Drive off the gnats, that thou mayest sleep: understand who thou art. For, that you may know, brethren, it was for the taming of our pride these things were created to be troublesome to us, God could have humbled Pharaoh's proud people by bears, by lions, by serpents; He sent flies and frogs upon them, that their pride might be subdued by the meanest creatures.

Therefore let the Prophet have honor among us, because He had no honor in His own country. He had no honor in His country, wherein He was formed; let Him have honor in the country which He has formed. For in that country was He, the Maker of all, made as to the form of a servant. For that city in which He was made, that Zion, that nation of the Jews He Himself made when He was with the Father as the Word of God: for "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."

(1. de Gen ad lit. cap. 2) Since all things were made by him, it is evident that light was also, when God said, Let there be light. And in like manner the rest. But if so, that which God said, viz. Let there be light, is eternal. For the Word of God, God with God, is coeternal with the Father, though the world created by Him be temporal. For whereas our when and sometimes are words of time, in the Word of God, on the contrary, when a thing ought to be made, is eternal; and the thing is then made, when in that Word it is that it ought to be made, which Word hath in It neither when, or at sometimes, since It is all eternal.

(in Joan. tract. i. c. 11) How then can the Word of God be made, when God by the Word made all things? For if the Word Itself were made, by what other Word was It made? If you say it was the Word of the Word by Which That was made, that Word I call the Only-Begotten Son of God. But if thou dost not call It the Word of the Word, then grant that that Word was not made, by which all things were made.

(de Trin. i. c. 9. [vi.]) And if It is not made, It is not a creature; but if It is not a creature, It is of the same Substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature; and what is not a creature is God.

(Quæst. Test. N. V. qu. 97) Or, by saying, without Him was not any thing made, he tells us not to suspect Him in any sense to be a thing made. For how can He be a thing made, when God, it is said, made nothing without Him?

(in Joh. tract. i. c. 13) For sin was not made by Him; for it is manifest that sin is nothing, and that men become nothing when they sin. Nor was an idol made by the Word. It has indeed a sort of form of man, and man himself was made by the Word; but the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word: for it is written, we know that an idol is nothing. (1 Cor. 8:4) These then were not made by the Word; but whatever things were made naturally, the whole universe, were; every creature from an angel to a worm.

(de Natura boni, c. 25) The folly of those men is not to be listened to, who think nothing is to be understood here as something, because it is placed at the end of the sentence: as if it made any difference whether it was said, without Him nothing was made, or, without Him was made nothing.

The subject of Scripture with respect to substance is God; with respect to power, Christ; with respect to operation, the work of restoration. Now God is triune and one: one in essence and triune in persons. Therefore Scripture, which is about Him, has in the unity of the letter a triformity of understanding. Christ also, since He is one Word, all things are said to have been made through Him and shine forth in Him, so that His wisdom is manifold and one.

It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and weighed the heavens with his palm? Who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth? This the Word did, through whom all things were made. His hand, by which all things are created, that is, formed or made distinct and adorned, with three fingers lifts and suspends the earth, that is, the ecclesiastic hierarchy which He creates, distinguishes and adorns. This hand measures the waters, this hand holds all things as an object is held in the fist. This is the hand of the eternal Word.

"All things were made through Him." Here the Word is described by comparison to that which is spoken through the Word, and this with respect to four conditions: for it describes Him as a sufficient principle of creation, as unfailing, as foreknowing, as providing knowledge to others. And through these four conditions many heresies are refuted.

First, therefore, He is called a sufficient principle, because He suffices for producing all things. Therefore he says: "All things were made through Him," namely by God the Father through the Word, because Sirach 18: "He who lives forever created all things together"; and this through the Word, whence in the Psalm: "He spoke, and they were made." Augustine in the book of the Confessions: "By the Word coeternal with You, You speak whatever You speak, and whatever You say is made, nor do You make otherwise than by speaking."

"And without him was made nothing." Here the second condition is noted, namely that he is an unfailing principle, because he is absent from no operation. For the Father does nothing without the Word: below in chapter five: "All things that the Father does, these the Son likewise does." Similarly, a creature does nothing without the cooperating Word: below in chapter fifteen: "Without me you can do nothing." And by this the heresy of the Manichaeans is perfectly refuted, who posited two principles, and that some things were produced by the God of light, and some by the God of darkness. For they did not understand how all things were made through the Word.

It is asked concerning what he says: "Without him was made nothing." Against this it is objected that he who steals has done something; therefore theft is something; therefore it is from God; therefore sins and evils are from God and are not made without God. If you say that sin is nothing, whence the sense is: "Without him was made nothing," that is, sin, so that the matter rests there; against this it is further objected: because sin corrupts, and what corrupts acts, and what acts is a being, and what is a being is something; therefore etc.

It must be said that sin sometimes names an action deprived of some due circumstance; sometimes it names a debt with the privation of the good to which it is ordered; sometimes it names the privation of good itself. In the first way it is something; in the second way it is something in a qualified sense; in the third way it is altogether nothing. Therefore insofar as it involves a good substrate, by reason of that it is from God, but by reason of its deformity, it is not. As to the objection that sin acts: this is through the nature of the underlying good, as Dionysius says.

Very often, paradoxically, the first step is to banish the "bright blur"—or, in statelier language, to break the idol. Let's get back to what has at least some degree of resistant reality. Here are the four walls of the room. And here am I. But both terms are merely the façade of impenetrable mysteries.

The walls, they say, are matter. That is, as the physicists will try to tell me, something totally unimaginable, only mathematically describable, existing in a curved space, charged with appalling energies. If I could penetrate far enough into that mystery I should perhaps finally reach what is sheerly real.

And what am I? The façade is what I call consciousness. I am at least conscious of the colour of those walls. I am not, in the same way, or to the same degree, conscious of what I call my thoughts: for if I try to examine what happens when I am thinking, it stops happening. Yet even if I could examine my thinking, it would, I well know, turn out to be the thinnest possible film on the surface of a vast deep. The psychologists have taught us that. Their real error lies in underestimating the depth and the variety of its contents... And depths of time too. All my past; my ancestral past; perhaps my pre-human past.

Here again, if I could dive deeply enough, I might again reach at the bottom that which simply is.

And only now am I ready, in my own fashion, to "place myself in the presence of God." Either mystery, if I could follow it far enough, would lead me to the same point—the point where something, in each case unimaginable, leaps forth from God's naked hand. The Indian, looking at the material world, says, "I am that." I say, "That and I grow from one root." Verbum supernum prodiens, the Word coming forth from the Father, has made both, and brought them together in this subject-object embrace.

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

So that from this it is clear, that one alone, true, good, just, in the image and likeness of the Father, His Son Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor; to whom God hath entrusted us, as an affectionate father commits his children to a worthy tutor, expressly charging us, "This is my beloved Son: hear Him." The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three of the fairest ornaments-knowledge, benevolence, and authority of utterance;-with knowledge, for He is the paternal wisdom: "All Wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him for evermore;"-with authority of utterance, for He is God and Creator: "For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;"-and with benevolence, for He alone gave Himself a sacrifice for us: "For the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep;" and He has so given it. Now, benevolence is nothing but wishing to do good to one's neighbour for his sake.

For there is no use of a sleeping man, as there is not of a dead man. Wherefore we ought often to rise by night and bless God. For blessed are they who watch for Him, and so make themselves like the angels, whom we call "watchers." But a man asleep is worth nothing, any more than if he were not alive. But he who has the light watches, "and darkness seizes not on him," nor sleep, since darkness does not. He that is illuminated is therefore awake towards God; and such an one lives. "For what was made in Him was life."

Men, therefore, affording to women a noble example of truth, ought to be ashamed at their stripping before them, and guard against these dangerous sights; "for he who has looked curiously," it is said, "hath sinned already." At home, therefore, they ought to regard with modesty parents and domestics; in the ways, those they meet; in the baths, women; in solitude, themselves; and everywhere the Word, who is everywhere, "and without Him was not anything." For so only shall one remain without failing, if he regard God as ever present with him.

What then? Is not speaking our business, and does not action proceed from the Word? For if we act not for the Word, we shall act against reason. But a rational work is accomplished through God. "And nothing," it is said, "was made without Him"-the Word of God. And did not the Lord make all things by the Word?

And we also have already heard that angels learned the truth, and their rulers over them; for they had a beginning. It remains, then, for us, ascending to seek their teacher. And since the unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God; one, too, is the First-begotten, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing ever was made." "For one, in truth, is God, who formed the beginning of all things;" pointing out "the first-begotten Son," Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." And He is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is He who is the Teacher of all created beings, the Fellow-counsellor of God, who foreknew all things; and He from above, from the first foundation of the world, "in many ways and many times," trains and perfects; whence it is rightly said, "Call no man your teacher on earth."

"I must decrease," said the prophet John, and the Word of the Lord alone, in which the law terminates, "increase." Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing." Certainly He is called "the chief corner stone; in whom the whole building, fitly joined together, groweth into an holy temple of God," according to the divine apostle.

For neither prophecy nor the Saviour Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables. The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that "He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord.

The Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder.

But it is said Providence, from above, from what is of prime importance, as from the head, reaches to all, "as the ointment," it is said, "which descends to Aaron's beard, and to the skirt of his garment" (that is, of the great High Priest, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made"); not to the ornament of the body; for Philosophy is outside of the People, like raiment.

Ruling, then, over himself and what belongs to him, and possessing a sure grasp, of divine science, he makes a genuine approach to the truth. For the knowledge and apprehension of intellectual objects must necessarily be called certain scientific knowledge, whose function in reference to divine things is to consider what is the First Cause, and what that "by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;" and what things, on the other hand, are as pervasive, and what is comprehensive; what conjoined, what disjoined; and what is the position which each one of them holds, and what power and what service each contributes.

CHAPTER V. That the Son is by Nature Creator with the Father, as being of His Essence, and not taken to Him as a minister.

All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

The blessed Evangelist, having overthrown the intricate objections of the unholy heretics, and having completed his subtil and most exact utterance respecting the Only-Begotten, comes to another snare of the devil compounded of the ancient deceit, and putting forth to us the sting of the polytheic error, which has wounded and cast down many, and widening the way of perdition, and throwing open the broad and spacious gate of death, heaped up souls of men in herds unto hell and set rich food as it were before the devil and brought before him choice meat. For since the children of the Greeks applying themselves to the wisdom of the world, and having plenteously in their mind the spirit of the ruler of this world, were carried away unto polytheic error, and perverted the beauty of the truth and, like to those who walk in mist and darkness, went down to the pit of their own ignorance, serving lifeless idols, and saying to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: others again transgressing akin to them, devising nevertheless a more polished error, deemed that they ought to worship the creature more than the Creator, and lavished the glory that befitted the Divine Nature Alone on the elements that were made by It, of necessity does the Divine introduce to us the Only-Begotten as Maker and Creator by Nature, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him nothing passed into being, that he might close for the future the entrance for their deceits, and might show to them that know Him |51 not the Creator of all things, and by the very words wherein he says that the creation was made, might clearly teach that other than it is He Who called it into being, and by His Ineffable Power brought things that are from not being unto birth. For thus at length was it possible by the beauty of the creatures proportionally to see the Maker, and to recognize Him Who is in truth God, through Whom all things have been already made, and made are preserved. Against the false-worship then of the Greeks do I deem that he thus well arrayed the Gospel word, and for this cause do we believe that the Only-Begotten was introduced by the voice of the saint as Maker and Creator.

But since it is meet to consider the crooked inventions of the heretics, I think that we ought looking to their ways too to say again a little.

All things, says he, were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.

This God-befitting dignity too does he put about the Son, on all sides showing that He is Consubstantial with God Who begat Him and saying that all things that belong to Him by Nature are in His Offspring: that He may be conceived of as truly God of God, not (as we) having the appellation adventitious and accruing to us by grace alone, according to the words, I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High. For if all things were made by Him, He will be Other than they all. For in this, All things, there is nothing which is not seen among all things. As the blessed Paul too is found to have understood the all things: for when in one of his Epistles he was discoursing of our Saviour and said that all things were put in subjection under His feet, excellently does he subjoin, For in that he saith all, he left nothing that is not put under Him. Therefore since we believe that all things were made by the Son, we will not think that He is one of all, but will conclude that He is external to all, and severing Him from the nature and kin of things originate, will at length confess that He is none else save God of God by Nature. For what will intervene between God and the creature? I do not mean in regard of essence, for much intervenes, but only in regard to the position of anything that is, in conception. Or what other position will the Son have, Who surpasses the nature of things made, yea rather is Himself the Maker? For all things were made "by Him, as by the Power, as by the Wisdom of God the Father, not hidden in the Nature of Him Who begat Him, as in man is for instance his innate wisdom and power, but existing separately and by Himself, yet proceeding according to the ineffable mode of Generation from the Father, that the Wisdom and Power of the Father may be conceived of as truly-existing Son.

But though the blessed Evangelist says that all things were made through Him, the saying will not I deem at all minister damage to the words concerning Him. For not because it is said that the things that are were made through Him, will the Son be introduced as an underworker, or a minister of others' wills, so that He should be no longer conceived of as being by Nature Creator, nor will He be one given the power of Creation by some other, but rather being Himself Alone the Strength of God the Father, as Son, as Only-Begotten, He works all things, the Father and the Holy Ghost co-working and co-with Him: for all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And we conceive of the Father as co-with the Son, not as though He were powerless to work ought of things that are, but as being wholly in Him, by reason of unchangeableness of Essence, and His entire kin and the absence of any medium towards His Natural Procession from Him. As though one were to say that to the sweet scent of a flower, the flower itself was co-present for the operation of the sweet scent, since it proceeds from it naturally. But the force of the example is slight and the Nature That is above all will overpass this too, receiving of it little-impresses of ideas. Since how shall we understand, My Father worketh hitherto and I work? For not separately and by Himself does the Son say that God the Father works ought regarding things that are, and that Himself again likewise works apart from the Father, the Essence Whence He is after some sort resting: for so the Creator would be two and not One, if Either work apart and separately. Moreover the Father will be recipient of the power of not having the Son ever in Him, and the Son likewise will be seen to not have the Father ever in Him, if it were possible that Either should work apart and separately with regard to things that are, as we said before, and the Son will not be true, when He says, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For it is not, I suppose, merely after likeness of Essence, that we see the Son in the Father as Express Image, or again the Father in the Son as Archetype; but we hold that the Son beams forth by Generation from the Essence of the Father, and is and subsists in It and of It in distinct Being, God the Word: and that the Father again is in the Son, as in Consubstantial Offspring, Connaturally, yet severally, according to simply the difference of being, and being conceived of as that which He is. For the Father remains that which He is, even though He be Connaturally in the Son, as we say that the Sun is in its brightness. And the Son again will be conceived of, as not other than He is, even if He be Connaturally in the Father, as in the sun its brightness. For thus, the Father being conceived of and being in truth Father, the Son again being and conceived of as Son, the Holy Ghost having His place with them, the number of the Holy Trinity mounts to One and the Same Godhead.

For how will God be at all conceived of as One, if Each of the Persons mentioned withdraw into a complete individuality, and, while wholly removed from Connature and Essential participation with the Other, be called God? Therefore let us conceive of Father, Son and Spirit, according to the mode of individual being, not mixing up the difference of the Persons or names in regard to That Which Each IS: but while we reserve severally to each the being and being called what He IS, and thus believe, referring them still of Nature to One Godhead, and refusing to hold a complete severance, because the Son is called the Word and Wisdom and Brightness and Express Image and Might of the Father. For He is Word and Wisdom, by reason of these being, immediately and without any intervention, of the mind and in the mind, and because of the reciprocal interpassing into one another so to say of both. For the mind is seen in word and wisdom, and word in its turn in the mind, and there is nought that intervenes, or severs the one from the other. He is called Power again, as being a quality inherent without any interval in those who have it, and that can nowise be severed from them in the manner of an accident, apart from the destruction of the subject: Express Image again, as being even connate, and unable to be severed from the essence of which it is the express image.

Hence since Either is naturally and of necessity in Other, when the Father works the Son will work, as being His Natural and Essential and Hypostatic Power. Likewise when the Son works, the Father too works, as the Source, of the Creating Word, Naturally In-existent in His Own Offspring, even as the fire too in the heat that proceeds from it.

It is clear then, that vainly has been iterated the accusation of the opponents against the Only-Begotten, who introduce Him to us as creator by having learnt, yea rather as minister too; because of the Blessed Evangelist saying, All things were made through Him and without Him, was not anything made. Much do I marvel at the unholy heretics: for whatever seems any way to undo the Dignity of the Only-Begotten and to show Him second to Him Who begat Him, according to their own view, this they hunt with much zeal, and from all sides bring to it the drugs of their own stubbornness; whatever again are healthfully and rightly said and bring the Son up to the Glory of the Father, these things they bury most surely in deep silence, as having one sole aim, to in vain revile Him Who is glorified of all the creation. For when they hear that All things were made through Him, they hotly bring on Him the name of service, dreaming that the Son is bond instead of free, and worshipper rather than Lord. But when they learn that without Him was not anything made, they do not mount up to think ought great and marvellous of Him. For since it is not in God the Father to create otherwise than by His own Offspring, Which is His Wisdom |55 and Power, the Evangelist says that nought at all was made without Him. For therefore is the Only-Begotten the Glory of God the Father (for He is glorified as Creator through the Son); for He worketh all things and bringeth into being things that are not.

And well will one conceive of the words, without Him, was not anything made, if he consider with himself what was said at the creation of man. For Let us make man, says he, in Our image after Our likeness. For here specially one can behold in the Son of a truth nought that is lowly, as in a minister according to their phrase. For God the Father does not command the Word, Make man, but as Co-with Him by Nature and His inseparably so to say In-existing Co-worker, He made Him also Partaker of His Counsel respecting man, not anticipating the knowledge that is in the Son in regard to any conception, but as Mind inseparably and apart from time manifested in the in-imaged and in-existing Word.

Let God-befitting contemplations again be above the reach of the example. Yet we say that He co-works with the Son, not conceiving as of two severally, lest there be conceived to be two gods, nor yet as though both together were one, in order that neither the Son be compressed into Father, nor again the Father into Son, but rather in such sort as if one allowed to be co-existent in the brightness from light the light whence it flashed forth: for in such examples the generator seems to be separated in idea from the generated and that which springs forth from it indivisibly; yet are both one and the same by nature, and the one in no wise separate from the other. But above this too will God again be, inasmuch as He is both Super-substantial and has nothing wholly like Him in things originate, that it should be taken as a image of the Holy Trinity, without any difference, in exactness of doctrine. But if they deem that the word, through Whom, said of the Son, can bring down His Essence from Equality and Natural likeness to the Father, so as to be minister rather than Creator, let those insane consider and come forward and make answer, what we are to conceive of the Father Himself also, and Whom we are to suppose Him too to be, seeing that He clearly receives the words through Whom in the Divine Scripture: for God, says he, is faithful, through Whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son, and Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God: and again Paul writeth to some, Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God . All these then have reference to the Person of God the Father, and no one I suppose will rush to that extreme of madness (except perchance he hold with the above mentioned), as to say that the name and fact of service, is reasonably predicated of the very glory of the Father, because the word through Whom is applied to Him too. For the Divine Scripture is sometimes indifferent in regard to its words, in no wise wronging the subject thereby, but applying to the things signified in a less proper sense both the words themselves and those whereby it deems that they are well explained. But it is well to say of those, that The glory of the Lord veileth speech. For little in truth is all might of words unto the exact exposition of the Ineffable and God-befitting glory. Wherefore one must not be offended at the meanness of the things uttered, but must rather yield supremacy, and might in tongue, and keenness of every mind, to the Divine and unutterable Nature, for thus shall we be and not in small degree pious.

"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."

(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.

For, says he, it is necessary that the magnitudes be declared, and that they thus be declared by all everywhere, "in order that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see." For if, he says, the magnitudes were not declared, the world could not have obtained consistence. These are the three tumid expressions (of these heretics), Caulacau, Saulasu, Saulasu. Saulasu, i.e., Adam, who is farthest above; Saulasau, that is, the mortal one below; Zeesar, that is, Jordan that flows upwards. This, he says, is the hermaphrodite man (present) in all. But those who are ignorant of him, call him Geryon with the threefold body-Geryon, i.e., as if (in the sense of) flowing from earth-but (whom) the Greeks by common consent (style) "celestial horn of the moon," because he mixed and blended all things in all. "For all things," he says, "were made by him, and not even one thing was made without him, and what was made in him is life." This, says he, is the life, the ineffable generation of perfect men, which was not known by preceding generations. But the passage, "nothing was made without him," refers to the formal world, for it was created without his instrumentality by the third and fourth (of the quaternion named above). For says he, this is the cup "Condy, out of which the king, while he quaffs, draws his omens." This, he says, has been discovered hid in the beauteous seeds of Benjamin.

The Phrygians, however, further assert that the father of the universe is "Amygdalus," not a tree, he says, but that he is "Amygdalus" who previously existed; and he having in himself the perfect fruit, as it were, throbbing and moving in the depth, rent his breasts, and produced his now invisible, and nameless, and ineffable child. respecting whom we shall speak. For the word "Amyxai" signifies, as it were, to burst and sever through, as he says (happens) in the case of inflamed bodies, and which have in themselves any tumour; and when doctors have cut this, they call it "Amychai." In this way, he says, the Phrygians call him "Amygdalus," from which proceeded and was born the Invisible (One), "by whom all things were made, and nothing was made without Him." And the Phrygians say that what has been thence produced is "Syrictas" (piper), because the Spirit that is born is harmonious. "For God," he says, "is Spirit; wherefore," he affirms, "neither in this mountain do the true worshippers worship, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit. For the adoration of the perfect ones," he says, "is spiritual, not carnal." The Spirit, however, he says, is there where likewise the Father is named, and the Son is there born from this Father. This, he says, is the many-named, thousand-eyed Incomprehensible One, of whom every nature-each, however, differently-is desirous. This, he says, is the word of God, which, he says, is a word of revelation of the Great Power. Wherefore it will be sealed, and hid, and concealed, lying in the habitation where lies the basis of the root of the universe, viz. Aeons, Powers, Intelligences, Gods, Angels, delegated Spirits, Entities, Nonentities, Generables, Ingenerables, Incomprehensibles, Comprehensibles, Years, Months, Days, Hours, (and) Invisible Point from which what is least begins to increase gradually. That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible-(I mean) a point-will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed, the point which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this (point) save the spiritual only. This, he says, is what has been spoken: "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard."

Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for "all things were made by Him." "When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily." And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: "Sit Thou at My right hand? " And how, again, could such an one declare: "Before Abraham was, I am? " And, "Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was? " What man could ever say, "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me? " And of what man could it be said, "He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not? " How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in another place, "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me."

Having first of all distinguished these three-God, the Beginning, and the Word-he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. "The same was in the beginning with God"-this clause discloses the order of production. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;" for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him. But "what was made in Him," says John, "is life." Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him.

The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth." And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,-He who formed the world (for the world is of all),-He who fashioned man,-He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,-He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] "For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created."

For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." David also, when he had enumerated [His] praises, subjoins by name all things whatsoever I have mentioned, both the heavens and all the powers therein: "For He commanded, and they were created; He spake, and they were made." Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, "by whom," he says, "the heavens were established, and all their power by the breath of His mouth." But that He did Himself make all things freely, and as He pleased, again David says, "But our God is in the heavens above, and in the earth; He hath made all things whatsoever He pleased." But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, "God said, Let there be light: and there was light;" and as we read in the Gospel, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;" and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all" -this man will first of all "hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love." And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.

Moses in the beginning of the history and writings of the Old Testament speaks to us of the objects of sense, and enumerates them to us at length. For, "In the beginning," he says, "God made the heaven and the earth," and then he adds, that light was created, and a second heaven and the stars, the various kinds of living creatures, and, that we may not delay by going through particulars, everything else. But this Evangelist, cutting all short, includes both these things and the things which are above these in a single sentence; with reason, because they were known to his hearers, and because he is hastening to a greater subject, and has instituted all his treatise, that he might speak not of the works but of the Creator, and Him who produced them all. And therefore Moses, though he has selected the smaller portion of the creation, (for he has spoken nothing to us concerning the invisible powers,) dwells on these things; while John, as hastening to ascend to the Creator Himself, runs by both these things, and those on which Moses was silent, having comprised them in one little saying, "All things were made by Him." And that you may not think that he merely speaks of all the things mentioned by Moses, he adds, that "without Him was not anything made that was made." That is to say, that of created things, not one, whether it be visible or intelligible was brought into being without the power of the Son.

And what is that? It is to make the sentence end at "was made," and to begin the next sentence with, "In Him was Life." What (the Evangelist) says is this, "Without Him was not anything made that was made"; whatever created thing was made, says he, was not made without Him. See you how by this short addition he has rectified all the besetting difficulties; for the saying, that "without Him was not anything made," and then the adding, "which was made," includes things cognizable by the intellect, but excludes the Spirit. For after he had said that "all things were made by Him," and "without Him was not anything made," he needed this addition, lest some one should say, "If all things were made by Him, then the Spirit also was made." "I," he replies, "asserted that whatever was made was made by Him, even though it be invisible, or incorporeal, or in the heavens. For this reason, I did not say absolutely, 'all things,' but 'whatever was made,' that is, 'created things,' but the Spirit is uncreated."

But if you think that the expression "by" is a mark of inferiority, (as making Christ an instrument,) hear him say, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands." He says of the Son what is said of the Father in His character of Creator; which he would not have said, unless he had deemed of Him as of a Creator, and yet not subservient to any. And if the expression "by Him" is here used, it is put for no other reason but to prevent any one from supposing the Son to be Unbegotten. For that in respect of the title of Creator He is nothing inferior to the Father; hear from Himself, where He saith, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." If now in the Old Testament it is said of the Son, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," His title of Creator is plain. But if you say that the Prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, even so the conclusion is the same. For Paul would not have decided that the same expression suited the Son, unless he had been very confident that between Father and Son there was an equality of honor; since it would have been an act of extremest rashness to refer what suited an incomparable Nature to a nature inferior to, and falling short of it. But the Son is not inferior to, nor falls short of, the Essence of the Father; and therefore Paul has not only dared to use these expressions concerning Him, but also others like them.

Now let us see why the statement "And without him was not anything made" is added. Some might think it superfluous to subjoin "without him was not anything made" to "all things were made through him." For if every conceivable thing has been made "through the Word," nothing has been made "without the Word." That all things have been made through the Word, however, does not now follow from the assertion that nothing has been made without the Word. It is possible that not only have all things been made through the Word but also that some things have been made by the Word.We must know, therefore, how the expression "all things" is to be understood and how "nothing" should be understood. For it is possible, if both expressions have not been made clear, to take it to mean that if all things were made through the Word, and evil and all the profusion of sin and wickedness belong to the "all things," that these too, were made through the Word. But this is a false conclusion. For … it is not surprising that all creatures have been made through the Word … but this does not now follow also for acts of sin and falling away.

So far as the meaning of "nothing" and "not being" are concerned, they will appear to be synonyms. "Not being" would be meant by "nothing," and "nothing" by "not being." The apostle indeed appears to use the expression "those things that are not" not for things that exist nowhere but for things that are wicked, considering "those things that are not" to be things that are bad. For he says, "God called those things that are not as those that are." … "Not being" and "nothing" are synonyms, and for this reason those "who are not" are "nothing," and all evil is "nothing," since it too is "not being." And evil, which is called "nothing," has been made without the Word, not being included in "all things." We have presented then to the best of our ability, what the "all things" are that have been made through the Word, and what that is which was made without him, and, because it never was, is also for this reason called "nothing."

(tom. ii. c. 8) Here too Valentinus errs, saying, that the Word supplied to the Creator the cause of the creation of the worlde. If this interpretation is true, it should have been written that all things had their existence from the Word through the Creator, not contrariwise, through the Word from the Creator. And without him was not any thing made

(Hom. iii. in div. loc.): Or thus, that thou mightest not think that the things made by the Word had a separate existence, and were not contained in the Word, he says, and without Him was not any thing made: that is, not any thing was made externally of Him; for He encircles all things, as the Preserver of all things.

(in Joh. tom. ii. c. 7) If all things were made by the Word, and in the number of all things is wickedness, and the whole influx of sin, these too were made by the Word; which is false. Now 'nothing' and 'a thing which is not,' mean the same. And the Apostle seems to call wicked things, things which are not, God calleth those things which be not, (Rom. 4:17) as though they were. All wickedness then is called nothing, forasmuch as it is made without the Word. Those who say however that the devil is not a creature of God, err. In so far as he is the devil, he is not a creature of God; but he, whose character it is to be the devil, is a creature of God. It is as if we should say a murderer is not a creature of God, when, so far as he is a man, he is a creature of God.

(tom. ii. c. 8) Valentinus excludes from the things made by the Word, all that were made in the ages which he believes to have existed before the Word. This is plainly false; inasmuch as the things which he accounts divine are thus excluded from the "all things," and what he deems wholly corrupt are properly 'all things!'

(tom. ii. c. 9) If 'the word' be taken for that which is in each man, inasmuch as it was implanted in each by the Word, which was in the beginning, then also, we commit nothing without this 'word' [reason] taking this word 'nothing' in a popular sense. For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin, when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. (John 15:22) For every excuse is withdrawn from the sinner, if, with the Word present, and enjoining what is to be done, he refuses to obey Him. Nor is the Word to be blamed on this account; any more than a master, whose discipline leaves no excuse open to a delinquent pupil on the ground of ignorance. All things then were made by the Word, not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting without reason.

Though you came from the mouth of God, Born as his Word on earth below, Yet as his Wisdom you lived Forever in the Father's heart. This Wisdom uttered made the sky, The sky and light and all besides; All by the Word's almighty power Were fashioned, for the Word was God. But when the universe was formed And ordered by unchanging laws, The Cause and architect divine In the Father's bosom still remained, Until the slow revolving years In centuries at length had passed, And he himself condescended to come Down to the world grown old in sin.… But such destruction of humankind The heart of Christ could not endure; And lest his Father's handiwork, Unvindicated, should be lost, He clothed himself in mortal flesh, That by arising from the tomb He might unlock the chains of death And bring man to his Father's house. This is your natal day, on which The high Creator sent you forth, And gave to you a form of clay, Uniting flesh with his own Word.

Do not abhor us who have made this attainment, but, repudiating the demons, follow the one God. "All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made." If there is poison in natural productions, this has supervened through our sinfulness. I am able to show the perfect truth of these things; only do you hearken, and he who believes will understand.

If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all.

I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find.

Then that the Word was produced, "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made." Indeed, "by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth.

In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word.

For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that "all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made; " as, again, in another place (it is said), "By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit" -that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God which "strengthened the heavens; " "by which all things were made," "and without which nothing was made." Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit.

But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones-I mean the Word of God. "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made." Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.

For the Father acts by mind and thought; whilst the Son, who is in the Father's mind and thought, gives effect and form to what He sees. Thus all things were made by tile Son, and without Him was not anything made.

But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit.

Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, "[The Word] was with God in the beginning," and "All things were made through him." By saying this, he has opposed himself to "all things made." He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with "in the beginning was," and its opposite, "all things were made through him." Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words "In the beginning was," clearly asserting his eternity.

"Do not consider," he says, "the Word as something that dissolves into the air and vanishes, but honor Him as the Creator of all things both intelligible and sensible." But the Arians again insistently say: "Just as we say that a door is made by a saw, even though it is merely a tool and another—the craftsman—was moving the tool, so also through the Son all things received their being, not as though He Himself is the Creator, but as a tool, just as the saw is there, while the Creator is God the Father, and He uses the Son as a tool. Therefore the Son is a creature, created for the purpose that through Him all things might receive their being, just as a saw is fashioned for the purpose of performing carpentry work with it." So prattles the wicked assembly of Arius. What then shall we say to them simply and directly? If the Father, as you say, created the Son for the purpose of having Him as an instrument for the accomplishment of creation, then the Son will be lower in honor than creation. For just as in the case when a saw serves as an instrument, that which is fashioned by it is more honorable than it, since the saw was made for the products and not they for the saw, so too creation will be more honorable than the Only-Begotten, for it was for creation's sake, as they say, that the Father created Him, as though God would not have brought forth the Only-Begotten from Himself had He not intended to create all things. What is more insane than these words? "Why then," they say, "did the evangelist not say 'this Word created all things,' but used the preposition 'through'?" So that you would not think that the Son is unbegotten, without beginning, and opposed to God — for this reason he said that the Father created all things by the Word. For imagine that some king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son. Just as one who says that the city was built by the king's son does not reduce the king's son to a slave, but shows that this son also has a father and is not alone, so too here the evangelist, having said that all things were created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, employed Him as a mediator in creation — not as one who is lesser, but on the contrary, as one equal in power and able to carry out so great a commission. I will also tell you this: if the preposition "through" troubles you, and you wish to find some passage in Scripture saying that the Word Himself created all things, then listen to David: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands" (Ps. 102:26). Do you see? He did not say "through You the heavens were made and the earth was founded," but "You founded," and "the heavens are the work of Your hands." And that David says this about the Only-Begotten and not about the Father, you can learn both from the apostle, who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8–10), and from the psalm itself. For having said that the Lord looked down upon the earth — to hear the groaning, to set free those put to death, and to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion — to whom else does David point but to the Son of God? For He looked down upon the earth — whether we understand by it the ground on which we walk, or our nature that has become earthly, or our flesh, according to the saying "you are dust" (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself. He also set us free — us who were bound by the chains of our own sins, the children of the slain Adam and Eve — and proclaimed the name of the Lord in Zion. For standing in the temple, He taught about His Father, as He Himself says: "I have revealed Your name to the people" (John 17:6). To whom do these actions belong — to the Father or to the Son? All to the Son, for He in His teaching proclaimed the name of the Father. Having said this, the blessed David adds also: "In the beginning You, [O Lord], laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." Is it not evident that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument? If again the preposition "through" in your opinion introduces some diminishment, then what will you say when Paul uses it of the Father? For "God is faithful," he says, "by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son" (1 Cor. 1:9). Does he here make the Father an instrument? And again, Paul an apostle "by the will of God" (1 Cor. 1:1). But this is sufficient, and we must return again to the place from which we began. All things came into being through Him. Moses, speaking of the visible creation, explained nothing to us about the intelligible creatures. But the Evangelist, having embraced everything in a single word, says: "all things were made by Him" — both the visible and the intelligible. Since the evangelist said that the Word created all things, lest anyone think that It also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "all things were made by Him." What "all things"? — created things. It is as if he said that whatever exists in created nature, all of it received its being from the Word. But the Spirit does not belong to created nature; therefore He did not receive His being from Him either. Thus, without the power of the Word nothing received being that received being, that is, whatever was in created nature.

(in loc.) The Arians are wont to say, that all things are spoken of as made by the Son, in the sense in which we say a door is made by a saw, viz. as an instrument; not that He was Himself the Maker. And so they talk of the Son as a thing made, as if He were made for this purpose, that all things might be made by Him. Now we to the inventors of this lie reply simply: If, as ye say, the Father had created the Son, in order to make use of Him as an instrument, it would appear that the Son were less honourable than the things made, just as things made by a saw are more noble than the saw itself; the saw having been made for their sake. In like way do they speak of the Father creating the Son for the sake of the things made, as if, had He thought good to create the universe, neither would He have produced the Son. What can be more insane than such language? They argue, however, why was it not said that the Word made all things, instead of the preposition by1 being used? For this reason, that thou mightest not understand an Unbegotten and Unoriginate Son, a rival Godd.

After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as it can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows his power with respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with respect to man. As to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.

The first clause, All things were made through him, is used to show three things concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, "He was in the beginning with God." Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made through him. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, "Whatever the Lord wills he does, in heaven and on earth." Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father.

Secondly, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, "In the beginning was the Word," as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, All things were made through him. For if all things were made through the Word, then time was also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made through him, there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore they [the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.

Thirdly, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature.

And so in saying All things were made through him, you have, according to Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according to Augustine.

Here we must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood All things were made through him to mean that the Word proferred to the Creator the cause of his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father's creating the world came from the Word. This leads to the position of those who said that God created the world because of some exterior cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), "The Lord made all things for himself." The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making things, he would not have said, All things were made through him, but on the contrary, that all things were made through the Creator by the Word.

Secondly, we must avoid the error of Origen. He said that the Holy Spirit was included among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature. And this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit has the same glory and substance and dignity as the Father and the Son, according to the words of Matthew (28:19), "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And, "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" (1 Jn 5:7). Thus when the Evangelist says, All things were made through him, one should not understand "all things" absolutely, but in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All things that were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if "all things" were taken absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him; and this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor anything substantial with the Father was made through the Word.

Thirdly, we must avoid another of Origen's errors. For he said that all things were made through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father. But it is clear from many places in Scripture that the preposition "through" (per) does not signify inferiority in the thing which is its grammatical object, i.e., in the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, "God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son" (1 Cor 1:9). If he "through" whom something is done has a superior, then the Father has a superior. But this is false. Therefore, the preposition "through" does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said to have been made through him.

To explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be made through someone, the preposition "through" (per) denotes some sort of causality in its object with respect to an operation; but not always the same kind of causality. For since an operation, according to our manner of signifying, is considered to be medial between the one acting and the thing produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, as issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, as terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition "through" sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it issues from the one operating: but sometimes as terminated in the thing which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing from the one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or formal cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal cause when fire is heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the fire's heating. We have a movent or efficient cause in cases where secondary agents act through primary agents; as when I say that the bailiff acts through the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff's acting. This is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as though the Word were the cause of the maker's production of all things. The preposition "through" implies the causality of the operation as terminated in the thing produced when what is signified through that causality is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation precisely as terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, "The carpenter is making a bench through [by means of] a hatchet," the hatchet is not the cause of the carpenter's operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench's being made by the one acting.

And so when it says that All things were made through him, if the "through" denotes the efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this sense the Father does nothing through the Son, but he does all things through himself, as has been said. But if the "through" denotes a formal cause, as when the Father operates through his wisdom, which is his essence, he operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say, "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24), then by appropriation we say that the Father does all things through the Son, i.e., through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the phrase "from whom all things," is appropriated to the Father; "through whom all things," is appropriated to the Son; and "in whom all things," is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if the "through" denotes causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement, "The Father does all things through the Son," is not [mere] appropriation but proper to the Word, because the fact that he is a cause of creatures is had from someone else, namely the Father, from whom he has being.

However, it does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father, although whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the nature of an instrument. For when I say that someone works through a power received from another, this can be understood in two ways. In one way, as meaning that the power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically one and the same power; and in this way the one operating through a power received from another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it. Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son, through which the Son works, when it is said that "the Father works through the Son," one should not on that account say that the Son is inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, rather, in those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one. And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the Father's working, and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father, as Origen raved.

If we carefully consider the words, All things were made through him, we can clearly see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes something must preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of the thing made: as the form preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes nothing except through the conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in The Trinity, that the Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things. Thus it is clear that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him.

It should be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses enumerates individually in God's production of things, saying, "And God said, 'Let there be light'" (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, saying, All things were made through him. The reason is that Moses wished to teach the emanation of creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a knowledge of the Creator himself.

Then he says, and without him nothing was made. This is the second clause which some have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, The Nature of the Good. Because of John's manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using "nothing" in an affirmative sense; as though nothing was something which was made without the Word. And so they claimed that this clause was added by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not made by the Word. They say that the Evangelist, having said that All things were made through him, added and without him nothing was made. It was as if to say: I say that all things were made through him in such a way that still something was made without him, that is, the "nothing".

Three heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says, a multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The first principles he postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the Father, and Silence. And from these proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, Mind and Truth; and from these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two other principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a total of thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the man Christ and the Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to the issuing forth of the Word. And so he said that because the Evangelist had stated that all things were made through him, then, lest anyone think that those previous eras had been effected through the Word, he added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had existed in them. All of these John calls "nothing," because they transcend human reason and cannot be grasped by the mind.

The second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two opposing principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He said that after John had stated that All things were made through him, then, lest it be thought that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called "nothing" because their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.

The third error is that of those who claim that by "nothing" we should understand the devil, according to Job (18:15), "May the companions of him who is not dwell in his house." And so they say that all things except the devil were made through the Word. In this way they explain, without him nothing was made, that is, the devil.

All these three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking "nothing" in a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that "nothing" is not used here in an affirmative, but in a merely negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made through him.

Perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be understood negatively, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that All things were made through him, seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not something that was not made through the Word.

The answer to this is that, according to many expositors, this clause was added in many ways for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word. And so after he had said, All things were made through him, namely, those that Moses listed, the Evangelist then added, and without him nothing was made, as though he were saying: None of the things which exist, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, the Apostle also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and invisible, were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention of invisible things because Moses had made no express mention of them on account of the lack of erudition of that people, who could not be raised above the things of sense.

Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, "The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed" (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, All things were made through him, John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, were made through him. So lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, and without him nothing was made. As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And so, according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total causality, and serves, as it were, to complete his previous statement.

According to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, All things were made through him, it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality. For that reason he added, and without him nothing was made. As if to say: All things were made through him, but in such a way that the Father made all things with him. For "without him" is equivalent to saying, "not alone," so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom all things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It is as if he said: Without him, with another working, i.e., with the Father, nothing was made, as it says, "I was with him forming all things" (Prv 8:30).

In a certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, "The spiritual voice of the eagle," we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says there that the Greek has thoris where the Latin has sine (without). Now thoris is the same as "outside" or "outside of." It is as if he had said: All things were made through him in such a way that outside him nothing was made. And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in the Word, as stated in Hebrews (1:3), "He sustains all things by his powerful word." Now there are certain things that do not need their producer except to bring them into existence, since after they have been produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the part of the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into existence, but it continues to exist without any further action on the part of the builder. So lest anyone suppose that all things were made through the Word in such a way that he is merely the cause of their production and not of their continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, and without him nothing was made, i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he encompasses all things, preserving them.

This clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a way that "nothing" indicates sin. Accordingly, because All things were made through him might be interpreted as including evil and sin, he added, and without him nothing, i.e., sin, was made. For just as art is not the principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through itself the cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father, full of living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in things, particularly of the evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil. The per se cause of this evil is the will of the creature, either a man or an angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its nature. One who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his will. So in such cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but his will is. Consequently, evil is a defect of the will and not of any art. And so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is nothing.

So then, this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of the Word in the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the purity of his causality, because he is so the cause of good as not to be the cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a number of others.

"All things," then, brethren, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." But how were all things made by Him? "That, which was made, in Him is life." It can also be read thus "That, which was made in Him, is life;" and if we so read it, everything is life. For what is there that was not made in Him? For He is the Wisdom of God, and it is said in the Psalm, "In Wisdom hast Thou made all things." If, then, Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Psalm says, "In Wisdom hast Thou made all things:" as all things were made by Him, so all things were made in Him. If, then, all things were made in Him, dearly beloved brethren, and that, which was made in Him, is life, both the earth is life and wood is life. We do indeed say wood is life, but in the sense of the wood of the cross, whence we have received life. A stone, then, is life. It is not seemly so to understand the passage, as the same most vile sect of the Manichaeans creep stealthily on us again, and say that a stone has life, that a wall has a soul, and a cord has a soul, and wool, and clothing. For so they are accustomed to talk in their raving; and when they have been driven back and refuted, they in some sort bring forward Scripture, saying, "Why is it said, `That, which was made in Him, is life'?" For if all things were made in Him, all things are life. Be not carried away by them; read thus "That which was made;" here make a short pause, and then go on, "in Him is life." What is the meaning of this? The earth was made, but the very earth that was made is not life; but there exists spiritually in the Wisdom itself a certain reason by which the earth was made: this is life.

As far as I can, I shall explain my meaning to you, beloved. A carpenter makes a box. First he has the box in design; for if he had it not in design, how could he produce it by workmanship? But the box in theory is not the very box as it appears to the eyes. It exists invisibly in design, it will be visible in the work. Behold, it is made in the work; has it ceased to exist in design? The one is made in the work, and the other remains which exists in design; for that box may rot, and another be fashioned according to that which exists in design. Give heed, then, to the box as it is in design, and the box as it is in fact, The actual box is not life, the box in design is life; because the soul of the artificer, where all these things are before they are brought forth, is living. So, dearly beloved brethren, because the Wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things which are made through this design itself are not forthwith life, but whatever has been made is life in Him. You see the earth, there is an earth in design; you see the sky, there is a sky in design; you see the sun and the moon, these also exist in design: but externally they are bodies, in design they are life. Understand, if in any way you are able, for a great matter has been spoken. If I am not great by whom it is spoken, or through whom it is spoken, still it is from a great authority. For these things are not spoken by me who am small; He is not small to whom I refer in saying these things. Let each one take in what he can, and to what extent he can; and he who is not able to take in any of it, let him nourish his heart, that he may become able. How is he to nourish it? Let him nourish it with milk, that he may come to strong meat. Let him not leave Christ born through the flesh till he arrive at Christ born of the Father alone, the God-Word with God, through whom all things were made; for that is life, which in Him is the light of men.

For this follows: "and the life was the light of men;" and from this very life are men illuminated. Cattle are not illuminated, because cattle have not rational minds capable of seeing wisdom. But man was made in the image of God, and has a rational mind, by which he can perceive wisdom. That life, then, by which all things were made, is itself the light; yet not the light of every animal, but of men. Wherefore a little after he says, "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." By that light John the Baptist was illuminated; by the same light also was John the Evangelist himself illuminated. He was filled with that light who said, "I am not the Christ; but He cometh after me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose." By that light he had been illuminated who said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Therefore that life is the light of men.

(in 1 Joh.) The Evangelist having said that every creature was made by the Word, lest perchance any one might think that His will was changeable, as though He willed on a sudden to make a creature, which from eternity he had not made; he took care to show that, though a creature was made in time, in the Wisdom of the Creator it had been from eternity arranged what and when He should create.

Scripture speaks of Him who is the Exemplar, by whom every creature lives in the eternal forms, "What was made in Him was life." For it lives through knowing and loving; and anyone who denies this denies eternal predestination. For God knew the creature from all eternity and loves it, since He made it for glory and grace.

"What was made, in him was life." Here the third condition is noted, namely that he is a foreknowing principle, because all things are in him before they are made, and in him they live, just as a chest in the mind of the craftsman. Whence Augustine says that the Son is "the art full of all living reasons"; Ecclesiasticus chapter twenty-three: "To the Lord God, before they were created, all things are known: so also after their completion he beholds all things." Therefore the reasons flourish in him, because they are not changed: James chapter one: "With him there is no change nor shadow of alteration"; and every change is a kind of death.

"And the life was the light of men." Here the fourth condition is touched upon, which is that he provides knowledge to others; therefore he is called the light of men, because he illuminates men and makes them see: whence in the Psalm: "The light of your countenance is signed upon us, O Lord." Without which light there is no seeing, as Augustine says, because just as the eye does not see unless it is illuminated by corporeal light, so the intellect does not see unless it is illuminated by the most spiritual light. And although he provides knowledge to all, he does not however provide knowledge of himself to all, because sinners know through him and yet do not comprehend him.

It is asked: "What was made, in him was life." Against this: All things were made in him; therefore all things are life; in the Psalm: "You have made all things in wisdom"; therefore a stone lives. It must be said that Chrysostom explains that passage thus: "What was made," connecting it to the prior clause, so that the period falls thus: "without him was made nothing that was made," and the word "that" is taken implicatively. And then follows: "In him was life"; and the objection ceases. Hilary however reads it thus: "What was made in him" — here is the period — namely with respect to his humanity, such as the incarnation, passion, and resurrection, "was life," speaking causally, that is, the cause of our life and salvation. Ambrose reads it thus: "What was made in him who is life," that is, in him who is life — the construction is appositive — "was," namely in God's foreknowledge, before it came to be; and it is a similar manner of speaking to: "You have made all things in wisdom." Augustine explains it more elegantly than all of them: "What was made, in him was life"; because it had in him an exemplar and a living reason; which reason is called living because it is spiritual, not material; because it is unchangeable, not variable; because it is eternal, not corruptible. And this is the meaning of life; for life is a spiritual and continuous act, flowing from a being that is at rest and everlasting.

Because not all obey the Gospel, and that truth is above reason; therefore divine wisdom has provided an eternal testimony, which indeed is the book of life. Now this book of life, of itself and in itself, explicitly and expressly gives irrefragable testimony to the eternal Trinity to those who with unveiled face see God in the homeland, but on the way it gives testimony according to the influence of light, of which the soul is capable in the state of the way — for as it is said in John 1: The life was the light of men, because this book of life is the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Now it illuminates in a twofold manner, namely through the implanted light and through the infused light, from the concurrence of which lights the habit of faith is elicited as an argument for believing that God is triune, and consequently every truth that pertains to the worship of the Christian religion.

By the authority of Scripture, John 1: "What was made, in Him was life": therefore all things that were made previously existed in God who knows them; therefore either through likeness or through truth; but not through truth, since nothing yet existed; therefore through likeness. For God knows things through the eternal reasons, which are the exemplary likenesses of things, most perfectly representative and expressive, and essentially identical with God himself. Now these eternal reasons are not the true essences and quiddities of things, since they are not other than the Creator; but creature and Creator necessarily have different essences: and therefore it is necessary that they be exemplar forms, and thereby representative likenesses of the things themselves; and therefore they are reasons of knowing, because knowledge, by the very fact that it is knowledge, implies an assimilation and expression between the knower and the knowable.

But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life—the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the 'greatness' of space and the 'greatness' of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference between Biological life and Spiritual life is so important that I am going to give them two distinct names. The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food, etc., is Bios. The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity, and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe.

Further release from evils is the beginning of salvation. We then alone, who first have touched the confines of life, are already perfect; and we already live who are separated from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: "For that which is in Him is life." "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life." Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak.

He belies, therefore, the Lord, or rather he is cheated of his own hope who believes not God; and he believes not who does not what He has commanded. And what? Does not he, who denies the Lord, deny himself? For does he not rob his Master of His authority, who deprives himself of his relation to Him? He, then, who denies the Saviour, denies life; for "the light was life." He does not term those men of little faith, but faithless and hypocrites, who have the name inscribed on them, but deny that they are really believers. But the faithful is called both servant and friend. So that if one loves himself, he loves the Lord, and confesses to salvation that he may save his soul.

CHAPTER VII. That the Son is by Nature Light and therefore not originate, but of the Essence of God the Father, as Very Light from Very Light.

And the Life was the light of men.

In these words too does the blessed Evangelist show us that the Son is by Nature God and Essentially Heir of the good things of Him Who begat Him. For having taught before that being by Nature Life, He was in all things that were made by Him, holding them together and quickening them and granting them of His unutterable Power to pass from not being into being, and preserving them when made, he advances to another train of ideas, from all sides minded to lead us by the hand unto the apprehension of the truth, as was right. Therefore in things made was the Word, as Life. But since the rational living creature among them on earth recipient both of mind and knowledge and participant of the wisdom that is from God, is man, needs does the Spirit-bearer show us clearly the Word as Bestower of the wisdom that is in man, that God the Father may be conceived of being all things in all through the Son;----life in them that lack life, light again and life in them that lack life and light. And therefore he says, And the Life was the light of men, that is, God the Word Who quickeneth all things, the Life in all that are, both enlighteneth the rational creature, and lavisheth understanding upon those who are recipient of understanding: that so that may be kept and have full force that is said to the creature, for what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For nought of wealth from itself hath the originate and created nature, but whatever it is seen to possess, this is surely of God, Who bestoweth both being, and |63 how one ought to be. And well was the was put of the life, that it might signify in every way the eternal Being of the Word, and might cut off the triflings of those void of understanding, who introduce to us the Son, of the things that are not, which manifestly warreth against the whole of Divine Scripture.

In regard then of the Eternity of the Word with the Father;----having already sufficiently gone through it both in the present Book, and in that called the Thesaurus, we deem that we may be silent. But what the mind of the words before us introduces, this with all readiness examining to the extent of our power, we will be diligent to profit both ourselves and those who shall hereafter read it, God again opening to us both doors and a mouth to our words.

What then will the fighter against Christ say to us, when he learns that the Life, that is, the ever-living God the Word, is the Light of men? What arguments will he sling at us, when we come forward and say, If the Son be not by Nature God, and Fruit of the Essence That begat Him, if He have not beamed forth to us Very Light from Very Light, but Himself too being from without is subordinated according to your unlearning: He is connatural with things made, and will in no wise escape being originate. How then, O ye filled full of all folly, doth He illuminate, they receive illumination from Him? For is not that which illuminates one thing, that which is illuminated another? but this is plain and clear to every one. For if we grant that they are the same, as regards kind of essence and the mode of existence, what is there more in that which has power of illumining, what again less in that which lacketh light? For whatsoever cometh, will come to both of them, and apart to each, and that which is in need of light will be light, and the light will not differ from the illumined. But great is the confusion of ideas manifest herein, and necessity of reason severs each of the things named and puts in its own proper nature the supplier herein apart from the supplied. Not therefore connatural with things made is the Son, but He will abide in the Essence of the Father, being Very Light of Very Light.

And it were nothing hard, by transferring the method of reasoning in the foregoing, which we made concerning the Son being by Nature Life, and demonstrated that He is Other than the things wherein He is, to give clear proof in this chapter too.----But in order not to leave the labour of this to others, nor to appear overmastered by sloth, I myself will endeavour, so far as I can, to transfer the form of argument used in the foregoing reasonings. For as in those, He being Life by Nature, is shown to be Other than those wherein He is, so here too, said to be and in verity being the Light of men, He will be found to be Other than things that lack light and partake thereof; as we shall see more clearly in the following.

Proofs by demonstrations, that the Son who illumineth is Other than the creation that is illumined.

If the Word was in the things spoken of, as Light by Nature, immingling Himself by means of participation in things that are, He is then Other than the things wherein He is believed to be. But He That is by Nature Other than what the creation participant of Him and by Him illumined is, how will He not needs be the God Who is over all?

Another. If the fighter against God says that the Son being by Nature Light is in things originate as originate, illumining things that lack light:----first of all He will be conceived of as being in Himself, then besides, He will Himself be partaker of Himself and Light, if being in things originate, He one and the same be conceived to be of them. But he that has applied his heart unto wisdom, as it is written, sees surely how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who illuminateth them is by participation in things originate, He will not Himself be among the participants and illumined, but Other therefore than they. And if so, He is then not originate, but as Light by Nature and God in things that lack Light.

Another. If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but being from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is then originate and created: how then is He in things made, enlightening them? or what special shall we find any longer in the Divine Essence? or how does the most wise Psalmist say as something marvellous of Him Who is by Nature God, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if the Son being originate illumines all things, the creation will illumine itself, having no wise need thereto of God its Maker. There is then nothing more in God than in the creature, and it inworks no less than God could do. But this is absurd. The Son then is not originate, but God rather, and therefore Light by Nature, as is the Father.

Another of the same. If the Son being the Light of God the Father (as is said, In Thy Light shall we see Light and, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth), is originate and brought into being, there is no longer ought to hinder, by equal analogy, all things originate from being called the Light of God the Father. For if the nature of things created at all admits this, it will be in potential common to them all, and not the own property of the One Son. But this is absurd: for to the Son Alone will it pertain to be called and to be the Light of God the Father. Not therefore originate is He, but Light, as God from God Who illumineth through Him things lacking light.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Light is not of the Essence of the Father, but being from without is subordinated, according to the uninstructed speech of the fighters against God, it follows that He is connatural and kin to things created, as having forsooth fallen away from the Divine Essence. How then is He called and is Light, but of the holy Baptist it is said, He was not the Light, albeit the blessed Baptist is light in potential, and not he alone, if it be once granted that the Son being originate, can be by Nature Light? For that which has once had place in the nature, is I suppose common to each that partakes of such nature, according to the law of consequence. But John was not Light, the Son Light. Other therefore by Nature is He and not connatural with things made.

Another of the same. If the Son being by Nature Light is originate and created, as not possessing forsooth the being of the Essence of God the Father, as some surmise, the nature of things originate will admit of being and being called light; it will be altogether light according to the law of potential. For that which has in its nature to be anything, will I suppose surely be so, even if it have not yet been. Since then the being light is common to the nature of things originate, and the property in aloneness of none, why in vain does the Son vaunt of Himself, saying, I am the Light? for He ought I suppose to say, I am with you the Light. But since He puts it about Himself Alone as His own proper good, joining to Himself no one else, He clearly classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of God the Father, whereto belongs the being by Nature Light..

Another. That which is participate of light is not in its own right the Light; for it is clearly one thing in another. If then the Son be by participation in things originate, as Light; He will be other than those that partake of Him and lack Light. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking, as things originate, to be illumined by another: it remains therefore that He is God and able to illuminate. If so, He will be conceived of also as sprung of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than the True God.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we behold God and the creature, and nought else besides. For whatever faileth of being by Nature God, is wholly originate, and whatever escapeth the category of being made, is wholly and entirely within the limits of Divinity. Since then we have established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from being of the Essence of God the Father, how He can illumine as Light, seeing the Divine Nature retaineth this as Its own, and yields it to none else. But if the Son being originate, can be also Light, the grace of this excellence will surely overtake all things originate, and all will be by nature light. What further need then have they of participation with the Son, or what more will they gain hence, having themselves too the being by |67 nature light, even as the Son hath it in them? But the creature does need the Illuminator, not having this of its own. God then by Nature is the Son, and therefore Light, as able to illumine things that lack Light.

Another. The Son being by Nature Light, is either Other than the creature, in regard that is of the mode of being, or connatural with it. If then He be cognate and consubstantial, vainly, as it seems, did He come to us saying, I am come a Light into the world; for the creation has of its own itself also the being light: but light is impartici-pate of light, that it may be understood to be light. But if He be not connatural, but the creature lack light to whom belongs, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? needs will the Son escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good. For the creature will not be by nature light, but rather lacking and participate of light.

Another. If nought be participate of itself and the creature partake of the Son as Light: He is not a creature, nor yet the creature Light, which the Son is.

Another. If to illumine be one thing, to be illumined another, as action and passion, and the Son illumines, the creature is illumined; therefore not the same is Son and creature, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

CHAPTER VI. That the Son is by Nature Life and therefore not originate, but of the Essence of God the Father.

That which was made, in it was Life.

Yet doth the Blessed Evangelist make to us his discourse concerning God the Word, and he seemeth to me profitably to go through all that pertains to Him by Nature, that he may both put to shame the outrages of the heretics, and may fortify those who would fain excel in right faith, with reasonings thereunto tending, not providing from words of worldly wisdom unpersuasion, but in demonstration of the Spirit marvelling at the beauty of the truth.

What he would then teach through the words before us, is this. He showed us just now that the Son is by Nature Maker and Creator, saying that all things were made by Him and that without Him not so much as one thing was called into being. But since on the creation He bestows not only to be called into being, but also holds it together when made through Himself, immingling in some way Himself with those who have not by their own nature eternity of being, and becoming life to those that are, that having become they may abide, and that each may be preserved according to its own limit of nature;----needs does he say, That which was made, in it was life. Not only, says he, were all things made by Him, but also whatever was made, in it was the Life, that is, the Only-Begotten Word of God, the Beginning and Subsistence of all things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly and infernal. For Himself being the by-Nature Life, bestows manifoldly on things that are, being and life and motion, not in any way of partition and change passing into each one of things that are by nature distinct: but their |58 nature, viewed by itself, is variously fashioned by the ineffable Power and Wisdom of the Creator, while One is the Life of all passing into each, in such sort as befits it, and it is able to partake thereof. But since that which is brought from not being into being must needs also decay, and that which has beginning surely hasteth unto its end (for to the Divine and All-superior Nature Alone beseemeth the being preceded by no beginning and being free from ending): the Creator wisely deviseth for the weakness that is in things made, and contriveth for them by His skill an eternity. For the perpetual succession unto each of its like, and the natural progression of things connatural or kin unto one another looking ever towards onward course, make the creation ever-visible and ever-co-enduring with God its Maker. And this (contrivance) is that every one of things that are, soweth seed in itself after its kind and after its likeness, according to the unspeakable sentence of its Creator. In all then was the Life; for this is our subject. But, excellent sir, may one with reason say to the heretic warring against the truth, what will you say to this too, when you hear him who bears within him the Spirit say, that in all things that were made was the Life, that is, the Word That is in the beginning? Will you dare to say now too, that the Son is not of the Essence of God the Father, that He may be deemed of as originate and created? How then will one not cry out against thine unlearning, O thou, and that with justice? For if in things that were made was the Word, as Life by Nature, immingling Himself by participation with things that are, He is then Other than those wherein He is believed to be. But He being by Nature Other than what the creation is, how will He not be the God over all? But if you remain shameless, and cease not to imagine that originate is the Son Who is in things made, as Life:----first of all He will be conceived of as being somewhat in Himself, then besides. He will Himself be partaker of Himself 5, and |59 Life, if being in things made, He be conceived to be Himself too one of them. But the fighter against God sees surely himself too, how great the absurdity of thinking thus. Therefore if the Word Who quickens them is by participation in things originate, He will not be Himself too among the participators, but other than they. And if so, not originate, but in them as by Nature Life.

This again we shall see by the subjoined considerations.

Thoughts or arguments.

If the Son be not of the Essence of God the Father, but from without He have subordinated Him according to them, He is originate and made. How then does He quicken all things, Who is among things made? Or what distinction shall we find any longer in the Divine Nature? or how does the most wise Paul say, as something admirable of Him That is by Nature God, Who quickeneth all things? For if the Son being originate, quickeneth all things, the creation quickeneth itself, in no wise needing thereto God its Maker. There is then nothing in God more than in the creation; For it inworketh not less than God can do. But this is absurd. Not originate then is the Son, but God and therefore by Nature Life also.

Another. The Psalmist marvelleth exceedingly and that with reason at the Divine Nature, and in particular attributeth to It a most fair dignity saying, For with Thee is the Fountain of life. But if the Father have set the Son below Him, and have Him not of His own Nature, and He even being so, quickens things originate and is by Nature Life as quickening, why vainly strives the Psalmist saying that the fountain of life is with God Alone? For the nature of things originate also is recipient of this, if the Son, albeit not of the Divine Essence according to the uncounsel of some, quickens. But this is absurd. Therefore Life by Nature is the Son, as God of God, and Life of Life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life be originate and created, as not having His Being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their fantasy, the nature of things originate will be recipient of being and being called life, and |60 all things will be life in potential, even if they have not yet the exercise of the thing itself. For that which has the natural power of being ought, will surely be so I ween, even if it be not so as yet; for it has the power inherent in its nature. When then the being life is common to the creature, the special and alone prerogative of none, why vainly does the Son vaunt of Himself, I am the Life? for He should, I suppose, have rather said, I am along with you the life. This would I suppose have been truer, if being indeed originate He is Life too. But since He puts about Himself Alone as His special good the being Life, it is at length clear that He classes Himself, not with things originate, but with the Divine Essence of the Father, whereto the being Life also pertains.

Another. That which is participate of life is not in its own right life, for it is clearly in it as other than itself. If then the Son is by participation in things originate as Life, He will be other than the things that are participate of Him and lack life. Therefore not originate is He, nor seeking to be quickened by another. He is therefore God as quickening; but if so, He will be confessedly of the Essence of the Father, if we worship One God, and serve none other than Him Who is.

Another. Accurately testing the nature of things that are, we see God and the creation and nought else besides. For whatever falleth short of being God by Nature, that is surely originate; and whatever escapeth the catalogue of creation, will surely be within the limits of Deity. Since then we have well established this, let them tell us who thrust forth the Son from the Essence of God the Father, how He can quicken as Life, seeing that the Divine Nature has this as its own property, and yields it to none else. But if being originate He can be Life also, the grace of the excellence will surely overtake all things that are originate, and all will be by nature life. What need will they have therefore of participation of the Son, or what more will they gain hence? for they too possess the being by nature life. But this is not true, but they partake of necessity as needing life, of the Son. Alone then is the Only-Begotten by Nature Life, and therefore will He not be reckoned among things originate, but will mount up unto the Nature of Him Who begat Him: for Life by Nature is the Father too.

Another. The Son being by Nature Life, is either Other than the creation, I mean by nature, or con-natural with it. If then He be connatural and consubstantial, how will He not lie in saying, I am the Bread of Life Which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world? for the creation hath from its own the being life, but life is imparticipate of life, that it may show itself life. But if He is not connatural, He will also escape being originate, withdrawing from the creation together with Himself His own proper good also. For the creation will not be by nature Life, but rather lacking and participate of life.

Another. If the Son being by Nature Life is connatural with things made, by reason of not being of the Essence of God the Father, according to their speech, wherefore does the blessed Psalmist say that the heavens shall perish, and shall wax old like a garment: but to Him did he attribute His own proper prerogative, crying aloud, But Thou art the Same and Thy years shall have no end? For either He will perish and fail along with us, as connatural, and will no longer be conceived of as Life, or our natural connection with Him will draw up us too to be ever the same and to unfailing number of years. But verily He shall be ever the same, and we shall fail: He is therefore not originate as we; but since He is of the Life by Nature He will also quicken as Life the things that lack life.

Another. If nought is participate of itself, but the creation partakes of the Son as Life; He is not the creation, nor yet is the creation Life, which the Son is.

Another. If to quicken is one thing, to be quickened another, as action and passion, and the Son quickens, the creation is quickened: therefore not the same is Son and creation, since neither is the inworker with the inwrought.

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.

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.

Many read this inaccurately because they add without any punctuation, "that which has been made in him was life." The correct statement is "All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made," meaning that that which has been made without him has not been made. … Now, if all things were made through him, is the Father, on that account, excluded from creation, or Holy Spirit, and has the Son alone worked? Because the Evangelist had said, "All things were made through him," lest he take away creation from the Holy Spirit and the Father, he added, "And without him was made nothing that has been made." When he says, "without him was made nothing," he reveals that another has made but has made nothing without him.

John having spoken of the work of creation, that "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," goes on to speak concerning His Providence, where he saith, "In Him was Life." That no one may doubt how so many and so great things were "made by Him," he adds, that "In Him was Life." For as with the fountain which is the mother of the great deeps, however much you take away you nothing lessen the fountain; so with the energy of the Only-Begotten, however much you believe has been produced and made by it, it has become no whit the less. Or, to use a more familiar example, I will instance that of light, which the Apostle himself added immediately, saying, "And the Life was the Light." As then light, however many myriads it may enlighten, suffers no diminution of its own brightness; so also God, before commencing His work and after completing it, remains alike indefectible, nothing diminished, nor wearied by the greatness of the creation.

Nay, if need were that ten thousand, or even an infinite number of such worlds be created, He remains the same, sufficient for them all not merely to produce, but also to control them after their creation. For the word "Life" here refers not merely to the act of creation, but also to the providence (engaged) about the permanence of the things created; it also lays down beforehand the doctrine of the resurrection, and is the beginning of these marvelous good tidings. Since when "life" has come to be with us, the power of death is dissolved; and when "light" has shone upon us, there is no longer darkness, but life ever abides within us, and death cannot overcome it.

First then, the Evangelist hath instructed us respecting the creation, after that he tells us of the goods relating to the soul which He supplied to us by His coming; and these he has darkly described in one sentence, when he says, "And the Life was the Light of men." He does not say, "was the light of the Jews," but universally "of men": nor did the Jews only, but the Greeks also, come to this knowledge, and this light was a common proffer made to all. "Why did he not add 'Angels,' but said, 'of men'?" Because at present his discourse is of the nature of men, and to them he came bearing glad tidings of good things.

(Hom. v. [iv.] in Joan. c. 1, 2) Or to give an other explanation. We will not put the stop at without Him was not any thing made, as the heretics do. For they wishing to prove the Holy Ghost a creature, read, That which was made in Him, was life. But this cannot be so understood. For first, this was not the place for making mention of the Holy Ghost. But let us suppose it was; let us take the passage for the present according to their reading, we shall see that it leads to a difficulty. For when it is said, That, which was made in Him, was life; they say the life spoken of is the Holy Ghost. But this life is also light; for the Evangelist proceeds, The life was the light of men. Where fore according to them, he calls the Holy Ghost the light of all men. But the Word mentioned above, is what he here calls consecutively, God, and Life, and Light. Now the Word was made flesh. It follows that the Holy Ghost is incarnate, not the Son. Dismissing then this reading, we adopt a more suitable one, with the following meaning: All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made which was made: there we make a stop, and begin a fresh sentence: In Him was life. Without Him was not any thing made which wan made; (γενητὸν) i. e. which could be made. You see how by this short addition, he removes any difficulty which might follow. For by introducing without Him was not any thing made, and adding, which was made, be includes all things invisible, and excepts the Holy Spirit: for the Spirit cannot be made. (δημιουργίας) To the mention of creation, succeeds that of providence. In Him was life1. As a fountain which produces vast depths of water, and yet is nothing diminished at the fountain head; so worketh the Only-Begotten. How great soever His creations be, He Himself is none the less for them. By the word life here is meant not only creation, but that providence by which the things created are preserved. But when you are told that in Him was life, do not suppose Him compounded; for, as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. (John 5:26) As then you would not call the Father compounded, so neither should you the Son.

Our Savior is said to be some things not for himself but for others; others again, both for himself and others.… When it is said then, "That which was made in him was life" … we must inquire whether the life is for himself and others or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same person: he is "the light of men [humanity]"; he is therefore their life. The Savior is called Life here, not to himself but to others whose Light he also is.…This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus engrafted or inborn in everyone who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. And so, observe … that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made—the beginning never having been without the Word—yet the life of people was not always in the Word. This life of people was made in the sense that it was the light of people. And this light of people could not be before humankind was; the light of people being understood relatively to people.… And therefore he says, "that which was made in the Word was life," and not "that which was in the Word was life." Some copies read, and perhaps not without credibility, "that which was made, in him is life." If we understand the life in the Word, to be he who says below, "I am the life," we shall confess that none who believe not in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead.

Let us not fail to notice that while it could have been written, "What was made in him was the light of men, and the light of men was life," John has done the reverse. For he places "the life" before the "light of men," although "life" and "light of men" are the same.…Why isn't the "Word" said to be the "light of men," instead of the "life" that was made in the Word?… The "life" mentioned there is not that life that makes both rational and irrational beings [alive]. It is instead the life that is added to the Word, which is completed in us when a share from the first Word is received. And so, when we turn away from what seems to be life but really is not and we yearn to truly possess life—that is when we first share in it. Once this [kind of] life exists in us, it also becomes the foundation of the light of knowledge. And perhaps this life is light potentially (and not actually) for those who really do not want to learn, but with others it becomes light also in actuality.

(tom. ii. c. 9) If 'the word' be taken for that which is in each man, inasmuch as it was implanted in each by the Word, which was in the beginning, then also, we commit nothing without this 'word' [reason] taking this word 'nothing' in a popular sense. For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin, when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. (John 15:22) For every excuse is withdrawn from the sinner, if, with the Word present, and enjoining what is to be done, he refuses to obey Him. Nor is the Word to be blamed on this account; any more than a master, whose discipline leaves no excuse open to a delinquent pupil on the ground of ignorance. All things then were made by the Word, not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting without reason.

(Hom. ii. in div. loc. ante med.) It may also be divided thus: That which was made in him; and then, was life; the sense being, that all things that were made by Him and in Him, are life in Him, and are one in Him. They were, that is, in Him; they exist as the cause, before they exist in themselves as effects. If thou ask how and in what manner all things which were made by the Word subsist in Him vitally, immutably, causally, take some examples from the created world. See how that all things within the arch of the world of sense have their causes simultaneously and harmoniously subsisting in that sun which is the greatest luminary of the world: how multitudinous crops of herbs and fruits are contained in single seeds: how the most complex variety of rules, in the art of the artificer, and the mind of the director, are a living unit, how an infinite number of lines coexist in one point. Contemplate these several instances, and thou wilt be able as it were on the wings of physical science, to penetrate with thy intellectual eye the secrets of the Word, and as far as is allowed to a human understanding, to see how all things which were made by the Word, live in Him, and were made in Him.

(t. ii. c. 12, 13.) Or thus: Our Saviour is said to be some things not for Himself, but for others; others again, both for Himself and others. When it is said then, That which was made in Him was life; we must enquire whether the life is for Himself and others, or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same Person: He is the light of men: He is therefore their life. The Saviour is called Life here, not to Himself, but to others; whose Light He also is. This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus ingrafted or inborn in every one who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. Hence observe, that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made, the Beginning never having been without the Word; yet the life of men was not always in the Word. This life of men was made, in that It was the light of men; and this light of men could not be before man was; the light of men being understood relatively to menk. And therefore he says, That which was made in the Word was life; not That which was in the Word was life. Some copies read, not amiss, "That which was made, in Him is life." If we understand the life in the Word, to be He who says below, 'I am the life,' we shall confess that none who believe not in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead. (John 11:25; 14:6) And the life was the light of men.

(non occ.) We must not omit to notice, that he puts the life before the light of men. For it would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life to be illuminated; as if life were an addition to illumination. (tom. ii. c. 16). But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning men only, Christ is the light and the life of men only; an heretical supposition. It does not follow then, when a thing is predicated of any, that it is predicated of those only; for of God it is written, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet He is not the God of those fathers only. In the same way, the light of men is not excluded from being the light of others as well. (c. 17). Some moreover contend from Genesis, (Gen. 1:26) Let us make man after our image, that man means whatever is made after the image and similitude of God. If so, the light of men is the light of any rational creature what ever.

The Pneumatomachians read the present passage thus: "and without Him nothing began to be"; then, placing a punctuation mark there, they read as if from a new beginning: "that which began to be, in Him was life," and interpret this passage according to their own thinking, saying that here the Evangelist is speaking about the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was the life. So say the Macedonians, striving to prove that the Holy Spirit is created and to number Him among creatures. But we do not read it so; rather, placing a punctuation mark after the words "that which began to be," we read from a new beginning: "In Him was life." Having spoken about creation, that all things received being through the Word, the Evangelist speaks further about providence as well, that the Word not only created, but also preserves the life of what was created. For in Him was life. I know that one of the saints read this passage as follows: "and without Him nothing began to be, that began to be in Him." Then, placing a punctuation mark there, he began further: "was life." I think that this reading also contains no error, but holds the same correct thought. For this saint also rightly understood that without the Word nothing received being that received being in Him, since everything that received being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and consequently was not without Him. Then he began again: "was life, and the life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord "life" both because He sustains the life of all things and because He grants spiritual life to all rational beings, and "light," not so much sensible as intellectual, illuminating the very soul. He did not say that He is the light of Jews alone, but of all "men." For all of us men, inasmuch as we have received mind and reason from the Word who created us, are therefore called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are also called rational, is a light guiding us in what we ought and ought not to do.

(in loc.) He had said, In him was life, that you might not suppose that the Word was without life. Now he shows that life is spiritual, and the light of all reasonable creatures. And the life was the light of men: i. e. not sensible, but intellectual light, illuminating the very soul.

He saith not, the Light of the Jews only, but of all men: for all of us, in so far as we have received intellect and reason, from that Word which created us, are said to be illuminated by Him. For the reason which is given to us, and which constitutes us the reasonable beings we are, is a light directing us what to do, and what not to do.

Above, the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word is a light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v 4b); secondly, the light's irradiation (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways: first, according to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation in grace.

As to the first point he says, And that life was the light of men.

Here we should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, thinks that brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great issue, for in whatever way the name "light" is used, it implies a manifestation, whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or sensible things. If we compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to the nature of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names to things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered first in sensible things, because we first used this name to signify sensible light before intelligible light; although as to power, light belongs to spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible things.

To clarify the statement, And that life was the light of men, we should remark that there are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light. Other things both live and know, but their knowledge, since it is on the sense level, is concerned only with individual and material things, as is the case with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But they do not have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or that are made manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is manifestive to all.

And so the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that he is life but also light, lest anyone suppose he meant life without knowledge. And he says that he is the light of men, lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as exists in the brutes.

But since he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to give us a knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men and therefore refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels. Origen, however, says that participation in this light pertains to men insofar as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the Evangelist says, the light of men, he wants us to understand every rational nature.

We also see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual or rational. For whereas all things that in some way move themselves are called living, only those that perfectly move themselves are said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures only man moves himself, properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are moved by themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from necessity. As a result, those things that are moved by such a principle are more truly made to act than act themselves. But man, since he is master of his act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is the light of men, is perfect life.

We find a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is first; and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, In the beginning was the Word. Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, In him was life. Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned next; And that life was the light of men. And, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life because light can be attributed only to the living.

We should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an object and as something in which they participate, as is clear in external sight. For the eyes know external light as an object, but if they are to see it, they must participate in an inner light by which the eyes are adapted and disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, And that life was the light of men, can be understood in two ways. First, that the light of men is taken as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature alone can see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who "teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens us more than the birds of the air" (Jb 35:11); for although other animals may know certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself of truth.

The light of men can also be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in it; and this participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul, i.e., the intellectual light, about which the Psalm (4:7) says, "The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us," i.e., of your Son, who is your face, by whom you are manifested.

Starting from And that life was the light of men, we can explain this in another way, according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.

After he had considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, And that life, of the Word, was the light of men, i.e., of all men in general, and not only of the Jews. For the Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world to illumine all men with grace and truth. "I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth" (below 18:37); "As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world" (below 9:5). So he does not say, "the light of the Jews," because although previously he had been known only in Judea, he later became known to the world. "I have given you as a light to the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth" (Is 49:6).

It was fitting to join light and life by saying, And that life was the light of men, in order to show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a participation in grace, "Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ" (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of truth and wisdom.

Then he says, What was made in him was life; and this is the third clause. Here we must avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world. He understood the clause this way: What was made in him, comma, was life. But it was not life unless alive. Therefore, whatever was made in him is alive. He also claimed that "in him" is the same as saying "through him," since very often in Scripture "in him" and "through him" are interchangeable, as in "in him and through him all things were created" (Col 1:16). However, our present explanation shows that this interpretation is false.

There are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. In that homily, "The spiritual voice," we find this explanation: What was made in him, i.e., through him, was life, not in each thing itself, but in its cause. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is always true that effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate cause. Thus, lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their respective existences but according to the power of the sun. Therefore, since the cause of all effects produced by God is a certain life and an art full of living archetypes, for this reason What was made in him, i.e., through him, was life, in its cause, i.e., in God.

Augustine reads this another way, as: What was made, comma, in him was life. For things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word. If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true that all things are life or even alive, but some lack life and some are alive. For example, the earth was made and metals were made, but none is life, none is living; animals and men were made, and these, considered in themselves, are not life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the Word, they are not merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in the wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just as a chest made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the exemplar of the chest in the artisan's mind prior to the existence of the chest is in some sense living, insofar as it has an intellectual existence in the mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither in his essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the artisan. But in God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And so whatever is in God is not only living, but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in God is the creating essence. Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are life. This is explained in another place.

Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: That which was made in him; and then, was life. Here we should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such; for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some things are said of him in relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in both ways, such as wisdom and justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as such, it is not said that he was "made", for example, we do not say that the Son was made God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways, the notion of being made can be used, as in, "God made him [Jesus Christ] our wisdom, our justice, our sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor 1:30). And so, although he was always wisdom and justice in himself, yet it can be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.

And so Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son is life, yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is said, "Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will come to life" (1 Cor 15:22). And so he says "the Word that was made" life for us in himself was life, so that after a time he could become life for us; and so he immediately adds, and that life was the light of men.

Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: And without him was made nothing, which was made in him, and later it says, he was life. For he says (The Trinity II) that when the Evangelist says without him nothing was made, one might be perplexed and ask whether there are still other things made by him, that were not made through him, although not without him, but with respect to which he was associated with the maker; and this clause is added to correct the aforesaid error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist says, All things were made through him, he adds, and without him nothing was made, which was made, in him, that is, through him; and the reason for this is that he was life.

For it is plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as the Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some father has a son who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but reaches such a state gradually. In that case the father will do many things, not through the son, yet not without [having] him. Since, therefore, the Son of God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has—"Just as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself" (below 5:26)—one cannot say that God the Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because he was life. For in living things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in per se life, which does not participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no imperfection at all. Accordingly, because the Word is per se life, there was never imperfect life in him, but always perfect life. And so in such a way that nothing was made without him that was not also made in him, i.e., through him.

Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: And without him was made nothing that was made. The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. So to exclude this, the Evangelist says, that was made, because the Holy Spirit is not something that is made. And afterward follows, In him was life, which is introduced for two reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his causality was indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also with respect to things yet to be produced. As if to say: In him was life, by which he could not only produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and a causality for producing things continually without undergoing any change, being a living fountain which is not diminished in spite of its continuous outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i.e., running] water, is diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says, "With you is the fountain of life." The second reason is to show that things are governed by the Word. For since In him was life, this shows that he produced things by his intellect and will, not by a necessity of his nature, and that he governs the things he made. "The Word of God is living" (Heb 4:12).

Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, And without him was made nothing that was made.

The person who supposes that he is protected by the darkness is vain, since he cannot escape the light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. Accordingly, he is discovered like a fugitive and a wicked hireling and is recognized before he can conceal himself. For all things are known to the Lord before he seeks them out, not only past events but also those that are to come.

It is, forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.

But perhaps the slow hearts of some of you cannot receive their sins, so that they cannot see. Let them not on that account think that the light is in any way absent, because they are not able to see it; for they themselves are darkness on account of their sins. "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Accordingly, brethren, as in the case of a blind man placed in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. So every foolish man, every unjust man, every irreligious man, is blind in heart. Wisdom is present; but it is present to a blind man, and is absent from his eyes; not because it is absent from him, but because he is absent from it. What then is he to do? Let him become pure, that he may be able to see God. Just as if a man could not see because his eyes were dirty and sore with dust, rheum, or smoke, the physician would say to him: "Cleanse from your eye whatever bad thing is in it, so that you may be able to see the light of your eyes." Dust, rheum, and smoke are sins and iniquities: remove then all these things, and you will see the wisdom that is present; for God is that wisdom, and it has been said, "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God."

(tr. 1. c. 19) Whereas that life is the light of men, but foolish hearts cannot receive that light, being so incumbered with sins that they cannot see it; for this cause lest any should think there is no light near them, because they cannot see it, he continues: And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. For suppose a blind man standing in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. In like manner every fool is blind, and wisdom is present to him; but, though present, absent from his sight, forasmuch as sight is gone: the truth being, not that she is absent from him, but that he is absent from her.

(de Civit. Dei, l. x. c. 29. circ. fin.) A certain Platonist once said, that the beginning of this Gospel ought to be copied in letters of gold, and placed in the most conspicuous place in every church.

"And the light shines in the darkness," when he makes sinners know true things: "and the darkness did not comprehend it": because those blinded by the darkness of unbelief do not know it: Genesis chapter one: "Darkness was upon the face of the abyss," that is, unbelief upon the face of the human heart. Whence Ephesians chapter five: "You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord"; First John chapter one: "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." And by this is refuted that error which held that all things come from fortune, and that there is no providence, nor does God know our deeds.

It is asked: "The darkness did not comprehend it." Against this: Corporeal light, while it shines and is present, cannot not be seen; therefore by equal reasoning the same appears to hold of spiritual light and of the intellect. Likewise, why does he speak of darkness? For no one, not even a good person, comprehends it, since it is incomprehensible.

It must be said that the case is not the same for corporeal and spiritual light, for a threefold reason: first, on the part of the motive, because corporeal light manifests itself naturally, but spiritual light voluntarily; second, on the part of the eye, because the eye of the intellect is blind with respect to one thing, and yet sees with respect to another, just as we observe that one has ignorance of one thing and knowledge of another; so the eye of the unbeliever is blind with respect to God. The third reason is on the part of the comparison, because there is some proportion between our eye and corporeal light, but spiritual light exceeds it beyond all proportion, and therefore "dwells in unapproachable light."

As to what is asked concerning comprehension, it must be said that there is comprehension by inclusion, by open vision, and by the adherence of faith and charity. In the first way it is comprehended by no one, in the second way by the Blessed, in the third way by the Saints, and in none of the said ways by the wicked: therefore he says: "And the darkness did not comprehend it," that is, they adhered neither by faith nor by love.

For there is no use of a sleeping man, as there is not of a dead man. Wherefore we ought often to rise by night and bless God. For blessed are they who watch for Him, and so make themselves like the angels, whom we call "watchers." But a man asleep is worth nothing, any more than if he were not alive. But he who has the light watches, "and darkness seizes not on him," nor sleep, since darkness does not. He that is illuminated is therefore awake towards God; and such an one lives.

For one may escape the light of sense, but that of the mind it is impossible to escape. For how, says Heraclitus, can one escape the notice of that which never sets? Let us by no means, then, veil our selves with the darkness; for the light dwells in us. "For the darkness," it is said, "comprehendeth it not." And the very night itself is illuminated by temperate reason.

Needs does the most wise Evangelist hasten to expand to us by this too that is now before us the thought expressed above. For he did not think, I suppose, that it would suffice to the hearers unto being able to think unerringly of God the Word, that He is verily the Light of men, by only saying, And the Life was the Light of men. For it was like I suppose that some would arise who should hear the things uttered without weighing them, and should moreover set forth or try to teach others also that the Word of God is indeed verily Light, but not Giver of light to all, but in whomsoever He will He infuses the light of understanding, approving him who |68 ought to receive it and is worthy of so bright a gift: and that the nature of the rest of the rational creation either gets the power of understanding from its natural seed, or God the Father ingrafts into it mind and understanding, as though the Son were unable to do this. In order then that God the Word, Who was in God the Father, may be clearly shown to be both Life and Light, not of some individually, of others not, but by some ineffable mode of participation, as wisdom and understanding (which is what is called light in things rational), immingling Himself in all things that are, that the things rational may become rational, and things recipient of sense may have sense, which in no other way they could have had:----needs does he say, And the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

As though he with all exactitude crieth aloud to his hearers after this sort: I said, sirs, teaching the truth with all my power, that the Life was the Light of men, not that any should suppose from these words that they who show themselves righteous and good receive from another, as the reward of their conduct, the illumination from Him, but that ye might learn, that as the Word is Life in all things that have been made, quickening things recipient of life; so He is in them Light also, rendering things recipient of understanding and sense, what they are. For God the Father through the Son in the Spirit is all things in all.

Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. For since he calls Him the Light, to show that the rational creation which lacks and is imparticipate thereof is other than It, he turns the force of the epithet used to the very contrary, doing this also, after my judgment, not without an aim, but considering in himself this above all, that the nature of things originate, producing nothing whatever from its own self, but receiving its whole being and well-being such as it is from its Creator, has rightly said to it, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? And since along with the rest, it has light itself also God-given, not possessing it does it receive it: but that which has not of itself light, how will it not be the contrary, or how |69 will it not be called darkness? For that the Light shineth in darkness is a credible demonstration (yea rather one following from very necessity), that the creation is darkness, the Word of God Light. For if the nature of things originate receive the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light: it receives it then as itself darkness, and the Son shineth in it, as the light doth in darkness, even though the darkness know not a whit the Light. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Things originate possess nevertheless, of His love to man, the light, and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

But we must again note here, that no argument will permit to suppose that the Son of God is originate or created, but in every way does He surpass our measure, and rise above the nature of the creature, and is wholly Other than they are and far removed as regards quality of essence, even as the light is not the same as darkness, but soothly contrary and parted by incomparable diversity into physical alieniety.

Having now sufficiently gone through the method of reasoning hereupon in the foregoing, we will go on to what follows.

The most wise Evangelist now expands the thought expressed above.… Not only is the Word of God indeed truly light, but he is also the giver of light to all whom he infuses with the light of understanding.

"Darkness" is what John calls the nature that lacks illumination, that is, the whole originate nature.… For such a nature produces nothing on its own. Instead, it receives its whole being and well-being, such as it is, from its creator. This is why Paul says, "What do you have that you did not receive?" And since, along with the rest, it receives its light from God, not possessing it on its own, it receives it. But that which does not have light of itself cannot be called anything but "darkness." The fact that "the Light shines in darkness" is a credible demonstration (in fact, one following from very necessity) that the creation is "darkness" while the Word of God is "Light." For if the nature of things originate receives the Word of God by participation, as Light, or as of Light, it receives it then since it is inherently darkness, and the Son "shines in it" as "the light" shines in "darkness," even though the darkness has no idea of the light's existence. For this, I suppose, is the meaning of "the darkness did not comprehend it." For the Word of God shines upon all things that are receptive to his radiance and illumines without exception things that have a nature that is receptive to being illumined. But [the Word of God] is unknown by "the darkness." For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean humanity, "served the creature more than the Creator: it did not comprehend the Light," for it did not know the Creator, the fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. Nevertheless, because of his love for humankind, things originate possess the light and are provided with the power of perception implanted concurrently with their passing into being.

Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear.

The light shines in darkness, in this life and in the flesh, and is chased by the darkness but is not overtaken by it. By this I mean the adverse power leaping up in its shamelessness against the visible Adam but encountering God and being defeated—in order that we, putting away the darkness, may draw near to the Light and may then become perfect Light, the children of perfect Light.

For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a "light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended" by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it.

"And the light shineth in darkness." He calls death and error, "darkness." For the light which is the object of our senses does not shine in darkness, but apart from it; but the preaching of Christ hath shone forth in the midst of prevailing error, and made it to disappear. And He by enduring death hath so overcome death, that He hath recovered those already held by it. Since then neither death overcame it, nor error, since it is bright everywhere, and shines by its proper strength, therefore he says, "And the darkness comprehended it not." For it cannot be overcome, and will not dwell in souls which wish not to be enlightened.

But let it not trouble thee that It took not all, for not by necessity and force, but by will and consent does God bring us to Himself. Therefore do not thou shut thy doors against this light, and thou shalt enjoy great happiness. But this light cometh by faith, and when it is come, it lighteth abundantly him that hath received it; and if thou displayest a pure life (meet) for it, remains indwelling within continually. "For," He saith, "He that loveth Me, will keep My commandments; and I and My Father will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." As then one cannot rightly enjoy the sunlight, unless he opens his eyes; so neither can one largely share this splendor, unless he have expanded the eye of the soul, and rendered it in every way keen of sight.

But how is this effected? Then when we have cleansed the soul from all the passions. For sin is darkness, and a deep darkness; as is clear, because men do it unconsciously and secretly. For, "every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light." And, "It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." For, as in darkness a man knows neither friend nor foe, but cannot perceive any of the properties of objects; so too is it in sin. For he who desires to get more gain, makes no difference between friend and enemy; and the envious regards with hostile eyes the man with whom he is very intimate; and the plotter is at mortal quarrel with all alike. In short, as to distinguishing the nature of objects, he who commits sin is no better than men who are drunk or mad. And as in the night, wood, lead, iron, silver, gold, precious stones, seem to us all alike on account of the absence of the light which shows their distinctions; so he who leads an impure life knows neither the excellence of temperance nor the beauty of philosophy. For in darkness, as I said before, even precious stones if they be displayed do not show their luster, not by reason of their own nature, but because of the want of discernment in the beholders.

They ungratefully and malignantly ask, Who is this? as if they had never yet seen their Benefactor, and Him whom divine miracles, beyond the power of man, had made famous and renowned; for the darkness comprehended not that unsetting light which shone in upon it. Hence quite appositely with respect to them hath the prophet Isaiah exclaimed, saying, Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. And who is blind, but my children? and deaf, but they that have the dominion over them? And the servants of the Lord have become blind; ye have often seen, but ye observed not; your ears are opened, yet ye hear not.

People are not [darkness] by nature, since Paul says, "For we were once darkness but now are light in the Lord," and this is especially the case if we are now called saints and spiritual. Just as Paul, although he was darkness, became capable of becoming light in the Lord, so may anyone who was once darkness.

Christ, because of the benefit that follows for humankind, took our darkness on himself that by his power he might destroy our death and completely destroy the darkness in our soul so that what Isaiah said might be fulfilled: "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light."69This light, indeed, that was made in the Word, which also is life, "shines in the darkness" of our souls. It has come to stay where the world rulers of this darkness live. They by wrestling with the human race struggle to subject those who do not stand firm in every manner to darkness. He comes that, when they have been enlightened, they may be called children of light. And this light shines in the darkness and is pursued by it, but it is not overcome.… The darkness pursued this light, as is clear from what our Savior and his children suffer. The darkness fighting against the children of light wanted to chase the light away. However, if "God is for us," no one will be able to be "against us." … Now there are two ways that the darkness did not overcome the light. The darkness is either left very far behind it and, because it is slow, cannot keep up with the swiftness of the flight of light even to a limited extent, or, perhaps the light wanted to set an ambush for the darkness and awaited its approach and when the darkness drew near the light it was destroyed.

(non occ.) We must not omit to notice, that he puts the life before the light of men. For it would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life to be illuminated; as if life were an addition to illumination. (tom. ii. c. 16). But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning men only, Christ is the light and the life of men only; an heretical supposition. It does not follow then, when a thing is predicated of any, that it is predicated of those only; for of God it is written, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet He is not the God of those fathers only. In the same way, the light of men is not excluded from being the light of others as well. (c. 17). Some moreover contend from Genesis, (Gen. 1:26) Let us make man after our image, that man means whatever is made after the image and similitude of God. If so, the light of men is the light of any rational creature what ever.

(in Joan. t. ii. c. 14) This kind of darkness however is not in men by nature, according to the text in the Ephesians, Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord1. (Eph. 5:8)

(Hom. ii. in div. loc.) Or thus, The light shineth in the darkness of faithful souls, beginning from faith, and drawing onwards to hope; but the deceit and ignorance of undisciplined souls did not comprehend the light of the Word of God shining in the flesh. That however is an ethical meaning. The metaphysical signification of the words is as follows. Human nature, even though it sinned not, could not shine by its own strength simply; for it is not naturally light, but only a recipient of it; it is capable of containing wisdom, but is not wisdom itself. As the air, of itself, shineth not, but is called by the name of darkness, even so is our nature, considered in itself, a dark substance, which however admits of and is made partaker of the light of wisdom. And as when the air receives the sun's rays, it is not said to shine of itself, but the sun's radiance to be apparent in it; so the reasonable part of our nature, while possessing the presence of the Word of God, does not of itself understand God, and intellectual things, but by means of the divine light implanted in it. Thus, The light shineth in darkness: for the Word of God, the life and the light of men, ceaseth not to shine in our nature; though regarded in itself, that nature is without form and darkness. And forasmuch as pure light cannot be comprehended by any creature, hence the text: The darkness comprehended it not.

(tom. ii. in Joan. c. 19) But they ask, why is not the Word Itself called the light of men, instead of the life which is in the Word? We reply, that the life here spoken of is not that which rational and irrational animals have in common, but that which is annexed to the Word which is within us through participation of the primæval Word. For we must distinguish the external and false life, from the desirable and true. We are first made partakers of life: and this life with some is light potentially only, not in act; with those, viz. who are not eager to search out the things which appertain to knowledge: with others it is actual light, those who, as the Apostle saith, covet earnestly the best gifts, (1 Cor. 12:31) that is to say, the word of wisdom. (c. 14.). (Ifk the life and the light of men are the same, whoso is in darkness is proved not to live, and none who liveth abideth in darkness.)

(tom. ii. c. 20) As the light of men is a word expressing two spiritual things, so is darkness also. To one who possesses the light, we attribute both the doing the deeds of the light, and also true understanding, inasmuch as he is illuminated by the light of knowledge: and, on the other hand, the term darkness we apply both to unlawful acts, and also to that knowledge, which seems such, but is not. Now as the Father is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, so is the Saviour also. Yet, inasmuch as he underwent the similitude of our sinful flesh, it is not incorrectly said of Him, that in Him there was some darkness; for He took our darkness upon Himself, in order that He might dissipate it. This Light therefore, which was made the life of man, shines in the darkness of our hearts, when the prince of this darkness wars with the human race. This Light the darkness persecuted, as is clear from what our Saviour and His children suffer; the darkness fighting against the children of light. But, forasmuch as God takes up the cause, they do not prevail; nor do they apprehend the light, for they are either of too slow a nature to overtake the light's quick course, or, waiting for it to come up to them, they are put to flight at its approach. We should bear in mind, however, that darkness is not always used in a bad sense, but sometimes in a good, as in Psalm 17. He made darkness His secret place: (Ps. 18:11) the things of God being unknown and incomprehensible. This darkness then I will call praiseworthy, since it tends toward light, and lays hold on it: for, though it were darkness before, while it was not known, yet it is turned to light and knowledge in him who has learned.

The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not, although for a time it be dissolved. In itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it. And this is the meaning of the saying, "The darkness comprehendeth not the light." For the soul does not preserve the spirit, but is preserved by it, and the light comprehends the darkness. The Logos, in truth, is the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness. On this account, if it continues solitary, it tends downward towards matter, and dies with the flesh; but, if it enters into union with the Divine Spirit, it is no longer helpless, but ascends to the regions whither the Spirit guides it: for the dwelling-place of the spirit is above, but the origin of the soul is from beneath.

"The Light," that is, the Word of God, shines "in the darkness," that is, in death and error. For He, even having submitted to death, so overcame it that He compelled it to vomit up even those whom it had previously swallowed. And in pagan error the preaching shines. Neither death overcame Him, nor error. For this light, that is, the Word of God, is unconquerable. Some considered "darkness" to be the flesh and earthly life. The Word shone even when It became flesh and was in this life, and the darkness, that is, the opposing power, tempted and pursued the Light, but found Him invincible and unconquerable. The flesh is called darkness not because it is such by nature (God forbid!), but on account of sin. For the flesh, so long as it is governed by the law of nature, has absolutely no evil whatsoever, but when it is moved beyond the bounds of nature and serves sin, it becomes and is called darkness.

Having introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying, And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways, according to the two meanings of "darkness."

First, we might take "darkness" as a natural defect, that of the created mind. For the mind is to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to the light of the sun; because, although air is receptive of the light of the sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According to this the meaning is: the light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, i.e., in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. "On a man from whom the light is hidden" (Jb 3:23).

And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to overcome something [comprehendere, to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine says, to reach God with the mind is a great happiness; but to overcome [comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the darkness did not overcome it. "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge" (Jb 36:26); "Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought" as Jeremiah (32:19) says. This explanation is found in that homily which begins, "The spiritual voice of the eagle."

We can explain this passage in another way by taking "darkness" as Augustine does, for the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness. "And I saw that wisdom excells folly as much as light excells knowledge" (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not due to a defect in that light, since on its part it shines in the darkness and radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are without that light because the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., they did not apprehend it, not being able to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been lifted up, they did not persevere. "From the savage," i.e., from the proud, "he hides his light," i.e., the light of wisdom, "and shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach it" (Jb 36:32); "They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her paths" (Bar 3:23).

Although some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless no man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because whatever truth is know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in darkness, did not overcome it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [i.e., with respect to the natural influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.

According to this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, can be expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of "darkness."

In one way, we can take "darkness" for punishment. For any sadness and suffering of heart can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light. "When I sit in darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light," i.e., my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, is Christ coming into the world, having a body capable of suffering and without sin, but "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ, which is called a darkness insofar as it has a likeness to sinful flesh. As if to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the darkness of the flesh, shines on the world; "I will cover the sun with a cloud" (Ez 32:7).

Secondly, we can take "darkness" to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness." Looked at this way he says, the light, i.e., the Son of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the devils, hold sway: "Now the prince of this world will be cast out" (below 12:31). And the darkness, i.e., the devils, did not overcome it, i.e., were unable to obscure him by their temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4).

Thirdly, we can take "darkness" for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ, "You were at one time darkness" (Eph 5:8). And so he says that the light, i.e., the incarnate Word of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., upon the men of the world, who are blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. "To enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk 1:79), "The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light" (Is 9:2).

And the darkness did not overcome it, i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him, heaping insults and calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless they did not overcome it, i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his brightness would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says, "Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, but wisdom," that is, the incarnate Son of God, "is not overcome by wickedness," that is, of the Jews and of heretics, because it says, "She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he might know that wisdom is mightier than all else" (Wis 10:12).

That is, the grace of God, or one in whom is grace, who by his testimony first made known to the world the grace of the New Testament, that is, Christ. Or John may be taken to mean, to whom it is given: because that through the grace of God, to him it was given, not only to herald, but also to baptize the King of kings.

"There was a man sent from God whose name was John." Truly, brethren beloved, those things which were said before, were said regarding the ineffable divinity of Christ, and almost ineffably. For who shall comprehend "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"? And do not allow the name word to appear mean to you, through the habit of daily words, for it is added, "and the Word was God." This Word is He of whom yesterday we spoke much; and I trust that God was present, and that even from only thus much speaking something reached your hearts. "In the beginning was the Word." He is the same, and is in the same manner; as He is, so He is always; He cannot be changed; that is, He is. This His name He spoke to His servant Moses: "I am that I am; and He that is hath sent me." Who then shall comprehend this when you see that all mortal things are variable; when you see that not only do bodies vary as to their qualities, by being born, by increasing, by becoming less, by dying, but that even souls themselves through the effect of divers volitions are distended and divided; when you see that men can obtain wisdom if they apply themselves to its light and heat, and also lose wisdom if they remove themselves from it through some evil influence? When, therefore, you see that all those things are variable, what is that which is, unless that which transcends all things which are so that they are not? Who then can receive this? Or who, in what manner soever he may have applied the strength of his mind to touch that which is, can reach to that which he may in any way have touched with his mind? It is as if one were to see his native land at a distance, and the sea intervening; he sees whither he would go, but he has not the means of going. So we desire to arrive at that our stability where that which is, because this alone always is as it is: the sea of this world interrupts our course, even although already we see whither we go; for many do not even see whither they go. That there might be a way by which we could go, He has come from Him to whom we wished to go. And what has He done? He has appointed a tree by which we may cross the sea. For no one is able to cross the sea of this world, unless borne by the cross of Christ. Even he who is of weak eyesight sometimes embraces this cross; and he who does not see from afar whither he goes, let him not depart from it, and it will carry him over.

(Tr. ii. c. 2) What is said above, refers to the Divinity of Christ. He came to us in the form of man, but man in such sense, as that the Godhead was concealed within Him. And therefore there was sent before a great man, to declare by his witness that He was more than man. And who was this? He was a man.

(Tr. ii) And how could he declare the truth concerning God, unless he were sent from God.

(Tr. ii) What was he called? whose name was John?

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." He treated above of the Word according to the excellence of the Divinity; in this part he treats according to the assumption of humanity. And because this assumption was made for our salvation, which was accomplished through the passion and consummated through the resurrection, therefore this part has three parts. In the first he treats of the incarnation; in the second of the passion; in the third of the resurrection.

The arriving forerunner is therefore described by four conditions, namely by nature, by authority, by name, by office. By nature, when it says: "There was a man": the Gloss: "A man, not an Angel, as the heretics would have it." The heretics said this on account of that passage in Malachi 3: "Behold, I send my Angel before your face, who will prepare the way before you." But "Angel is there a name of office, not of nature." By authority he is described, when it adds: "Sent from God," not from man, not from himself: Romans 10: "How shall they preach unless they are sent?" Against which it is said of the false prophets in Jeremiah 23: "They were running, and I did not send them." By name he is described, when it says: "Whose name was John." This name was authoritative, because it was not imposed by man but by God; in Luke 1 it was said to Zechariah: "Elizabeth, your wife, will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."

Far higher than they stands that character whom, to the best of my knowledge, the present Christian movement has not yet produced—the preacher in the full sense, the evangelist, the man on fire, the man who infects. The propagandist, the apologist, only represents John Baptist: the preacher represents the Lord Himself. He will be sent—or else he will not. But unless he comes we mere Christian intellectuals will not effect very much. That does not mean we should down tools.

Having before Explained about God the Word, and most accurately gone through the things whereby He is shown to be by Nature Son of God the Father, he fortifies their faith in what they had already heard by his words. And since (according to what was said by God through Moses), At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established, wisely does he bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist, and introduces him along with himself a most noteworthy witness. For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Saviour credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

Therefore the blessed Evangelist himself testifies that The Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and was in the beginning with God and that all things were made by Him, and He was in the things made as Life, and that the Life was the Light of men, that by all these he might show that the Son is by Nature God. And the Divine Baptist too testifies in addition to him, crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. For soothly one will say that He is Very God, in Whom is by Nature inherent the dignity of lordship and it accrues not to any other rightly and truly, since to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul saith; and though there be many called gods by grace and lords both in heaven and earth, yet the Son is One with the Father Very God.

Therefore, most noteworthy is the pair of holy witnesses, and credence no longer capable of blame is due to the things said, both as having received the fulness of the law, and supported by the notability of the persons. For the blessed Evangelist then to say ought concerning himself, and to take hold of his own praises, were in truth burdensome and moreover ill-instructed. For he would rightly have heard, Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true. Therefore he commits to those who know him to form their opinion of him, and goes to his namesake, doing well in this too, and says that he was sent by God. For it behoved him to show that not of his own accord nor with self-invited zeal does the holy Baptist come to his testimony respecting our Saviour, but yielding to the commands from above, and ministering to the Divine Will of the Father. Wherefore he says, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

But we must notice how unerringly and fitly he expressed himself as to each, and correspondently to the nature of the things indicated. For in the case of God the Word, was is fitly introduced indicating every way His Eternity, and His being more ancient than all beginning that is in time, and removing the idea of His having been created. For that which always is, how can it be conceived of as originate? But of the blessed Baptist, befittingly does he say, There was a man sent from God, as of a man having an originate nature. And very unerringly does the Evangelist herein seem to me not merely to say that There was, but by adding the word a man, to overthrow the most unadvised surmise of some.

For already was there a report bruited of many, commonly saying that the holy Baptist was not really a man by nature but one of the holy angels in heaven, making use of human body and sent by God to preach. And the plea for this surmise they found in its being said by God, Behold I send, My messenger before Thy Face, which shall prepare Thy way; before Thee. But they err from the truth who imagine thus, not considering that the name of Angel is indicative of ministry rather than of essence, even as in the history of the blessed Job messengers 6 one after the other run to announce . his manifold sufferings and ministering to those incurable afflictions. Something like this does the most wise Paul himself define respecting the holy angels, writing thus: Are l they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

John the blessed Baptist then is called an angel by the mouth of the Lord, not as being actually by nature an angel, but as sent to announce and crying aloud, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Very profitably does he declare moreover that the angel was sent by God, showing that his witness is most sure. For he that was sent by God to preach, would not utter anything in his teaching that was not wholly according to the will of Him Who put the mission on him. True therefore is the witness as being God-taught. For the most wise Paul also telling us that he was sent by Jesus Christ, affirmed that he learned the power of the mystery not of any other, but by revelation of Him Who sent him, signifying the revelation in sum so to say and briefly, in saying that he was sent by Jesus Christ. Hence the being God-taught wholly follows on being sent by God. And that freedom from lying is wholly the aim of the ministers of the truth is undoubted.

The man's name he says was John. It needed that he who was sent should be recognized by the mark of the name, which introduces, as I suppose, great authenticity to what is said. For an angel (namely Gabriel that stand in the presence of God, as himself says) when he declared to Zacharias the good tidings of his birth of Elizabeth, added this to what he said, namely that his name shall be John. It is I suppose clear and confessed by all that he was so named of the angel according to the Divine purpose and appointment. How then will not he who was crowned by God with so great honour be conceived of as above all praise? Wherefore the mention of his name is profitably and necessarily brought in.

But since the Evangelist has added that the holy Baptist was sent by God for a witness that all men through him might believe, we will further say when our opponents fall foul and say, "Why did not all believe the God-sent? how came he who was fore-appointed by the decree from above to be powerless to persuade any?"----It is meet, sirs, that we should not blame John for want of zeal herein, but should exclaim against the obstinacy of those who disbelieved. For so far as pertains to the aim of the herald, and the mode of his apostolate from above, none would have been found imparticipate in the teaching, nor would have remained in unbelief: but since there was diversity of disposition in the hearers and each has power over his own free-choice, some receiving not the faith missed what was profitable. Wherefore we must say to them (as it is in the prophet), He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear.

And that we may not have to ask, Of what God was the Word made flesh? he does himself previously teach us, saying, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but [came] that he might testify of the Light." By what God, then, was John, the forerunner, who testifies of the Light, sent [into the world]? Truly it was by Him, of whom Gabriel is the angel, who also announced the glad tidings of his birth: [that God] who also had promised by the prophets that He would send His messenger before the face of His Son, who should prepare His way, that is, that he should bear witness of that Light in the spirit and power of Elias. But, again, of what God was Elias the servant and the prophet? Of Him who made heaven and earth, as he does himself confess. John, therefore, having been sent by the founder and maker of this world, how could he testify of that Light, which came down from things unspeakable and invisible? For all the heretics have decided that the Demiurge was ignorant of that Power above him, whose witness and herald John is found to be. Wherefore the Lord said that He deemed him "more than a prophet." For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing Him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw Him when He came, and pointed Him out, and persuaded many to believe on Him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. For this is to be more than a prophet, because, "first apostles, secondarily prophets;" but all things from one and the same God Himself.

Where we say "sent," the Hebrew says, "one sent forth"; in Greek apostolos, in Hebrew siloas. You see, therefore, that this John, the prophet, is not only a prophet but also an apostle. Isaiah is sent; he was an apostle. "Here I am, send me!" "Sent" is a term well said.… Those who have come on their own authority and have not been sent are the thieves and robbers. But this man has been sent from God, "whose name was John" and whose name corresponds to his calling. The name "Ioannes" is interpreted as the grace of the Lord, for io means Lord, and anna means grace. And so John is called the grace of the Lord. His mission as messenger he receives from the Lord.

Having in the introduction spoken to us things of urgent importance concerning God the Word, (the Evangelist) proceeding on his road, and in order, afterwards comes to the herald of the Word, his namesake John. And now that thou hearest that he was "sent from God," do not for the future imagine that any of the words spoken by him are mere man's words; for all that he utters is not his own, but is of Him who sent him. Wherefore he is called "messenger" (Mal. iii. 1), for the excellence of a messenger is, that he say nothing of his own. But the expression "was," in this place is not significative of his coming into existence, but refers to his office of messenger; for "'there was' a man sent from God," is used instead of "a man 'was sent' from God."

The fact that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in his mother's womb is an even more striking argument for John to have been sent from some other region when he was placed in a body with no other purpose for his sojourn in life than his testimony to the light. Gabriel mentions that John was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother's womb when he announces the birth of John to Zechariah. …John is like sound in relation to Christ, who is speech. … John himself suggests this view since he once said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." … And perhaps it is because Zechariah disbelieved in the birth of the voice that makes known the Word of God that he loses his voice and regains it when the voice that is the forerunner of the Word is born. For a voice must be listened to so that the mind can afterwards receive the word revealed by the voice.

That, then, was no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments): whereas the very thing which was celestial in John-the Spirit of prophecy-so completely failed, after the transfer of the whole Spirit to the Lord, that he presently sent to inquire whether He whom he had himself preached, whom he had pointed out when coming to him, were "HE.

Having told us about the pre-eternal existence of God the Word and intending to speak about the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist inserts a discourse about the Forerunner. And what else, if not the birth of John the Forerunner, could be spoken of before the discourse on the birth of the Lord in the flesh? The Evangelist says of the Forerunner that he was "sent" by God, that is, sent from God. For false prophets are not from God. When you hear that he was sent from God, know that he said nothing of himself or from men, but all things from God. For this reason he is also called an angel (Mal. 3:1), and it is the prerogative of an angel to say nothing of himself. Hearing of an angel, do not think that John was an angel by nature or that he descended from heaven; he is called an angel by virtue of his work and ministry. Since he served the proclamation and heralded the Lord beforehand, for this he was called an angel. Therefore the Evangelist, in refutation of the supposition of many who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature, says: "there was a man," sent from God.

Not an Angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion.

Above, the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider the incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he treats of the witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the coming of the Word (1:9). As to the first, he does two things: first, he describes the precursor who comes to bear witness; secondly, he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).

He describes the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, There was a man. Secondly, as to his authority, sent by God. Thirdly, as to his suitability for the office, whose name was John. Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, He came as a witness.

We should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins speaking of something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking above of eternal things, he used the word "was" (erat), which is the past imperfect tense; and this indicates that eternal things are without end. But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses "was" (fuit, i.e., "has been"); this indicates temporal things as having taken place in the past and coming to an end there.

And so he says, There was a man (Fuit homo). This excludes at the very start the incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or nature of John. They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing themselves on the words of the Lord, "I send my messenger [in Greek, angelos] before you, who will prepare your way" (Mt 11:10); and the same thing is found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, There was a man by nature, not an angel. "The nature of man is known, and that he cannot contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself" (Ecc 6:10).

Now it is fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man, since he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, "The law appoints men, who have weakness, priests." God could have governed men through angels, but he preferred men so that we could be more instructed by their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.

John is described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God. For the distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are messengers of God. "All are ministering spirits, sent to serve" (Heb 1:14). Hence it is that "angel" means "messenger." And so men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. "Haggai the messenger of the Lord" (Hg 1:13).

If someone is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. "How can they preach unless they are sent?" as is said in Romans (10:15). And since they are sent by God, they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their own. "We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:5). On the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks his own things or those of man, and not the things of Christ. And so he says here, There was a man sent by God, so that we would understand that John proclaimed something divine, not human.

Note that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward inspiration. "And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit" (Is 48:16). As if to say: I have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed and clear command, perceived by the bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in this way; and so he says, "And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here I am! Send me'" (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by the order of a prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. "I have pardoned in the person of Christ for your sake" as it says in 2 Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.

When it is said here, There was a man sent by God, we should understand that he was sent by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command. "He who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit'" (below 1:33).

We should not understand, There was a man sent by God, as some heretics did, who believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies along with the angels, and that one's soul is sent into the body when he is born, and that John was sent to life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body. Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to baptize and preach.

John's fitness is given when he says, whose name was John. One must be qualified for the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no matter in what way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now a man becomes qualified by the grace of God. "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10); "who has made us fit ministers of a new covenant" (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the precursor's fitness from his name when he says, whose name was John, which is interpreted, "in whom is grace."

This name was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he was born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), "You will name him John," as the angel said to Zechariah. Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1), "The Lord called me from the womb"; "He who will be, his name is already called" (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from his manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God's preordination.

Therefore, because He was so man, that the God lay hid in Him, there was sent before Him a great man, by whose testimony He might be found to be more than man. And who is this? "He was a man." And how could that man speak the truth concerning God? "He was sent by God." What was he called? "Whose name was John." Wherefore did he come? "He came for a witness, that he might bear witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him." What sort of man was he who was to bear witness concerning the light? Something great was that John, vast merit, great grace, great loftiness! Admire, by all means, admire; but as it were a mountain. But a mountain is in darkness unless it be clothed with light. Therefore only admire John that you may hear what follows, "He was not that light;" lest if, when thou thinkest the mountain to be the light, thou make shipwreck on the mountain, and find not consolation. But what oughtest thou to admire? The mountain as a mountain. But lift thyself up to Him who illuminates the mountain, which for this end was elevated that it might be the first to receive the rays, and make them known to your eyes. Therefore, "he was not that light."

(Tr. ii. c. 6) Wherefore came he? The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light.

(Bed. in loc.) He saith not, that all men should believe in him; for, cursed be the man that trusteth in man; (Jer. 17:5) but, that all men through him might believe; i. e. by his testimony believe in the Light.

"He came for a testimony." For his office was to testify concerning the light, not on account of a deficiency of the light, but of the believers; therefore it says: "He came for a testimony, to bear testimony concerning the light, that all might believe through him"; Acts 19: "John baptized with the baptism of penance the people, saying, in him who was to come after him, that they might believe"; "might believe," I say, "through him," not "in him."

But here a question is raised: Below in chapter 5: "I do not receive testimony from man"; therefore neither ought he to have been sent by God for this purpose. Likewise, light does not need illumination: therefore neither does the highest truth need attestation: therefore he came in vain.

It must be said that testimony is borne to someone and on account of someone. Sometimes, therefore, there is occasion for testimony by reason of the one to whom it is borne, because the truth is weak, and thus a man needs the testimony of another; sometimes by reason of the one on account of whom it is borne, because he is doubtful or weak in faith. John, however, did not come in testimony on account of a deficiency of light in Christ, but by reason of the unfitness in our eye.

Likewise it is asked: "That all might believe through him": because, since not all believed, if God sent him for this purpose, then both are frustrated of their due end. It must be said that there is a twofold end: in itself and in another. I say therefore that to be frustrated in the end in another, so long as the end in itself is possessed, introduces no imperfection, as is clear in the case of the rhetorician who persuades well, the Angel who guards, Christ who redeems, and John who testifies, because he bore sufficient testimony, even though not all believed him; yet of the things contingent upon him, he omitted nothing.

The word This is full of declaration of virtue and praise of person. For he that was sent, he says, from God, he that with reason struck with astonishment the whole of Judaea, by the gravity of his life and its marvellous exercise in virtue, he that is fore-announced by the voice of the holy Prophets: called by Isaiah, The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and by the blessed David, a lamp fore-ordained for Christ; This man came for a witness to hear witness of the Light. He here calls God the Word Light, and shows that He is One and strictly the very actual Light, with Whom there is by nature nought else that has the property of illumining, and that is not lacking light. Therefore foreign and, so to say, of other nature than the creature is the Word of God, since verily and truly is He strictly Light, the creature participate of light. He then that is unclassed with things made, and conceived of therefore as being of other nature than they, how will He be originate, rather how will He not be within the limits of Deity and replete with the Good Nature of Him who begat Him?

Since, according to what was said by God through Moses, "At the mouth of two and three witnesses shall every word be established," wisely does [John the Evangelist] bring in addition to himself the blessed Baptist.… For he did not suppose that he ought, even if of gravest weight, to demand of the readers in his book concerning our Savior credence above that of the law, and that they should believe him by himself when declaring things above our understanding and sense.

"The same came for a witness, to bear witness of that Light."

What is this, perhaps one may say, the servant bear witness to his Master? When then you see Him not only witnessed to by His servant, but even coming to him, and with Jews baptized by him, will you not be still more astonished and perplexed? Yet you ought not to be troubled nor confused, but amazed at such unspeakable goodness... And the Evangelist using the same language as his Master, after saying, "to bear witness of that Light," adds, "That all men through Him might believe." All but saying, Think not that the reason why John the Baptist came to bear witness, was that he might add aught to the trustworthiness of his Master. No; (He came,) that by his means beings of his own class might believe.

Some try to undo the testimonies of the prophets to Christ by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses.… To this we may reply that where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof and not by another.And with respect to the doctrine of the incarnation, it is certain that some have been forced by the prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before his advent, fixed the place of his birth [and by other proofs of the same kind].… It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves.… We must remember too that people receive honor themselves from the witness that they bear to God.… He, therefore, who maintains that there is no need for the prophetic witness to Christ deprives the choir of prophets of their greatest gift. For what would prophecy, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, have that is so great, if one exclude from it those matters related to the dispensation of our Lord?… John, too, therefore came to bear witness concerning the light.

(t. ii. c. 28) Some try to undo the testimonies of the Prophets to Christ, by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses; the wholesome words which He uttered and His miraculous acts being sufficient to produce belief; just as Moses deserved belief for his speech and goodness, and wanted no previous witnesses. To this we may reply, that, where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof, and not by another, and God, Who for the sake of all men became man, can give them many reasons for belief in Him. And with respect to the doctrine of the Incarnation, certain it is that some have been forced by the Prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before His advent, fixed the place of His nativity; and by other proofs of the same kind. It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves. We must recollect too that men receive honour themselves from the witness which they bear to God. He deprives the Prophetical choir of immeasurable honour, whoever denies that it was their office to bear witness to Christ. John when he comes to bear witness to the light, follows in the train of those who went before him.

"He," it says, "was sent from God to bear witness concerning the light." Then, lest anyone should think that his testimony was truly needed for the Only-Begotten, as though He were in need of something, the evangelist adds that John came to bear witness concerning the Son of God not because He needed his testimony, but so that all might believe through him. Did all then indeed believe through him? No. How then does the evangelist say: so that all might believe? How? — as far as it depended on him, he bore witness in order to draw all people, but if some did not believe, he does not deserve blame. The sun also rises in order to illuminate all, but if someone, having shut himself in a dark room, does not make use of its ray, is the sun to blame for this? So it is here as well. John was sent so that all might believe through him; but if this did not happen, he is not at fault.

Though some however might not believe, he is not accountable for them. When a man shuts himself up in a dark room, so as to receive no light from the sun's rays, he is the cause of the deprivation, not the sun. In like manner John was sent, that all men might believe; but if no such result followed, he is not the cause of the failure.

Then he is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned. Secondly, the reason for his office, to bear witness to the light.

Now his office is to bear witness; hence he says, He came as a witness.

Here it should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for himself. "The Lord made all things for himself" (Prv 16:4). Not, indeed, to add anything to himself, since he has no need of our good, but so that his goodness might be made manifest in all of the things made by him, in that "his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made" (Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made as a witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the divine goodness. So, the vastness of creation is a witness to God's power and omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness to the divine wisdom. But certain men are ordained by God in a special way, so that they bear witness to God not only naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. Hence all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by their good works. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:16). But those who not only share in God's gifts in themselves by acting well through the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their teaching, influencing and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God. "Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory" (Is 43:7). And so John came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of God and to proclaim his praise.

This office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can testify about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it. "We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see" (below 3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine truth indicates a knowledge of that truth. So Christ also had this office: "I have come into the world for this, to testify to the truth" (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one way and John in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all things, indeed, as the existing light itself. John bears witness only as participating in that light. And so Christ gives testimony in a perfect manner and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy men give testimony in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John's office, therefore, is great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a likeness to Christ, who carried out this office. "I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and a commander of the nations" (Is 55:4).

The purpose of this office is given when he says, that he might bear witness to the light. Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the witness is concerned; for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing. The other is on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not because of the thing about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, bear witness to the light, i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came, therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he testified, so that through him (i.e., John) all men might believe. For as light is not only visible in itself and of itself, but through it all else can be seen, so the Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known all things that are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, and all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word is light not only in himself, but as making known all things; "all that appears is light" (Eph 5:13).

And so it was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son "light," because he came as "a revealing light to the Gentiles" (Lk 2:32). Above, he called the Son of God the Word, by which the Father expresses himself and every creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, the light of men, and the Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the salvation of men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name "Word" when speaking of the Son, and says, "light."

But if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what need does it have of any witness? This was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets.

Origen gives three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses. Thus we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects by means of intermediate causes, not because he himself is unable to produce them without these intermediaries, but he deigns to confer on them the dignity of causality because he wishes to ennoble these intermediate causes. Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself and lead them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to ennoble certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain other men. "'You are my witnesses,' says the Lord" (Is 43:10).

A second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could also reach those to come after. Hence the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the Word through the testimony of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men yet to come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, so that through him all men might believe, i.e., not only those present, but also future generations.

The third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed to a knowledge of the truth in the same way. For some are brought to a knowledge of the truth by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom. "The Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom" (1 Cor 1:22). And so the Lord, in order to show the path of salvation to all, willed both ways to be open, i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old and New Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of wisdom, as in the prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.

A fourth reason, given by Chrysostom, is that certain men of weak understanding are unable to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach by themselves. And so he says, that through him all men might believe. As if to say: he came as a witness, not for the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so that through him all men might believe. And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are fitting and proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the knowledge of the truth.

He says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the perfect participation which is present in glory, "In your light, we shall see the light" (Ps 35:10). The other is imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness. Of these two ways it is said, "Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we shall see face to face" (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, "Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known." Among these two ways, the first is the way of participation through faith, because through it we are brought to vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) where our version has, "If you do not believe, you will not persist," another version has, "If you do not believe, you will not understand." "All of us, gazing on the Lord's glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image," which we have lost (2 Cor 3:18). "From the glory of faith to the glory of vision," as a Gloss says.

And so he says, that through him all men might believe, not as though all would see him perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy him through vision in heaven.

He says through him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that all might believe in him. "He who believes in me, as Scripture says, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water'" (below 7:38). John, on the other hand, came that all men might believe, not in him, but in Christ through him.

One may object that not all have believed. So if John came so that all might believe through him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John, and of John, who came, the method used is adequate to bring all to the truth. But on the part of those "who have fixed their eyes on the ground" (Ps 16:11), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because all did not believe.

He recognized himself: deservedly the Lord called him a lamp. The Lord said this about John: He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But what does the evangelist John say about him? There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: he came as a witness to bear witness about the light; he was not the light. Who? John the Baptist. Who says this? John the Evangelist: He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. You say: He was not the light: of whom does he say the light itself: He was a burning and shining lamp. But I know, he says, what kind of light I say; I know by whose light's comparison the lamp is not light. Listen to what follows: He was the true light that enlightens every man coming into this world. John does not enlighten every man, Christ enlightens every man. And John recognized himself as a lamp, lest he be extinguished by the wind of pride. A lamp can both be lit and extinguished. The word of God cannot be extinguished, but a lamp always can.

Wherefore then did he come? "But that he might bear witness concerning the light." Why so? "That all might believe through him." And concerning what light was he to bear witness? "That was the true light." Wherefore is it added true? Because an enlightened man is also called a light; but the true light is that which enlightens. For even our eyes are called lights; and nevertheless, unless either during the night a lamp is lighted, or during the day the sun goes forth, these lights are open in vain. Thus, therefore, John was a light, but not the true light; because, if not enlightened, he would have been darkness; but, by enlightenment, he became a light. For unless he had been enlightened he would have been darkness, as all those once impious men, to whom, as believers, the apostle said, "Ye were sometimes darkness." But now, because they had believed, what? "but now are ye light," he says, "in the Lord." Unless he had added "in the Lord," we should not have understood. "Light," he says, "in the Lord:" darkness you were not in the Lord. "For ye were sometimes darkness," where he did not add in the Lord. Therefore, darkness in you, light in the Lord. And thus "he was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of the light."

John, a man of distinguished grace, was sent before Him, a man enlightened by Him who is the Light. For of John it is said, "He was not the Light, but that he should bear witness of the Light." He may himself be called a light indeed, and rightly so; but an enlightened, not an enlightening light. The light that enlightens, and that which is enlightened, are different things: for even our eyes are called lights, and yet when we open them in the dark, they do not see. But the light that enlightens is a light both from itself and for itself, and does not need another light for its shining; but all the rest need it, that they may shine.

"He was not that light," in which one must believe; "but that he might bear testimony concerning the light": which indeed he did; below in chapter 5: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth."

It is asked concerning what he says: "He was not the light." On the contrary: Ephesians 5: "You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord": therefore all the good are light. The Gloss responds that there is a light that illuminates and a light that is illuminated. John and the other Saints are not the illuminating light, but light illuminated by the first light.

But against this is Matthew 5: "So let your light shine before men"; and Philippians 2: "Among whom you shine as luminaries in the world."

There is a light that illuminates effectively and dispositively. The light that illuminates effectively is light by essence, and thus God alone is the illuminating light; dispositively, it is light by participation, and thus are the Saints, who illuminate by word and example.

The Baptist having esteemed desert-abodes above the haunts of the cities, and having shown forth an unwonted persistence in exercise of virtue, and having mounted to the very summit of the righteousness attainable by man, was most rightly wondered at, and even by some imagined to be Christ Himself. And indeed the rulers of the Jews led by his achievements in virtue to some such notion, send some to him bidding them to inquire if he be the Christ. The blessed Evangelist then not ignorant of the things that were by many bruited of him, of necessity puts, He was not the Light, that he might both uproot the error as to this, and again build up some weight of credence to him who was sent from God for a witness. For how is he not eminent exceedingly, how is he not every way worthy of marvel, who is so clad with great virtue and so illustrious in righteousness as to imitate Christ Himself, and by the choice beauty of his piety, to be even imagined to be the Light Itself?

He was not then, says he, the Light, but sent to bear witness of the Light. In saying the Light, with the addition of the article, he shows that it is really one: for so it is in truth. For that both the blessed Baptist and each of the other saints, may be rightly called light we will not deny, seeing that it is said of them by our Saviour, Ye are the light of the world. And again it is said of the holy Baptist, I have ordained a lamp for My Christ, and, He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But even though the saints be light, and the Baptist a lamp, we are not ignorant of the grace that was given them and of their supply from the Light. For neither is the light in the lamp its own, nor the illumination in the saints, but they are rendered bright and lightsome by the enlightening of the Truth and are lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. And what is the Life, whose word they holding forth are called light, save surely the Only-Begotten, Who saith, I am the Life? Therefore, One of a truth is That Which is verily Light, lighting, not enlightened: and by participation of the One, whatever is called light, will be so deemed of by imitation of It.

"He was not that Light."

Now if he did not introduce this as setting himself against this suspicion, then the expression is absolutely superfluous, and tautology rather than elucidation of his teaching. For why, after having said that he "was sent to bear witness of that Light," does he again say, "He was not that Light"? (He says it,) not loosely or without reason; but, because, for the most part, among ourselves, the person witnessing is held to be greater, and generally more trustworthy than the person witnessed of; therefore, that none might suspect this in the case of John, at once from the very beginning he removes this evil suspicion, and having torn it up by the roots, shows who this is that bears witness, and who is He who is witnessed of, and what an interval there is between the witnessed of, and the bearer of witness.

The Baptist's leaping for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at Mary's greeting was a testimony about Christ. He was testifying to the divinity of Christ's conception and birth. For what indeed is John, except everywhere a witness and forerunner of Jesus? He precedes his birth and dies a little before the death of the Son of God, that, by appearing before the Christ not only to those in birth but also those awaiting the freedom from death through Christ, he might everywhere prepare for the Lord a prepared people.…Now since there was the beginning in which the Word was … and since the Word also existed, and life was made in him, and the life was the light of people … why then did he not come "to give testimony of the life," or "to give testimony of the Word," or "of the beginning," or of any other aspect of the Christ whatsoever? Consider whether it is not [because] "the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light" and because "the light shines in the darkness" and is not overcome by it. Those who are in darkness, that is, men and women, need light. For if the light "shines in the darkness"—there is no activity of darkness at all there—we shall share in other aspects of the Christ in which we do not now participate.

It follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light that has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, "He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light." For Christ himself was, as we have said before, the true Light that enlightens everyone that comes into the world. For if "he was in the world, and the world was made by him," of necessity he is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made by him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by him it came into being.

Since it often happens that a witness is greater than the one about whom he testifies, lest you think that John, who testifies about Christ, was also greater than Him, the Evangelist, in refutation of this wicked thought, says: "he was not the Light." But perhaps someone will say: "Can we not call John, or any other of the saints, light?" We can call each of the saints a light, but the Light, in this sense, we cannot call them. For example, if someone asks you: "Is John a light?" — agree. But if he asks thus: "Is John that Light?" — say "no." For he himself is not the light in the proper sense, but light by participation, having his radiance from the true Light.

But it will be said, that we do not allow John or any of the saints to be or ever to have been light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints light, we put light without the article. So if asked whether John is light, without the article, thou mayest allow without hesitation that he is: if with the article, thou allow it not. For he is not very, original, light, but is only called so, on account of his partaking of the light, which cometh from the true Light.

Now although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent by God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because the salvation of man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the light, his coming would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So he says, he was not the light. Consequently, a light was needed that would suffice to save men.

Or, we could look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom he bears witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says, he was not the light, but he came in order to bear witness to the light. For he bears witness not because he is greater, but because he is better known, even though he is not as great.

There is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. Conflicting with this is, "You were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8); and "You are the light of the world" (Mt 5:14). Therefore, John and the apostles and all good men are a light.

I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if "light" is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights. The meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very essence; but John and all the saints are light by participation. So, because John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear witness to the light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else, and color by something colored.

For you are translated from your former vain and tedious mode of life and have contemned the lifeless idols, and despised the demons, which are in darkness, and have run to the "true light," [John 1:9] and by it have "known the one and only true God and Father," [John 17:3] and so are owned to be heirs of His kingdom. For since you have "been baptized into the Lord's death," [Romans 6:3] and into His resurrection, as "new-born babes," [1 Peter 2:2] you ought to be wholly free from all sinful actions; "for you are not your own, but His that bought you" [1 Corinthians 6:19-20] with His own blood.

But the apostles too, my brothers and sisters, are lamps for the day. Do not imagine that John alone is a lamp and that the apostles are not. The Lord said to them, "You are the light of the world." And in case they should suppose they were light of the same sort as the light about which it is said, "That was the true light, which enlightens everyone coming into this world," he went on immediately to teach them this true light. After saying, "You are the light of the world," he added, "Nobody lights a lamp and puts it under the bushel." In calling you light, I meant you are a lamp; do not jump about for joy in your pride, in case its little flame gets blown out. I am not placing you under a bushel; but in order to shine, you shall be on the lampstand.Listen to the lampstand; be lamps, and you shall have a lampstand. The cross of Christ is a great lampstand. Whoever wishes to shine must not be ashamed of this wooden lampstand.

But where is that light? "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." If every man that cometh, then also John. The true light, therefore, enlightened him by whom He desired Himself to be pointed out. Understand, beloved, for He came to infirm minds, to wounded hearts, to the gaze of dim-eyed souls. For this purpose had He come. And whence was the soul able to see that which perfectly is? Even as it commonly happens, that by means of some illuminated body, the sun, which we cannot see with the eyes, is known to have arisen. Because even those who have wounded eyes are able to see a wall illuminated and enlightened by the sun, or a mountain, or anything of that sort; and, by means of another body illuminated, that arising is shown to those who are not as yet able to gaze on it. Thus, therefore all those to whom Christ came were not fit to see Him: upon John He shed the beams of His light; and by means of him confessing himself to have been irradiated and enlightened, not claiming to be one who irradiates and enlightens, He is known who enlightens, He is known who illuminates, He is known who fills. And who is it? "He who lighteth every man," he says, "who cometh into the world." For if man had not receded from that light, he would not have required to be illuminated; but for this reason has he to be illuminated here, because he departed from that light by which man might always have been illuminated.

"But that was the true Light," saith the evangelist, "that lighteneth every man coming into this world." If "every man," then also John himself; for he too is of men. Moreover, although none hath arisen among them that are born of women greater than John, yet he was himself one of those that are born of women. Is he to be compared with Him who, because He willed it, was born by a singular and extraordinary birth? For both generations of the Lord are unexampled, both the divine and the human: by the divine He has no mother; by the human, no father. Therefore John was but one of the rest: of greater grace, however, so that of those born of women none arose greater than he; so great a testimony he gave to our Lord Jesus Christ as to call Him the Bridegroom, and himself the Bridegroom's friend, not worthy however to loose the latchet of the Bridegroom's shoe.

(in Joan. Tr. ii) What Light it is to which John bears witness, he shows himself, saying, That was the true Light.

(Tract. ii. in Joh. §. 7) Wherefore is there added, true? Because man enlightened is called light, but the true Light is that which lightens. For our eyes are called lights, and yet, without a lamp at night, or the sun by day, these lights are open to no purpose. Wherefore he adds: which lighteneth every man: but if every man, then John himself. He Himself then enlightened the person, by whom He wished Himself to be pointed out. And just as we may often, from the reflexion of the sun's rays on some object, know the sun to be risen, though we cannot look at the sun itself; as even feeble eyes can look at an illuminated wall, or some object of that kind: even so, those to whom Christ came, being too weak to behold Him, He threw His rays upon John; John confessed the illumination, and so the Illuminator Himself was discovered. It is said, that cometh into the world. Had man not departed from Him, he had not had to be enlightened; but therefore is he to be here enlightened, because he departed thence, when he might have been enlightened.

(de Pecc. Mer. et Remiss. i. c. xxv) Or the words, lighteneth every man, may be understood to mean, not that there is no one who is not enlightened, but that no one is enlightened except by Him.

Including both natural and divine wisdom; for as no one can exist of himself, so no one can be wise of himself.

"He is the true light, which illumines every man coming into this world." No one is illumined with certitude except through him. And Augustine in the fourteenth book of On the Trinity asks whence it comes that the impious sometimes judges well; whence he asks: "Where are those laws of justice written, according to which the impious judges well?" And he responds that "they are written in the book of eternal light, and they descend into the soul not by migrating but by impressing themselves, just as the image of a ring, which is impressed upon wax, does not leave the ring." The Gloss says that the intellect by nature has the power of understanding, according to which man is distinguished from beasts; but God alone illumines perfectly. "For he alone holds the chair in heaven who teaches man on earth." He alone holds the power to illumine every man: for he illumines every man.

Having determined the coming of the precursor, the coming of the King is determined, and it is determined with its properties and circumstances. He therefore describes this coming of Christ in the following order. First is noted the reason for coming; second, the rejection of the one coming; third, the usefulness or fruit of the coming itself; fourth, the manner of coming.

The reason therefore for coming in the flesh is first touched upon, which was this: because God himself before the Incarnation, although he was the highest light present to all, was not known by the world; therefore he was made visible, so that he might be known. For this reason he says: "There was the true light," namely by essence; "which enlightens every man coming into this world"; below in chapter eight: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me does not walk in darkness." This light was present to the world: whence he was in the world by presence; Wisdom 7: "It reaches everywhere because of its purity."

But it is asked concerning what he says: "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world"; because it was said above that some men are darkness: therefore he does not enlighten all. If you say: as far as it is in itself: then if no one can resist his will, it is necessary that all be enlightened. To this Augustine responds thus: "He enlightens every one, namely every one who is enlightened, because no one is enlightened except through him." The example of a teacher teaching boys. Bede responds that this is understood of the light of nature, not of grace; and everyone has the light of God's countenance sealed upon him. Chrysostom however explains it thus: because he is prepared to enlighten; but not all are enlightened, because they close the way of light to themselves. The example of a blind man standing in the sun. As to the objection that if he wills, he does it: it must be said that absolutely he does not will to enlighten except those who are willing; but by a conditional will he wills all to be enlightened, just as he wills all men to be saved.

Now the intellect is said to truly comprehend the meaning of propositions when it knows with certitude that they are true; and this knowing is knowing that it cannot be deceived in that comprehension. For it knows that that truth cannot be otherwise; it knows therefore that that truth is unchangeable. But since our mind itself is changeable, it cannot see that truth shining so unchangeably except through some light radiating altogether unchangeably, which it is impossible to be a changeable creature. It knows therefore in that light which illumines every man coming into this world, which is the true light and the Word in the beginning with God.

Because not all obey the Gospel, and that truth is above reason; therefore divine wisdom has provided an eternal testimony, which indeed is the book of life. Now this book of life, of itself and in itself, explicitly and expressly gives irrefragable testimony to the eternal Trinity to those who with unveiled face see God in the homeland, but on the way it gives testimony according to the influence of light, of which the soul is capable in the state of the way — for as it is said in John 1: The life was the light of men, because this book of life is the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Now it illuminates in a twofold manner, namely through the implanted light and through the infused light, from the concurrence of which lights the habit of faith is elicited as an argument for believing that God is triune, and consequently every truth that pertains to the worship of the Christian religion.

To that which is objected from Gregory and Dionysius, it must be said that neither denies that that true light, which *enlightens every man coming into this world,* is attained by our minds, but that in this life it is not yet fully seen.

The Indian ascetic, mortifying his body on a bed of spikes, preaches the same lesson; the Greek philosopher tells us that the life of wisdom is "a practice of death". The sensitive and noble heathen of modern times makes his imagined gods "die into life". Mr. Huxley expounds "non-attachment". We cannot escape the doctrine by ceasing to be Christians. It is an "eternal gospel" revealed to men wherever men have sought, or endured, the truth: it is the very nerve of redemption, which anatomising wisdom at all times and in all places lays bare; the unescapable knowledge which the Light that lighteneth every man presses down upon the minds of all who seriously question what the universe is "about". The peculiarity of the Christian faith is not to teach this doctrine but to render it, in various ways, more tolerable.

[On how Christianity, unlike atheism, can account for the truths found in other religions — they are partial reflections of the one true Light]

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

Moses, then, was a sage, king, legislator. But our Saviour surpasses all human nature. He is so lovely, as to be alone loved by us, whose hearts are set on the true beauty, for "He was the true light." He is shown to be a King, as such hailed by unsophisticated children and by the unbelieving and ignorant Jews, and heralded by the prophets. So rich is He, that He despised the whole earth, and the gold above and beneath it, with all glory, when given to Him by the adversary. What need is there to say that He is the only High Priest, who alone possesses the knowledge of the worship of God?

CHAPTER VIII. That the Son of God alone is Very Light, the creature not at all, being participate of Light, as originate.

That was the true Light.

The Divine Evangelist again profitably recapitulates what has been said, and clearly marks off That Which is in truth the Light, the Only-Begotten, from those that are not so, namely things originate: he severs clearly That Which is by nature from them which are by grace, That Which is partaken of from those which are participate of it, That Which ministereth Itself to those who lack from those who are in enjoyment of Its largess. And if the Son is Very Light, nought save He is in truth Light, nor hath of its own in potential the being called and being Light, nor yet will things originate produce this as fruit of their own nature; but just as from not being they are, so from not being Light will they mount up to being light, and by receiving the beams of the Very Light, and irradiated by the participation of the Divine Nature, will they in imitation of It alike be called and be light.

And the Word of God is Essentially Light, not being so of grace by participation, nor having this dignity as an accident in Himself, nor yet imported, as grace, but the unchangeable and immutable good of the Uncreated Nature, passing through from the Father into the Heir of His Essence. But the creature, not so will it bear about it the being light, but as not having it receives, as darkness it is illumined, it has, as an accruing grace, the dignity from the love to man of Him Who giveth it. Hence the One is Very Light, the other not at all. So great therefore being the difference |76 between, and so great a notion severing off, the Son of God from the creature in respect to sameness of nature, how must one not and with reason deem that they are foolish, yea rather outside of all good understanding, who say that He is originate, and rank with things made the Creator of all, not seeing, as seems to me, how great impiety their daring will risk, not knowing either what they say nor whereof they affirm.

For that to those who are used to test more accurately the truth in the words before us, the Only-Begotten, that is, the True Light, will be shown to be in no way originate or made, or in any thing at all con-natural with the creature, one may on all sides see and that very easily, and not least through the thoughts that are in order subjoined, collected for the consideration of what is before us.

Thoughts or syllogisms whereby one may learn that the Son Alone is Very Light, the creature not at all; hence neither is He connatural therewith.

If the Son being the Brightness of the glory of God the Father, is therefore Very Light, He will not be connatural with the creature, that the creature too be not conceived of as the brightness of the glory of God the Father, having in potential the being by nature this which the Son is.

Another. If the whole creation have the power of being Very Light, why is this attributed to the Son Alone? For one ought I suppose by reason of equality to give to things made also the title of being the Very Light. But no one of things originate will this befit, but it will be predicated of the Alone Essence of the Son. Of right therefore and truly will it rest on Him, on created things not at all. How then will He be connatural with the creation, and not rather belong to what is above the creation, as being above it with the Father?

Another. If that which is not in truth light be not the same as the in truth Light (for the enunciation of either has somewhat of diversity), and the Son be called Very Light, and be so of a truth: the creature will therefore not be Very Light. Hence neither are things thus severed from one another connatural.

Another. If not only the Only-Begotten be the Very Light, but the creature too possesseth the being very light, wherefore does He light every man that cometh into the world? For since the originate nature too possesseth this of its own, the being lightened by the Son were superfluous. Yet verily doth He light, all we are partakers of Him. Not therefore the same in regard to quality of essence, are the Son and the creature: as neither with the participator that whereof it is participate.

Another. If not only to the Son by Nature accrues the being Very Light, but the creature too have it, clearly of superfluity as I think will the Psalmist say to some, Look unto Him and be ye lightened. For that which is wholly of a truth light, will not become light by participation of some other, neither will it be illumined by enlightenment from other, but rather will be endowed with perfect purity from its own nature. But we see that man lacks light, being of created nature; and true is the Psalmist crying aloud as to the Word of God, For Thou wilt light my candle, the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness. Not then of a truth light are we, but rather participate of the Word that lighteth, and alien by nature from the Very Light, which is the Son.

Another of the same. If the mind of man is called a candle, as it is sung in the Psalms, For Thou wilt light my candle, how shall we be of a truth light? for to the candle the light is imported and given. And if the Only-Begotten Alone lights the darkness that is in us, how is not He rather of a truth light, we not at all? But if this be true, how can He be connatural with the creature, Who is so far above it?

Another. If to be very light can accrue to the creature, even as to the Son, man will be very light, as being a portion of it. To whom then did God the Father promise by the holy Prophets saying, But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise? For whatever need of the Sun to illumine it had the of a truth light? Yet did God the Father promise to give it us as being in need, and we have received it and are lighted. Other then than we and the creature in regard to identity of essence is the Only-Begotten, being Very Light and able to lighten things that need light.

Another. If not the Son Alone is Very Light, but the creature too possess this, it will be consequently in us too. What then induced the saints to cry aloud to God, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth? Wherein thinking to help us thereby did they oftentimes send forth, tell me, those words? For if they knew that man is in need of light and that he lacks this addition from another, how will any say with truth, that he too is Very Light? but if he needed not the lighting word, why to no purpose did they call on Him Who could in no wise aid them? But one cannot say that the mind of the saints failed of the truth, and God the Father Himself sends the Son as to those who lack light. Other therefore by Nature in respect of the creature is the Only-Begotten, as lighting things that lack Light.

Another. If we say that the creature lacks light, and that the Only-Begotten lightens it, the creature does not bring itself to the Light; hence neither is it Very Light as the Son is.

Another. If that which is by nature and truth light does not admit of darkness, and the Only-Begotten is Very Light, and the creature likewise Very Light, why does the Scripture say of the Son, The darkness comprehended it not: but of us Paul saith, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not? and again the Saviour Himself, While ye have the light, walk in the light, lest darkness come upon you. For it is I suppose clear to all, that unless it were possible for some of us to be apprehended by the darkness, our Saviour would not have said ought of this. How then will any longer be the same in nature the Only-Begotten and the creature, the Unchangeable with the changing, He Who may not suffer ought that injures with the darkened and that can acquire lighting, as something, that is, accruing to it, and not inherent in it by nature?

Another. If the Only-Begotten be not Alone Very Light, but the creature have it too, as connatural with Him, how |79 cry we aloud to God the Father, In Thy Light shall we see light? For if we be very light, how shall we be enlightened in another? But if we as needing light from without us say this, we clearly are not in truth light. Hence neither are we connatural with the Word Who is by Nature so far above us.

Another expository. Our Lord Jesus Christ is found to say in the Gospel, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light. But if the Only-Begotten is the Very Light, and the creature is capable of being likewise very light: how cometh He in order to lighten it, and it loved darkness? How at all cometh it not to the light, if itself be the very light? For things that pertain to any by nature have their possession inherent: things that are eligible of the will, have not that inherence: as for example;----not of one's own will does one attain to being a rational man; for one has it by nature: but one will have it of one's own will to be bad or good, and will likewise of one's own power love righteousness or the reverse. If the creature is by nature the light (for this is the meaning of very), how cometh it not to the light? or how loveth it the darkness, as though it possessed not by nature the being very light, but made through choice rather its inclination to the better or the worse?

Either therefore let our opponents dare to say that the endowments above those of the creature are not naturally inherent in the Son, that they may be convicted of more naked blasphemy and may hear from all, The Lord shall cut off all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, or if they surely confess that these goods are in Him Essentially, let them not connect with Him in unity of nature, the nature that is not so, as we have just shewn.

Another. If the Word of God be not Alone the Very Light, but the creature too possess the being very light, as He does, why does He say, I am the light of the world? or how shall we endure one to despoil our nature of its most |80 excellent prerogative, if it is any way possible that we too should be very light, the originate nature likewise possessing this? But if the Only-Begotten says truly, I am the Light of the world, by participation it is plain with Him, and no otherwise, will the creature be light. If so, it is not connatural with Him.

Another. If the Son be not Alone in truth Light, but this exist in things originate also:----what shall we say, when the most wise Paul writes to us, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light? For what kind of darkness at all is there in us, or in what darkness were we, being ourselves also the in truth light? how have we been called unto the light, who are not in darkness? But neither does the herald of truth speak untrulySvho was bold to say, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and we are called into His marvellous Light, as from darkness that is, and no otherwise. But if this be true, the creature is not of a truth light, but the Son is alone truly and strictly Light, and things originate are so by participation of Him, and therefore they are not connatural with Him.

Others with citation of utterances, gathering the readers by simpler thoughts to the confession that the Son of God Alone is the Very Light, the nature of things originate lighted by largess from Him, not possessing the being light essentially as He is.

The Psalmist says, The light of Thy Countenance was impressed upon us, O Lord. And what is the Countenance of God the Father Whose Light has been impressed upon us? Is it not surely the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Express Image, and Which therefore says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? But it was impressed on us, making us of like form with Himself and engraving the illumination which is through His own Spirit as a Divine Image upon those who believe on Him, that they too may now be called as He both gods and sons of God. But if ought of things originate were the very light, how was it impressed upon us? For the Light shineth in darkness, according to the unlying voice of the Spirit-clad. For how will light be manifest in light?

Another. The Psalmist says, Light sprang up for the righteous. If to him who hath and lacketh not, it is superfluous. But if the Light springeth up as to one who hath it not, the Only-Begotten Alone is Light, the creature participate of Light and therefore alien-in-nature.

Another. The Psalmist says, For they got not the land in possession with their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy Right Hand and Thine Arm and the Light of Thy Countenance. The light of the countenance of God the Father he here calls His revelation from the Son through the Spirit, and His conducting thereof unto all things that are, which alone was what saved Israel and liberated them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. If then not the Only-Begotten Alone be the very light, but an equal dignity be inherent in the creature too, why were these of whom he speaks not saved by their own light, but are set forth as supplied by additions from an alien and needless light? But it is clear that the Only Begotten shone forth as on those lacking Light. Hence is He (and that alone) the Very Light, and the creature borrows of Him the grace. If so, how will it any longer be connatural with Him?

Another. The Psalmist says, Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the Light of Thy Countenance. Why shall not they too walk rather in their own light? why, tell me, do they gathering illumination from another, hardly attain for themselves salvation, if they too are in truth light, as is the Countenance of God the Father, that is, the Son? But it is I suppose plain to every one from this too, that the Word bestoweth illumination on the creature, as lacking it, it is saved by receiving what it has not. How then are the Only-Begotten and the things made through Him any longer the same in essence?

Another. The Psalmist says, Unto the upright He hath sent forth light in the darkness. How was the upright in darkness at all, being himself too very light, if the nature of things originate have this, just as the Only-Begotten? But if the Light is sent to the upright as not having it, we shall not need many words; for the very nature of things will proclaim aloud that not the same in essence is the needy with the Perfect, the Bestower out of abundance with the lacking.

Another. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem: for thy Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. If the nature of things originate have light from its own resources, and this be strictly what we say that the Only-Begotten is in regard of being Very Light, how did Jerusalem lack one to light her? But since she receives illumination as a grace, Very Light Alone is the Son Who lights her and gives her what she has not. If so, how is He not wholly Other by Nature than she?

Another. Behold I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. For how should the rational creature that is on earth at all need light, if to be very light is inherent in it by nature? For God the Father gives His Own Son to it as having it not already: and it receiving Him proclaims by the very nature of the thing, both the poverty of its own nature and the Rich Dignity of Him Who lights it.

Another. O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord. Why do these not rather walk in their own light, but the Only-Begotten holds forth light to them, implanting in them the own good of His Essence? But trusting not in what is their own, do they borrow what is another's: as not having therefore, they know how to do this.

Another. The Saviour saith, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of life. Let the creature too dare to utter such a word, if it too be by nature light. But if it shrink back from the word, it will also flee the thing itself, confessing the true Light, that is, the Son.

Another. The Lord saith, While ye have light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light. Would they who were by nature light, by not believing, lose the light? if it be indeed any way possible for the originate essence to be the very light. And how could this be? For not as to things that of essence accrue to any does the loss of them at all happen through negligence, but as to things whereof the will works the possession, and that can accrue and depart without the damage of the subject. As for example, a man is rational by nature, a ship-builder by will, or infirm in body by accident. He cannot at all become irrational; he may lose his ship-building experience, if for example he be negligent, and he may drive away what befalls him of sickness, hastening to improvement through medicine. Therefore things that accrue to any essentially have their position radical. If then the nature of things originate can at all be the very light, how do they who will not believe lose the light, or how will they who believe become children of light? For if they too are by nature the light, they are called children of themselves. And what is the reward to them that believe? for they who do not receive the faith are rather their own children. From such considerations inferring the truth, we shall say that the Only Begotten is Alone the Very Light, the creature lacking light and hence other in nature.

Another. Jesus then said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you. To this too you may apply well the argument used above. For that which is by nature light, will never be apprehended by darkness.

Another. John saith, He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now. Of choice then is the light in us, and of will rather than of essence accrues it to things originate, if he that hateth his brother is in darkness. But the Only-Begotten is Light by Nature, for He hath not the dignity as the fruit of choice. Hence neither is He connatural to things originate Who is so far above them.

Another akin to this. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light. Love imparteth to things originate what they have not, Light that is, but the Only-Begotten is Light: Other therefore is He than they in whom through love He is.

The rational portion of the creation, being enlightened, enlightens by sharing ideas from one mind as they are poured into another. Such enlightenment will rightly be called teaching rather than revelation. But the Word of God "enlightens everyone that comes into the world," not after the manner of teaching, as the angels, for example, or people, but rather, as God after the mode of creation, he engrafts in each of those that are called into being the seed of wisdom or of divine knowledge and implants a root of understanding. In this way, he renders the living creature rational, allowing it to participate in his own nature and sending into the mind, as it were, certain luminous vapors of the unutterable brightness in a way and mode that only he himself knows. For one may not, I think, say too much on these subjects. Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained wisdom not in time, as we, but right away from the first beginnings of his being he appears perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.The Son therefore lights after the manner of creation, as being himself the very Light. And by participation with the Light the creature shines forth and is therefore called and is light. The creature mounts up to what is above its nature by the kindness of him who glorified it and who crowns it with diverse honors. And so each one of those who have been honored may with good reason come forward and lift up prayers of thanksgiving.… For truly does the Lord commit acts of mercy, rendering those that are little and a mere nothing according to their own nature, great and worthy to be marveled at through his goodness toward them, even as he has, as God, willed to adorn us ungrudgingly with his own goods. And so he calls us gods and light. In fact, what good things are there that he does not call us?

But if any one, he says, is blind from birth, and has never beheld the true light, "which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world," by us let him recover his sight, and behold, as it were, through some paradise planted with every description of tree, and supplied with abundance of fruits, water coursing its way through all the trees and fruits; and he will see that from one and the same water the olive chooses for itself and draws the oil, and the vine the wine; and (so is it with) the rest of plants, according to each genus. That Man, however, he says, is of no reputation in the world, but of illustrious fame in heaven, being betrayed by those who are ignorant (of his perfections) to those who know him not, being accounted as a drop from a cask. We, however, he says, are spiritual, who, from the life-giving water of Euphrates, which flows through the midst of Babylon, choose our own peculiar quality as we pass through the true gate, which is the blessed Jesus. And of all men, we Christians alone are those who in the third gate celebrate the mystery, and are anointed there with the unspeakable chrism from a horn, as David (was anointed), not from an earthen vessel, he says, as (was) Saul, who held converse with the evil demon of carnal concupiscence.

All things, therefore whatsoever it is possible to declare, and whatever, being not as yet discovered, one must omit, were likely to receive adaptation to the world which was about to be generated from the Seed. And this (Seed), at the requisite seasons, increases in bulk in a peculiar manner, according to accession, as through the instrumentality of a Deity so great, and of this description. (But this Deity) the creature can neither express nor grasp by perception. (Now, all these things) were inherent, treasured in the Seed, as we afterwards observe in a new-born child the growth of teeth, and paternal substance, and intellect, and everything which, though previously having no existence, accrues unto a man, growing little by little, from a youthful period of life. But since it would be absurd to say that any projection of a non-existent God became anything non-existent (for Basilides altogether sirens and dreads the Substances of things generated in the way of projection for, (he asks,) of what sort of projection is there a necessity, or of what sort of matter must we assume the previous existence, in order that God should construct a world, as the spider his web; or (as) a mortal man, for the purpose of working it, takes a (piece of) brass or of wood, or some other of the parts of matter?),-(projection, I say, being out of the question,) certainly, says (Basilides), God spoke the word, and it was carried into effect. And this, as these men assert, is that which has been stated by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was light." Whence he says, came the light? From nothing. For it has not been written, he says, whence, but this only, (that it came) from the voice of him who speaks the word. And he who speaks the word, he says, was non-existent; nor was that existent which was being produced. The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he says, from nonentities; (and I mean by the seed,) the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." He derives his originating principles from that Seed, and obtains from the same source his illuminating power. This is that seed which has in itself the entire conglomeration of germs. And Aristotle affirms this to be genius, and it is distributed by him into infinite species; just as from animal, which is non-existent, we sever ox, horse, (and) man. When, therefore, the cosmical Seed becomes the basis (for a subsequent development), those (heretics) assert, (to quote Basilides' own words:) "Whatsoever I affirm," he says, "to have been made after these, ask no question as to whence. For (the Seed) had all seeds treasured and reposing in itself, just as non-existent entities, and which were designed to be produced by a non-existent Deity."

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." For since above in speaking of John he said, that he came "to bear witness of that Light"; and that he was sent in these our days; lest any one at hearing this should, on account of the recent coming of the witness, conceive some like suspicion concerning Him, who is witnessed of, he has carried up the imagination, and transported it to that existence which is before all beginning, which has neither end nor commencement.

You have heard that "That was the true Light": why are you vainly and rashly striving to overshoot by force of reasoning this Life which is unlimited? You cannot do it. Why seek what may not be sought? Why be curious about what is incomprehensible? Why search what is unsearchable? Gaze upon the very source of the sunbeams. You cannot; yet you are neither vexed nor impatient at your weakness; how then have you become so daring and headlong in greater matters? The son of thunder, John who sounds the spiritual trumpet, when he had heard from the Spirit the "was", enquired no farther. And are you, who share not in his grace, but speak from your own wretched reasonings, ambitious to exceed the measure of his knowledge? Then for this very reason you will never be able even to reach to the measure of his knowledge.

Let us not then remove the eternal bounds which our fathers set, but let us ever yield to the laws of the Spirit; and when we hear that "That was the true Light," let us seek to discover nothing more. For it is not possible to pass beyond this saying. Had His generation been like that of a man, needs must there have been an interval between the begetter and the begotten; but since it is in a manner ineffable and becoming God, give up the "before" and the "after," for these are the names of points in time, but the Son is the Creator even of all ages.

"Then," says one, "He is not Father, but brother." What need, pray? If we had asserted that the Father and the Son were from a different root, you might have then spoken this well. But, if we flee this impiety, and say the Father, besides being without beginning, is Unbegotten also, while the Son, though without beginning, is Begotten of the Father, what kind of need that as a consequence of this idea, that unholy assertion should be introduced? None at all. For He is an Effulgence: but an effulgence is included in the idea of the nature whose effulgence it is. For this reason Paul has called Him so, that you may imagine no interval between the Father and the Son. This expression therefore is declaratory of the point; but the following part of the proof quoted, corrects an erroneous opinion which might beset simple men. For, says the Apostle, do not, because you have heard that he is an Effulgence, suppose that He is deprived of His proper person; this is impious, and belongs to the madness of the Sabellians, and of Marcellus' followers. We say not so, but that He is also in His proper Person. And for this reason, after having called Him "Effulgence," Paul has added that He is "the express image of His Person," in order to make evident His proper Personality, and that He belongs to the same Essence of which He is also the express image.

Where now are those who deny that He is true God? for here He is called "the true Light" (c. xiv. 6), and elsewhere very "Truth" and very "Life."

If He "lighteth every man that cometh into the world," how is it that so many continue unenlightened? for not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then doth He "light every man"? He lighteth all as far as in Him lies. But if some, wilfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that Light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the Light, but from their own wickedness, who willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift, ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves; for if when the gate is opened to all, and there is none to hinder, any being willfully evil remain without, they perish through none other, but only through their own wickedness.

These results are accomplished gratuitously, easily, and quickly, if only the ears are open and the breast thirsts for wisdom. Let no one fear: we do not sell water, nor offer the sun for a reward. The fountain of God, most abundant and most full, is open to all; and this heavenly light rises for all, as many as have eyes.

But Methodius: The Holy Spirit, who of God is given to all men, and of whom Solomon said, "For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things," He receives for the conscience, which condemns the offending soul.

(Hom. 2, in div. loc.) Or thus: We must not understand the words, lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, of the growth from hidden seeds to organized bodies, but of the entrance into the invisible world, by the spiritual regeneration and grace, which is given in Baptism. Those then the true Light lighteneth, who come into the world of goodness, not those who rush into the world of sin.

Immediately there appears the Word, "that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world," and through Him also came light upon the world.

But we, with but as poor a measure of understanding as of faith, are able to determine that that baptism was divine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in respect of efficacy too, in that we read that John was sent by the lord to perform this duty, ) but human in its nature: for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being, to wit, appointed over repentance, which is in man's power. In fact, the doctors of the law and the Pharisees, who were unwilling to "believe," did not "repent" either.

The Evangelist intends to speak of the Incarnate Economy of the Only-Begotten in the flesh — that He came to His own, that He became flesh. Therefore, lest anyone think that He did not exist before the Incarnation, he raises the mind to existence before every beginning and says that the true Light existed even before the Incarnation. By this he also overthrows the heresy of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, who maintained that the Only-Begotten received His being only when He was born of the Virgin, and did not exist before that. And you, Arian, who do not acknowledge the Son of God as true God, hear what the Evangelist says: "the true Light." And you, Manichean, who say that we were created by an evil creator, hear that the true Light enlightens every man. If the evil creator is darkness, then he cannot enlighten anyone. Therefore we are creatures of the true Light. "And how," someone will say, "does He enlighten every man, when we see some who are darkened?" As far as it depends on Him, He enlightens all. For tell me, are we not all rational? Do we not all know by nature what is good and its opposite? Do we not have the ability, through contemplation of created things, to know the Creator? Therefore the reason given to us, which instructs us by nature — which is also called the natural law — may be called a light given to us from God. But if some have made poor use of reason, they have darkened themselves. Others resolve this objection thus: "The Lord enlightens," they say, "every man who comes 'into the world' (in Greek, *kosmos* — adornment, order), that is, into a better state, and who strives to adorn his soul rather than leave it disordered and shapeless."

But it will be said, that we do not allow John or any of the saints to be or ever to have been light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints light, we put light without the article. So if asked whether John is light, without the article, thou mayest allow without hesitation that he is: if with the article, thou allow it not. For he is not very, original, light, but is only called so, on account of his partaking of the light, which cometh from the true Light.

(in loc.) Let the Manichean blush, who pronounces us the creatures of a dark and malignant creator: for we should never be enlightened, were we not the children of the true Light.

(in loc.) Or thus: The intellect which is given in us for our direction, and which is called natural reason, is said here to be a light given us by God. But some by the ill use of their reason have darkened themselves.

Above, the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word; in the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he does three things. First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come. Secondly, the benefit we received from the coming of the Word (I:11). And thirdly, the way he came (1:14).

The necessity for the Word's coming is seen be the lack of divine knowledge in the world. He points out this need for his coming when he says, "For this was I born, and I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth" (below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or the Word. Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).

He shows in three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the efficacy of the divine light itself, because He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Secondly, from the presence of the divine light, because He was in the world. Thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because through him the world was made. So the lack of divine knowledge in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. First, he shows the nature of this efficiency, that is, He was the true light. Secondly, its very efficiency, which enlightens every man.

The divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because He was the true light. How the Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again, because it was sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is how he is the true light. To explain this, we should note that in Scripture the "true" is contrasted with three things. Sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in "Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). Sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ" (below 1:17), because the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ. Sometimes it is contrasted with what is something by participation, as in "that we may be in his true Son" (1 Jn 5:20), who is not his Son by participation.

Before the Word came there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, "They became stultified in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:21); "Every man is made foolish by his knowledge" (Jer 10:14). There was another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a symbolic light, "The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of them" (Heb 10:1). There was also a certain light in the angels and in holy men in so far as they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, "Upon whom does his light not shine?" (Jb 25:3), which is like saying: Whoever shine, shine to the extent that they participate in his light, i.e., God's light.

But the Word of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light, but the true light, i.e., light by his essence. Therefore he says, He was the true light.

This excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist, speaking of the incarnation of the Word, says, He was the true light, i.e., eternally, not only before the Virgin, but before every creature. This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the true light, as the Evangelist says here, and as in "God is light" (1 Jn 1:5), i.e., not by participation, but the true light. So if the Word was the true light, it is plain that he is true God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective in causing divine knowledge.

The effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he enlightens every man coming into this world. For everything which is what it is by participation is derived from that which is such by its essence; just as everything afire is so by participation in fire, which is fire by its very essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in him. And so he enlightens every man coming into this world.

To understand this, we should know that "world" is taken in three ways in Scripture. Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, "through him the world was made" (v 10). Sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which it reaches through Christ, as in "God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). And sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in "The whole world lies under the power of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19).

On the other hand, "enlightenment" or "being enlightened" by the Word is taken in two ways. First, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in "The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us" (Ps 4:7). Secondly, as the light of grace, "Be enlightened, O Jerusalem" (Is 60:1).

With these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises here. For when the Evangelist says, he enlightens every man, this seems to be false, because there are still many in darkness in the world. However, if we bear in mind these distinctions and take "world" from the standpoint of its creation, and "enlighten" as referring to the light of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach. For all men coming into this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge through participating in this true light, which is the source of all the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.

When the Evangelist speaks of man coming into this world, he does not mean that men had lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since this is contrary to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), "When the children were not yet born nor had they done anything good or evil." Therefore, since they had done nothing before they were born, it is plain that the soul does not exist prior to its union with the body. He refers to every man coming into this world, to show that men are enlightened by God with respect to that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect to the intellect, which is something external [to the world]. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and intellectual. According to his bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and sensible light; but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according to his bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His intellectual nature is derived from a source external to the world, as has been said, i.e., from God through creation; as in "Until all flesh returns to its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it" (Ecc 12:7). For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of every man coming into this world, he is showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without, that is, the intellect.

If we understand "enlightenment" with respect to the light of grace, then he enlightens every man may be explained in three ways. The first way is by Origen in his homily, "The great eagle," and is this. "World" is understood from the point of view of its perfection, which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And so we have, he enlightens every man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has been enlightened by the light of grace.

Chrysostom explains it another way. He takes "world" under the aspect of creation. Then the sense is: He enlightens, i.e., the Word does, in so far as it depends on him, because he fails no one, but rather "wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4); every man coming, i.e., who is born into this sensible world. If anyone is not enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that enlightens.

Augustine explains it a third way. For him, "every" has a restricted application, so that the sense is: He enlightens every man coming into this world, not every man universally, but every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word. According to Augustine, the Evangelist says, coming into this world, in order to give the reason why man needs to be enlightened, and he is taking "world" from the point of view of its perversity and defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be enlightened because he is coming into this world which is darkened by perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This followed the spiritual world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), "To enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death."

The above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think that men were created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, for "Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8).

Not then in the sense of traversing space, but because He appeared to mortal men in the form of mortal flesh, He is said to have come to us. For He came to a place where He had always been, seeing that "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him." But, because men, who in their eagerness to enjoy the creature instead of the Creator had grown into the likeness of this world, and are therefore most appropriately named "the world," did not recognize Him, therefore the evangelist says, "and the world knew Him not."

Which world was made through him that did not know him? I mean, it wasn't the world that was through him that did not know him. What is the world that was made through him? Heaven and earth. How can it be that the heavens did not know him, when during his passion the sun was darkened? How that the earth did not know him, seeing that it quaked as he hung there? But "the world did not know him," the world whose prince is the one of whom it is said, "Behold, the prince of this world is coming, and in me he can find nothing." Bad people are called "the world," unbelievers are called "the world." They got the name from the thing they love. By loving God, we are made into gods. So by loving the world we are called "the world."

What then? If He came hither, where was He? "He was in this world." He was both here and came hither; He was here according to His divinity, and He came hither according to the flesh; because when He was here according to His divinity, He could not be seen by the foolish, by the blind, and the wicked. These wicked men are the darkness concerning which it was said, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Behold, both here He is now, and here He was, and here He is always; and He never departs, departs no-whither. There is need that thou have some means whereby thou mayest see that which never departs from thee; there is need that thou depart not from Him who departs no-whither; there is need that thou desert not, and thou shalt not be deserted. Do not fall, and His sun will not set to thee; but if thou fallest, His sun setteth upon thee; but if thou standest, He is present with thee. But thou hast not stood: remember how thou hast fallen, how he who fell before thee cast thee down. For he cast thee down, not by violence, not by assault, but by thine own will. For hadst thou not consented unto evil, thou wouldest have stood, thou wouldest have remained enlightened. But now, because thou hast already fallen, and hast become wounded in heart,-the organ by which that light can be seen,-He came to thee such as thou mightest see; and He in such fashion manifested Himself as man, that He sought testimony from man. From man God seeks testimony, and God has man as a witness;-God has man as a witness, but on account of man: so infirm are we. By a lamp we seek the day; because John himself was called a lamp, the Lord saying, "He was a burning and a shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light: but I have greater witness than John."

Therefore He showed that for the sake of men He desired to have Himself revealed by a lamp to the faith of those who believed, that by means of the same lamp His enemies might be confounded. There were enemies who tempted Him, and said, "Tell us by what authority doest thou these things?" "I also," saith He, "will ask you one question; answer me. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they were troubled, and said among themselves, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not believe him?" (Because he had borne testimony to Christ, and had said, I am not the Christ, but He.) "But if we shall say, Of men, we fear the people, lest they should stone us: for they held John as a prophet." Afraid of stoning, but fearing more to confess the truth, they answered a lie to the Truth; and "wickedness imposed a lie upon itself." For they said, "We know not." And the Lord, because they shut the door against themselves, by professing ignorance of what they knew, did not open to them, because they did not knock. For it is said, "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Not only did these not knock that it might be opened to them; but, by denying that they knew, they barred that door against themselves. And the Lord says to them, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." And they were confounded by means of John; and in them were the words fulfilled, "I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. His enemies will I clothe with shame."

"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him." Think not that He was in the world as the earth is in the world, as the sky is in the world, as the sun is in the world, the moon and the stars, trees, cattle, and men. He was not thus in the world. But in what manner then? As the Artificer governing what He had made. For He did not make it as a carpenter makes a chest. The chest which he makes is outside the carpenter, and so it is put in another place, while being made; and although the workman is nigh, he sits in another place, and is external to that which he fashions. But God, infused into the world, fashions it; being everywhere present He fashions, and withdraweth not Himself elsewhere, nor doth He, as it were, handle from without, the matter which He fashions. By the presence of His majesty He maketh what He maketh; His presence governs what He made. Therefore was He in the world as the Maker of the world; for, "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not."

What meaneth "the world was made by Him"? The heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things which are therein, are called the world. Again, in another signification, those who love the world are called the world. "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." Did not the heavens know their Creator, or did the angels not know their Creator, or did the stars not know their Creator? All things from all sides gave testimony. But who did not know? Those who, for their love of the world, are called the world. By loving we dwell with the heart; but because of their loving the world they deserved to be called after the name of that in which they dwelt. In the same manner as we say, This house is bad, or this house is good, we do not in calling the one bad or the other good accuse or praise the walls; but by a bad house we mean a house with bad inhabitants, and by a good house, a house with good inhabitants. In like manner we call those the world who by loving it, inhabit the world. Who are they? Those who love the world; for they dwell with their hearts in the world. For those who do not love the world in the flesh, indeed, sojourn in the world, but in their hearts they dwell in heaven, as the apostle says, "Our conversation is in heaven." Therefore "the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not."

(Tr. in Joan. ii. c. 8) The Light which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, came here in the flesh; because while He was here in His Divinity alone, the foolish, blind, and un-righteous could not discern Him; those of whom it is said above, The darkness comprehended it not. Hence the text; He was in the world.

(Tr. ii. c. 10) You must not suppose, however, that He was in the world in the same sense in which the earth, cattle, men, are in the world; but in the sense in which an artificer controls his own work; whence the text, And the world was made by Him. Nor again did He make it after the manner of an artificer; for whereas an artificer is external to what he fabricates, God pervades the world, carrying on the work of creation in every part, and never absent from any part: by the presence of His Majesty He both makes and controls what is made. Thus He was in the world, as He by Whom the world was made.

(Tr. in Joan. ii. c. 11) But what meaneth this, The world was made by Him? The earth, sky, and sea, and all that are therein, are called the world. But in another sense, the lovers of the world are called the world, of whom he says, And the world knew Him not. For did the sky, or Angels, not know their Creator, Whom the very devils confess, Whom the whole universe has borne witness to? Who then did not know Him? Those who, from their love of the world, are called the world; for such live in heart in the world, while those who do not love it, have their body in the world, but their heart in heaven; as saith the Apostle, our conversation is in heaven. (Phil. 3:20) By their love of the world, such men merit being called by the name of the place where they live. And just as in speaking of a bad house, or good house, we do not mean praise or blame to the walls, but to the inhabitants; so when we talk of the world, we mean those who live there in the love of it.

"He was in the world," by effect: whence "the world was made through him," through whom he could be known; Wisdom 13: "From the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of these could be knowably seen." And yet "the world knew him not": "the world," that is, worldly people — this is a metonymy: below in chapter seventeen: "Just Father, the world has not known you." This is the reason why he came: whence Chrysostom says: "Because being in the world, he was not thought to be present, since he was not yet known: he deigned to put on flesh."

It is asked concerning what he says: "He came unto his own." For if coming belongs to him to whom being absent belongs: and God is nowhere absent: therefore he did not come. Likewise, if God can do all things everywhere, then he does not need to come for any reason: therefore if he had not come, he could have done the same. To this Bede responds: "He was in the world through his Divinity, he came into the world through the incarnation. To come or to go away indeed belongs to humanity: but to remain belongs to Divinity"; whence the meaning is: "He came," that is, he appeared visibly. As to what you ask: what was the necessity of coming? Not for his own sake, but for ours; and this the Evangelist well suggests: because the world did not know his sublimity, he appeared in humility and humanity.

Enemy-occupied territory—that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.

And the world knew Him not.

The bearer of the Spirit is watchful and hastens to forestall the sophistry of some; and you may marvel again at the reasoning in his thoughts. He named the Son Very Light, and affirmed that He lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and besides says that He was in the world and the world was made through Him.

But one of our opponents might forthwith say, "If the Word, sirs, were light and if it lighted the heart of every man, unto Divine knowledge that is and unto the under-standing that befits man, and if it were always in the world and were Himself its Maker, how came He to be unknown even during so long periods? He therefore was not lighting nor yet was He at all the Light."

These things the Divine meets with some warmth saying The world knew Him not: not on His own account was He unknown, says he; but let the world blame its own weakness. For the Son lighteth, the creature blunts the grace. It had imparted to it sight to conceive of Him Who is God by Nature, and it squandered the gift, it made things made the limit of its contemplation, it shrank from going further, it buried the illumination under its negligence, it neglected the gift which that it might not befall him Paul commands his disciple to watch. Nought then to the light is the ill of the enlightened. For as the light of the sun rises upon all, but the blind is nothing profited, yet we do not therefore reasonably blame the sun's ray, but rather find fault with the disease of the sight (for the one was lighting, the other received not the lighting): so (I deem) ought we to conceive of the Only-Begotten also, that He is Very Light. But the god of this world, as Paul too saith, hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the knowledge of God should shine among them. We say then that the man was subjected to blindness herein, not that he reached a total deprivation of light (for the God-given understanding is surely preserved in his nature) but that he was quenching it with his more foolish manner of life and that by turning aside to the worse he was wasting and melting away the measure of the grace. Wherefore the most wise Psalmist too when representing to us the character of such an one, then indeed (and rightly) begs to be enlightened, saying to God, Open Thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. For He gave them the law to be their help, which re-kindled in us the Divine Light and purged away like a sort of humour from the eyes of the heart the darkness which came upon them from the ancient unlearning.

The world then is under the charge of unthankfulness alike and want of perception in this matter, both as ignorant of its own Creator, and showing forth no good fruit from being lighted, that that again may be manifestly true of it, which was sung by prophet's voice of the children of Israel, I looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth thorns. For the fruit of being enlightened is verily the true apprehension of the Only Begotten, hanging like a grape-bunch from the vine branch, I mean man's understanding, and not on the contrary the uncounsel that leads to polytheistic error, like the sharp briar rising up within us and wounding to death our mind with its deceits.

And the world was made by Him.

The Evangelist in these words needfully indicates that the world was made through the Very Light, that is, the Only-Begotten. For although, having called Him most distinctly Word at the beginning, he affirmed that all things were made through Him, and that without Him nothing was brought into being, and demonstrated thereby that He was their Maker and Creator: yet it was necessary now most particularly to take this up again anew, that no room of error and perdition might be left to those who are wont to pervert the uprightness of the Divine dogmas. For when he said of the Light that it was in the world, that no one wresting the saying to senseless conceptions, should make the Light connumerate with the visible portions of the universe (as sun and moon and stars for example are in the world, but as parts of the universe, and as limbs of one body), profitably and of necessity does the Evangelist introduce the Only-Begotten as Fashioner and Artificer of the whole universe, and thereby again fully stablishes us and leads us into an unerring and right apprehension of the truth. For who would be so silly or have such great folly in his mind, as not to conceive that wholly other than the universe is He through Whom it is said to have been made, and to put the creature in its own place, to sever off the Creator in reasoning and to conceive that His Nature is Divine? For the thing made must needs be other in nature than the Maker, that maker and made appear not the same.

For if they be conceived of as the same, without any inherent distinction as to the mode of being, the made will mount up to the nature of the Maker, the Creator descend to that of the creatures, and will no longer have Alone the power of bringing into being, but this will be found to exist in potential in things made also, if nothing at all severs them from being consubstantial with God: and so at length the creature will be its own creator and the Evangelist will endow the Only-Begotten with a mere title of honour when he says that He was in the world, and the world, was made by Him. But he knows that the Creator of all things is One in Nature. Not as the same then will made and Maker, God and creature be conceived of by those who know how to believe aright, but the one will be subject as a bondman, acknowledging the limit of its own nature: the Son will reign over it, having Alone with the Father the power both to call things which he not as though they were and by His ineffable Power to bring that which is not yet into being.

But that the Son being by Nature God, is wholly Other than the creature, we having already sufficiently gone through in the Discourse of the Holy Trinity, will say nothing more here. But we will add this for profit, that in saying that the world was made through Him he brings us up to the thought of the Father, and with the "Through Whom" brings in also the "Of Whom." For all things are from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.

What does he say next? That He was in the world. Profitably does the Divine add this also, introducing thereby a thought most needful for us. For when he said, He was the Very Light which lighteth every man coming into the world, and it was not wholly clear to the hearers, whether it meant that the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, or that the Very Light itself, passing as from some other place into the world, maketh its illumination of all men: needs does the Spirit-bearer reveal to us the truth and interpret the force of his own words, saying straightway of the Light, that He was in the world: that hence you might understand the words coming into the world of man, and that it might be predicated rather of the enlightened nature, as being called out of not being into being. For like a |88 certain place seen in thought is the not being to things originate, whence in a sort of way passing into being, it takes at length another place, that namely of being. Hence more properly and fitly will the nature of man admit of itself that it was lighted immediately from the first periods, and that it received understanding coincident and co-fashioned with its being from the Light Which is in the world, that is the Only-Begotten, Who fills all things with the unspeakable light of the God-head, and is present with the angels in Heaven, is with those on the earth, leaves not even Hellitself empty of His God-head, and everywhere abiding with all removes from none, so that with reason does the most wise Psalmist marvelling thereat say: Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy Presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in Hell, behold Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy Hand lead me, and Thy Right Hand shall hold me. For the Divine Hand graspeth every place and all creation, holding together into being things made and drawing together unto life things lacking life, and implanting the spiritual light in things recipient of understanding. Yet It is not in place, as we have already said, nor does it endure motion of place (for this is the property of bodies), but rather fulfils all things as God.

But perhaps some one will say to this, What then do we say, good sir, when any brings forward to us Christ saying, I am come a light into the world? what when the Psalmist speaks, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth 1 For lo here He Himself clearly says that He is come into the world, as not being in it, that is: and the Psalmist again was entreating that He Who was not yet present should be sent, according, that is, to the meaning of the words, and its declaration of His being sent to us.

To this we say, that the Divine having clad the Only-Begotten with God-befitting dignity says that He is ever and unceasingly in the world, as Life by Nature, as Light by Essence, fulfilling the creation as God, not circumscript |89 by place, not meted by intervals, not comprehended by quantity, neither compassed at all by ought, nor needing to pass from one place to another, but in all He dwells, none He forsakes: yet he asserted that He came in the world (although present therein) by the Incarnation. For He showed Himself upon earth and conversed with men with flesh, making His Presence in the world more manifest thereby, and He Who was aforetime comprehended by idea, seen at length by the very eyes of the body also, implanted in us a grosser so to speak perception of the knowledge of God, made known by wonders and mighty deeds. And the Psalmist entreats that the Word of God may be sent to us to enlighten the world, in no other way as seems to me, but in this. But I think that the studious should consider this again, that keener is the mind than all speech, sharper the motion of the understanding than the tongue. Hence as far as pertains to the delicacy of the mind and its subtil motion, we behold the varied beauty of the Divine Nature: but we utter the things respecting it in more human wise and in the speech that belongs to us, the tongue not being able to stretch forth unto the measure of the truth. Wherefore Paul too, the steward of the Mysteries of the Saviour, used to ask of God utterance to open his mouth. Nought then will the poverty of our language hurt the Natural Dignities of the Only-Begotten, but what belongs to Him will be conceived of after a Divine sort, but will be uttered as matter of necessity in more human wise, both by Him for our sakes and by the Saints of Him according to the measure of our nature.

It were then, it seems, not amiss to be content with what has been already said in explanation of the words before us. Yet since I deem that the pen that ministers to the Divine doctrines should be above sloth, come let us bringing forward the lection again examine more exactly how the words coming into the world predicated of man, as is fit, should be understood. For the light was in the world, as the Evangelist also himself testified to us, and we have maintained that it was not the Light that cometh into the world but rather the man |90 who is being lighted. Some therefore say, belching forth of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is "written, that the souls of men were pre-existent in Heaven before the fashioning of their bodies, passing long time in un-embodied bliss, and enjoying more purely the true Good. But when the sate of better things came into them and, declining at length to the worser, they sank to strange thoughts and desires, the Creator justly displeased sends them forth into the world, and entangled them with bodies of earth compelling them to be burdened therewith, and having shut them as it were in some cave of strange pleasures, decreed to instruct them by the very trial itself, how bitter it is to be carried away to the worser, and to make no account of what is good. And in proof of this most ridiculous fable of theirs, they wrest first of all this that is now before us: He was the Very Light Which lighteth every man coming into the world, and, besides, certain other things of the Divine Scripture, such as, Before I was afflicted I went astray, and moreover not ashamed of such foolish prating say, Lo the soul says that before its humiliation, that is, its embodiment, it transgressed and that therefore it was justly afflicted, brought in bondage to death and corruption, even as Paul too stileth the body saying O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from, the body of this death? But if the soul, he says, goeth astray before it was afflicted, it also cometh into the world, as having that is a previous being (for how could it sin at at all if it existed not yet?); and cometh into the world, setting out that is from some quarter. Such things as these they stringing against the doctrines of the Church and heaping up the trash of their empty expositions in the ears of the of the faithful will rightly hear, Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! For visions in truth, and auguries by birds and prophecies of their own heart they setting against the words spoken by the Spirit, do not perceive to how great absurdity their device will run; as the Psalmist says unto God, Thou, Thou art to be feared: and who may stand in Thy Sight when once Thou art angry?

But that it is most exceedingly absurd to suppose that the soul pre-exists, and to think that for elder transgressions it was sent down into bodies of earth, we shall endeavour to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations, knowing what is written, Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Thoughts or considerations of a complex kind in the way of demonstration.

1. If the soul of man have existence prior to the formation of the body, and, declining to evil according to the surmises of some, has for punishment of its transgression a descent into flesh, how, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is lighted on coming into the world? For this I suppose is honour and the addition of fair gifts. But not by being honoured is one punished, nor yet chastised by being made recipient of the Divine good things, but by meeting with what is of the wrath of the punisher. But since man on his coming into the world is not in this condition, but on the contrary is even lighted, it is I suppose clear that he that is honoured with flesh has not his embodiment for a punishment.

2. Another. If before the body the soul were a mind yet pure, living in bliss, and by turning aside to ill fell, and therefore came to be in flesh, how is it lighted on its entry into the world? For one must needs say that it was destitute of light before it came: if so, how any longer was that pure mind which had then scarce a beginning of being lighted, when it came into the world, and not without flesh?

3. Another. If the soul of man existed before the body; and the mind therefore existed yet pure, attached more properly to the desire of good things, but from turning aside to the worser is sent into earthly body, and being therein, no longer rejects the will to transgress, how is it not wronged, not then specially entrusted with the doing of this, when it existed with a greater aptness for virtue, not as yet in bondage to the ills that proceed from the body, but when it had come into the turbid waters of sin, then out of season compelled to do this? But the Divinity will not miss of the befitting time, nor that injure to Whose Nature doing injury belongeth not. In season then and rightly do we refuse sin when in the flesh, having this season alone of being, in which with bodies we come into the world, leaving the former not being, as though a certain place, and from it passing into a beginning of being.

4. Another. What reason is there, I would fain ask them, in the soul that sinned prior to the body being sent into the body, that it might learn by experience the disgrace of its own lusts? For they are not ashamed to set forth this too, although it ought rather to have been withdrawn from the very imagination of its ills, not thrust down to the very depth of base pleasures. For this rather than the other were a mode of healing. If then it has the embodiment an increase of its disease in order that it may revel in the pleasures of the body, one would not praise the Corrector, injuring that which was sick by the very means whereby He thought to advantage it. But if it has it in order that it may cease from its passions, how is it possible that it having fallen into the very depth of lust should arise, and not rather have spurned the very beginning of the disease, while it was free from that which dragged it down into sin?

5. Another. If the soul in pre-existence transgressed and was for this reason entangled with flesh and blood, receiving this in the nature of punishment, how is it not the duty of them who believe in Christ and who received thereby the remission of sin, to go forthwith out of their bodies and to cast away that which is put about them as a punishment? How, tell me, does the soul of man have perfect remission while yet bearing about it the method of its punishment? But we see that they who believe are so far from wishing to be freed from their bodies, that together with their confessions in Christ they declare the resurrection of the flesh. No method of punishment then will that be which is honoured even with the confession of the faith, witnessing, through its return back to life, to the Divine Power of the Saviour the being able to do all things easily.

6. Another. If the soul pre-existing according to them sinned and was for this reason entangled with flesh, why does the Law order the graver offences to be honoured with death, and suffer him who has committed no crime to live? For I suppose that it would rather have been right to let those who are guilty of the basest ill linger long in their bodies, that they might be the more heavily punished, and to let those who had committed no crime free from their bodies, if the embodiment ranks as a punishment. But on the contrary, the murderer is punished with death, the righteous man suffers nothing in his body. The embodiment does not therefore belong to punishment.

7. Another. If souls were embodied for previous sins, and the nature of the body were invented as a species of punishment for them, how did the Saviour profit us by abolishing death? how was not rather decay a mercy, destroying that which punished us, and putting an end to the wrath against us? Hence one might rather say that it were meeter to give thanks to decay than on the contrary to Him Who laid on us endless infliction through the resurrection of the dead. And yet we give thanks as freed from death and decay through Christ. Hence embodiment is not of the nature of punishment to the soul of man.

8. Another from the same idea. If the souls of men were entangled with earthly bodies in satisfaction of elder transgressions, what thank tell me shall we acknowledge to God Who promises us the Resurrection? For this is clearly a renewal of punishment and a building up of what hurts us, if a long punishment is clearly bitter to every one. It is then hard that bodies should rise which have an office of punishment to their wretched souls. And yet nature has from Christ, as a gift renewing it unto joy, the resurrection. The embodiment is not therefore of the nature of punishment.

9. Another. The Prophetic word appears as publishing to us some great and long desired-feast. For, says it, the |94 dead shall arise, and they that be in the tombs shall be raised. But if the embodiment were indeed of the nature of punishment to the wretched souls of men, how would not the Prophet rather sorrow when proclaiming these things as from God? How will that proclamation be in any way good which brings us the duration of what vexes us? For he should rather have said, if he wished to rejoice those who had received bodies by reason of sin, The dead shall not arise, and the nature of the flesh shall perish. But on the contrary he rejoices them saying that there shall be a resurrection of bodies by the will of God. How then can the body wherein both ourselves rejoice and God is well pleased be (according to the uncounsel of some) of the nature of a punishment?

10. Another. God, in blessing the blessed Abraham promised that his seed should be as the multitude innumerable of the stars. If it be true that the soul sinning before the body is sent down to earth and flesh to be punished, God promised to the righteous man, an ignoble multitude of condemned, runagates from good, and not a seed participant of blessing. But God says this as a blessing to Abraham: hence the origin of bodies is freed from all accusal.

11. Another. The race of the Israelites spread forth into a multitude great and innumerable. And indeed justly marvellous at this does the hierophant Moses pray saying to them, And behold ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude: the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are. But if it were punishment to the souls of men to be in the world with bodies, and they must needs so be, and not bare of them, Moses' saying will be found to be verily a curse, not a blessing. But it is not so, it was made as a blessing: the embodiment therefore is not of the nature of punishment.

12. Another. To those who attempt to ask amiss God endures not to give. And an unlying witness to us will be the disciple of the Saviour, saying, Ye ash and receive not, because ye ash amiss. If then it were a punishment to a soul to be embodied, how would not one with reason say that Hannah the wife of Elkanah missed widely of what was |95 fit, when she so instantly poured her prayer unto God and asked for a man child. For she was asking for the downfall of a soul and its descent into a body. How then came God to give her the holy Samuel as her son, if it were wholly of necessity that a soul should sin, in order that so, entangled with a body, it might fulfil the woman's request. And yet God gave, to Whom it is inherent to give only good things and, by readily assenting to her, He frees her request from all blame. Hence embodiment is not a result of sin, nor yet of the nature of punishment as some say.

13. Another. If the body has been given as a punishment to the soul of man, what induced Hezekiah the king of Jerusalem, although good and wise, to deprecate not without bitter tears the death of the body, and to shrink from putting off the instrument of his punishment, and to beseech that he might be honoured with an increase of years, although he surely ought, if he were really good, not to have deprecated death, but to have thought it a burden to be entangled with a body and to have acknowledged this rather than the other as a favour. And how did God promise him as a favour saying, Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years, albeit the promise was an addition of punishment, not a mode of kindness, if these set forth the truth? Yet the promise from above was a gift and the addition a kindness. Hence the embodiment is not a punishment to souls.

14. Another. If the body is given to the soul of man in the light of punishment, what favour did God repay to the Eunuch who brought up Jeremiah out of the dungeon, saying, I will give thy life for a prey and will save thee from the Chaldeans? For He should rather have let him die that He might also honour him, releasing him from the prison and punishment. What tell me did He give to the young men of Israel, in delivering them from the flame and from the cruelty of the Babylonians? why did He rescue the wise Daniel from the cruelty of the lions? But verily He doeth these things in kindness and is glorified because of them. The dwelling in the flesh is not then of the nature of |96 punishment, in order that honour and punishment at God's hands may not be one and the same.

15. Another. Paul teaching us that there shall be in due time an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each man's life says, For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he done, whether it be good or bad. But if it be only for the things done in the body that a man either receiveth punishment at the hands of the Judge, or is accounted worthy of befitting reward, and no mention is made of prior sins, nor any charge previous to his birth gone into: how had the soul any pre-existence, or how was it humbled in consequence of sin, as some say, seeing that its time with flesh is alone marked out, for that the things alone that were done in it are gone into?

16. Another. If souls were embodied on account of previous sins, how does Paul write to us saying, Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God? For if in the nature of punishment they were given to our wretched souls, how should we present then for an odour of a sweet smell to God? how will that be acceptable through which we received our sentence? or what kind of virtue at all will that admit of, whose nature is punishment, and root sin?

17. Another. showing that corruption is extended against the whole nature of man, because of the transgression in Adam, Paul saith, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. How then does he say that death reigned even over them that had not sinned, if the mortal body were given us in consequence of former sins? For where at all are they that have not sinned, if the embodiment be the punishment of faults, and our being in this life with our body is a pre-existing charge against us? Unlearned then is the proposition of our opponents.

18. Another. The Disciples once made enquiry of our Saviour concerning one born blind, and said, Master who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? For since it is written in the prophetic Scriptures, of God, that |97 He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, the disciples began to imagine that such was the case with this man. What then does Christ say to this? Verily I say to you, neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. How then does He exempt them from sin, although not free from blame as to their lives? for being men, they were surely liable also to faults. But it is manifest and clear that the discourse pertains to the period prior to birth, during which they not yet existing, neither had they sinned, that Christ may be true.

19. Another. The blessed Prophet Isaiah explaining the reason of the earth being made says, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited. But it was altogether right that the earth should be inhabited, not filled with bare spirits, nor with fleshless and unclad souls, but with bodies suitable to it. Was it then Divine Counsel that wrought that souls should sin, in order that the nature of bodies should also come into being, and thus at length the earth be shown to have been created not in vain? But this is absurd; the other therefore has the better.

20. Another. Wisdom the Artificer of all things says of herself in the book of Proverbs I was she in whom He rejoiced, the Creator of all that is, and I daily rejoiced always before Him when He rejoiced in having consummated the world and took delight in the sons of men. When then on His completion of the world, God rejoices exceedingly in the forming of man, how will he not be bereft of all sense who subjects the soul to previous sins and says that it was therefore embodied, and was punished after this fashion? For will not God be the maker of a prison rather than a world? will He not be delighting contrary to reason in those who are undergoing punishment? And how will He be Good who delights in things so absurd? But verily He is Good and therefore the Maker of things good: the embodiment will not therefore be of the nature of punishment.

21. Another. If the soul of man by its entanglement with flesh pays the penalty of transgressions prior to its birth in the world, and the body occupies the position of a punishment to it, why was the Flood brought in upon the world of the ungodly, and Noah being upright was preserved and has this recompense of his faith from God? For ought not rather those who had sinned exceedingly to have lingered longer time in the body that they might be punished also more severely, and the good to have been set free from their bonds of flesh and received the release from the body as the recompense of their piety toward God? But I suppose that the Creator of all being Righteous lays on each rank the sentence due to it. Since then He being Righteous punishes the ungodly with the death of the body, gladdens again the righteous with life together with the body: bodies are no punishment to the souls of men, that God be not unrighteous, punishing the ungodly with favour, honouring again the righteous with punishment.

22. Another. If to pay the penalty of previous offences the soul has descended into flesh and body, how did the Saviour love Lazarus, raising him, and compelling him. who was once set free from his bands to return to them again? But Christ did it helping him and as a friend did He honour the dead by raising him from the dead. To no purpose then is the proposition of the opponents.

23. Another. If, as those in their nonsense say, the body was given to the soul in the light of a punishment, devised on account of former sin of its, it was sin that brought in the nature of human bodies. But again also death entered by sin: sin therefore clearly appears arming itself against itself, undoing the beginning by what follows, and Satan is therefore divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand? as our Saviour saith. But verily so to think is incredible: the contrary therefore is true.

24. Another. God created all things in incorruption and He made not death, but through envy of the devil came death into the world. But if it be true, that the body was given in nature of punishment to the soul of man, why, sirs, should we accuse the envy of the devil for bringing in to us the termination of wretchedness and destroying the body which is our punishment? And for what in the world do we offer thanks to the Saviour for having again bound us to the flesh through the resurrection? yet we do indeed give thanks, and the envy of the devil has vexed our nature, procuring corruption to our bodies. No mode of punishment then is the body nor yet is it the wages of our former sin.

Acting then in these (prophets), the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: "I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me." And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?-whom the Father sent, and in whom He showed to men the power proceeding from Him. Thus, then, was the Word made manifest, even as the blessed John says. For he sums up the things that were said by the prophets, and shows that this is the Word, by whom all things were made. For he speaks to this effect: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." And beneath He says, "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." If, then, said he, the world was made by Him, according to the word of the prophet, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made," then this is the Word that was also made manifest. We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. Let us then look at the testimony of Scripture. with respect to the announcement of the future manifestation of the Word.

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

And to these things does John also, the disciple of the Lord, bear witness, when he speaks thus in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." And then he said of the Word Himself: "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own things He came, and His own people received Him not. However, as many as did receive Him, to these gave He power to become the sons of God, to those that believe in His name." And again, showing the dispensation with regard to His human nature, John said: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And in continuation he says, "And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten by the Father, full of grace and truth." He thus plainly points out to those willing to hear, that is, to those having ears, that there is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God, who is through all, by whom all things have been made; and that this world belongs to Him, and was made by Him, according to the Father's will, and not by angels; nor by apostasy, defect, and ignorance; nor by any power of Prunicus, whom certain of them also call "the Mother;" nor by any other maker of the world ignorant of the Father.

"He was in the world." But not as of equal duration with the world. Away with the thought. Wherefore he adds, "And the world was made by Him"; thus leading thee up again to the eternal existence of the Only-Begotten. For he who has heard that this universe is His work, though he be very dull, though he be a hater, though he be an enemy of the glory of God, will certainly, willing or unwilling, be forced to confess that the maker is before his works.

"And the world knew Him not." By "the world" he here means the multitude, which is corrupt, and closely attached to earthly things, the common turbulent, silly people. For the friends and favorites of God all knew Him, even before His coming in the flesh.

"The world," he says, "knew Him not"; but they of whom the world was not worthy knew Him. And having spoken of those who knew Him not, he in a short time puts the cause of their ignorance; for he does not absolutely say, that no one knew Him, but that "the world knew him not"; that is, those persons who are as it were nailed to the world alone, and who mind the things of the world. For so Christ was wont to call them; as when He says, "O Holy Father, the world hath not known Thee." (c. xvii. 25.) The world then was ignorant, not only of Him, but also of His Father, as we have said; for nothing so darkens the mind as to be closely attached to present things.

[The incarnation of the Logos] is the blessed end on account of which everything was created. This is the divine purpose, which was thought of before the beginning of creation and which we call an intended fulfillment. All creation exists on account of this fulfillment, and yet the fulfillment itself exists because of nothing that was created. Since God had this end in full view, he produced the natures of things. This is truly the fulfillment of providence and of planning. Through this there is a recapitulation to God of those created by him. This is the mystery circumscribing all ages, the awesome plan of God, superinfinite and infinitely preexisting the ages. The Messenger, who is in essence himself the Word of God, became man on account of this fulfillment. And it may be said that it was he himself who restored the manifest innermost depths of the goodness handed down by the Father; and he revealed the fulfillment in himself, by which creation has won the beginning of true existence. For on account of Christ, that is to say, the mystery concerning Christ, all time and that which is in time have found the beginning and the end of their existence in Christ. For before time there was secretly purposed a union of the ages, of the determined and the Indeterminate, of the measurable and the Immeasurable, of the finite and Infinity, of the creation and the Creator, of motion and rest—a union that was made manifest in Christ during these last times.

(Hom. 2 in div. loc.) For as, when a person leaves off speaking, his voice ceases to be, and vanishes; so if the Heavenly Father should cease to speak His Word, the effect of that Word, i. e. the universe which is created in the Word, shall cease to exist.

He was in the world as the omnipresent God, and one might also say that He was in the world with respect to providence and preservation. However, he says: "Why do I say that He was in the world, when there would not even be a world if He had not created it?" From all sides he proves that He is the Creator, at once removing both the madness of Manes, who said that an evil creator produced all things, and the madness of Arius, who called the Son of God a creature, and at the same time leading every person to the confession of the Creator, teaching not to serve creatures but to worship the Maker. But "the world," he says, "did not know Him," that is, the wicked people who occupied themselves with worldly affairs. For the name "world" signifies both this universe, as is said here: "the world came into being through Him"; and it signifies those who think in a worldly manner, as is said here: "the world did not know Him," that is, people attached to the earth. But all the saints and prophets knew Him.

(in loc.) Or thus: The intellect which is given in us for our direction, and which is called natural reason, is said here to be a light given us by God. But some by the ill use of their reason have darkened themselves.

(in loc.) Here he overthrows at once the insane notion of the Manichæano, who says that the world is the work of a malignant creature, and the opinion of the Arian, that the Son of God is a creature.

So it is clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men is not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world.

But so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the Evangelist rules this out adding, He was in the world. A comparable statement is found in "He is not far from any one of us," that is, God, "for in him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28). It is as though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand in order to enlighten us.

We should remark that something is said to be "in the world" in three ways. In one way, by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place: "They are in the world" (below 17:11). In another way, as a part in a whole; for a part of the world is said to be in the world even though it is not in a place. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the world as in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: "God... who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them" (Ps 145:6). But the true light was not in the world in either of these ways, because that light is neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. Indeed, if we can speak this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it participates in a partial way in his goodness.

Accordingly, the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving cause: "I fill heaven and earth" as said in Jeremiah (23:24). However, there is a difference between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act. For other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without. But God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give existence (esse) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by acting gives esse acts in things from within. Hence God was in the world as one giving esse to the world.

It is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power. To understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power. He is not there, however, by presence or essence. Someone is said to be by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his house by presence. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.

Now we say that God is everywhere by his power, since all things are subject to his power: "If I ascend into heaven, you are there.... If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me" (Ps 138:8). He is also everywhere by his presence, because "all things are bare and open to his eyes," as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere by his essence, because his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and preserver of all things with respect to the esse of each. Hence, since the esse of a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all things, is in all things.

It should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word "was," when he says, He was in the world, showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal sound is to a human word conceived in the mind, so is the creature to the divine Word; for as our vocal sound is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the divine mind. "For he spoke, and they were created" (Ps 148:5). Hence, just as we notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of them would immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is "sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb 1:3).

So it is plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of the Word, because He was in the world; nor is it due to the invisibility or concealment of the Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the world: "For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly" (Wis 13:5), and "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made" (Rom 1:20). And so the Evangelist at once adds, and through him the world was made, in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, "He poured her [wisdom] out upon all his works," as is said in Sirach (1:10).

Now it is clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is efficacious, being the true light; and he is at hand, since he was in the world; and he is knowable, since through him the world was made.

The Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, and the world did not know him. As if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him.

He says him in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the "light of men," but also "God"; and so when he says him, he means God. Again, he uses "world" for man. For the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; but the world, i.e., man, who lives in the world, did not know him.

We attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt. To his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. "Man beholds him from afar" (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, "God is great beyond our knowledge." But if some have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the kind for whom the world was not worthy, because the world did not know him. Hence if they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world.

But if this lack is attributed to man's guilt, then the phrase, the world did not know him, is a kind of reason why God was not known by man; in this sense world is taken for inordinate lovers of the world. It is as though it said, The world did not know him, because they were lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge of God, because "Love of the world makes one an enemy to God" (Jas 4:4); "The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14).

From this we can answer the question of the Gentiles who futilely ask this: If it is only recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that before that time he scorned human nature? We should say to them that he did not scorn the world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world.

We should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word to show that the incarnate Word and that which "was in the beginning with God," and God, are the same. He repeats what he had said of him earlier. For above he had said he [the Word] "was the light of men"; here he says he was the true light. Above, he said that "all things were made through him"; here he says that through him the world was made. Earlier he had said, "without him nothing was made," i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things. There he had said, "the darkness did not overcome it"; here he says, the world did not know him. And so, all he says after he was the true light, is an explanation of what he had said before.

We can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had been darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And so he said before, the darkness did not overcome it. Therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. "The people who walked in darkness saw a great light" (Is 9:2).

The second reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because he was not the light. And so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what the Apostle says: "In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son" as we find in Hebrews (1:1). "We have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns" (2 Pt 1:19).

The third reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. For creatures were not sufficient to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, through him the world was made, and the world did not know him. Thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: "Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching" (1 Cor 1:21).

"He came unto His own,"-because all these things were made by Him,-"and His own received Him not." Who are they? The men whom He made. The Jews whom He at the first made to be above all nations. Because other nations worshipped idols and served demons; but that people was born of the seed of Abraham, and in an eminent sense His own, because kindred through that flesh which He deigned to assume. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." Did they not receive Him at all? Did no one receive Him? Was there no one saved? For no one shall be saved unless he who shall have received the coming Christ.

"He came unto his own." Here is touched upon the contempt for the one coming, and this especially from those who ought to have honored him, and from whose race he assumed flesh. On account of which he says: "He came unto his own," that is, from the race of the Jews, whom he had chosen before all others, he assumed flesh. "And his own" —that is, the Jews— "did not receive him," not because none did, but because few did; Isaiah 1: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have despised me." The Jews are called "his own" because according to the flesh he was of their race, because he was of the seed of David, who was king in Israel forever. Or: "his own" by special election, according to that passage of Deuteronomy 26: "The Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people."

But what matters of deep moment are contained in the Lord's prayer! How many and! How great, briefly collected in the words, but spiritually abundant in virtue! so that there is absolutely nothing passed over that is not comprehended in these our prayers and petitions, as in a compendium of heavenly doctrine. "After this manner," says He, "pray ye: Our Father, which art in heaven." The new man, born again and restored to his God by His grace, says "Father," in the first place because he has now begun to be a son. "He came," He says, "to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in His name." The man, therefore, who has believed in His name, and has become God's son, ought from this point to begin both to give thanks and to profess himself God's son, by declaring that God is his Father in heaven; and also to bear witness, among the very first words of his new birth, that he has renounced an earthly and carnal father, and that he has begun to know as well as to have as a father Him only who is in heaven, as it is written: "They who say unto their father and their mother, I have not known thee, and who have not acknowledged their own children these have observed Thy precepts and have kept Thy covenant. Also the Lord in His Gospel has bidden us to call "no man our father upon earth, because there is to us one Father, who is in heaven." And to the disciple who had made mention of his dead father, He replied, "Let the dead bury their dead; " for he had said that his father was dead, while the Father of believers is living.

That it was previously foretold that they would neither know the Lord, nor understand, nor receive Him. In Isaiah: "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken; I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rejected me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not perceived me. Ah sinful nation, a people filled with sins, a wicked seed, corrupting children: ye have forsaken the Lord, and have sent that Holy One of Israel into anger." In the same also the Lord says: "Go and tell this people, Ye shall hear with the ear, and shall not understand; and seeing, ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people hath waxed gross, and they hardly hear with their ears, and they have shut up their eyes, lest haply they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should return, and I should heal them." Also in Jeremiah the Lord says: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves worn-out cisterns, which could not hold water." Moreover, in the same: "Behold, the word of the Lord has become unto them a reproach, and they do not wish for it." Again in the same the Lord says: "The kite knoweth his time, the turtle, and the swallow; the sparrows of the field keep the time of their coining in; but my people doth not know the judgment of the Lord. How say ye, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? The false measurement has been made vain; the scribes are confounded the wise men have trembled, and been taken, because they have rejected the word of the Lord." In Solomon also: "Evil men seek me, and shall not find me; for they held wisdom in hatred and did not receive the word of the Lord." Also in the twenty-seventh Psalm: "Render to them their deserving, because they have not perceived in the works of the Lord." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "They have not known, neither have they understood; they shall walk on in darkness." In the Gospel, too, according to John: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God who believe on His name."

The Evangelist pursues his plea that the world did not know its illuminator, that is, the Only Begotten, and from the worse sin of the children of Israel, he hurries to clench the charges against the Gentiles and shows the disease of ignorance alike and unbelief that lay upon the whole world.… For it was not surprising that the world did not know the Only Begotten, he says, seeing that it had left the understanding that befits humanity and was ignorant that it is and was made in honor, being compared with the beasts that perish, as the divine psalmist also said. It also was not surprising that the very people who, above all, were supposed to belong to him rejected him when he was present in the flesh. They would not receive him when he came among them for a salvation that was offered to all, rewarding their faith with the kingdom of heaven. But observe how exact his language is about these things. For he accuses the world of having no idea of the one who enlightens it, elaborating for it a pardon so to speak just on this account and preparing beforehand reasonable causes for the grace given to it. But of those of Israel who were considered among those especially belonging to him, he says they "received him not." For it would not have been true to say "knew him not," when the older law had preached about him and the prophets who came after led them by the hand to the apprehension of the truth.…For the world, or the Gentiles, having lost their relation … with God through their downfall into evil, also lost the knowledge of him who enlightens them. But the others, who were rich in knowledge through the law and called to a governance pleasing to God, were at length voluntarily falling away from it, not receiving the Word of God who was already known to them and who came among them as to his own. For the whole world is God's own, in regard to its creation, and its very existence comes from him and through him. But Israel will more rightly be called his own and will gain the glory both because of the election of the holy patriarchs and because he [i.e., Israel] was named the beginning and the firstborn of the children of God. For "Israel is my son, my firstborn," says God somewhere to Moses.… But when [Christ] was not received, he transfers the grace to the Gentiles. And the world, which knew him not at the beginning, is enlightened through repentance and faith, whereas Israel returns to the darkness it came from.

He came to His own, and His own received Him not, now calling the Jews "His own," as His peculiar people, or perhaps even all mankind, as created by Him. And as above, when perplexed at the folly of the many, and ashamed of our common nature, he said that "the world by Him was made," and having been made, did not recognize its Maker; so here again, being troubled beyond bearing at the stupidity of the Jews and the many, he sets forth the charge in a yet more striking manner, saying, that "His own received Him not," and that too when "He came to them."

For it is a thing indeed worthy of our amazement, how they who were nurtured in knowledge of the prophetical books, who heard Moses every day telling them ten thousand things concerning the coming of the Christ, and the other prophets afterwards, who moreover themselves beheld Christ Himself daily working miracles among them, giving up His time to them alone, neither as yet allowing His disciples to depart into the way of the Gentiles, or to enter into a city of Samaritans, nor doing so Himself, but everywhere declaring that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: how, I say, while they saw the signs, and heard the Prophets, and had Christ Himself continually putting them in remembrance, they yet made themselves once for all so blind and dull, as by none of these things to be brought to faith in Christ.

For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Wherefore they have suffered this. And again, explaining the same matter in other terms, he says, What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. His meaning is this: These men's unbelief has been the cause of their misfortunes, and their haughtiness was parent of their unbelief. For when having before enjoyed greater privileges than the heathen, through having received the law, through knowing God, and the rest which Paul enumerates, they after the coming of Christ saw the heathen and themselves called on equal terms through faith, and after faith received one of the circumcision in nothing preferred to the Gentile, they came to envy and were stung by their haughtiness, and could not endure the unspeakable and exceeding lovingkindness of the Lord. So this has happened to them from nothing else but pride, and wickedness, and unkindness.

"He came to His own, and His own received Him not." Whence came He, who filleth all things, and who is everywhere present? What place did He empty of His presence, who holdeth and graspeth all things in His hand? He exchanged not one place for another; how should He? But by His coming down to us He effected this. For since, though being in the world, He did not seem to be there, because He was not yet known, but afterwards manifested Himself by deigning to take upon Him our flesh, he (St. John) calls this manifestation and descent "a coming."

Unspeakable of a truth are the riches of the goodness of God, and passing all excess. Consider; "He came to His own," not for His personal need, (for, as I said, the Divinity is without wants,) but to do good unto His own people. Yet not even so did His own receive Him, when He came to His own for their advantage, but repelled Him, and not this only, but they even cast Him out of the vineyard, and slew Him. Yet not for this even did He shut them out from repentance, but granted them, if they had been willing, after such wickedness as this, to wash off all their transgressions by faith in Him, and to be made equal to those who had done no such thing, but are His especial friends.

One might wonder at the disciple who is not ashamed of the dishonor of his Teacher, but even records the insolence which was used towards Him: yet this is no small proof of his truth-loving disposition. And besides, he who feels shame should feel it for those who have offered an insult, not for the person outraged. Indeed He by this very thing shone the brighter, as taking, even after the insult, so much care for those who had offered it; while they appeared ungrateful and accursed in the eyes of all men, for having rejected Him who came to bring them so great goods, as hateful to them, and an enemy.

Here the Evangelist is clearly speaking of the Dispensation of salvation in the flesh, and the entire order of thought is as follows: the Light was true, in the world, without flesh, and was not known; then He came to His own with flesh. By "His own" you may understand either the whole world, or Judea, which He chose as a portion of inheritance, as a lot and His own possession (Ps. 113:2). or the Jews, or the rest of the people created by Him. Thus, he laments the madness of men and marvels at the love of the Master for mankind. "Being," he says, "His own, not all received Him, for the Lord does not attract anyone by force, but leaves it to their own judgment and free will."

By his own, understand either the world, or Judæa, which He had chosen for His inheritance.

Having given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows the advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of the light (v 11); secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit brought by the coming of the light (v 12).

He shows that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by its effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his own, in order to be known. The Evangelist says, unto his own, i.e., to things that were his own, which he had made. And he says this so that you do not think that when he says, he came, he means a local motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world," as said below (16:28).

He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special way his own. "In Judea God is known" (Ps 75:1); "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel" (Is 5:7). But it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by him. "The earth is the Lord's" (Ps 23:1).

But if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that "coming to some place" is understood in two ways. First, that someone comes where he absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where he was before. For example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power. It was in this way that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world. For he was there, indeed, by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, and he came in order to be visible.

Then when he says, and his own did not receive him, we have the reception given him by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were not his own; hence he says, his own did not receive him. "His own" are men, because they were formed by him. "The Lord God formed man" (Gn 2:7); "Know that the Lord is God: he made us" (Ps 99:3). And he made them to his own image, "Let us make man to our image" (Gn 1:26).

But it is better to say, his own, i.e., the Jews, did not receive him, through faith by believing, and by showing honor to him. "I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me" (below 5:43), and "I honor my Father and you have dishonored me" (below 8:49). Now the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. "The Lord chose you to be his special people" (Dt 26:18). They are his own because related according to the flesh, "from whom is Christ, according to the flesh," as said in Romans (9:3). They are also his own because enriched by his kindness, "I have reared and brought up sons" (Is 1:2). But although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.

But this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, "the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father." And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, "The Word became flesh," that He might make man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, "Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father?" for first he puts "created," next "Father," to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore "Father" is proper to the Son; and not "creature," but "Son" is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we "cry, Abba, Father." And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, "I begat;" since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, "Let Us make man;" but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also.

When any person … is … considered to be among the children of God, such an achievement must not be considered to have been accomplished by their ability alone. This ability they have received through the grace of God, because they did not possess it in a nature that had become corrupted and depraved.

I mean, you are not being told not to be a human, in the sense that you are to be a beast, but rather that you are to be among those to whom "he gave the right to become children of God." God, you see, wants to make you a god; not by nature, of course, like the one whom he begot; but by his gift and by adoption. For just as he through being humbled came to share your mortality; so through lifting you up he brings you to share his immortality.

Now turn your attention to the doctor of our salvation who has come to us, our Lord Jesus Christ. He found us blind of heart, he promised us a light that "eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it come up into the heart of [a] man." This is what the angels see, what they enjoy. I mean, just as healthy people see what the blind do not see, so angels see what people do not see. Why doesn't [a] man see it? Because he still wants to be "man." So let man [humankind] himself start getting cured, so that from being "man" he may be numbered among the sons of God, because "he gave them the right to become children of God," that is, he gave them the right to be cured, to have the mistiness of heart wiped away, because "blessed are the pure in heart, because it is they who shall see God."

But John adds: "As many as received Him." What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. For so saith the apostle, "But if a son, then an heir through God." And again, "Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance." Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup." Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? "To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;" that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea.

(in Joan. Tr. i) Because all things were made by Him.

(Tr. in Joan. ii. 12) But if none at all received, none will be saved. For no one will he saved, but he who received Christ at His coming; and therefore he adds, As many as received Him.

(Tr. ii. 13) O amazing goodness! He was born the Only Son, yet would not remain so; but grudged not to admit joint heirs to His inheritance. Nor was this narrowed by many partaking of it.

When the soul has been clothed with the Son of God, it becomes worthy of the final and perfect stage and is baptized in the name of the Father himself of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the testimony of John, gave the power to be made the sons of God.

"But as many as received him." Here is touched upon the fruit of his coming, or its benefit, which is the attainment of divine filiation. Because this benefit does not extend except to those who received him and believed in him, therefore he says: "But as many as received him." Thus "his own" did not receive him, but "as many as received him, he gave them power to become sons of God." And this is a great benefit; 1 John 3: "Behold what manner of charity the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be sons of God"; and in this is great benefit: whence Romans 8: "If sons, also heirs, heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ." Thus therefore he gave this power of divine filiation to those who received him. But because this reception is through faith, therefore he explains: "To those who believe in his name": thus he gave to those who received him, to those who believe in his name, that is, in the reality of his name. His name is Emmanuel, that is, God with us. He therefore believes in the name who believes him to be God and man; and this one is a son of God; 1 John 5: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is born of God."

It is asked concerning what he says: "He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe." Against this: Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints: "The ability to believe belongs to nature": therefore they have this power from nature, not therefore given by Christ. Likewise, why does he speak of those who believe rather than of those who love, or of others?

It must be said that there is a perfect and active power, and this is called the power of authority; and there is an imperfect and passive power, and this is called possibility. The first power exists only through grace, and he speaks of that one here; therefore he says: "He gave them power." Augustine speaks of the other. As to what he asks: why especially to faith? The response is: because faith is the first of the virtues and their foundation, therefore he attributes it to faith as to a door.

How, then, are people to behave at home? If a man can't be comfortable and unguarded, can't take his ease and "be himself" in his own house, where can he? That is, I confess, the trouble. The answer is an alarming one. There is nowhere this side of heaven where one can safely lay the reins on the horse's neck. It will never be lawful simply to "be ourselves" until "ourselves" have become sons of God. It is all there in the hymn—"Christian, seek not yet repose." This does not mean, of course, that there is no difference between home life and general society. It does mean that home life has its own rule of courtesy—a code more intimate, more subtle, more sensitive, and, therefore, in some ways more difficult, than that of the outer world.

Now the point in Christianity which gives us the greatest shock is the statement that by attaching ourselves to Christ, we can 'become Sons of God'. One asks 'Aren't we Sons of God already? Surely the fatherhood of God is one of the main Christian ideas?' Well, in a certain sense, no doubt we are sons of God already. I mean, God has brought us into existence and loves us and looks after us, and in that way is like a father. But when the Bible talks of our 'becoming' Sons of God, obviously it must mean something different. And that brings us up against the very centre of Theology.

We are not begotten by God, we are only made by Him: in our natural state we are not sons of God, only (so to speak) statues. We have not got Zoe or spiritual life: only Bios or biological life which is presently going to run down and die. Now the whole offer which Christianity makes is this: that we can, if we let God have His way, come to share in the life of Christ. If we do, we shall then be sharing a life which was begotten, not made, which always has existed and always will exist. Christ is the Son of God. If we share in this kind of life we also shall be sons of God. We shall love the Father as He does and the Holy Ghost will arise in us. He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has—by what I call 'good infection'. Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else.

The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God... the business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from a created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from the temporary biological life into timeless 'spiritual' life, has been done for us. Humanity is already 'saved' in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work—the bit we could not have done for ourselves—has been done for us.

I have been talking as if it were we who did everything. In reality, of course, it is God who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be done to us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the pretending. The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before Him in fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious human animal. But He says 'Let us pretend that this is not a mere creature, but our Son. It is like Christ in so far as it is a Man, for He became Man. Let us pretend that it is also like Him in Spirit. Let us treat it as if it were what in fact it is not. Let us pretend in order to make the pretence into a reality.' God looks at you as if you were a little Christ: Christ stands beside you to turn you into one.

The new step, the step from being creatures to being sons, is voluntary. At least, voluntary in one sense. It is not voluntary in the sense that we, of ourselves, could have chosen to take it or could even have imagined it; but it is voluntary in the sense that when it is offered to us, we can refuse it. We can, if we please, shrink back; we can dig in our heels and let the new Humanity go on without us.

God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man.

It is not the poor simply, but those that have wished to become poor for righteousness' sake, that He pronounces blessed-those who have despised the honours of this world in order to attain "the good;" likewise also those who, through chastity, have become comely in person and character, and those who are of noble birth, and honourable, having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore "have received power to become the sons of God," and "to tread on serpents and scorpions," and to rule over demons and "the host of the adversary."

A right judgement verily and worthy of God! The firstborn, Israel, is cast out; for he would not abide in ownness with God, nor did he receive the Son, Who came among His own, he rejected the Bestower of Nobility, he thrust away the Giver of Grace: the Gentiles received Him by faith. Therefore will Israel with reason receive the wages of their folly, they will mourn the loss of good things, they will receive the bitter fruit of their own ill-counsel, bereft of the sonship; and the Gentiles will delight themselves in the good things that are through faith, they shall find the bright rewards of their obedience and shall be planted out in his place. For they shall be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and be grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree. And Israel shall hear, Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters, they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger: but one of Christ's disciples shall say to the Gentiles, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous Light. For since they received the Son through faith, they receive the power to be ranked among the sons of God. For the Son gives what is His alone and specially and of nature to be in their power, setting it forth as common, making this a sort of image of the love for man that is inherent to Him, and of His love for the world. For in none other way could we who bore the image of the earthy escape corruption, unless the beauty of the image of the heavenly were impressed upon us, through our being called to sonship. For being partakers of Him through the Spirit, we were sealed unto likeness with Him and mount up to the primal character of the Image after which the Divine Scripture says we were made. For thus hardly recovering the pristine beauty of our nature, and re-formed unto that Divine Nature, shall we be superior to the ills that have befallen us through the transgression. Therefore we mount up unto dignity above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, not like Him in exactitude, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we adopted by His Kindness, through grace receiving I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High. For the created and subject nature is called to what is above nature by the mere nod and will of the Father: but the Son and God and Lord will not possess this being God and Son, by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very Essence of the Father, He receives to Himself by Nature what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by Nature has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation: hence He is Son by Nature and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared, gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments.

"As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God." Whether bond or free, whether Greeks or barbarians or Scythians, unlearned or learned, female or male, children or old men, in honor or dishonor, rich or poor, rulers or private persons, all, He saith, are deemed worthy the same privilege; for faith and the grace of the Spirit, removing the inequality caused by worldly things, hath moulded all to one fashion, and stamped them with one impress, the King's. What can equal this lovingkindness? A king, who is framed of the same clay with us, does not deign to enrol among the royal host his fellow-servants, who share the same nature with himself, and in character often are better than he, if they chance to be slaves; but the Only-Begotten Son of God did not disdain to reckon among the company of His children both publicans, sorcerers, and slaves, nay, men of less repute and greater poverty than these, maimed in body, and suffering from ten thousand ills. Such is the power of faith in Him, such the excess of His grace.

And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the "image of the earthy" (1 Cor. xv. 49), and producing "the image of the heavenly," fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould.

Why then did he say not that "He made them sons of God," but that "He gave them power to become sons of God"? To show that we need much zeal to keep the image of sonship impressed on us at Baptism, all through without spot or soils; and at the same time to show that no one shall be able to take this power from us, unless we are the first to deprive ourselves of it. For if among men, those who have received the absolute control of any matters have well-nigh as much power as those who gave them the charge; much more shall we, who have obtained such honor from God, be, if we do nothing unworthy of this power, greater and better than all. At the same time too he wishes to show, that not even does grace come upon man irrespectively, but upon those who desire and take pains for it. For it lies in the power of these to become (His) children since if they do not themselves first make the choice, the gift does not come upon them, nor have any effect.

Having therefore everywhere excluded compulsion and pointing to (man's) voluntary choice and free power, he has said the same now. For even in these mystical blessings, it is, on the one hand, God's part, to give the grace, on the other, man's to supply faith; and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God's work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence.

The saints must be honored as friends of Christ and children and heirs of God.… "Therefore they are no longer servants, but children: and if children, heirs also, heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ."

The prayer begins with a testimony to God, and with the reward of faith, when we say, "Our Father who art in the heavens; "for (in so saying), we at once pray to God, and commend faith, whose reward this appellation is. It is written, "To them who believed on Him He gave power to be called sons of God." However, our Lord very frequently proclaimed God as a Father to us; nay, even gave a precept "that we call no one on earth father, but the Father whom we have in the heavens: and so, in thus praying, we are likewise obeying the precept.

For those, he says, who received him, their reception was not useless. He gave them something great and excellent; certainly, insofar as it is possible, he made them equal in honor by giving them the gift of sonship. They take advantage of that grace not by being reborn in the body according to the natural order of generation. Rather, they are given birth by divine power through a certain similarity and relationship with him.

"I have said, 'You are gods and all sons of the most high, but as human beings you die.' " He says this to those who did not accept the gift of adoption22 but who dishonor the taking of flesh through the pure birth of the Word of God, deprive humanity of the ascent to God and show ingratitude to God's Word who was made flesh for them. For this is why the Word became a human being and the Son of God became a Son of man: that the human being, by embracing the Word and receiving adoption, might become a son of God.

To those who received Him, whether slaves or free, young or old, barbarians or Greeks, to all He gave the power to become children of God. And who are these? Those who believe in His name, that is, those who received the Word and the true Light, and received by faith, and embraced Him. Why did the evangelist not say that He "made" them children of God, but "gave (them) the power" to become children of God? Why? Listen. Because to preserve purity it is not enough to be baptized, but much effort is needed to keep undefiled the image of adoption that is imprinted in baptism. Therefore many, although they received the grace of adoption through baptism, did not remain children of God to the end because of their negligence. Another person might also say that many receive Him through faith only, for example, the so-called catechumens, but they have not yet become children of God; however, if they wish to be baptized, they have the power to be deemed worthy of this grace as well, that is, adoption as sons. Another will say also this: that although through baptism we receive the grace of adoption, we will receive the perfection in the resurrection; then we hope to receive the most perfect adoption, as Paul also says: "we wait for the adoption" (Rom. 8:23). Therefore this evangelist also did not say that those who received Him, He made children of God, but gave them power to become children of God, that is, to receive this grace in the age to come.

Or the meaning is, that the most perfect sonship will only be attained at the resurrection, as saith the Apostle, Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Rom. 8:23) He therefore gave us the power to become the sons of God, i. e. the power of obtaining this grace at some future time.

However, there were not lacking those who did receive him. Hence he adds, but whoever received him. The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. "The Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our king; he will save us" (Is 33:22). But this deliverance was not only for his own, but for whoever received him, i.e., whoever believe in him. "For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for the sake of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom 15:8). The Gentiles, however, are delivered by his mercy, because they were received through his mercy.

He says, whoever, to show that God's grace is given without distinction to all who receive Christ. "The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles" (Acts 10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or uncircumcised" (Gal 3:28).

Then when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit of his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them power. Secondly, he shows to whom it is given, to all who believe. Thirdly, he indicates the way it is given, not from blood, and so forth.

The fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of God. "God sent his Son made from a woman... so that we might receive our adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5). And it was fitting that we, who are sons of God by the fact that we are made like the Son, should be reformed through the Son.

So he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God. To understand this we should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God. Hence men are sons of God according to a threefold likeness to God. First, by the infusion of grace; hence anyone having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. "You did not receive the spirit of slavery... but the spirit of adoption as sons," as said in Romans (8:15). "Because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal 4:6).

Secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a son: "Love your enemies... so that you may be the children of your Father" (Mt 5:44).

Thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the light of glory, "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2); and the glory of the body, "He will reform our lowly body" (Phil 3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), "We are waiting for our adoption as sons of God."

If we take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For then when he says, he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace; and when a man possesses this, he can perform works of perfection and attain glory, since "The grace of God is eternal life" (Rom 6:23). According to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, i.e., the infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring glory.

But if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, he gave them power, gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can understand, he gave them power, as a power of nature; but this does not seem to be true since the infusion of grace is above our nature. Or we can understand it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power to become the sons of God. And in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of God, but to be sons of God.

The answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act of consent by a movement of his free will. So, because it is in the power of men to consent and not to consent, he gave them power. However, he gives this power of accepting grace in two ways: by preparing it, and by offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and offers it to a man to read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace was produced (as will be said below), and who "accomplished salvation on the earth" (Ps 73:12), gave us power to become the sons of God by offering grace.

Yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace. For this reason, secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace, as in "Convert us to yourself, O Lord," by moving our will to your love, "and we will be converted" (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of which it is said, "Those whom he called," by inwardly moving the will to consent to grace, "he justified," by infusing grace (Rom 8:30).

Since by this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him, power to become the sons of God, i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine sonship. "Everyone who is born from God does not sin, but the grace of God," through which we are reborn as children of God, "preserves him" (1 Jn 5:18).

Thus, he gave them power to become the sons of God, through sanctifying grace, through the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this grace.

Then when he says, to all who believe in his name, he shows those on whom the fruit of his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as explaining what was said before, or as qualifying it. We can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of explanation, who believe in his name. It is as though he were saying: To receive him is to believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). Therefore, they received him, who believe in his name.

Origen regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, "The spiritual voice." In this sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by taking away something from his divinity or humanity, as in "Every spirit that denies Christ is not from God" (1 Jn 4:3). And so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, he gave them, i.e., those who receive him by faith, power to become the sons of God, to those, however, who believe in his name, i.e., who keep the name of Christ whole, in such a way as not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.

We can also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to all, that is, he gave power to become the sons of God, who believe in his name, i.e., those who do the works of salvation through a faith formed by charity. For those who have only an unformed faith do not believe in his name because they do not work unto salvation.

However, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.

And how do they become children of God? "Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of a man nor of the will of the flesh, but of God." Pay close attention: these here have been born of God, having received power to become children of God. They have been born of God, not of blood, such as is the case with the first birth, the case with the birth in misery coming from miserable parents. But those who have been born of God, what was it that they were first born of? From a mixing of blood, from the blood of male and female, from a mingling of the flesh of male and female, that is what they were born of. But now, how is it they are born of God? The first birth was from male and female; the second birth is from God and the church.

And how are they born? Because they become sons of God and brethren of Christ, they are certainly born. For if they are not born, how can they be sons? But the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and of the will of man, and of the embrace of wedlock. But in what manner are they born? "Who not of bloods," as if of male and female. Bloods is not Latin; but because it is plural in Greek, the interpreter preferred so to express it, and to speak bad Latin according to the grammarian that he might make the matter plain to the understanding of the weak among his hearers. For if he had said blood in the singular number, he would not have explained what he desired; for men are born of the bloods of male and female. Let us say so, then, and not fear the ferule of grammarians, so long as we reach the solid and certain truth. He who understands it and blames it, is thankless for his having understood. "Not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man." The apostle puts flesh for woman; because, when she was made of his rib, Adam said, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." And the apostle saith, "He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh." Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves.

(Tr. ii. 14) To be made then the sons of God, and brothers of Christ, they must of course be born; for if they are not born, how can they be sons? Now the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and the will of man, and the embrace of wedlock; but how these are born, the next words declare: Not of bloods; that is, the male's and the female's. Bloods is not correct Latin, but as it is plural in the Greek, the translator preferred to put it so, though it be not strictly grammatical, at the same time explaining the word in order not to offend the weakness of one's hearers.

(Tr. ii. 14) In that which follows, Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, the flesh is put for the female; because, when she was made out of the rib, Adam said, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. (Gen. 2:23) The flesh therefore is put for the wife, as the spirit sometimes is for the husband; because that the one ought to govern, the other to obey. For what is there worse than an house, where the woman hath rule over the man? But these that we speak of are born neither of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.

It should be understood that in holy Scripture, blood in the plural number, has the signification of sin: thus in the Psalms Deliver me from blood-guiltinessp. (Ps. 51:14).

The carnal birth of men derives its origin from the embrace of wedlock, but the spiritual is dispensed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

"Who not of bloods," that is, of the commingling of seeds; "nor of the will of the flesh," that is, of a woman; "nor of the will of man," that is, of pleasure and desire; "but are born of God"; because below in chapter 3: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit"; and 1 Peter 1: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of the living God, abiding forever," that is, always.

For not only must the idols which he formerly held as gods, but the works also of his former life, be abandoned by him who has been "born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh," but in the Spirit; which consists in repenting by not giving way to the same fault.

They who, he says, have been called by faith in Christ to sonship with God put off the littleness of their own nature, adorned with the grace of him who honors them as with a splendid robe—they mount up to a dignity above nature. For no longer are they called children of flesh, but rather offspring of God by adoption.But note how extremely careful the blessed Evangelist is in his words. For since he was going to say that those who believe are begotten of God, he needs to exercise additional caution. He needs to do this in case anyone should suppose that they are in truth born of the essence of God the Father and arrive at an exact likeness with the Only Begotten. Or they might think that "from the womb before the Daystar I begat you" is something less appropriately said of the Son too. If they went down this path, the Son too, at length, would be brought down to the nature of creatures, even though he is said to be begotten of God. This is why he needs this additional caution. For when he had said that power was given to them to become sons of God from him who is by nature Son—and thus here for the first time introduces what is by adoption and grace—he avoids danger by adding afterwards they were begotten of God. He does this so that he might show the greatness of the grace that was conferred on them, gathering as it were into a kinship of nature that which was alien from God the Father and raising up its connection to the nobility of its Lord through his own heartwarming love for it.

The Father, being very God, begot the Son like himself, very God; not as teachers beget disciples, not as Paul says to some, "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." For in this case [Paul is speaking about] he who was not a son by nature becoming a son by discipleship. But in the former case [of Jesus], he was a son by nature, a true son—not as you, who are to be illuminated, are now becoming sons of God: for you also become sons but [do so] by adoption of grace, [not by nature].

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.

Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: "But the birth of Christ was on this wise. When His mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Then, when Joseph had it in contemplation to put Mary away, since she proved with child, [Matthew tells us of] the angel of God standing by him, and saying: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold. a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;" clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, "Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;" but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, "But the birth of Christ was on this wise;" and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;" and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.

But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons?

For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?" But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him.

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times, not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God.

For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God: and this is our Lord, who in the last times was made man, existing in this world, and who in an invisible manner contains all things created, and is inherent in the entire creation, since the Word of God governs and arranges all things; and therefore He came to His own in a visible manner, and was made flesh, and hung upon the tree, that He might sum up all things in Himself. "And His own peculiar people did not receive Him," as Moses declared this very thing among the people: "And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life." Those therefore who did not receive Him did not receive life. "But to as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God." For it is He who has power from the Father over all things, since He is the Word of God, and very man, communicating with invisible beings after the manner of the intellect, and appointing a law observable to the outward senses, that all things should continue each in its own order; and He reigns manifestly over things visible and pertaining to men; and brings in just judgment and worthy upon all...

"Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God." This he has done, in order that, considering the vileness, and lowness of the first birth, which is "of blood," and "the will of the flesh," and perceiving the highness and nobleness of the second, which is by grace, we may form from thence some great opinion of it, and one worthy of the gift of Him who hath begotten us, and for the future exhibit much earnestness.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, "Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? " I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.

" And when in another passage he says, in like manner, "Before me there was no God," he strikes at those inexplicable genealogies of the Valentinian ¦ons. Again, there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: "Born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

He makes a kind of comparison between Divine and fleshly birth, not without purpose reminding us of fleshly births, but so that we, having recognized through comparison the ignobility and lowliness of fleshly birth, might hasten toward Divine grace. He says "who were born not of blood," that is, of the menstrual blood, for by it the child is nourished and grows in the womb. They also say that the seed is first converted into blood, then formed into flesh and the rest of the body's structure. Since some might say that the birth of Isaac was therefore the same as the birth of those who believe in Christ, since Isaac was born not of blood, for Sarah's monthly discharges (separations of blood) had ceased (Gen. 18:11); since some might think this, the Evangelist adds: "nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man." The birth of Isaac was, though not of blood, yet of the will of a man, since the husband indeed desired that a child be born to him from Sarah (Gen. 21:8). But "of the will of the flesh," for example, was Samuel from Hannah. Thus, you can say that Isaac was of the will of a man, and Samuel of the will of the flesh, that is, of Hannah, for this barren woman intensely desired to receive a son (1 Sam. 1:6), though perhaps both elements were present in both cases. If you wish to learn something more, then listen. Carnal union occurs either from natural inflammation, for often a person receives a very hot constitution and from that is very inclined to intercourse. This the Evangelist called "the will of the flesh." Or the unrestrained impulse toward intercourse comes from bad habit and an intemperate way of life. This impulse he called "the will of man," since it is a matter not of natural constitution but of the intemperance of the man. Since, however, a strong inclination toward intercourse is found sometimes in the wife, sometimes in the husband, perhaps by "the will of man" the Evangelist signified the sensuality of the husband, and by "the will of the flesh" the sensuality of the wife. You may also rightly understand by "the will of the flesh" the lust that inflames the flesh toward union, and by "the will of man" the consent of the one lusting to copulation, which consent is the beginning of the act. The Evangelist set down both because many feel lust yet are not immediately carried away by the flesh, but overcome it and do not fall into the act itself. But those whom it overcomes reach the desire to copulate, because at first the flesh and the lust smoldering in it inflamed them. Thus the Evangelist fittingly placed the will of the flesh before the will of man, because naturally lust precedes union; and both wills necessarily converge in copulation. All this has been said on account of those who often ask foolish questions, because, strictly speaking, all these expressions convey one thought, namely: the lowliness of carnal birth is set in plain view. What then do we, who believe in Christ, have that is greater than the Israelites under the Law? True, they too were called sons of God, but between us and them there is a great difference. The Law in all things had "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb. 10:1) and did not impart to the Israelites sonship (fully), but only as it were in figure and mental representation. But we, through baptism in very deed, having received the Spirit of God, cry out: "Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6). Just as their baptism was a figure and shadow, so too their sonship foreshadowed our adoption. Although they too were called sons, it was in shadow, and they did not possess the very reality of sonship, as we now possess it through baptism.

Then when he says, who are born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light's coming is the power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall the supposition that they are born through a material generation he says, not from blood. And although the word "blood" has no plural in Latin, but does in Greek, the translator ignored a rule of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say, "from blood," in the Latin manner, but "from bloods." This indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the matter in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher, "semen is a residue derived from useful nourishment in its final form." So "blood" indicates either the seed of the male or the menses of the female.

The cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, nor from the desires of the flesh, referring to the woman; nor from man's willing it, as from an efficient cause; but from God. It is as though he were saying: They became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.

According to Augustine, "flesh" is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh obeys the spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman, "This, at last, is bone of my bones." And note, according to Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the flesh rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, "We are not debtors to the flesh, so that we should live according to the flesh" (Rom 8:12). Concerning the manner of this carnal generation, we read, "In the womb of my mother I was molded into flesh" (Wis 7:1).

Or, we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is concupiscence. So, to indicate the material cause he says, not from blood. To indicate the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, nor from the desires of the flesh, even though the concupiscence of the flesh is improperly called a "will" in the sense of Galatians (5:17), "The flesh lusts against the spirit." Finally, to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man's willing it. So, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born from God. "Every one who is born from God conquers the world" (1 Jn 5:4).

Note, however, that this preposition "of" (or "from"), always signifies a material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife "from" iron, and a father generates his son "from" himself, because something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition "by" always signifies a moving cause. The preposition "from" or "by" is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause.

Consequently, since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is "of" the substance of the Father and indeed is one substance with the Father, while the saints, who are adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition "from," saying of others that they are born from God, but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father.

Note also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the former is from blood, it is carnal; but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual. "What is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit" (below 3:6). Again, because material generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is unclean and begets children who are sinners: "We were by nature children of wrath" as it says in Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is from man's willing it, that is, from man, it makes children of men; but the latter, because it is from God, makes children of God.

But if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism: that is, the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name; then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally from blood, but spiritually from God.

(in Joan. 1:1.) When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul.

Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men.

It is written, they say, "The Word was made flesh." It is written. I do not deny it. But consider what follows, for there follows: "And dwelt among us," that is, that word that took on flesh, this Word dwelt among us, that is, dwelt in human flesh, and so he is called Emmanuel, that is, "God with us." So this statement, "The Word was made flesh," stands for that which took place. He became man even as he said in Joel: "I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh," for the future pouring out of spiritual grace is promised not for irrational flesh but for humanity.

How did we behold his glory? We beheld it through the star of the magi, the angels, the shepherds, Anna, Simeon, Gabriel, the miraculous birth of the Virgin, the voice of the Father who witnessed to him, the Spirit descending upon him and many other divine signs and healings.

But this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, "the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father." And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, "The Word became flesh," that He might make man capable of Godhead.

For the Word perceived that death was the only way that the corruption of people could be undone. However, it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal and Son of the Father. Therefore, he takes to himself a body capable of death, so that such a body, by partaking of the Word who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word that had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible. In this way, the corruption of all might be checked by the grace of the resurrection. By offering to death the body he himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, he got rid of death for all his peers by offering an equivalent. For the Word of God, which by his very nature is over everything, by offering his own temple and bodily vessel for the life of all, satisfied the debt by his death. And thus he, the incorruptible Son of God, joined with all by a similar nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death no longer has a hold on humanity because of the Word which, by his one body, has come to dwell among them. It is similar to when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up residence in one of the houses there. That city is thus deemed worthy of high honor. No enemy or bandit any longer descends on it and subdues it. On the contrary, it finds itself entitled to total protection because the king has taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. For now that he has come to our realm and taken up residence in one body among his peers, from this time forward the whole conspiracy of the enemy against humankind is checked, and the corruption of death, which before had prevailed against them, is done away with. For the human race would have gone to ruin if the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, had not come among us to meet the end of death.

He was made man that we might be made god. He manifested himself by a body that we might receive a conception of the unseen Father. He endured the hubris of humanity that we might inherit incorruptibility. For on the one hand, he himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God; but on the other hand, in his own impassibility he maintained and preserved those human beings who were suffering and for whose sakes he endured all this.

For our word is so made in some way into an articulate sound of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be manifested to men's senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming that flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men's senses. And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it.

For who can unfold in cogent enough fashion this statement, that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," so that we should then believe in "the only Son of God the Father Almighty, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin." Yet it is indeed true that the Word was made flesh, the flesh being assumed by the Divinity, not the Divinity being changed into flesh. Of course, by the term "flesh" we ought here to understand "man," an expression in which the part signifies the whole, just as it is said, "Since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," which is to say, no man shall be justified. Yet certainly we must say that in that assumption nothing was lacking that belongs to human nature.

But it was a nature entirely free from the bonds of all sin. It was not a nature born of both sexes with fleshly desires, with the burden of sin, the guilt of which is washed away in regeneration. Instead, it was the kind of nature that would be fittingly born of a virgin, conceived by His mother's faith and not her fleshly desires. Now if in his being born, her virginity had been destroyed, he would not then have been born of a virgin. It would then be false (which is unthinkable) for the whole Church to confess him "born of the Virgin Mary." This is the Church which, imitating his mother, daily gives birth to his members yet remains virgin.

What you see here, beloved, on the table of the Lord, is bread and wine; but this bread and this wine by the word become the body and blood of the Word. For the Lord, who in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, because of His mercy, by which He did not despise what He created in His own image, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, as you know; for the Word also assumed man, that is, the soul and flesh of man, and became man, remaining God. Because of this, because He also suffered for us, He entrusted to us in this sacrament His body and blood, which He also made us ourselves. For we too have become His body, and by His mercy, what we receive, we are.

He assumed poverty and did not lose riches. Rich inside, poor outside. God hidden in riches, appearing as man in poverty. See his riches: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. What is richer than he through whom all things were made? One can have gold and be rich, one cannot create. Therefore, since these riches of his were commended, see his poverty: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. By this poverty of his we are enriched, because in his blood which flowed from his flesh, which the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, the sack of our sins was torn apart. Through that blood we cast off the rags of iniquity, that we might be clothed in the robe of immortality.

He made Himself a mother while He was with the Father: and when He was made from the mother, He remained with the Father. How could God cease to exist when He began to be man, who granted to His mother that she should not cease to be a virgin when she gave birth? Hence, the Word made flesh did not cease to be the Word by perishing into flesh; but flesh came to the Word, so that it should not perish: that as man is soul and flesh, so Christ would be God and man. The same God who is man, and who is God is the same man: not by confusion of nature, but by unity of person. Finally, He who is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father, always from the Father, the same began to be the son of man from the Virgin. Thus, humanity is added to the divinity of the Son; and yet, the Trinity does not become a quaternity, but remains a Trinity.

These, then, "were born not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." But that men might be born of God, God was first born of them. For Christ is God, and Christ was born of men. It was only a mother, indeed, that He sought upon earth; because He had already a Father in heaven: He by whom we were to be created was born of God, and He by whom we were to be re-created was born of a woman. Marvel not, then, O man, that thou art made a son by grace, that thou art born of God according to His Word. The Word Himself first chose to be born of man, that thou mightest be born of God unto salvation, and say to thyself, Not without reason did God wish to be born of man, but because He counted me of some importance, that He might make me immortal, and for me be born as a mortal man. When, therefore, he had said, "born of God," lest we should, as it were, be filled with amazement and trembling at such grace, at grace so great as to exceed belief that men are born of God, as if assuring thee, he says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Why, then, dost thou marvel that men are born of God? Consider God Himself born of men: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

But because "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," by His very nativity he made an eye-salve to cleanse the eyes of our heart, and to enable us to see His majesty by means of His humility. Therefore "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us:" He healed our eyes; and what follows? "And we beheld His glory." His glory can no one see unless healed by the humility of His flesh. Wherefore were we not able to see? Consider, then, dearly beloved, and see what I say. There had dashed into man's eye, as it were, dust, earth; it had wounded the eye, and it could not see the light: that wounded eye is anointed; by earth it was wounded, and earth is applied to it for healing. For all eye-salves and medicines are derived from the earth alone. By dust thou wert blinded, and by dust thou art healed: flesh, then, had wounded thee, flesh heals thee. The soul had become carnal by consenting to the affections of the flesh; thus had the eye of the heart been blinded. "The Word was made flesh:" that Physician made for thee an eye-salve. And as He thus came by flesh to extinguish the vices of the flesh, and by death to slay death; therefore did this take place in thee, that, as "the Word became flesh," thou mayest be able to say, "And we beheld His glory." What sort of glory? Such as He became as Son of man? That was His humility, not His glory. But to what is the sight of man brought when cured by means of flesh? "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Of that man we have to-day heard it said: "One Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The Psalms also foretold, saying, "My mother is Sion, shall a man say." A certain man, the Mediator man between God and men, says, "My mother Sion." Why says, "My mother is Sion"? Because from it He took flesh, from it was the Virgin Mary, of whose womb He took upon Him the form of a servant; in which He deigned to appear most humble. "My mother is Sion," saith a man; and this man, who says, "My mother is Sion," was made in her, became man in her. For He was God before her, and became man in her. He who was made man in her, "Himself did found her; the Most High was made man in her most low." Because "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." "He Himself, the Most High, founded her." Now, because He founded this country, here let Him have honor. The country in which He was born rejected Him; let that country receive Him which He regenerated.

(Tr. ii. 15) Having said, Born of God; to prevent surprise and trepidation at so great, so apparently incredible a grace, as that men should be born of God; to assure us, he says, And the Word was made flesh. Why marvellest thou then that men are born of God? Know that God Himself was born of man.

(de Trin. xv. c. 20. [xi.]) As our wordq becomes the bodily voice, by its assumption of that voice, as a means of developing itself externally; so the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming flesh, as a means of manifesting Itself to the world. And as our word is made voice, yet is not turned into voice; so the Word of God was made flesh, but never turned into flesh. It is by assuming another nature, not by consuming themselves in it, that our word is made voice, and the Word, flesh.

(con. Serm. Arian. c. 7. [9.]) If men are disturbed however by its being said that the Word was made flesh, without mention of a soul; let them know that the flesh is put for the whole man, the part for the whole, by a figure of speech; as in the Psalms, Unto thee shall all flesh come; (Ps. 65:2) and again in Romans, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. (Rom. 3:20) In the same sense it is said here that the Word was made flesh; meaning that the Word was made man.

(in Joan. Tr. ii. c. 16) Or thus; in that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, His birth became a kind of ointment to anoint the eyes of our heart, that we might through His humanity discern His majesty; and therefore it follows, And we saw His glory. No one could see His glory, who was not healed by the humility of the flesh. For there had flown upon man's eye as it were dust from the earth: the eye had been diseased, and earth was sent to heal it again; the flesh had blinded thee, the flesh restores thee. The soul by consenting to carnal affections had become carnal; hence the eye of the mind had been blinded: then the physician made for thee ointment. He came in such wise, as that by the flesh He destroyed the corruption of the flesh. And thus the Word was made flesh, that thou mightest be able to say, We saw His glory.

How can the Godhead be in the flesh? In the same way as fire can be in iron: not by moving from place to place but by the one imparting to the other its own properties. Fire does not speed toward iron, but without itself undergoing any change it causes the iron to share in its own natural attributes. The fire is not diminished, and yet it completely fills whatever shares in its nature. So is it also with God the Word. He did not relinquish his own nature, and yet "he dwelt among us." He did not undergo any change, and yet "the Word became flesh." Earth received him from heaven, yet heaven was not deserted by him who holds the universe in being.…Let us strive to comprehend the mystery. The reason God is in the flesh is to kill the death that lurks there. As diseases are cured by medicines assimilated by the body, and as darkness in a house is dispelled by the coming of light, so death, which held sway over human nature, is done away with by the coming of God. And as ice formed on water covers its surface as long as night and darkness last but melts under the warmth of the sun, so death reigned until the coming of Christ; but when the grace of God our Savior appeared and the Sun of justice rose, death was swallowed up in victory, unable to bear the presence of true life. How great is God's goodness, how deep his love for us!

Since the effective principle of things could not have been, nor was it fitting to be, anything other than God; and since it is no less a thing to restore created things than to bring them into being, just as well-being is no less than simple being: it was most fitting that the restorative principle of things be the most high God, so that, just as God had created all things through the uncreated Word, so He might heal all things through the incarnate Word. Since, therefore, God made all things powerfully, wisely, and most excellently or benevolently, it was fitting that He should restore them in such a way as to display His power, wisdom, and benevolence. For what is more powerful than to unite extremes supremely distant into one person? What is more wise and more fitting than that, for the perfection of the whole universe, there should be a union of the first and the last—namely, of the Word of God, which is the principle of all things, and of human nature, which was the last of all creatures? What is more benevolent than that the Lord should take on the form of a servant for the salvation of the servant?

And because carnal, animal, and sensual man did not know, nor love, nor follow anything except what was proportionate and similar to himself, therefore, in order to rescue man from this state, the Word was made flesh, so that by man, who was flesh, it could both be known and loved and imitated, and through this, man, knowing and loving and imitating God, might be healed from the disease of sin.

Since the restorative principle restores through grace, and every thing is more fully and more perfectly in its font and origin than elsewhere, it is necessary that in our restorative principle, namely Christ the Lord, there was the fullness of all grace. And since the restorative principle in restoring holds the character not only of a principle, but also of a mean and of an extreme—of an extreme indeed in making satisfaction, of a mean in reconciling, and of a principle in pouring forth from above—therefore it is necessary that in Christ there was the fullness of grace by reason of the extreme that makes satisfaction, of the mean that reconciles, and of the principle that pours forth from above.

It is necessary to posit in Christ a grace above every grace, to be venerated with every manner of reverence, which we call the grace of union, by reason of which Christ as man is God blessed above all things, and therefore to be venerated with the worship of latria.

It is necessary that the incarnate Word be full of grace and truth, so that from his fullness all the just may receive, just as all the members receive from the head the influx of motion and sense.

Since the restorative principle is not only the Word insofar as it is the Word, but also insofar as it is incarnate, which, by the very fact that it is incarnate, offers itself to all for the knowledge of truth and presents itself to all who worthily approach for the grace of healing: hence it is that, as one full of grace and truth, for the greater evidence of signifying and efficacy of sanctifying, he instituted the Sacraments in elements together with words, so that, while the elements presented themselves to the eyes and the words to the ears, which are the two senses most conducive to knowledge, they would give evidence of the signification expressed; and then also the words would sanctify the elements, so that the efficacy of human healing would become more complete.

The second key is the understanding of the Incarnate Word, through whom all things are restored. Who is speaking? The Word of God, of whom John writes in his first chapter: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," where He displayed two natures within a single Person. The book of Scriptures is understood precisely through that key, the Incarnate Word, the one eminently concerned with the works of restoration. For unless you understand the order and origin of restoration, you cannot understand Scriptures.

This Hierarch is acceptable to God, for we need a most sacred Reconciler. And so John writes: "We saw His glory—glory as of the only-begotten of the Father—full of grace and of truth," because of the great number of graces. He enjoyed, indeed, the grace of an individual Person, the grace of the Head by which He influenced the members, and the grace of union which is infinite and flowing from a single source. For this reason He was acceptable to God, not only because in the form of God, but as God. Because He is God, He cannot be unacceptable. Hence He is called God, and the holiest examples come from Him. Hence, wherever in the Scriptures there is a reference to emanations, to the rivers of paradise, to gushing fountains, they apply to Him.

"And the Word was made flesh." Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the mode of coming, which was through the assumption of flesh, in which there was the highest union: therefore he says: "The Word was made flesh": that is, united to flesh; Philippians 2: "He humbled himself, taking the form of a servant." And because this union was unconfused, it was also undivided: therefore he says: "And dwelt among us," that is, in our nature: "he dwelt," therefore he was not changed: "he dwelt," therefore he was not separated. Concerning this dwelling, Leviticus 26: "I will set my tabernacle in the midst of you, and my soul shall not cast you off"; and in the Psalm: "In peace is his place made, and his dwelling in Sion."

"And we saw his glory." We knew; "glory," namely with respect to the Divinity. Therefore he says: "Glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father"; concerning which glory, Second Peter chapter one: "He received from God the Father honor and glory, when a voice came down to him from the magnificent glory: This is my beloved Son." With respect to the humanity, however, he is said to be "full of grace and truth," that is, we saw him, full of grace and truth, truly full, because in him, as is said in Colossians chapter two, "all the fullness of the Divinity dwells bodily"; full of grace, for draining away sins; full of truth, for fulfilling promises; Sirach chapter twenty-four: "In me is all grace of life and truth." And it should be noted that what he says, "as of the Only-begotten," is not a mark of comparison or similitude, but of expression.

It is asked: "The Word was made flesh." Here three words are spoken, and the question is: why did he say "Word" rather than "Light," since the Word has been described both under the notion of word and under the notion of light? If you say that "Light" is common to the three persons, while "Word" belongs to the Son alone, who alone became incarnate, then the question arises: why did he not say "Son"? And why was the Son alone incarnate, since the divine goodness is supremely communicative in each of the hypostases?

The reason why the Son alone became incarnate is taken from the standpoint of nativity, of work, and of effect. By reason of nativity: because he is the son of the Virgin, and "son" ought not to be attributed to another person. By reason of work: because it is re-creation, and re-creation is through him through whom creation came. From the standpoint of effect: because he made us sons and co-heirs, through the natural Son we ought to be brought into the inheritance and into sonship. Moreover, he said "Word" rather than "Son" in order to exclude a carnal understanding and to manifest a spiritual one. For "Son" is generated carnally among creatures, but "Word" has a spiritual generation. He manifests the spiritual sense, because, as Augustine says, a word clothes itself in sound and does not pass into sound; so the eternal Word clothed himself in flesh.

It is asked: "Was made flesh"; for either the meaning is: was made flesh, that is, changed into flesh; or made flesh, that is, made so as to be flesh. Neither understanding is sound. If you say that the construction is synecdochic, and "flesh" there has the same force as "man"; whence "made flesh," that is, man; then the question arises: why did he prefer humanity to be understood through "flesh" rather than through "soul," since the soul is the nobler part? And why did he use this figurative expression, when he could have used the proper one? It must be said that that union was for our instruction and our salvation: and it was instruction, because visible; and liberation, because passible; and "flesh" denotes the visible and most passible part; therefore, etc.

It is asked: "Full of grace and truth": according to which nature is this said? Not according to the divine, because grace is not in him in that way, but whatever he has is by nature. Nor does it seem to be according to his humanity, because he adds: "Of his fullness we have received grace for grace": but grace is given by God alone, not by a man.

It must be said that in Christ there was a most great singular grace, the greatest that could exist in a man; just as also the grace of union, than which no greater can be conceived. By reason of both he is said to have been full of grace, and by reason of this twofold grace he was the head of the Church. And because the head overflows into all the members, therefore "of his fullness we have all received." Christ is called head according to the human nature united to the divine. Thus the fullness of overflowing is to be understood.

In this manner it is possible to find in the illumination of mechanical art, whose entire intention is directed toward the production of artifacts. In which we can perceive these three things, namely the generation and incarnation of the Word, the order of living, and the covenant of God and the soul. And this, if we consider the origin, the effect, and the fruit; or thus: the art of working, the quality of the artifact produced, and the usefulness of the fruit derived.

If we consider the origin, we shall see that the artificial product proceeds from the artisan by means of a likeness existing in his mind, through which the artisan conceives before he produces, and then produces as he has planned. Moreover, the artisan produces an exterior work conformed to the interior exemplar as closely as he can; and if he could produce such a product that would love and know him, he would certainly do so; and if that product were to know its maker, this would be by means of the likeness according to which it proceeded from the artisan; and if it had darkened eyes of knowledge, so that it could not raise itself above itself, it would be necessary, in order that it might be led to knowledge of its maker, that the likeness through which the product had been produced should condescend to that nature which could be grasped and known by it.

By this manner understand that from the supreme Artisan no creature proceeded except through the eternal Word, "in whom He disposed all things," and through whom He produced not only creatures having the nature of a vestige, but also of an image, so that they might be assimilated to Him through knowledge and love. And since through sin the rational creature had the eye of contemplation clouded over, it was most fitting that the eternal and invisible should become visible and assume flesh, in order to lead us back to the Father. And this is what is said in John fourteen: No one comes to the Father except through me; and Matthew eleven: No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. And therefore it is said the Word was made flesh. Considering therefore the illumination of mechanical art with respect to the production of the work, we shall behold therein the Word begotten and incarnate, that is, the Divinity and the humanity and the integrity of the whole faith.

According to this same manner one may also find in the illumination of rational philosophy, whose principal concern turns upon discourse. In which there are three things to consider according to the threefold consideration of discourse itself, namely with respect to the speaker, by reason of the utterance, and with respect to the hearer or by reason of the end.

If we consider speech in relation to the speaker, we see that every speech signifies a concept of the mind, and that interior concept is the word of the mind and its offspring, which is known even to the one conceiving it. But in order that it may become known to the hearer, it puts on the form of voice, and the intelligible word by means of that garment becomes sensible and is heard outwardly and is received in the ear of the hearer's heart, and yet does not depart from the mind of the one uttering it.

According to this mode we see in the eternal Word that the Father eternally conceived it by generating, according to that passage of Proverbs eight: The depths did not yet exist, and I was already conceived. But in order that it might become knowable to sense-bound man, it put on the form of flesh, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and yet remained in the bosom of the Father.

Now as myth transcends thought, incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying god, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. I suspect that men have sometimes derived more spiritual sustenance from myths they did not believe than from the religion they professed. To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myths. The one is hardly more necessary than the other.

One must be careful not to put this in a way which would blur the distinction between the creation of a man and the Incarnation of God. Could one, as a mere model, put it thus? In creation God makes—invents—a person and "utters"—injects—him into the realm of Nature. In the Incarnation, God the Son takes the body and human soul of Jesus, and, through that, the whole environment of Nature, all the creaturely predicament, into His own being. So that "He came down from Heaven" can almost be transposed into "Heaven drew earth up into it," and locality, limitation, sleep, sweat, footsore weariness, frustration, pain, doubt and death, are, from before all worlds, known by God from within. The pure light walks the earth; the darkness, received into the heart of Deity, is there swallowed up. Where, except in uncreated light, can the darkness be drowned?

I have found it impossible, in thinking of what I call Transposition, not to ask myself whether it may help us to conceive the Incarnation. Of course if Transposition were merely a mode of symbolism it could give us no help at all in this matter: on the contrary, it would lead us wholly astray, back into a new kind of Docetism (or would it be only the old kind?) and away from the utterly historical and concrete reality which is the centre of all our hope, faith and love. But then, as I have pointed out, Transposition is not always symbolism. In varying degrees the lower reality can actually be drawn into the higher and become part of it. The sensation which accompanies joy becomes itself joy: we can hardly choose but say "incarnates joy". If this is so, then I venture to suggest, though with great doubt and in the most provisional way, that the concept of Transposition may have some contribution to make to the theology—or at least to the philosophy—of the Incarnation. For we are told in one of the creeds that the Incarnation worked "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God". And it seems to me that there is a real analogy between this and what I have called Transposition: that humanity, still remaining itself, is not merely counted as, but veritably drawn into, Deity, seems to me like what happens when a sensation (not in itself a pleasure) is drawn into the joy it accompanies. But I walk _in mirabilibus supra me_ and submit all to the verdict of real theologians.

And when we come to the last step of all, the historical Incarnation, the assurance is strongest of all. The story is strangely like many myths which have haunted religion from the first, and yet it is not like them. It is not transparent to the reason: we could not have invented it ourselves. ... If any message from the core of reality ever were to reach us, we should expect to find in it just that unexpectedness, that wilful, dramatic anfractuosity which we find in the Christian faith. It has the master touch--the rough, male taste of reality, not made by us, or, indeed, for us, but hitting us in the face.

I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion--those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them--was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognisable, through all that depth of time, as Plato's Socrates or Boswell's Johnson (ten times more so than Eckermann's Goethe or Lockhart's Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god--we are no longer polytheists--then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion", nor "a philosophy". It is the summing up and actuality of them all.

It is not the thing, nor the pleasure, that is the trouble. The old Christian teachers said that if man had never fallen, sexual pleasure, instead of being less than it is now, would actually have been greater. I know some muddle-headed Christians have talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body, or pleasure, were bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body—which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, our beauty and our energy. Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.

The Second Person in God, the Son, became human Himself: was born into the world as an actual man—a real man of a particular height, with hair of a particular colour, speaking a particular language, weighing so many stone. The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a Woman's body.

Let us then aim at the fulfilment of the commandments by the works of the Lord; for the Word Himself also, having openly become flesh, exhibited the same virtue, both practical and contemplative. Wherefore let us regard the Word as law, and His commands and counsels as the short and straight paths to immortality; for His precepts are full of persuasion, not of fear.

Now the Word of God says, "I am the truth." The Word is then to be contemplated by the mind. ... Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh," that He might be seen.

(P. iii. Hom. Theod. Ancyr. de Nat. Dom.) The discourse which we utter, which we use in conversation with each other, is incorporeal, imperceptible, impalpable; but clothed in letters and characters, it becomes material, perceptible, tangible. So too the Word of God, which was naturally invisible, becomes visible, and that comes before us in tangible form, which was by nature incorporeal.

And the Word was made Flesh.

He has now entered openly upon the declaration of the Incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only-Begotten became and is called son of man; for this and nought else does his saying that the Word was made Flesh signify: for it is as though he said more nakedly The Word was made Man. And in thus speaking he introduces again to us nought strange or unwonted, seeing that the Divine Scripture ofttimes calls the whole creature by the name of flesh alone, as in the prophet Joel: I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh. And we do not suppose that the Prophet says that that the Divine Spirit should be bestowed upon human flesh soul-less and alone (for this would be by no means free from absurdity): but comprehending the whole by the part, he names man from the flesh: for thus it was right and not otherwise. And why, it is needful I suppose to say.

Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it had been made by God, and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and imperishableness (for these things appertain essentially to God Alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life, by participation with the Divinity gaining the good that is above nature (for He breathed, it says, into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice hearing Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, he was bared of the grace; the breath of life, that is the Spirit of Him Who says I am the Life, departed from the earthy body and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh too alone was it said, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return. It needed therefore that that in us which was specially imperilled, should with the greater zeal be restored, and by intertwining again with Life That is by Nature be recalled to immortality: it needed that at length the sentence. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return should be relaxed, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word That quickeneth all things. For it needed that becoming His Flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from Him. For it were a thing most absurd, that fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transfashioning into itself the things wherein it is by participation, and that we should not fully hold that the Word of God Which is over all, would in-work in the flesh His own Good, that is Life.

For this reason specially I suppose it was that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specially from the part affected, says that the Word of God became Flesh, that so we might see at once the wound and the medicine, the sick and the Physician, that which had fallen unto death and Him Who raised it unto life, that which was overcome of corruption and Him Who chased away the corruption, that which was holden of death and Him Who is superior to death, that which was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

But he says not that the Word came into flesh but that It was made Flesh, that you may not suppose that He came to it as in the case of the Prophets or other of the Saints by participation, but did Himself become actual Flesh, that is man: for so we just now said. Wherefore He is also God by Nature in Flesh and with Flesh, as having it His own, and conceived of as being Other than it, and worshipped in it and with it, according to what is written in the prophet Isaiah, Men of stature shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, for God is in thee, and there is no God beside thee. Lo they say that God is in Him, not severing the Flesh from the Word; and again they affirm that there is none other God save He, uniting to the Word that which He bears about Him, as His very own, that is the temple of the Virgin: for He is One Christ of Both.

And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Having said that the Word was made Flesh, that is Man, and having brought Him down to brotherhood with things made and in bondage, he preserves even thus His Divine dignity intact and shows Him again full of the own Nature of the Father inherent to Him. For the Divine Nature has truly stability in Itself, not enduring to suffer change to ought else, but rather always unvarying and abiding in Its own Endowments. Hence even though the Evangelist says that the Word was made Flesh, he yet affirms that It was not overcome by the infirmities of the flesh, nor fell from Its pristine Might and Glory, when It clad Itself in our frail and inglorious body. For we saw, he says, His Glory surpassing that of others, and such as one may confess befits the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father: for full was He of grace and truth. For if one looks at the choir of the saints and measures the things that are wondrously achieved by each, one will with reason marvel and be delighted at the good things that belong to each and will surely say that they are filled with glory from God. But the Divines and witnesses say that they have seen the glory and grace of the Only-Begotten, not competing with that of the rest, but very far surpassing it and mounting up by incomparable excellencies, having no measured grace, as though another gave it, but perfect and true as in the Perfect, that is, not imported nor supplied from without in the way of accession, but essentially in-existent, and the fruit of the Father's essential Property passing Naturally to the Son Who is of Him.

And if it seem good to any to test more largely what has been said, let him consider with himself both the deeds that are wonderfully done by each of the saints and those of our Saviour Christ and he will find the difference as great as we have just said. And there is this besides;----they are true servants about the house, He as a Son over his own house. And the Divine Scripture says of the Only-Begotten Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, but of the saints God the Father says, I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets. And the one were recipients of the grace from above, the other as Lord of Hosts says, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not: but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe My works. If then the Only-Begotten is seen by the very works to be as great in power as the Father, He will conformably be celebrated by equal honours, as the Doer of equal works, and will surely as much surpass, even when in the Flesh, those who have been called unto brotherhood, as God by Nature overleaps the limits of men, and the Very Son the sons by adoption.

But since it is written in the blessed Luke, And Jesus increased in wisdom and grace, we must observe here that the Spirit-clad said that the Son hath His glory full of grace. Whither then will that which is full advance, or what addition will that at all admit, beyond which there is nought? Hence He is said to increase, not in that He is Word and God, but because He ever more greatly marvelled at, appeared more full of grace to those who saw Him, through His achievements, the disposition of those who marvelled advancing, as is more true to say, in grace, than He Who is Perfect as God. Be these things then spoken for profit, though they be somewhat discursive.

And dwelt among us.

The Evangelist profitably goes over again what he has said, and brings the force of the thought to a clearer comprehension. For since he said that the Word of God was made Flesh, lest any out of much ignorance should imagine that He forsook His own Nature, and was in truth changed into flesh, and suffered, which were impossible (for the Godhead is far removed from all. variableness and change into ought else as to mode of being): the Divine exceeding well added straightway And dwelt among us, that considering that the things mentioned are two, the Dweller and that wherein is the dwelling, you might not suppose that He is transformed into flesh, but rather that He dwelt in Flesh, using His own Body, the Temple that is from the Holy Virgin. For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as Paul saith.

But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of human nature mounteth up unto His Person; since therefore was He named the last Adam,, giving richly to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam what pertained to corruption and dejection. The Word then dwelt in all through one that the One being declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, the dignity might come unto all the human nature and thus because of One of us, I have said Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High might come to us also. Therefore in Christ verily is the bond made free, mounting up unto mystic union with Him Who bare the form of the servant; yet in us after the likeness of the One because of the relation after the flesh. For why doth He take on Him not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, whence in all things it behoved Him to he made like unto His brethren, and to become in truth Man? Is it not clear to all, that He descended unto the condition of bondage, not Himself giving thereby ought to Himself, but bestowing Himself on us, that we through His Poverty might be rich, and, soaring up through likeness to Him unto His own special good, might be made gods and children of God through faith? For He Who is by Nature Son and God dwelt in us, wherefore in His Spirit do we cry Abba Father. And the Word dwells in One Temple taken for our sakes and of us, as in all, in order that having all in Himself, He might reconcile all in one body unto the Father, as Paul saith.

We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man and was called the Son of man, not merely according to the will, or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son. For the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

John has now entered openly upon the declaration of the incarnation. For he plainly sets forth that the Only Begotten became and is called son of man; for his saying that "the Word was made flesh" signifies this and nothing else. For it is as though he had said more starkly "The Word was made man." Speaking this way, he introduces nothing strange or unusual since divine Scripture often calls the whole creature by the name "flesh" by itself. …Humanity, then, is a creature who is rational but also composite. It consists of a soul that exists as well as this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it was made by God and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and immortality (for these things pertain essentially to God alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life by participation with the Divinity. In doing so, it gained the good that transcends nature. For he "breathed," it says, "into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice he heard, "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return." He was denuded of the grace. The "breath of life," that is, the Spirit of him who says, "I am the life," departed from the earthly body, and the creature fell into death through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh alone it was said. "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return." It was necessary, therefore, that what in us was especially endangered should more urgently be restored, and by intertwining again with what is Life by nature, [our flesh] should be recalled to immortality. It was necessary that the sentence, "Dust you are, and to dust you will return" should be overturned, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word that enlivens all things. For it was necessary that, becoming his flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from him. For it would be absurd if fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transforming into itself anything that participates in it, and yet that we should not fully hold that the Word of God which is over all, would work into our flesh his own good, that is, life. This, in my opinion, is probably the reason that the holy Evangelist, indicating the creature specifically by the part that was affected, says that "the Word of God became flesh," so that we might see at once the wound and the medicine; [at once] the sick and the Physician; what had fallen into death and him who raised it to life; what was overcome by corruption and him who chased away the corruption, what was trapped in death and him who is superior to death; what was bereft of life and the Giver of life.

The assertion that the Word dwelt in us is a useful one because it also reveals to us a very deep mystery. For we were all in Christ. The common element of humanity is summed up in his person, which is also why he was called the last Adam: he enriched our common nature with everything conducive to joy and glory just as the first Adam impoverished it with everything bringing corruption and gloom. This is precisely why the Word dwelt in all of us by dwelling in a single human being, so that through that one being who was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness" the whole of humanity might be raised up to his status so that the verse, "I said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High" might through applying to one of us come to apply to us all. Therefore, that which is enslaved is liberated in a real sense and ascends to a mystical union with him who put on the form of a servant, while "in us" it is liberated by an imitation of the union with the One through our kinship according to the flesh.

(ad Nes. Ep. 8) The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Who is of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition.

The Father begot the Son, not as a human mind begets a word. For the mind is substantially existent in us, but the word when spoken is dispersed into the air and comes to an end. But we know Christ to have been begotten not as a word pronounced but as a Word substantially existing and living; not spoken by the lips and dispersed but begotten of the Father eternally and ineffably, in substance … sitting at God's right hand; the Word understanding the Father's will and creating all things at his bidding: the Word, which came down and went up; for the word of utterance when spoken does not come down, nor does it go up; the Word speaking and saying, "I speak of what I have seen with my Father," the Word possessed of power and reigning over all things, for "all things have been delivered to him by my Father."

For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other, and both commence in the same way. For the one opens thus, "In the beginning was the Word;" while the other opens thus, "That which was from the beginning." The one says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father." The other says the same things, with a slight alteration: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: and the life was manifested." For these things are introduced by way of prelude, and in opposition, as he has shown in the subsequent parts, to those who deny that the Lord is come in the flesh.

Why did our Lord clothe himself with our flesh? So that this flesh might experience victory and that [humanity] might know and understand the gifts [of God]. For if God had been victorious without the flesh, what praise could one render him? Second, so that [our Lord] might show that, at the beginning, he experienced no jealousy toward him [who had wanted] to become God. For he in whom [our Lord] was abased is greater than he in whom he was dwelling when [Adam] was great and glorious. This is why [it is written], "I have said, 'You shall be gods.' " Thus, the Word came and clothed itself with flesh, so that what cannot be grasped might be grasped through that which can be grasped, and that, through what cannot be grasped, the flesh would raise itself up against those who grasp it. For it was fitting that our Lord be the haven of all good things to whom [people] might be gathered together, the end of all mysteries toward whom they would hasten from everywhere, and the treasure of all the parables so that everyone, lifted up [as though] on wings, might rest in him alone.[See] the wisdom [of God], that in the fall of him who fell, there fell with him the One who was destined to raise him up. Because the body of Adam was in existence before his [evil] passions, [our Lord] did not assume the passions with which [Adam subsequently] clothed himself, since they were a kind of additional weakness to a healthy nature. Our Lord clothed himself therefore with a healthy nature that had lost its health, so that the original health of this nature might thereby be restored.

On this day on which the Lord of all came among servants, let the lords also bow down to their servants lovingly.On this day when the rich One was made poor for our sake, let the rich man also make the poor man a sharer at his table. On this day a gift came out to us without our asking for it; let us then give alms to those who cry out and beg from us.… This Lord of natures today was transformed contrary to his nature; it is not too difficult for us also to overthrow our evil will. Bound is the body by its nature for it cannot grow larger or smaller; but powerful is the will for it may grow to all sizes. Today the Deity imprinted itself on humanity, so that humanity might also be cut into the seal of Deity.

In his mercy he [our Lord] used our body, so that we might endure the sight of him and hear the sound of his voice, and so that we not suffer what the foremost disciples suffered on the mountain, when through his body his glory shone upon them. Sleep fell upon them, and they were rendered speechless and were astounded by his glory. … And this was so that we might learn why he was seen without glory, and why he came in a body. If indeed the apostles and foremost of the disciples saw his deity when it was not completely revealed, what would surely have happened to us if he had appeared to us openly, in the incorporeal glory of his deity?

Religious imagery, so far from being subtle, is the only simple thing left for poets. So far from being merely superhuman, it is the only human thing left for human beings.

The saints, the most exalted of human figures, were also the most local. It was exactly the men whom we most easily connected with heaven whom we also most easily connected with earth.

"All the new people have left my shop. I cannot understand it. They seem to object to me on such curious and inconsistent sort of grounds, these scientific men, and these innovators. They say that I give people superstitions and make them too visionary; they say I give people sausages and make them too coarse. They say my heavenly parts are too heavenly; they say my earthly parts are too earthly; I don't know what they want, I'm sure. How can heavenly things be too heavenly, or earthly things too earthly? How can one be too good, or too jolly? I don't understand. But I understand one thing well enough. These modern people are living and I am dead."

"You may be dead," I replied. "You ought to know. But as for what they are doing, do not call it living."

Right in the middle of all these things stands up an enormous exception. It is quite unlike anything else. It is a thing final like the trump of doom, though it is also a piece of good news; or news that seems too good to be true. It is nothing less than the loud assertion that this mysterious maker of the world has visited his world in person. It declares that really and even recently, or right in the middle of historic times, there did walk into the world this original invisible being; about whom the thinkers make theories and the mythologists hand down myths; the Man Who Made the World. That such a higher personality exists behind all things had indeed always been implied by all the best thinkers, as well as by all the most beautiful legends. But nothing of this sort had ever been implied in any of them. It is simply false to say that the other sages and heroes had claimed to be that mysterious master and maker, of whom the world had dreamed and disputed. Not one of them had ever claimed to be anything of the sort. Not one of their sects or schools had ever claimed that they had claimed to be anything of the sort. The most that any religious prophet had said was that he was the true servant of such a being. The most that any visionary had ever said was that men might catch glimpses of the glory of that spiritual being; or much more often of lesser spiritual beings. The most that any primitive myth had ever suggested was that the Creator was present at the Creation. But that the Creator was present at scenes a little subsequent to the supper-parties of Horace, and talked with tax-collectors and government officials in the detailed daily life of the Roman Empire, and that this fact continued to be firmly asserted by the whole of that great civilisation for more than a thousand years--that is something utterly unlike anything else in nature. It is the one great startling statement that man has made since he spoke his first articulate word, instead of barking like a dog. Its unique character can be used as an argument against it as well as for it. It would be easy to concentrate on it as a case of isolated insanity; but it makes nothing but dust and nonsense of comparative religion.

The more deeply we think of the matter the more we shall conclude that, if there be indeed a God, his creation could hardly have reached any other culmination than this granting of a real romance to the world. Otherwise the two sides of the human mind could never have touched at all; and the brain of man would have remained cloven and double; one lobe of it dreaming impossible dreams and the other repeating invariable calculations. The picture-makers would have remained for ever painting the portrait of nobody. The sages would have remained for ever adding up numerals that came to nothing. It was that abyss that nothing but an incarnation could cover; a divine embodiment of our dreams; and he stands above that chasm whose name is more than priest and older even than Christendom; Pontifex Maximus, the mightiest maker of a bridge.

Whenever you hear much of things being unutterable and indefinable and impalpable and unnamable and subtly indescribable, then elevate your aristocratic nose towards heaven and snuff up the smell of decay. It is perfectly true that there is something in all good things that is beyond all speech or figure of speech. But it is also true that there is in all good things a perpetual desire for expression and concrete embodiment; and though the attempt to embody it is always inadequate, the attempt is always made. If the idea does not seek to be the word, the chances are that it is an evil idea. If the word is not made flesh it is a bad word.

Thus Giotto or Fra Angelico would have at once admitted theologically that God was too good to be painted; but they would always try to paint Him. And they felt (very rightly) that representing Him as a rather quaint old man with a gold crown and a white beard, like a king of the elves, was less profane than resisting the sacred impulse to express Him in some way. That is why the Christian world is full of gaudy pictures and twisted statues which seem, to many refined persons, more blasphemous than the secret volumes of an atheist. The trend of good is always towards Incarnation. But, on the other hand, those refined thinkers who worship the Devil, whether in the swamps of Jamaica or the salons of Paris, always insist upon the shapelessness, the wordlessness, the unutterable character of the abomination. They call him "horror of emptiness," as did the black witch in Stevenson's Dynamiter; they worship him as the unspeakable name; as the unbearable silence. They think of him as the void in the heart of the whirlwind; the cloud on the brain of the maniac; the toppling turrets of vertigo or the endless corridors of nightmare. It was the Christians who gave the Devil a grotesque and energetic outline, with sharp horns and spiked tail. It was the saints who drew Satan as comic and even lively. The Satanists never drew him at all.

But we say that the Word was made flesh not by losing what He was, but by taking what He was not. For in the mystery of His Incarnation the Only-begotten of the Father increased what was ours, but diminished not what was His. Therefore the Word and the flesh is one Person, as He says Himself, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. He Who is the Son of God in heaven was the Son of man who spoke on earth.

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord's body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And it is as if the angel sits at the feet, when he says: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

The feet can also be understood as the mystery of his incarnation, by which his divinity touched the earth, because he took on flesh. For the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Therefore we kiss the Redeemer's feet when we love the mystery of his incarnation with our whole heart. We anoint the feet with ointment when we proclaim the very power of his humanity with good report of sacred eloquence.

(lxviii. Moral. c. 6. [12.]) In Scripture language as, and as it were, are sometimes put not for likeness but reality; whence the expression, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father.

[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.

(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.

Christ, he means, the wisdom and power of God the Father, hath builded His house, i.e., His nature in the flesh derived from the Virgin, even as he (John) hath said beforetime, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." As likewise the wise prophet testifies: Wisdom that was before the world, and is the source of life, the infinite "Wisdom of God, hath builded her house" by a mother who knew no man,-to wit, as He assumed the temple of the body. "And hath raised her seven pillars; "that is, the fragrant grace of the all-holy Spirit, as Isaiah says: "And the seven spirits of God shall rest upon Him," But others say that the seven pillars are the seven divine orders which sustain the creation by His holy and inspired teaching; to wit, me prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the hierarchs, the hermits, the saints, and the righteous. And the phrase, "She hath killed her beasts," denotes the prophets and martyrs who in every city and country are slain like sheep every day by the unbelieving, in behalf of the truth, and cry aloud, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we were counted as sheep for the slaughter." And again, "She hath mingled her wine" in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. And again, "She bath sent forth her servants: "Wisdom, that is to say, has done so-Christ, to wit-summoning them with lofty announcement. "Whoso is simple, Let him turn to me," she says, alluding manifestly to the holy apostles, who traversed the whole world, and called the nations to the knowledge of Him in truth, with their lofty and divine preaching. And again, "And to those that want understanding she said"-that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost-"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you; "by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh," and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicteth me of sin? " He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, "The Word was made flesh; " and again, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; " and once more, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me." The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for "Wisdom built herself an house." The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation.

For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but in reality. For "the Word became flesh." For "Wisdom builded for herself a house." And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man. For [it is written], "A virgin shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son." He was then truly born, truly grew up, truly ate and drank, was truly crucified, and died, and rose again. He who believes these things, as they really were, and as they really took place, is blessed. He who believeth them not is no less accursed than those who crucified the Lord. For the prince of this world rejoiceth when any one denies the cross, since he knows that the confession of the cross is his own destruction. For that is the trophy which has been raised up against his power, which when he sees, he shudders, and when he hears of, is afraid.

For if the Lord were a mere man, possessed of a soul and body only, why dost thou mutilate and explain away His being born with the common nature of humanity? Why dost thou call the passion a mere appearance, as if it were any strange thing happening to a [mere] man? And why dost thou reckon the death of a mortal to be simply an imaginary death? But if, [on the other hand, ] He is both God and man, then why dost thou call it unlawful to style Him "the Lord of glory," who is by nature unchangeable? Why dost thou say that it is unlawful to declare of the Lawgiver who possesses a human soul, "The Word was made flesh," and was a perfect man, and not merely one dwelling in a man? But how came this magician into existence, who of old formed all nature that can be apprehended either by the senses or intellect, according to the will of the Father; and, when He became incarnate, healed every kind of disease and infirmity?

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says [the Scripture], "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world.

He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth." (But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.") Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Aeons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.

For this is the knowledge of salvation which was wanting to them, that of the Son of God, which John made known, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was made before me; because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received." This, therefore, was the knowledge of salvation; but [it did not consist in] another God, nor another Father, nor Bythus, nor the Pleroma of thirty Aeons, nor the Mother of the (lower) Ogdoad: but the knowledge of salvation was the knowledge of the Son of God, who is both called and actually is, salvation, and Saviour, and salutary. Salvation, indeed, as follows: "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord." And then again, Saviour: "Behold my God, my Saviour, I will put my trust in Him." But as bringing salvation, thus: "God hath made known His salvation in the sight of the heathen." For He is indeed Saviour, as being the Son and Word of God; but salutary, since [He is] Spirit; for he says: "The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord." But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." This knowledge of salvation, therefore, John did impart to those repenting, and believing in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour, who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one. For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father.

And to these things does John also, the disciple of the Lord, bear witness, when he speaks thus in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." And then he said of the Word Himself: "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own things He came, and His own people received Him not. However, as many as did receive Him, to these gave He power to become the sons of God, to those that believe in His name." And again, showing the dispensation with regard to His human nature, John said: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And in continuation he says, "And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten by the Father, full of grace and truth." He thus plainly points out to those willing to hear, that is, to those having ears, that there is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God, who is through all, by whom all things have been made; and that this world belongs to Him, and was made by Him, according to the Father's will, and not by angels; nor by apostasy, defect, and ignorance; nor by any power of Prunicus, whom certain of them also call "the Mother;" nor by any other maker of the world ignorant of the Father.

Having declared that we were made "sons of God," and having shown in what manner, namely, by the "Word" having been "made Flesh," he again mentions another advantage which we gain from this same circumstance. What is it? "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father"; which we could not have beheld, had it not been shown to us, by means of a body like to our own. For if the men of old time could not even bear to look upon the glorified countenance of Moses, who partook of the same nature with us, if that just man needed a veil which might shade over the purity of his glory, and show to them have face of their prophet mild and gentle; how could we creatures of clay and earth have endured the unveiled Godhead, which is unapproachable even by the powers above? Wherefore He tabernacled among us, that we might be able with much fearlessness to approach Him, speak to, and converse with Him.

But what means "the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father"? Since many of the Prophets too were glorified, as this Moses himself, Elijah, and Elisha, the one encircled by the fiery chariot, the other taken up by it; and after them, Daniel and the Three Children, and the many others who showed forth wonders; and angels who have appeared among men, and partly disclosed to beholders the flashing light of their proper nature; and since not angels only, but even the Cherubim were seen by the Prophet in great glory, and the Seraphim also: the Evangelist leading us away from all these, and removing our thoughts from created things, and from the brightness of our fellow-servants, sets us at the very summit of good. For, "not of prophet," says he, "nor angel, nor archangel, nor of the higher power, nor of any other created nature," if other there be, but of the Master Himself, the King Himself, the true Only-Begotten Son Himself, of the Very Lord of all, did we "behold the glory."

For the expression "as," does not in this place belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition; as though he said, "We beheld glory, such as it was becoming, and likely that He should possess, who is the Only-Begotten and true Son of God, the King of all." The habit (of so speaking) is general, for I shall not refuse to strengthen my argument even from common custom, since it is not now my object to speak with any reference to beauty of words, or elegance of composition, but only for your advantage; and therefore there is nothing to prevent my establishing my argument by the instance of a common practice. What then is the habit of most persons? Often when any have seen a king richly decked, and glittering on all sides with precious stones, and are afterwards describing to others the beauty, the ornaments, the splendor, they enumerate as much as they can, the glowing tint of the purple robe, the size of the jewels, the whiteness of the mules, the gold about the yoke, the soft and shining couch. But when after enumerating these things, and other things besides these, they cannot, say what they will, give a full idea of the splendor, they immediately bring in: "But why say much about it; once for all, he was like a king;" not desiring by the expression "like," to show that he, of whom they say this, resembles a king, but that he is a real king. Just so now the Evangelist has put the word As, desiring to represent the transcendent nature and incomparable excellence of His glory.

For indeed all others, both angels and archangels and prophets, did everything as under command; but He with the authority which becomes a King and Master; at which even the multitudes wondered, that He taught as "one having authority." Even angels, as I said, have appeared with great glory upon the earth; as in the case of Daniel, of David, of Moses, but they did all as servants who have a Master. But He as Lord and Ruler of all, and this when He appeared in poor and humble form; but even so creation recognized her Lord. Now the star from heaven which called the wise men to worship Him, the vast throng pouring everywhere of angels attending the Lord, and besides them, many other heralds sprang up on a sudden, and all, as they met, declared to one another the glad tidings of this ineffable mystery; the angels to the shepherds; the shepherds to those of the city; Gabriel to Mary and Elisabeth; Anna and Simeon to those who came to the Temple. Nor were men and women only lifted up with pleasure, but the very infant who had not yet come forth to light, I mean the citizen of the wilderness, the namesake of this Evangelist, leaped while yet in his mother's womb, and all were soaring with hopes for the future. This too immediately after the Birth. But when He had manifested Himself still farther, other wonders, yet greater than the first, were seen. For it was no more star, or sky, no more angels, or archangels, not Gabriel, or Michael, but the Father Himself from heaven above, who proclaimed Him, and with the Father the Comforter, flying down at the uttering of the Voice and resting on Him. Truly therefore did he say, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father."

The Evangelist therefore having brought together all these things, the marvels in our bodies, in our souls, in the elements (of our faith), the commandments, those gifts ineffable and higher than the heavens, the laws, the polity, the persuasion, the future promises, His sufferings, uttered that voice so wonderful and full of exalted doctrine, saying, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." For we admire Him not only on account of the miracles, but also by reason of the sufferings; as that He was nailed upon the Cross, that He was scourged, that He was buffeted, that He was spit upon, that He received blows on the cheek from those to whom He had done good. For even of those very things which seem to be shameful, it is proper to repeat the same expression, since He Himself called that action "glory." For what then took place was (proof) not only of kindness and love, but also of unspeakable power. At that time death was abolished, the curse was loosed, devils were shamed and led in triumph and made a show of, and the handwriting of our sins was nailed to the Cross.

Having declared that they who received Him were "born of God," and had become "sons of God," he adds the cause and reason of this unspeakable honor. It is that "the Word became Flesh," that the Master took on Him the form of a servant. For He became Son of man, who was God's own Son, in order that He might make the sons of men to be children of God. For the high when it associates with the low touches not at all its own honor, while it raises up the other from its excessive lowness; and even thus it was with the Lord. He in nothing diminished His own Nature by this condescension, but raised us, who had always sat in disgrace and darkness, to glory unspeakable. Thus it may be, a king, conversing with interest and kindness with a poor mean man, does not at all shame himself, yet makes the other observed by all and illustrious. Now if in the case of the adventitious dignity of men, intercourse with the humbler person in nothing injuries the more honorable, much less can it do so in the case of that simple and blessed Essence which has nothing adventitious, or subject to growth or decay, but has all good things immovable, and fixed for ever. So that when you hear that "the Word became Flesh," be not disturbed nor cast down, For that Essence did not change to flesh, (it is impiety to imagine this,) but continuing what it is, It so took upon It the form of a servant.

Wherefore then does he use the expression, "was made"? To stop the mouths of the heretics. For since there are some who say that all the circumstances of the Dispensation were an appearance, a piece of acting, an allegory, at once to remove beforehand their blasphemy, he has put "was made"; desiring to show thereby not a change of substance, (away with the thought,) but the assumption of very flesh. For as when (Paul) says, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," he does not mean that His essence removing from Its proper glory took upon It the being of an accused thing, (this not even devils could imagine, nor even the very foolish, nor those deprived of their natural understanding, such impiety as well as madness does it contain,) as (St. Paul) does not say this, but that He, taking upon Himself the curse pronounced against us, leaves us no more under the curse; so also here he (St. John) says that He "was made Flesh," not by changing His Essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to Himself, His Essence remained untouched.

If they say that being God, He is Omnipotent, so that He could lower Himself to the substance of flesh, we will reply to them, that He is Omnipotent as long as He continues to be God. But if He admit of change, change for the worse, how could He be God? for change is far from that simple Nature. Wherefore the Prophet saith, "They all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou roll them up, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail." (Ps. cii. 27, Ps. cii. 27 LXX.) For that Essence is superior to all change. There is nothing better than He, to which He might advance and reach. Better do I say? No, nor equal to, nor the least approaching Him. It remains, therefore, that if He change, He must admit a change for the worse; and this would not be God. But let the blasphemy return upon the heads of those who utter it. Nay, to show that he uses the expression, "was made" only that you should not suppose a mere appearance, hear from what follows how he clears the argument, and overthrows that wicked suggestion. For what does he add? "And dwelt among us." All but saying, "Imagine nothing improper from the word 'was made'; I spoke not of any change of that unchangeable Nature, but of Its dwelling and inhabiting. But that which dwells cannot be the same with that in which it dwells, but different; one thing dwells in a different thing, otherwise it would not be dwelling; for nothing can inhabit itself. I mean, different as to essence; for by an Union and Conjoining God the Word and the Flesh are One, not by any confusion or obliteration of substances, but by a certain union ineffable, and past understanding. Ask not how for It Was Made, so as He knoweth."

What then was the tabernacle in which He dwelt? Hear the Prophet say; "I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen." (Amos ix. 11.) It was fallen indeed, our nature had fallen an incurable fall, and needed only that mighty Hand. There was no possibility of raising it again, had not He who fashioned it at first stretched forth to it His Hand, and stamped it anew with His Image, by the regeneration of water and the Spirit. And observe I pray you, the awful and ineffable nature of the mystery. He inhabits this tabernacle for ever, for He clothed Himself with our flesh, not as again to leave it, but always to have it with Him. Had not this been the case, He would not have deemed it worthy of the royal throne, nor would He while wearing it have been worshiped by all the host of heaven, angels archangels, thrones, principalities, dominions, powers. What word, what thought can represent such great honor done to our race, so truly marvelous and awful? What angel, what archangel? Not one in any place, whether in heaven, or upon earth. For such are the mighty works of God, so great and marvelous are His benefits, that a right description of them exceeds not only the tongue of men, but even the power of angels.

This grace we receive from [Christ's] fullness always in proportion to our progress. Therefore, the one who keeps sacred the whole meaning of the Word of God's becoming incarnate for our sake will acquire the glory full of grace and truth of the one who for our sake glorifies and consecrates himself in us by his coming. "When he appears we shall be like him."

(Hom. 2) Full of grace and truth. Of this the meaning is twofold. For it may be understood of the Humanity, and the Divinity of the Incarnate Word, so that the fulness of grace has reference to the Humanity, according to which Christ is the Head of the Church, and the first-born of every creature: for the greatest and original example of grace, by which man, with no preceding merits, is made God, is manifested primarily in Him. The fulness of the grace of Christ may also be understood of the Holy Spirit, whose sevenfold operation filled Christ's Humanity. (Is. 11:2) The fulness of truth applies to the Divinity ... But if you had rather understand the fulness of grace and truth of the New Testament, you may with propriety pronounce the fulness of the grace of the New Testament to be given by Christ, and the truth of the legal types to have been fulfilled in Him.

Of the Father's love begotten before the beginning of the world, Called Alpha and Omega, himself both source and end Of all that is, has been, and will exist in times to come. He commanded and they were created, he spoke and they were made, Earth, heavens, the depths of the sea—the triple structure of the universe— And all that inhabits them beneath the lofty orbs of sun and moon. He put on mortal body's form and limbs vulnerable to death, To prevent the destruction of the race sprung from the first creature Whom a deadly law had plunged deep into hell. O what a blessed birth was then, when a virgin in labor, Having conceived by the Holy Spirit, brought forth our salvation, And the child who is the world's redeemer revealed his sacred face. Let the heights of heaven sing, all you angels, sing, Let all the powers everywhere sing in praise of God, Let no tongue be silent, let every voice ring in harmony. Look how the one who was foretold by seers in ages past And pledged in the prophets' reliable writings, Shines forth, he who was promised long ago: let all things praise him.

Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death.

For as much, then, as the dispensation of God's purpose concerning His Son required that He should be born of a virgin, why should He not have received of the virgin the body which He bore from the virgin? Because, (forsooth) it is something else which He took from God, for "the Word "say they, "was made flesh." Now this very statement plainly shows what it was that was made flesh; nor can it possibly be that anything else than the Word was made flesh.

But by saying "made," he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh," but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin We shall have also the support of the Psalms on this point, not the "Psalms" indeed of Valentinus the apostate, and heretic, and Platonist, but the Psalms of David, the most illustrious saint and well-known prophet.

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came. "His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;" not, (observe, ) as of the Father.

The Spirit of God in this passage must be the same as the Word. For just as, when John says, "The Word was made flesh," we understand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word: so here, too, we acknowledge the Word likewise in the name of the Spirit.

But when the Word of God descended into flesh,-(flesh) not unsealed even by marriage,-and "the Word was made flesh," -(flesh) never to be unsealed by marriage,-which was to find its way to the tree not of incontinence, but of endurance; which was to taste from that tree not anything sweet, but something bitter; which was to pertain not to the infernal regions, but to heaven; which was to be precinct not with the leaves of lasciviousness, but the flowers of holiness; which was to impart to the waters its own purities-thenceforth, whatever flesh (is) "in Christ" has lost its pristine soils, is now a thing different, emerges in a new state, no longer (generated) of the slime of natural seed, nor of the grime of concupiscence, but of "pure water" and a "clean Spirit.

"The Lord for the body: "yes; for "the Word was made flesh." "Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power; " on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him.

In order to explain the word was, the Evangelist added kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, and "tabernacled in us," that is, in this sense he became flesh: he lived in our nature. Evidently the words stand for "lived among us," as also the apostle said about us human beings, "We who are still in this tabernacle groan," where he called our body a tabernacle. He also writes elsewhere, "We know that if the earthly tabernacle we live in is destroyed." It is well known that in Scripture usually the whole person is indicated by "flesh," as in, "To you all flesh shall come."

We did not agree to believe in him lightheartedly, [John says,] but accepted him as a true, only begotten Son because of those things that we saw. And the things we saw demonstrated the greatness of the one who appeared—they could belong to no one else except the Only Begotten who possesses perfect identity with the Father. And it is also true that the works that were made through him were full of true grace. He called grace truth in comparison with that of the Jews, in order to accuse the unbelievers, and he reveals his intention with the words that follow.He indicates grace with the name of truth, that is, the true grace, because Christ took on the ancient transgressions and gave salvation through the remission of sins. In addition he destroyed death, which reigned because of sin, and gave us a sound hope in the resurrection through our adoption as sons. He gave us hope not only in the word, like the Jews, but also regenerated in us the hope of resurrection by the works [of Christ] through the power of the Spirit. The symbol of resurrection is baptism, which confirms that death itself will never destroy us. For this reason he prepared for us the delights of the heavenly kingdom if we preserve pure in our actions the honor of the adoptive relationship given to us through baptism.

Having said that we who believe in Christ, if we desire, become children of God, the Evangelist adds also the cause of so great a blessing. "You wish," he says, "to know what brought us this adoption? That the Word became flesh." But when you hear that the Word became flesh, do not think that He abandoned His own Nature and was converted into flesh (for He would not even be God if He had been converted and changed), but that, remaining what He was, He became what He was not. But Apollinarius of Laodicea formed a heresy from this. He taught that our Lord and God did not assume the whole human nature, that is, a body with a rational soul, but only flesh without a rational and intelligent soul. For what need had God of a soul, when His body was governed by the Divinity, just as our body is governed by our soul? And he thought he saw the basis for this in the present saying: "and the Word became flesh." "The Evangelist did not say," he argues, "that the Word became man, but 'flesh'; therefore He assumed not a rational and intelligent soul, but irrational and senseless flesh." Evidently the wretch did not know that Scripture often names the whole by a part. For example, it wishes to mention the whole man, but names him by a part, by the word "soul." Every "soul" that shall not be circumcised shall be destroyed (Gen. 17:14). So then, instead of saying "every man," a part is named, namely "soul." Scripture also calls the whole man "flesh," as when, for example, it says: "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa. 40:5). It should have said "every man," but the name "flesh" is used. So too the Evangelist, instead of saying "the Word became man," said "the Word became flesh," calling the man consisting of soul and body by one part. And since flesh is foreign to the Divine nature, perhaps the Evangelist mentioned flesh with the intention of showing the extraordinary condescension of God, so that we might marvel at His inexpressible love for mankind, by which He assumed for our salvation what is distinct and utterly foreign to His own nature, namely flesh. For the soul has a certain kinship with God, but the flesh has absolutely nothing in common. Therefore I think that the Evangelist used here the name of flesh alone not because the soul had no part in the assumption (the incarnation), but in order to show more fully how wondrous and awesome the mystery is. For if the incarnate Word did not assume a human soul, then our souls are not yet healed, for what He did not assume, He did not sanctify. And how absurd! While it was the soul that first fell sick (for it was the soul that in paradise yielded to the words of the serpent and was deceived, and only afterwards, following the soul as its mistress and sovereign, did the hand also reach out), it is the flesh, the handmaid, that is assumed, sanctified, and healed, while the mistress is left without assumption and without healing. But let Apollinarius remain in his error. As for us, when we hear that the Word became flesh, we believe that He became a perfect Man, since it is the custom of Scripture to designate man by one part alone, either flesh or soul. By this saying Nestorius is also overthrown. He said that it was not God the Word Himself who became the Man conceived from the most pure blood of the holy Virgin, but that the Virgin gave birth to a man, and this man, endowed with grace through every form of virtue, came to have the Word of God united with him and giving him authority over unclean spirits, and therefore he taught that there are two sons — one, the son of the Virgin, Jesus the man, and another, the Son of God, united with this man and inseparable from him, but by grace, relation, and love, because this man was virtuous. So deaf is he to the truth. For if he had wished, he himself would have heard what this blessed Evangelist says, namely: "The Word became flesh." Is this not an obvious reproof to him? For the Word Himself became Man. The Evangelist did not say "the Word, having found a man, united with him," but "He Himself became Man." By this saying both Eutyches, and Valentinus, and Manes are overthrown. They said that the Word of God appeared as a phantom. Let them hear that the Word "became" flesh; it does not say "the Word seemed or appeared to be flesh," but "became" it in truth and in essence, and not as an apparition. For it is absurd and unreasonable to believe that the Son of God, who is in essence and in name the Truth (John 14:6), lied in His incarnation. And a deceptive apparition would, without a doubt, have led to this conclusion. Since the Evangelist said above that the Word became flesh, lest anyone think that Christ ultimately became one Nature, he adds for this reason: "dwelt among us," in order to show two Natures: one ours, and the other of the Word. For just as the dwelling is of one nature and the one dwelling in it is of another nature, so also the Word, when it is said of Him that He dwelt in us, that is, in our nature, must be of a Nature other than ours. Let the Armenians be ashamed, who profess one Nature. Thus, by the words "the Word became flesh" we are taught that the Word Himself became Man and, being the Son of God, became also the son of a woman, who is truly called the Theotokos, as having given birth to God in the flesh. And by the words "dwelt among us" we are taught to believe that in the one Christ there are two Natures. For although He is one in Hypostasis, or in Person, yet in Natures He is twofold — God and Man, and the Divine nature and the human nature cannot be one, even though they are contemplated in the one Christ. Having said that the Word became flesh, the evangelist adds: "we beheld His glory," that is, of Him who was in the flesh. For if the Israelites could not look upon the face of Moses, which shone from his conversation with God, then the apostles all the more could not have endured the pure (unveiled) Divinity of the Only-Begotten, had He appeared not in the flesh. And we beheld glory not such as Moses had, nor such as the cherubim and seraphim appeared with to the prophet, but such glory as was fitting for the Only-Begotten Son, such as belonged to Him by nature from God the Father. The particle "as" here signifies not comparison, but affirmation and undoubted definition. Seeing a king approaching with great glory, we say that he came as a king, instead of saying "truly in a kingly manner." Likewise here, the words "as of the Only-Begotten" we must understand thus: the glory which we beheld was the true glory of the true Son, full of grace and truth. "Full of grace" because His teaching was, so to speak, graced, as David also says: "grace was poured from Thy lips" (Ps. 45:2), and the evangelist notes that all "wondered at the gracious words proceeding out of His mouth" (Luke 4:22), and because He bestowed healings upon all who were in need of them. "Full of truth" because all that the prophets and Moses himself said or did were types, but what Christ said and did was all full of truth, for He Himself is grace and truth, and distributes them to others. They saw this glory where? One may think, along with some, that the apostles saw this glory of His on Mount Tabor, but it is also correct to understand that they saw it not on this one mountain alone, but in everything that He did and said.

(in loc.) Apollinarius of Laodicea raised a heresy upon this text; saying, that Christ had flesh only, not a rational soul; in the place of which His divinity directed and controlled His body.

(in loc.) The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to show the unspeakable condescension of God, and lead us to admire His compassion, in assuming for our salvation, what was so opposite and incongenial to His nature, as the flesh: for the soul has some propinquity to God. If the Word, however, was made flesh, and assumed not at the same time a human soul, our souls, it would follow, would not be yet restored: for what He did not assume, He could not sanctify. What a mockery then, when the soul first sinned, to assume and sanctify the flesh only, leaving the weakest part untouched! This text overthrows Nestorius, who asserted that it was not the very Word, even God, Who the Self-same was made man, being conceived of the sacred blood of the Virgin: but that the Virgin brought forth a man endowed with every kind of virtue, and that the Word of God was united to him: thus making out two sons, one born of the Virgin, i. e. man, the other born of God, that is, the Son of God, united to that man by grace, and relation, and lover. In opposition to him the Evangelist declares, that the very Word was made Man, not that the Word fixing upon a righteous man united Himself to him.

(in v. 14) From the text, The Word was made flesh, we learn this farther, that the Word Itself is man, and being the Son of God was made the Son of a woman, who is rightly called the Mother of God, as having given birth to God in the flesh.

(hoc loc.) Or, full of grace, inasmuch as His word was gracious, as saith David, Full of grace are thy lips; and truth, (Ps. 45:3) because what Moses and the Prophets spoke or did in figure, Christ did in reality.

Having explained the necessity for the Word's coming in the flesh as well as the benefits this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He thus resumes the thread with his earlier statement, he came unto his own. As if to say: The Word of God came unto his own. But lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the manner in which he came, that is, by an incarnation. For he came in the manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. "God sent his Son made from a woman" (Gal 4:4). And Augustine says about this that "He was sent in the manner in which he was made."

According to Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, he gave them power to become the sons of God. As if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God, the Evangelist answers: because the Word was made flesh, he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. "God sent his Son... so that we might receive our adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5).

But according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, who are born from God. For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, then, as though arguing in support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds something which seems less seemly, namely, that the Word was made flesh. As if to say: Do not wonder if men are born from God, because the Word was made flesh, i.e., God became man.

It should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh, as when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire. One of these was Eutyches, who postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was the same. We can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, "the Word was God." Now God is immutable, as is said, "I am the Lord, and I do not change" (Mal 3:6). Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature. Therefore, one must say in opposition to Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: "The man became white," not that he is that whiteness, but that he assumed whiteness.

There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, "the Word was made flesh with a soul." This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was there in place of a soul.

The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: "My soul is sad, even to the point of death" (Mt 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: "He began to be sorrowful and troubled" (Mt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body.

Furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through its soul. This is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. But the Word was made flesh; therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.

And there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ's body. This was the error of Apollinaris. He followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the authorities cited above, was forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions. But he said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word.

This too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive soul, nor in flesh alone; for example, that Christ marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). For to marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises to know the hidden cause of an observed effect. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling or amazement forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ.

The same conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul. So if the Word assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational soul, he did not assume human flesh; consequently, one could not say: "God became man."

Besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it. Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the Word; and this is false. Therefore, the Word was made flesh, i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a rational soul.

But you may say: If the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist not mention "rational soul," instead of only "flesh," saying, the Word was made flesh? I answer that the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this.

First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh, since it would not have been becoming for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they regarded as a creature of the devil. And so to exclude this the Evangelist made special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of the resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: "A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have" (Lk 24:39).

Secondly, to show the greatness of God's kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have been a great sign of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed from the simplicity of his nature, was a sign of a much greater, indeed, of an incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 Tim 3:16): "Obviously great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh." And so to indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.

Thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said: "She [wisdom] passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27). But that the Word of God is united to flesh is unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: "I am alone until I pass" (Ps 140:10). "Gold cannot equal it" (Jb 28:17). So the Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned only the flesh, saying, the Word was made flesh.

Fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man's restoration. For man was weak because of the flesh. And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of the Word was suited to the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in order to show that the weak flesh was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And this is what the Apostle says: "The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh" (Rom 8:3).

A question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but rather that the Word was made flesh. I answer that he did this to exclude the error of Nestorius. He said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, the other being the son of the Virgin. Thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God.

But if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular suppositum cannot be predicated of another. Accordingly, if the person or suppositum of the Word is different than the person or suppositum of the man, in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely, the Word was made flesh. For a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man. And so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not "assumed," to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the "lifting up" of the prophets, who were not "taken up" into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act. This union is such as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man.

There were some, too, who, misunderstanding the manner of the incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in God one person of God and man. But they said that in him there were two hypostases, i.e., two supposita; one of a human nature, created and non-eternal, and the other of the divine nature, non-created and eternal.

According to this opinion the proposition, "God was made man and man was made God," is not true. Consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it is said: "If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." And so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a oneness of person, says, was made.

If you ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone is man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine suppositum united to a human nature. The statement, the Word was made flesh, does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of a divine person. And the Word was made flesh through a union to flesh. Now a union is a relation. And relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God.

Now follows, and made his dwelling among us. This is distinguished in two ways from what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt with the incarnation of the Word when he said, the Word was made flesh; but now he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying, and made his dwelling among us. For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying the Word was made flesh, someone might think that he was converted into flesh and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, excluding this, added, and made his dwelling among us, i.e., in our nature, yet so as to remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not remain distinct in its nature from that into which it is converted.

Furthermore, something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it. And so, inasmuch as human nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in Christ, the former is called the dwelling place and temple of the divinity, according to John (2:21): "But he spoke of the temple of his body."

Now although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and saints were so intent upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith that they seemed meanwhile to fall into the opposite ones. For example, Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who destroyed the freedom of the will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, and made his dwelling among us, so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of natures in Christ because he had said, the Word was made flesh.

Nestorius misunderstood this phrase, and made his dwelling among us, and said that the Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God and of man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an indwelling through grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is not man.

To clarify this we should know that we can consider two things in Christ: his nature and person. In Christ there is a distinction in nature, but not in person, which is one and the same in the two natures, since the human nature in Christ was assumed into a oneness of person. Therefore, the indwelling which the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to say, he made his dwelling among us, i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not according to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ.

The blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: "He, being in the form of God... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty himself insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, because then the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptying themselves, since they too are said to dwell in man through grace: for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father says, "We will come to him and make our home with him" (below 14:23); and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: "The Spirit of God dwells in us" (1 Cor 3:16).

Furthermore, if Christ was not God as to his person, he would have been most presumptuous to say: "I and the Father are one" (below 10:30), and "Before Abraham came to be, I am," as is said below (8:58). Now "I" refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man, who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.

However, another connection with what went before is possible, by saying that above he dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but that now he is treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he made his dwelling among us, i.e., he lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter alludes to this when he says, "During all the time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us" (Acts 1:21). "Afterwards, he was seen on earth" (Bar 3:38).

The Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show the marvelous likeness of the Word to men, among whom he lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For he not only willed to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close terms without sin, in order to draw to himself men won over by the charm of his way of life.

Secondly, to show the truthfulness of his statements. For the Evangelist had already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more wonderful things about him; and so that his testimony would be more credible he took as a proof of his truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ, saying, he made his dwelling among us. As if to say: I can well bear witness to him, because I lived on close terms with him. "We tell you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes" (1 Jn 1:1); "God raised him up on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses preordained by God," that is, "to us who ate and drank with him" (Acts 10:40).

179 Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to give the evidence for the incarnate Word. He does two things about this. First, he shows the ways in which the incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies each way, below (1:16). Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles in two ways: first of all, they obtained knowledge of him by what they saw; secondly, by what they heard of the testimony of John the Baptist. So first, he states what they saw about the Word; secondly, what they heard from John (v 15).

He states three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he says, we have seen his glory. Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, when he adds, as of the Only Begotten. Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory, because full of grace and truth.

180 And we have seen his glory, can be connected in three ways with what went before. First, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, the Word was made flesh. As if to say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles have seen his glory. "We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see" (below 3:11). "We tell you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes" (1 Jn 1:1).

181 Secondly, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as expressing many benefits. As if to say: The incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory. For dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Now before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing the divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every rational nature. And so, in order that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he covered it with the cloud of our flesh: "They looked towards the desert, and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud" (Ex 16:10), i.e., the Word of God in the flesh.

182 According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace. For the failure of the spiritual eyes of men to contemplate the divine light is due not only to their natural limitations but also to the defects incurred by sin: "Fire," that is, of concupiscence, "fell on them, and they did not see the sun," of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in order that the divine light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his flesh, so that with the salve of his flesh the Word might heal our eyes, weakened by the concupiscence of the flesh. And this is why just after saying, the Word was made flesh, he says, we have seen his glory. To indicate this the Lord made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind (below 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head. Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from God the Father. So, when this clay was spread on the eyes of men, we saw his glory.

183 This is the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, "Show me your glory" (Ex 32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was answered by the Lord: "You shall see my back" (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: "All of us, gazing on the Lord's glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very image" (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses and the other prophets saw in an obscure manner and in figures the glory of the Word that was to be manifested to the world at the end of their times; hence the Apostle says: "Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then face to face" in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), "Isaiah said this when he saw his glory." But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the Word through his bodily presence: "All of us, gazing on the Lord's glory," and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see it" (Lk 10:23).

184 Then when he says, the glory as of the Only Begotten, he shows the uniqueness of his glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in glory, as of Moses it says that "his face shone" (Ex 34:29), or was "horned," according to another text, someone might say that from the fact that they saw him [Jesus] in glory, it should not be said that the Word of God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. As if to say: His glory is not like the glory of an angel, or of Moses, or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that. but the glory as of the Only Begotten; for as it is said, "He [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses" (Heb 3:3); "Who among the sons of God is like God?" (Ps 88:7).

185 The word as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact. But according to Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact: as if someone were to see a king approaching in great glory and being asked by another to describe the king he saw, he could, if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory in one word, and say that he approached "as" a king, i.e., as became a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to describe the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it, said that it was "as" of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such as became the Only Begotten of God.

186 The uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. First, in the testimony which the Father gave to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the voice of the Father saying: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Mt 17:5). Of this glory it is said, "He received honor and glory from God the Father... 'This is my beloved Son'" (2 Pt 1:17).

Secondly, it is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of Christ, men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as subjects, to Christ. "Angels came and ministered to him" (Mt 4:11).

Thirdly, it is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and heeded his slightest command, as something established by him, because "All things were made through him" (above 1:3). This is something granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what we read, "What kind of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him?" (Mt 8:27).

Fourthly, we see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the authority of God. So they said: "The Lord says this"; and "The Lord spoke to Moses." But Christ speaks as the Lord, and as one having power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, "I say to you" (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the Mountain, it is said that he taught as one "having authority" (Mt 7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked miracles, but not by their own power. But Christ worked them by his own power. In these ways, then, the glory of the Word is unique.

187 Note that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and below (1:18): "it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known." At other times we call him the First-born: "When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all the angels of God adore him'" (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the Word of God to be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to what he is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one" (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given to men; in this sense we speak of many gods: "Indeed, there are many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5).

Along these lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the way in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say that he is the Only Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally begotten by the Father, the Begotten of the Father is one only. But if we consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others through a likeness to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And because they are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of all. "Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the First-born of many brothers" (Rom 8:29).

So, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born insofar as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and participation, a sonship is granted to many.

188 Then when he says, full of grace and truth, he determines the glory of the Word. As if to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be applied to Christ in three ways.

First, from the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of grace. Now some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gn 1:26). Some are joined by faith: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because "He who abides in love abides in God" (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because one is not perfectly united to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by charity—for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is infinite, and the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions are not full.

But in Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a suppositum, we find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this union was such that all the acts not only of his divine but also of his human nature were acts of the suppositum [or person]. So he was full of grace insofar he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should be God himself. "He gave him," i.e., God the Father gave to the Son, "a name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). "He was foreordained to be the Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4). He was also full of truth, because the human nature in Christ attained to the divine truth itself, that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men we find many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their minds through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said: "In whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden" (Col 2:3).

189 Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul. Then he is said to be full of grace and truth inasmuch as in his soul there was the fulness of all graces without measure: "God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions," as we read below (3:34). Yet it was given in fractions to all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the head of every rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are united to him by faith and charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the saints, we find participations of the graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the saints, and that is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ's grace: "There shall come forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety" (Is 11:1).

Further, Christ was also full of truth because his precious and blessed soul knew every truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said to him, "You know all things" (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25) says: "My truth," i.e., the knowledge of every truth, "and my mercy," i.e., the fulness of all graces, "shall be with him."

190 In a third way these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to others, both by producing virtue in the minds of men through the inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is full of grace insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this perfect justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or bring anyone to perfection. As we read: "The law was powerless because it was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh" (Rom 8:3).

Again, he was full of truth insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and the promises made to the fathers. "Christ was a minister to the circumcised to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom 15:8); "All the promises of God are fulfilled in him" (2 Cor 1:20).

Further, he is said to be full of grace because his teaching and manner of life were most gracious. "Grace is poured out upon your lips" (Ps 44:3). And so it is said, "All the people came to him early in the morning," i.e., in the morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). He was full of truth, because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the vices of men, but preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below: "Now you are speaking plainly" (16:29).

He had said before that there was a man sent to bear witness; now he gives definitely the forerunner's own testimony, which plainly declared the excellence of His Human Nature and the Eternity of His Godhead. John bare witness of Him.

John admitted he was a lamp lit from Christ, and that is why he took refuge at his feet, to avoid being blown out by the wind of pride if he flew too high. He was in fact so great that some people thought he might be the Christ, and if he had not been his own witness that he was not, the mistake would have persisted, and people would have gone on thinking he was. What a humble man. The honor was offered him by the people, and he spurned it. People were getting the wrong ideas about his greatness, and he put himself in his place. He did not want to be magnified by the words of people, because he had grasped the Word of God.

"John beareth witness of Him, and crieth, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is made before me." He came after me, and He preceded me. What is it, "He is made before me"? He preceded me. Not "was made before I was made," but "was preferred before me," this is "He was made before me." Wherefore was He made before thee, when He came after thee? "Because He was before me." Before thee, O John! what great thing to be before thee! It is well that thou dost bear witness to Him; let us, however, hear Himself saying, "Even before Abraham, I am." But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: "Before Lucifer I have begotten Thee." He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, "Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell." And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark? Because he abode not in the truth. Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened.

(in Joan. Tr. 3) It does not mean—He was made before I was made; but He is preferred to me.

"John bears witness concerning him." There was in the Apostles and believers a threefold reason for knowing: the first, through testimony; the second, through a singular effect; the third, through a singular teaching.

The first reason for knowing, therefore, was through authoritative testimony, namely of an authoritative person, that is, of John, who was holy from his mother's womb. Therefore he says: "John bears witness concerning him"; Proverbs chapter fourteen: "A faithful witness does not lie." "And he cries out," John openly and boldly, according to that passage of Isaiah chapter fifty-eight: "Cry out, do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet"; saying: "He who comes after me was made before me"; therefore made more worthy than I according to his human nature; Ephesians chapter one: "He subjected all things under his feet and gave him as head over the whole Church." And the reason for this is: "because he was before me," namely according to his Divinity; below in chapter eight: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am"; and thus before John.

This was He of Whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred [has become] before me, for He was before me.

Having named the witness same-minded and same-named with himself, and having shown that he used a great voice for the service of his preaching, he profitably adds the mode too of his testimony: for it is in this in particular that the whole question lies. What then do we find the great John crying regarding the Only-Begotten? He that cometh after me has become before me for He was before me. Deep is the saying and one that demands keen search into its meaning.

For the obvious and received meaning is thus: As far as belongs to the time of the Birth according to the Flesh, the Baptist preceded the Saviour, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose that John said this, that it may be understood thus, He that cometh after me, in point of age, is preferred before me. But he who fixes a keener eye on the Divine thoughts may see, in the first place, that this view introduces us to futile ideas and carries us far from the needful subject of consideration. For the holy Baptist is introduced as a witness, not in order to show that Christ was once later, then again earlier in the time of His Birth, but as a co-witness of His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

What meaning then can one give to such unseasonably introduced explanations as these? or how can one give us any clear interpretation, by understanding of time the words before us, He That cometh after me became before me? For be it laid down beyond a doubt that the Lord came after the Baptist, as being second to him in time according to the Flesh: how will He be also before him, I mean in time? for due order and sequence call us to this sense analogously to what preceded. But I think that it is evident to every one, that this is an impossibility. For that which cometh short of anything in point of time will never have the start of its leader. Hence it is a thing utterly senseless and altogether past belief, to imagine that the holy Baptist said of time after the Flesh,. He that cometh after me has become before me. But understanding it rather in accordance with the line of thought that preceded, we will believe that it was said in some such sense as this. The blessed Baptist meetly carries up his mode of speaking from a customary phrase to its spiritual import, and advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts.

For that which leads is ever considered to be more glorious than those which are said to follow, and things which succeed yield the palm to those that precede them. As for example, he who is a skilled worker in brass, or carpenter, or weaver, takes the lead and has superiority over him who is conceived as following by being a learner and advancing to perfect knowledge. But when such an one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and leaving that behind attains to something superior, I deem that he who is surpassed may not unfitly say of his outstripping pupil, He that cometh after me, has become before me.

Transferring then after this sort the force of our idea to our Saviour Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it. Take now the account of each from the beginning. The Baptist was being admired by all, he was making many disciples, a great multitude of those who came for Baptism was always surrounding him: Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, they knew not that He was Very God. Since then He was unknown, while the Baptist was admired, He seemed I suppose to fall short of him; He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honour and glory from men. But He That cometh after has become before, being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by His works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

Hence the blessed Baptist said darkly, He that cometh after me has become before me, instead of, He who was once behind me in honour, is beheld to be more glorious, and surpasses by incomparable excellencies the measure that befits and belongs to me. Thus understanding the words, we shall find him a witness of the Glory of the Only-Begotten and not an unseasonable setter forth of useless things. For his saying that Christ is greater than himself who has a great reputation for holiness, what else is it than witnessing to His especial glory?

For He was before me.

Having said that He has become before me, he needfully adds, For He was before me, ascribing to Him glory most ancient, and affirming that the precedence of all things accrued not to Him in time, but is inherent in Him from the beginning as God by Nature. For He was before me, says he, instead of, Always and every-way superior and more glorious. And by His being compared with one among things originate, the judgment against all is concentrated in behalf of Him Who is above all. For we do not contemplate the great and glorious dignity of the Son as consisting in this alone that He surpassed the glory of John, but in His surpassing every originate essence.

John bare witness of Him and cried.

The most wise Evangelist follows again the course of his thoughts and makes the sequel duly correspondent to what preceded. For when he said of the Son of God, we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, that he might not appear to alone say this (the word we have seen not suiting a single person), he joins with himself his namesake witness, having one and the same piety with himself. I then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. A most weighty pair of Spirit-clad, and a notable pair of men foster-brothers in truth and unknowing how to lie.

But see how exceeding forcible he made his declaration. For he not only says that John bears witness of Him, but profitably adds and cried, taking his proof from the words The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, and this too exceeding well. For it was possible that some of the opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only-Begotten or to whom did he impart the things regarding Him? He cried then, says he, that is, not in a corner does he utter them, not gently and in secret does he bear witness: you may hear him crying aloud more clear than a trumpet, (not you alone hearing these things,) widespread and to all is his speech, glorious the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unknown the Forerunner.

I [John the Evangelist] then, says he, bear witness (for I have beheld what I said), and the Baptist likewise bears witness. This is a most weighty pair of Spirit-clad and notable men, foster brothers in truth who do not know how to lie. But see how forcefully he made his declaration. For he not only says that John "bears witness of him" but profitably adds "and cried," taking his proof from the words "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." And he does this exceedingly well too. For it was possible that some of his opponents might say, When did the Baptist witness to the Only Begotten, or to whom did he impart things about him? He cried then, he says, that is, he does not speak them in a corner, nor does he bear witness gently and in secret. In fact, you (although not you alone) may hear him crying louder and more clearly than a trumpet since his speech is to everyone everywhere. Most glorious is the herald, remarkable the voice, great and not unheard of is the forerunner.

The obvious and received meaning is this: As far as his birth according to the flesh is concerned, the Baptist preceded the Savior, and Emmanuel clearly followed and came after by six whole months, as the blessed Luke related. Some suppose this is what John meant, in other words, that he who comes after me, in point of age, is preferred before me.… But this carries us too far afield.…Rather, the Baptist advances as it were from an image drawn from our affairs to the exposition of subtler thoughts. For one who leads is always considered to be more glorious than those who follow, and things that succeed yield the palm to those that precede them.… As for example when one has surpassed the skill of his teacher and, leaving that behind, attains to something superior. I think that he who is surpassed may correctly say of his overachieving student, "He that comes after me has become before me." Transferring then the force of our idea to our Savior Christ and the holy Baptist, you will rightly understand it.… The Baptist was admired by all. He made many disciples. A great multitude of those who came for baptism was always surrounding him. Christ, albeit superior, was unknown, and they did not know that he was truly God. Since, then, he was unknown while the Baptist was admired, he seemed I suppose to fall short of him. He came a little after him who had still the higher position in honor and glory from people. But "he that comes after has become before," being shown to be greater and superior to John. For the One was at length revealed by his works to be God, the other not surpassing the measure of human nature, is found at last to have become after.

The Evangelist is very full in making frequent mention of John, and often beating about his testimony. And this he does not without a reason, but very wisely; for all the Jews held the man in great admiration, and therefore desiring by his means to make the Jews ashamed, he continually reminds them of the testimony of the forerunner. The other Evangelists make mention of the older prophets, and at each successive thing that took place respecting Him refer the hearer to them. But John providing testimony more clear and fresh, and uttering a voice more glorious than the other, brings continually forward not those only who had departed and were dead, but one also who was alive and present, who pointed Him out and baptized Him, him he continually introduces, not desiring to gain credit for the master through the servant, but condescending to the infirmity of his hearers. For as unless He had taken the form of a servant, He would not have been easily received, so had He not by the voice of a servant prepared the ears of his fellow-servants, the many (at any rate) of the Jews would not have received the Word.

What does he proclaim? to what does he "bear witness," and "cry"? "This is He of whom I said, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me." The testimony is dark, and contains besides much that is lowly. For he does not say, "This is the Son of God, the Only-begotten, the true Son"; but what? "He that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for He was before me." As the mother birds do not teach their young all at once how to fly, nor finish their teaching in a single day, but at first lead them forth so as to be just outside the nest, then after first allowing them to rest, set them again to flying, and on the next day continue a flight much farther, and so gently, by little and little, bring them to the proper height; just so the blessed John did not immediately bring the Jews to high things, but taught them for a while to fly up a little above the earth saying, that Christ was greater than he. And yet this, even this was for the time no small thing, to have been able to persuade the hearers that one who had not yet appeared nor worked any wonders was greater than a man, (John, I mean,) so marvelous, so famous, to whom all ran, and whom they thought to be an angel.

And observe how prudently he introduces his testimony; for he does not only point Him out when He has appeared, but even before He appears, proclaims Him. For the expression, "This is He of whom I spake," is the expression of one declaring this. As also Matthew says, that when all came to him, he said, "I indeed baptize you with water, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose." Wherefore then even before His appearance did he this? In order that when He appeared, the testimony might readily be received, the minds of the hearers being already prepossessed by what was said concerning Him, and the mean external appearance not vitiating it. For if without having heard anything at all concerning Him they had seen the Lord, and as they beheld Him had at the same time received the testimony of John's words, so wonderful and great, the meanness of His appearance would have straightway been an objection to the grandeur of the expressions. For Christ took on Him an appearance so mean and ordinary, that even Samaritan women, and harlots, and publicans, had confidence boldly to approach and converse with Him. As therefore, I said, if they had at once heard these words and seen Himself, they might perhaps have mocked at the testimony of John; but now because even before Christ appeared, they had often heard and had been accustomed to what was said concerning Him, they were affected in the opposite way, not rejecting the instruction of the words by reason of the appearance of Him who was witnessed of, but from their belief of what had been already told them, esteeming Him even more glorious.

The phrase, "that cometh after," means, "that" preacheth "after me," not "that" was born "after me." And this Matthew glances at when he says, "after me cometh a man," not speaking of His birth from Mary, but of His coming to preach the Gospel, for had he been speaking of the birth, he would not have said, "cometh," but "is come"; since He was born when John spake this. What then means "is before me"? Is more glorious, more honorable. "Do not," he saith, "because I came preaching first from this, suppose that I am greater than He; I am much inferior, so much inferior that I am not worthy to be counted in the rank of a servant." This is the sense of "is before me," which Matthew showing in a different manner, saith, "The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose." Again, that the phrase, "is before me," does not refer to His coming into Being, is plain from the sequel; for had he meant to say this, what follows, "for He was before me," would be superfluous. For who so dull and foolish as not to know that He who "was born before" him "was before" him? Or if the words refer to His subsistence before the ages, what is said is nothing else than that "He who cometh after me came into being before me." Besides, such a thing as this is unintelligible, and the cause is thrown in needlessly; for he ought to have said the contrary, if he had wished to declare this, "that He who cometh after me was before me, since also He was born before me." For one might with reason assign this, (the "being born before") as the cause of "being before," but not the "being before," as the cause of "being born." While what we assert is very reasonable.

Since you all at least know this, that they are always things uncertain not things evident, that require their causes to be assigned. Now if the argument related to the production of substance, it could not have been uncertain that he who "was born" first must needs "be" first; but because he is speaking concerning honor, he with reason explains what seems to be a difficulty. For many might well enquire, whence and on what pretext He who came after, became before, that is, appeared with great honor; in reply to this question therefore, he immediately assigns the reason; and the reason is, His Being first. He does not say, that "by some kind of advancement he cast me who has been first behind him, and so became before me," but that "he was before me," even though he arrives after me.

But how, says one, if the Evangelist refers to His manifestation to men, and to the glory which was to attend Him from them, does he speak of what was not yet accomplished, as having already taken place? for he does not say, "shall be," but "was." Because this is a custom among the prophets of old, to speak of the future as of the past. Thus Isaiah speaking of His slaughter does not say, "He shall be led (which would have denoted futurity) as a sheep to the slaughter"; but "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; yet He was not yet Incarnate, but the Prophet speaks of what should be as if it had come to pass. So David, pointing to the Crucifixion, said not, "They shall pierce My hands and My feet," but "They pierced My hands and My feet, and parted My garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture"; and discoursing of the traitor as yet unborn, he says, "He which did eat of My bread, hath lifted up his heel against Me"; and of the circumstances of the Crucifixion, "They gave Me gall for meat, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink."

The Evangelist frequently refers to the testimony of John not because he makes the credibility of the Master depend on the servant, but since the people had a high opinion of John, he cites John as a witness concerning Christ, as one whom they regarded as great and therefore more worthy of trust than all others. The word "crying out" indicates the great boldness of John, for he proclaimed Christ not in a corner, but with great boldness. What then did he say? "This was He of whom I said." John bore witness concerning Christ before he saw Him. God so willed this, of course, so that when he testified about Christ in a very favorable manner, he would not appear to be showing partiality toward Him. This is why he says "of whom I said," that is, before he saw Him. "He who comes after me" means, of course, the one who comes after in time of birth; for the Forerunner was six months older than Christ by birth in the flesh. "He came before me," that is, He became more honored and more glorious than me. Why? Because He also existed before me, in His Divinity. But the Arians insanely explained this saying. Wishing to prove that the Son of God was not begotten of the Father, but came into being as one of the creatures, they say: "Behold, John testifies of Him — He came before me, that is, He came into existence before me, and was created by God as one of the creatures." But from what follows they are convicted of a poor understanding of this saying. For what sense is expressed in the words: "This One (that is, Christ) came before me (that is, was created before me), because He existed before me"? It is utterly insane to say that God created Him before because He existed before me. On the contrary, it would have been better to say, "This One existed before me, because He came into being or was created before me." Thus do the Arians reason. But we, in the Orthodox manner, understand it thus: "He who comes after me," by birth from the Virgin in the flesh, "came before me," became more glorious than me and more honored through the miracles that were performed over Him, through His Birth, through His upbringing, through His wisdom. And this is rightly so, "because He existed before me," by His pre-eternal birth from the Father, even though in His appearance in the flesh He came after me.

(hoc loc.) Or, full of grace, inasmuch as His word was gracious, as saith David, Full of grace are thy lips; and truth, (Ps. 45:3) because what Moses and the Prophets spoke or did in figure, Christ did in reality.

He saith, Who cometh after me, that is, as to the time of His birth. John was six months before Christ, according to His humanity.

(in loc.) The Arians infer from this word1, that the Son of God is not begotten of the Father, but made like any other creature.

Having given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight, the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to persons other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does three things about this. First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his testimony is given.

So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because we are held in suspicion. So let his witness come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He is a faithful witness who will not lie: "A faithful witness will not lie" (Prv 14:5), "You sent [messengers] to John, and he bore witness to the truth" (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his office with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19) says, "Truthful lips endure forever."

Then when he says, John bore witness to him, and he cried out, he describes the way he bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, he cried out, i.e., freely without fear. "Cry out in a loud voice.... Say to the cities of Judah: Here is your God" (Is 40:9). He cried out ardently and with great fervor, because it is said, "His word burned like a torch" (Si 48:1); "Seraphim cried one to another" (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of spirit. The use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in figurative language or secretly, but that a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a few but to many. "Cry out, and do not stop" (Is 58:1).

Then he adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.

The testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him. And so he says, This is the one of whom I said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness to him. "And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High" (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present and when about to come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he would come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God. This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had often come to John before being baptized.

Then he describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me. Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to higher things: first, by preferring Christ to himself, even though John had such a great reputation and authority as to be considered the Christ or one of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: first, with regard to the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and thirdly, as to the time of their existence.

With respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun: "See, I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me" (Mal 3:1). So, He comes after me, in being known to men, through my preaching. Observe that comes is in the present tense, became in Greek the present participle is used.

Now John preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: "your relative, Elizabeth" (Lk 1:36). Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been open to question; accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in order that his testimony might have more force. Hence he says, "And I did not know him! And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water" (below 1:31).

Secondly, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians (15:46): "The spiritual is not first, but the animal." Accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway between the doctrine of the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ from afar), and the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.

He compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he ranks ahead of me. It should be noted that it is from this text that the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that "He who comes after me," is to be understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, "was made before me," can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not coeternal with the Father.

According to Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the Baptist would not have said, he "was made before me, because he existed before me," since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made before him. He rather would have said the opposite: "He was before me, because he was made before me." And so, according to Chrysostom, these words should be taken as referring to his dignity, that is, he was preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus came to preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of authority and in the repute of men: "Gold will not be equal to it" (Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred ahead of me, that is, before my eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to say: Before my eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.

He compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man of time. And therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was fitting that he rank before me in the reputation and opinion of men, because he preceded all things by his eternity: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8). "Before Abraham came to be, I am," as we read below (8:58).

If we understand this passage as saying that he "was made before me," it can be explained as referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the instant of his conception Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: "A woman shall enclose a man," i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that Christ was conceived as a perfect man before John was born; consequently he says that he "was made before me," because he was a perfect man before I came forth from the womb.

"And of His fullness have all we received." What have ye received? "And grace for grace." For so run the words of the Gospel, as we find by a comparison of the Greek copies. He does not say, "And of His fullness have all we received grace for grace"; but thus He says: "And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace," that is, have we received; so that He would wish us to understand that we have received from His fullness something unexpressed, and something besides, grace for grace. For we received of His fullness grace in the first instance; and again we received grace, grace for grace. What grace did we, in the first instance, receive? Faith: walking in faith, we walk in grace. How have we merited this? By what previous merits of ours? Let not each one flatter himself, but let him return into his own conscience, seek out the secret places of his own thoughts, recall the series of his deeds; let him not consider what he is if now he is something, but what he was that he might be something: he will find that he was not worthy of anything save punishment. If, then, thou wast worthy of punishment, and He came not to punish sins, but to forgive sins, grace was given to thee, and not reward rendered. Wherefore is it called grace? Because it is bestowed gratuitously. For thou didst not, by previous merits, purchase that which thou didst receive. This first grace, then, the sinner received, that his sins were forgiven. What did he deserve? Let him interrogate justice, he finds punishment; let him interrogate mercy, he finds grace. But God promised this also through the prophets; therefore, when He came to give what He had promised, He not only gave grace, but also truth. How was truth exhibited? Because that was done which had been promised.

What, then, is "grace for grace"? By faith we render God favorable to us; and inasmuch as we were not worthy to have our sins forgiven, and because we, who were unworthy, received so great a benefit, it is called grace. What is grace? That which is freely given. What is "freely given"? Given, not paid. If it was due, wages were given, not grace bestowed; but if it was truly due, thou wast good; but if, as is true, thou wast evil, but didst believe on Him who justifieth the ungodly (What is, "Who justifieth the ungodly"? Of the ungodly maketh pious), consider what did by right hang over thee by the law, and what thou hast obtained by grace. But having obtained that grace of faith, thou shalt be just by faith (for the just lives by faith); and thou shalt obtain favor of God by living by faith. And having obtained favor from God by living by faith, thou shalt receive immortality as a reward, and life eternal. And that is grace. For because of what merit dost thou receive life eternal? Because of grace. For if faith is grace, life eternal is, as it were, the wages of faith: God, indeed, appears to bestow eternal life as if it were due (To whom due? To the faithful, because he had merited it by faith); but because faith itself is grace, life eternal also is grace for grace.

Listen to the Apostle Paul acknowledging grace, and afterwards desiring the payment of a debt. What acknowledgment of grace is there in Paul? "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained," saith he, "mercy." He said that he who obtained it was unworthy; that he had, however, obtained it, not through his own merits, but through the mercy of God. Listen to him now demanding the payment of a debt, who had first received unmerited grace: "For," saith he, "I am now ready to be offered up, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." Now he demands a debt, he exacts what is due. For consider the following words: "Which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall render unto me in that day." That he might in the former instance receive grace, he stood in need of a merciful Father; for the reward of grace, of a just judge. Will He who did not condemn the ungodly man condemn the faithful man? And yet, if thou dost rightly consider, it was He who first gave thee faith, whereby thou didst obtain favor; for not of thine own didst thou so obtain favor that anything should be due to thee. Wherefore, then, in afterwards bestowing the reward of immortality, He crowns His own gifts, not thy merits. Therefore, brethren, "we all of His fullness have received"; of the fullness of His mercy, of the abundance of His goodness have we received. What? The remission of sins that we might be justified by faith. And what besides? "And grace for grace"; that is, for this grace by which we live by faith we shall receive another grace. What, then, is it except grace? For if I shall say that this also is due, I attribute something to myself as if to me it were due. But God crowns in us the gifts of His own mercy; but on condition that we walk with perseverance in that grace which in the first instance we received.

(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 8. et seq.) But what have ye received? Grace for grace. So that we are to understand that we have received a certain something from His fulness, and over and above this, grace for grace; that we have first received of His fulness, first grace; and again, we have received grace for grace. What grace did we first receive? Faith: which is called grace, because it is given freely. This is the first grace then which the sinner receives, the remission of his sins. Again, we have grace for grace; i. e. in stead of that grace in which we live by faith, we are to receive another, viz. life eternal: for life eternal is as it were the wages of faith. And thus as faith itself is a good grace, so life eternal is grace for grace.

Since a principle for influencing is not efficacious unless it has in itself a fontal and original fullness, which is not only a fullness of sufficiency but also of superabundance; therefore it is necessary that the incarnate Word be full of grace and truth, so that from his fullness all the just may receive, just as all the members receive from the head the influx of motion and sense. And on this account this grace is called the grace of the Head, because, just as the head has in itself the fullness of the senses and is conformed to the other members and presides over the others and bestows upon the others the benefit of its influx, which are connected to the head itself: so Christ, having in himself a superabundance of grace and being like us in nature, holy and just above all others, bestows upon the others who approach him the benefit of grace and spirit, through which sense and motion in spiritual things come about.

And since to approach him is through faith, or through the Sacrament of faith; and the faith of Christ is the same in past, present, and future: therefore the ground of influencing is posited in Christ with respect to all, past as well as present as well as future, who believe in Christ and are reborn in Christ, who through faith are joined to Christ and through inflowing grace become members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit, and thereby children of God the Father, connected to one another through the indivisible bond of charity. Which just as it is not divided by distance of places, so neither is it separated by length of times; and thereby all the just, wherever they may be and whenever they may have been, constitute one mystical body of Christ, receiving sense and motion from the one influencing head, according to the fontal, radical, and original fullness of all grace dwelling in Christ as in a fountain.

Through the Word incarnate there descends to us an abundance of graces: whence in John: "Of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace." It is certain that the original principle, which is God, when he created man in his image and likeness in the state of innocence, created him so near to himself that through the Word uncreated man was formable unto grace. But after man fell through sin, divine wisdom provided a mode of condescension through the Word incarnate, through which man might be adapted unto grace.

"And of his fullness we have all received grace for grace." Here the second reason for knowing that Christ was the Son of God is touched upon, namely on account of a singular effect, and this was the bestowal of grace. Therefore he says: "And of his fullness," as if to say: truly we knew him to be full; because "of his fullness we have all received grace for grace," namely the grace of recompense for the grace of justification, or conversely we have received the grace of justification for the sake of obtaining the grace of recompense, which is rightly called grace, because, as Augustine says, "God crowns nothing in us except his own gifts"; Romans 6: "The wages of sin is death: but the grace of God is life everlasting"; and Zechariah 4: "He shall bring forth the grace of grace."

It is asked: "Of his fullness we have all received." Against this is the fact that many preceded Christ: therefore many existed before the fullness of Christ: therefore not all received. It must be said that all received, because Christ was the head of all the just from Abel to the last just person. To this head the members are united by the bond of faith and love. Because therefore no one was saved without faith in Christ, as blessed Augustine says, no one was saved who did not receive from the fullness of Christ. As to the objection that he came after: it must be said that by faith he was always present to all, although bodily he came after.

And the apostle says, "Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." For of the prophets it is said, "We have all received of His fulness," that is, of Christ's. So that the prophets are not thieves. "And my doctrine is not Mine," saith the Lord, "but the Father's which sent me."

For out of his fulness do we all receive, nor does he, in giving liberally, suffer any diminution of his fulness.

The Evangelist in these words accepts the true testimony of the Baptist, and makes clear the proof of the superiority of our Saviour, and of His possessing essentially the surpassing every thing originate, both in respect of glory itself (whereof he is now more especially speaking) and of the bright catalogue of all the other good things.

For most excellently, says he, and most truly does the Baptist appear to me to say of the Only-Begotten, For He was before me, that is far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of His proper good, and the nature of man is ennobled with His rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have ought that is noble. For from the fulness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the Divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as of His Natural fulness, the creature is supplied:----how will He not be conceived of as having glory not similar to the rest, but such as will beseem the Only-Begotten of God, having the superiority over all as the fruit of His own Nature, and the pre-eminence as the Dignity of His Father's Being? And I think that the most wise Paul too when defining as to the nature of all things, was moved thereby to true ideas, so as hence at length to address the creature, For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? For together with being, the well-being after such and such wise, is God's gift to the creature, and it has nothing of its own, but becomes rich only with the munificence of Him Who gives to it. But we must note again that he says that the Son is full, that is, All-perfect in all things, and so greatly removed from being lacking in anything whatever, that He can bestow even on all, refusing diminution, and preserving the greatness of His own excellence always the same.

For it is a truly excellent pronouncement of the Baptist when he appears to me to say of the Only Begotten, "For he was before me," that is, far surpassing and superior. For all we too, who have been enrolled in the choir of the saints, enjoy the riches of his proper good, and the nature of humanity is ennobled with his rather than its own excellences, when it is found to have nothing that is noble. For from the fullness of the Son, as from a perennial fountain, the gift of the divine graces springing forth comes to each soul that is found worthy to receive it. But if the Son supplies as from his own natural fullness and the creature is supplied—how will he not be conceived of as having glory, not similar to the rest, but the kind of glory that would pertain to the only begotten of God? He then is shown to have the superiority over all as the fruit of his own nature, and to have the preeminence as the dignity of his Father's being.

"Thou didst prevail above the blessings of abiding mountains." By "eternal and abiding mountains and everlasting hills," he means the saints, because they are lifted above the earth, and make no account of the things that perish, but seek the things that are above, and aspire earnestly to rise to the highest virtues. After the glory of Christ, therefore, are those of the Fathers who were most illustrious, and reached the greatest elevation in virtue. These, however, were but servants; but the Lord, the Son, supplied them with the means by which they became illustrious. Wherefore also they acknowledge (the truth of this word), "Out of His fulness have all we received."

And what means that, saith he, "Of His fullness have all we received"? for to this we must for a while direct our discourse. He possesseth not, says he, the gift by participation, but is Himself the very Fountain and very Root of all good, very Life, and very Light, and very Truth, not retaining within Himself the riches of His good things, but overflowing with them unto all others, and after the overflowing remaining full, in nothing diminished by supplying others, but streaming ever forth, and imparting to others a share of these blessings, He remains in sameness of perfection. What I possess is by participation, (for I received it from another) and is a small portion of the whole, as it were a poor rain-drop compared with the untold abyss or the boundless sea; or rather not even can this instance fully express what we attempt to say, for if you take a drop from the sea, you have lessened the sea itself, though the diminution be imperceptible. But of that Fountain we cannot say this; how much soever a man draw, It continues undiminished.

Let us suppose that there is a fountain of fire; that from that fountain ten thousand lamps are kindled, twice as many, thrice as many, ofttimes as many; does not the fire remain at the same degree of fullness even after its imparting of its virtue to such members? It is plain to every man that it does. Now if in the case of bodies which are made up of parts, and are diminished by abstraction, one has been found of such a nature, that after supplying to others something from itself it sustains no loss, much more will this take place with that incorporeal and uncompounded Power. If in the instance given, that which is communicated is substance and body, is divided yet does not suffer division, when our discourse is concerning an energy, and an energy too of an incorporeal substance it is much more probable that this will undergo nothing of the sort. And therefore John said, "Of His fullness have all we received."

What have we received? "grace for grace," saith he. What grace, for what? For the old, the new. For there was a righteousness, and again a righteousness. There was a faith, there is a faith. There was an adoption, there is an adoption. There was a glory, there is a glory. There was a law, and there is a law. There was a service, and there is a service. There was a covenant, and there is a covenant. There was a sanctification, and there is a sanctification: there was a baptism, and there is a Baptism: there was a sacrifice, and there is a Sacrifice: there was a temple, and there is a temple: there was a circumcision, and there is a circumcision; and so too there was a "grace," and there is a "grace." But the words in the first case are used as types, in the second as realities, preserving a sameness of sound, though not of sense.

"Grace for grace." For by grace the Jews were saved: "I chose you," saith God, "not because you were many in number, but because of your fathers." If now they were chosen by God not for their own good deeds, it is manifest that by grace they obtained this honor. And we too all are saved by grace, but not in like manner; not for the same objects, but for objects much greater and higher. The grace then that is with us is not like theirs. For not only was pardon of sins given to us, (since this we have in common with them, for all have sinned,) but righteousness also, and sanctification, and sonship, and the gift of the Spirit far more glorious and more abundant. By this grace we have become the beloved of God, no longer as servants, but as sons and friends. Wherefore he saith, "grace for grace."

This [continues] the recorded testimony of John the Baptist about Christ which begins with the statement "This was he who said, 'He who comes after me' " and ends at the words "The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." …It is very forced to suppose that the word of the Baptist is suddenly and unseasonably, as it were, broken off by the word of the disciple. The sequence of the text is clear to everyone who knows how just to listen for a while to the context of what is being said: "This was he who said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.' " But by the statement "Because of his fullness we all have received," the Baptist is teaching how Jesus ranks before him by being before him (since he was the firstborn of creation). It is for this reason that he says, "He ranks before me, because he was before me." And I think he existed before me and is more honored with the Father, because both I and the prophets before me have received the more divine and greater prophetic grace from his fullness for the grace we received from him in relation to our free choice. In addition "he ranks because he was before me," since, when we have received of his fullness, we have also understood that the law has been given "through Moses," not "by Moses," but that grace and truth have not only been given through Jesus Christ but also have come into existence through him, since his God and Father has both given the law through Moses and has produced through Jesus Christ the grace and the truth that have come to people."

(in Joan. t. vi. 3.) This is to be considered a continuation of the Baptist's testimony to Christ, a point which has escaped the attention of many, who think that from this to, He hath declared Him, (v. 18) St. John the Apostle is speaking. But the idea that on a sudden, and, as it would seem, unseasonably, the discourse of the Baptist should be interrupted by a speech of the disciple's, is inadmissible. And any one, able to follow the passage, will discern a very obvious connection here. For having said, He is preferred before me, for He was before me, he proceeds, From this I know that He is before me, because I and the Prophets who preceded me have received of His fulness, and grace for grace, (the second grace for the first.) For they too by the Spirit penetrated beyond the figure to the contemplation of the truth. And hence receiving, as we have done, of his fulness, we judge that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth were made, by Jesus Christ—made, not given: the Father gave the law by Moses, but made grace and truth by Jesus. But if it is Jesus who says below, I am the Truth, (John 14:6) how is truth made by Jesus? We must understand however that the very substantial Truth, from which First Truth and Its Image many truths are engraven on those who treat of the truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, or through any one; but only the truth which is in individuals, such as in Paul, e. g. or the other Apostles, was made through Jesus Christ.

This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel.

"From his fullness," he says, "we have all received," that is, the grace of the Spirit, which is given to us as a gift, we received from his abundance. About his human nature he says that every grace is in it; but at the same time this shows the dignity of the nature that is in him. Through the union with the divine Word, by means of the Spirit, he was made participant in the true relationship. We have taken a part from his spiritual grace, and through it we are made participant together with him in this adoptive affiliation, even though we are very far away from that dignity. And he fortunately added, "grace for grace," indicating with the name of grace the law as well. He says, instead of that grace [of the law] this grace is given.

And these are the words of the Forerunner, speaking about Christ, that all of us, the prophets, have received from His fullness. For He possesses grace not such as spiritual people have, but, being the source of all goodness, all wisdom, and prophecy, He abundantly pours it out upon all who are worthy, and despite such outpouring remains full, and is never exhausted. And we received "grace," namely, of the New Testament, in place of the grace of the giving of the Law. Since that Covenant grew old and decrepit, in place of it we received the New. Why then, some will say, did he call the Old Testament grace? Because the Jews too were adopted and accepted by grace. For it is said: "I chose you not for your great number, but for the sake of your fathers." Both those of the Old Testament were accepted by grace, and we, evidently, are saved by grace.

He follows with, Of his fullness we have all received words and those that follow to (v 19), "This is the testimony of John," are taken in two ways. According to Origen, these are the words of John the Baptist and are added by him to support what he had said previously. It is as though he said: Truly, he existed before me, because of his fullness, i.e., of his grace, not only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, have received, because all had the grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to this explanation, John the Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation at, "John bore witness to him" (v 15).

But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from "John bore witness to him" (v 15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with the previous words, "full of grace and truth," as though he were saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for the Word which was learned through sight and by hearing, but here he explains each. First, how he was made known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at "This is the testimony of John" (v 19). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that Christ is the origin, as a fountain, of every spiritual grace. Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through him and from him.

He says first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of grace and truth, because of his fullness we have all received. Now one fullness is that of sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are meritorious and excellent, as in the case of Stephen. Again, there is a fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin excels all the saints because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as the author of grace. For although the Blessed Virgin superabounds her grace into us, it is never as authoress of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul into her body: for through the grace of the Holy Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace," he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, "the Lord is with you" (Lk 1:28). And so the Evangelist, in order to show this unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, said, Of his fullness we have all received, i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets and just men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.

Note that the preposition de [of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an originative cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds "from" the sun. In this way it signifies the efficiency of grace in Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the cause of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. "Come to me, all you who desire me, and be filled with my fruits," that is to say, share in the fullness of those fruits which come from me (Si 24:26).

But sometimes this preposition de signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said that the Son is "of" the Father [de Patre]. In this usage, the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from him, consubstantial with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified. "One and the same Spirit produces all these" (1 Cor 12:11); "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Jl 2:28); "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9). For the unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: "The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole world" (Wis 1:7).

In a third way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify a portion, as when we say "take 'from' this bread or wine [de hoc pane, vel vino]," i.e., take a portion and not the whole. Taken in this way it signifies that those who take a part derive it from the fullness. For he [Christ] received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect fullness; but we participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to the measure which God grants to each. "Grace has been given to each of us according to the degree to which Christ gives it" (Eph 4:7).

Then when he says, grace upon grace, he shows the distribution of graces into us through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace from Christ, as its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18). As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that we have received of his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.

First, he says that we have received of the fullness of Christ what is described as grace upon grace. In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of his fullness we have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received another. Accordingly, we must see what that first grace is upon which we have received a second one, and also what that second grace is.

According to Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great grace: "I will give you a good gift" (Prv 4:2). For it was a great benefit for idolatrous men to receive precepts from God, and a true knowledge of the one true God. "What is the advantage of being a Jew, or the benefit of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the words of God were entrusted to them" (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was first, we have received a second far better. "He will follow grace with grace" (Zec 4:7).

But was not the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives only a knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. "The law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another grace come that would take away sin and reconcile one with God.

According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient grace, which is not given to us because of our works: "If it is by grace, it is not now by works" (Rom 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is imperfect, we have received another grace which is perfect, i.e., the grace of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by merits, nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace, eternal life is called a grace: "The grace of God is eternal life" (Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole is called grace upon grace.

I pardon willingly, [says the Lord,] I quickly forgive: "I will have mercy rather than sacrifice," because by sacrifice the just is rendered more acceptable, by mercy the sinner is redeemed. "I come not to call the righteous but sinners." Sacrifice was under the law; in the gospel is mercy. "The law was given by Moses, grace by me."

"For the law was given by Moses"; which law held the guilty. For what saith the apostle? "The law entered that the offense might abound." It was a benefit to the proud that the offense abounded, for they gave much to themselves, and, as it were, attributed much to their own strength; and they were unable to fulfill righteousness without the aid of Him who had commanded it. God, desirous to subdue their pride, gave the law, as if saying: Behold, fulfill, and do not think that there is One wanting to command. One to command is not wanting, but one to fulfill.

This grace was not in the Old Testament, because the law threatened, did not bring aid; commanded, did not heal; made manifest, but did not take away our feebleness: but it prepared the way for that Physician who was to come with grace and truth; as a physician who, about to come to any one to cure him, might first send his servant that he might find the sick man bound. He was not sound; he did not wish to be made sound and lest he should be made sound, he boasted that he was so. The law was sent, it bound him; he finds himself accused, now, he exclaims against the bandage. The Lord comes, cures with somewhat bitter and sharp medicines: for He says to the sick, Bear; He says, Endure; He says, Love not the world, have patience, let the fire of continence cure thee, let thy wounds endure the sword of persecutions. Wert thou greatly terrified although bound? He, free and unbound, drank what He gave to thee; He first suffered that He might console thee, saying, as it were, that which thou fearest to suffer for thyself, I first suffer for thee. This is grace, and great grace. Who can praise it in a worthy manner?

"The law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." By a servant was the law given, and made men guilty: by an Emperor was pardon given, and delivered the guilty. "The law was given by Moses." Let not the servant attribute to himself more than was done through him. Chosen to a great ministry as one faithful in his house, but yet a servant, he is able to act according to the law, but cannot release from the guilt of the law. "The law," then, "was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 8. et seq.) There was not grace in the Old Testament; for the law threatened, but assisted not, commanded, but healed not, showed our weakness, but relieved it not. It prepared the way however for a Physician who was about to come, with the gifts of grace and truth: whence the sentence which follows: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. The death of thy Lord hath destroyed death, both temporal and eternal; that is the grace which was promised, but not contained, in the law.

(de Trin. xiii. c. 24. [xix.]) Or, we may refer grace to knowledge, truth to wisdom. Amongst the events of time the highest grace is the uniting of man to God in One Person; in the eternal world the highest truth pertains to God the Word.

It is true what is written in John: "The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Christ." For salvation two things are necessary, namely the knowledge of truth and the exercise of virtue. The knowledge of truth is had through the Law, but the exercise of virtue is had through grace. The Law relates to grace as the apprehensive power relates to the motive power, and as an instrument relates to operative power. Suppose that a bird had sight for seeing heaven but did not have power in its wings; it could not fly nor reach there. So, however much the Jew glories in the Law, since he is without grace, it is nothing. A craftsman, when he has an instrument by which he works, unless he has operative power in his hands, can do nothing good. O faithless Jew, you have the Law in hand, but unless you have operative power, you think in vain that you possess the Law. Therefore through the Law no one is saved unless grace is present. And thus it is clear that the grace of God is far more excellent than the Law itself.

"Because the Law was given through Moses," which only promised grace and truth and did not give them: because, Hebrews 7, "The Law brought no one to perfection." But what the Law promised, Christ furnished: therefore he says: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," that is, were bestowed. Therefore the Apostle cries out at Romans 7: "Unhappy man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ," not the Mosaic law. And that this effect is singularly Christ's, he shows, because the Law only promised but Christ furnished.

Now the law is ancient grace given through Moses by the Word. Wherefore also the Scripture says, "The law was given through Moses," not by Moses, but by the Word, and through Moses His servant. Wherefore it was only temporary; but eternal grace and truth were by Jesus Christ. Mark the expressions of Scripture: of the law only is it said "was given;" but truth being the grace of the Father, is the eternal work of the Word; and it is not said to be given, but to be by Jesus, without whom nothing was.

He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him "whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him)." Next is to be learned the greatness of the Saviour after Him, and the newness of grace; for, according to the apostle, "the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ;" and the gifts granted through a faithful servant are not equal to those bestowed by the true Son.

What then is the distinction between the law and the grace that comes through the Savior?… The law condemned the world (for God through [the law] "concluded all under sin," as Paul says) and showed us subject to punishment. But the Savior rather sets the world free, for he came "not to judge the world but to save the world." And the law too used to give grace to people, calling them to the knowledge of God and drawing away from the worship of idols those who had been led astray. It also pointed out evil and taught good, if not perfectly, yet in the manner of a teacher and usefully. But the truth and grace that are through the Only Begotten do not introduce to us the good that is in types or to limited things that are only profitable as in shadow. Rather, in glorious and most pure ordinances, it leads us by the hand to an ever more perfect knowledge of the faith. And the law used to give the "spirit of bondage to fear," but Christ gives the spirit of adoption to liberty. The law likewise brings in the circumcision in the flesh, which is nothing (for "circumcision is nothing"22). But our Lord Jesus Christ is the giver of circumcision "in the spirit and heart." The law baptizes the defiled with mere water; the Savior baptizes "with the Holy Spirit and with fire." The law brings in the tabernacle for a "figure of the true"; the Savior bears up to heaven itself and brings to the truer "tabernacle, which the Lord set up and not man [humankind]." There are plenty of other proofs besides, but we must respect our limits.But we will say this for profit and need. The blessed Paul in few words solved the question, saying of the law and of the Savior's grace, "For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor." For he says that the commandment by Moses is "the ministration of condemnation," but the grace through the Savior he calls "the ministration of righteousness," which he says surpasses in glory. And so he most perfectly examines the nature of things like a child with the Spirit. Since then the law, which condemns, "was given by Moses," the grace that justifies came by the Only Begotten. If this is true, he says, how can it be otherwise than that [Jesus] is superior in glory through whom the better things were ordained?

For [in place of] the grace of the law, which has passed away, we have received the abiding grace of the gospel, and, instead of the shadows and figures of the ancient covenant, truth has come by Jesus Christ.

"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." See ye how gently, by a single word and by little and little, both John the Baptist and John the Disciple lead up their hearers to the highest knowledge, having first exercised them in humbler things? The former having compared to himself Him who is incomparably superior to all, thus afterwards shows His superiority, by saying, "is become before me," and then adding the words, "was before me": while the latter has done much more than he, though too little for the worthiness of the Only-Begotten, for he makes the comparison, not with John, but with one reverenced by the Jews more than John, with Moses. "For the law," saith he, "was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

Observe his wisdom. He makes enquiry not concerning the person, but the things; for these being proved, it was probable that even the senseless would of necessity receive from them a much higher judgment and notion respecting Christ. For when facts bear witness, which cannot be suspected of doing so either from favor to any, or from malice, they afford a means of judging which cannot be doubted even by the senseless; for they remain to open view just as their actors may have arranged them, and therefore their evidence is the least liable to suspicion of any. And see how he makes the comparison easy even to the weaker sort; for he does not prove the superiority by argument, but points out the difference by the bare words, opposing "grace and truth" to "law," and "came" to "was given." Between each of these there is a great difference; for one, "was given," belongs to something ministered, when one has received from another, and given to whom he was commanded to give; but the other, "grace and truth came," befits a king forgiving all offenses, with authority, and himself furnishing the gift. Wherefore He said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee"; and again, "But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (He saith to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

Whence we understand that God's law was anterior even to Moses, and was not first (given) in Horeb, nor in Sinai and in the desert, but was more ancient; (existing) first in paradise, subsequently reformed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods: so that we are not to give heed to Moses' Law as to the primitive law, but as to a subsequent, which at a definite period God has set forth to the Gentiles too and, after repeatedly promising so to do through the prophets, has reformed for the better; and has premonished that it should come to pass that, just as "the law was given through Moses" at a definite time, so it should be believed to have been temporarily observed and kept.

For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through" Abraham's seed, which is Christ," and was superinducing grace over the law, made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness.

He explains to us in what manner we received the greatest grace in place of the lesser grace. He says that the law was given through Moses, that is, God used a man as mediator, namely Moses, but the New Testament was given through Jesus Christ. It is called both "grace," because God granted us not only the forgiveness of sins but also sonship; and it is called "truth," because He clearly proclaimed what the Old Testament figures saw or spoke of in types. This New Testament, called both grace and truth, had as its mediator not a mere man but the Son of God. Note also that concerning the Old Law he said "was given" through Moses, for he was a subordinate and servant, but concerning the New he did not say "was given" but "came to be," in order to show that it came from our Lord Jesus Christ as from a Master and not from a slave, and reached its fulfillment in grace and truth. The Law "was given" by God through the mediation of Moses; grace "came to be," and was not given, through Jesus Christ. "Came to be" is a sign of sovereignty; "was given" is a sign of servitude.

And so he says, because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the greatest of the prophets: "There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses" (Dt 34:10). But he ranks Christ above Moses in excellence and in dignity of works, because the law was given through Moses; and between these two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the symbol and the truth the shadow: "The law had a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was given by Moses as by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for "The Lord alone is our lawgiver" (Is 33:22). But grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ, as through the Lord and Author of truth and grace, as was explained above.

The need for this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was commanded. Indeed, what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion for producing death. Hence the Apostle says that the law was a minister of death: "If the ministry that condemned had glory, the ministry that justifies has much more glory" (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of grace but did not fulfill, because "The law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb 7:19). Again, it prefigured the truth of the new grace by its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites proclaimed that it was a figure. Hence it was necessary that Christ come, who by his own death would destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might both fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old way of life: "Our old self was crucified with him" (Rom 6:6), and in order that the truth of the figures contained in the law might be revealed and the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.

This can be explained in another way: truth has come through Jesus Christ, as to the wisdom and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he came into the world: "I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth," as we read below (18:37).

But if Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did truth come [i.e., come to be, be made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his essence he is the uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is begotten of the Father; but all created truths were made through him, and these are certain participations and reflections of the first Truth, which shines out in those souls who are holy.

While the soldiers were doing their cruel work, He was thinking anxiously of His mother: These things therefore the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mary, the mother of the Lord, stood by her Son's cross. No one has taught me this but the holy Evangelist John. Others have related how the earth was shaken at the Lord's passion, the sky was covered with darkness, the sun withdrew itself and how the thief was, after a faithful confession, received into paradise. John tells us what the others have not told, how the Lord while fixed on the cross called to his mother. He thought it was more important that, victorious over his sufferings, Jesus gave her the offices of piety than that he gave her a heavenly kingdom. For if it is the mark of religion to grant pardon to the thief, it is a mark of much greater piety that a mother is honored with such affection by her Son. "Behold," he says, "your son." … "Behold your mother." Christ testified from the cross and divided the offices of piety between the mother and the disciple.…Nor was Mary below what was becoming the mother of Christ. When the apostles fled, she stood at the cross and with pious eyes beheld her Son's wounds. For she did not look to the death of her offspring but to the salvation of the world. Or perhaps, because that "royal hall" knew that the redemption of the world would be through the death of her Son, she thought that by her death she also might add something to that universal gift. But Jesus did not need a helper for the redemption of all, who saved all without a helper. This is why he says, "I am counted among those who go down to the pit. I am like those who have no help." He received indeed the affection of his mother but sought not another's help. Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue. For neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Mary the mother of our Lord stood before the cross of her Son. None of the Evangelists hath told me this except John. The others have related how that at our Lord's Passion the earth quaked, the heaven was overspread with darkness, the sun fled, the thief was taken into paradise after confession. John hath told us, what the others have not, how that from the cross whereon He hung, He called to His mother. He thought it a greater thing to show Him victorious over punishment, fulfilling the offices of piety to His mother, than giving the kingdom of heaven and eternal life to the thief. For if it was religious to give life to the thief, a much richer work of piety it is for a son to honour his mother with such affection. Behold, He saith, thy son; behold thy mother. Christ made His Testament from the cross, and divided the offices of piety between the Mother and the disciples. Our Lord made not only a public, but also a domestic Testamnet. And this His Testament John sealed, a witness worthy of such a Testator. A good testament it was, not of money, but of eternal life, which was not written with ink, but with the spirit of the living God: My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Ps. 45:1) Mary, as became the mother of our Lord, stood before the cross, when the Apostles fled, and with pitiful eyes beheld the wounds of her Son. For she looked not on the death of the Hostage, but on the salvation of the world; and perhaps knowing that her Son's death would bring this salvation, she who had been the habitation of the King, thought that by her death she might add to that universal gift. But Jesus did not need any help for saving the world, as we read in the Psalm, I have been even as a man with no help, free among the dead. (Ps. 87) He received indeed the affection of a parent, but He did not seek another's help. Imitate her, ye holy matrons, who, as towards her only most beloved Son, hath set you an example of such virtue: for ye have not sweeter sons, nor did the Virgin seek consolation in again becoming a mother.

(de Con. Ev. iii. 21) If Matthew and Mark had not mentioned by name Mary Magdalen, we should have thought that there were two parties, one of which stood far off, and the other near. But how must we account for the same Mary Magdalen and the other women standing afar off, as Matthew and Mark say, and being near the cross, as John says? By supposing that they were within such a distance as to be within sight of our Lord, and yet sufficiently far off to be out of the way of the crowd and Centurion, and soldiers who were immediately about Him. Or, we may suppose that after our Lord had commended His mother to the disciple, they retired to be out of the way of the crowd, and saw what took place afterwards at a distance: so that those Evangelists who do not mention them till after our Lord's death, describe them as standing afar off. (Matthew and Mark.) That some women are mentioned by all alike, others not, makes no matter.

Simeon … prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross and seeing what is being done and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every human being—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all people by his own blood.

She paid this price as a woman strong and devout, namely when Christ suffered on the cross to pay this price, so that he might purify, wash, and redeem us; then the blessed Virgin was present, accepting and consenting to the divine will. And it pleased her that the price of her womb should be offered on the cross for us. Whence in John: "There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing, whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold your son," namely, who will be handed over as the price of redemption of the human race: as if he were saying: it is necessary for you to be without me, and for me to be without you; and you yourself, as a holy woman, conceived him, and as a devout woman, you offer him; may it please you, O Virgin, that I redeem the human race and appease God. And lest she be left desolate, he said to the disciple: "Behold, your mother"; he gave a virgin man to the Virgin.

Now there stood by the cross etc. Here is noted the paucity of those who shared in his suffering: because out of all his dear ones, three women were present, among whom was also the Mother of the Lord, for whom the Lord also felt compassion. And four things are noted here: the compassion of the women toward the Lord, the Lord's solicitude toward his Mother, and from that solicitude, his commendation, and lastly, the acceptance of the commendation.

Therefore the compassion of the women is noted in this that he says: They stood near the cross of Jesus: they drew near in body because the feeling of compassion drew them. Others indeed had withdrawn far away through lack of compassion; whence it is said in the Psalm: "Those who were near me stood afar off." But these women stood near, who loved more, namely his Mother, who suffered with him above all others: whence Luke chapter two: "A sword shall pierce through your own soul"; and the sister of his Mother, Mary of Cleophas: she was the mother of James. It should be noted that Anne is said to have had three husbands: Joachim, Cleophas, and Salome, and from these three husbands she had three Marys, namely the Mother of the Lord, who was the daughter of Joachim; the mother of James, who was the daughter of Cleophas; the mother of Simon and Jude, who was the daughter of Salome. And Mary Magdalene, who was so called from the town of Magdala. These three women, as being more compassionate, stood near the cross of the Lord.

This also the inspired Evangelist mentions to our profit, showing herein also, that none of the words of Holy Writ fall to the ground. What do I mean by this? I will tell you. He represents, as standing by the Cross, His mother, and with her the rest, clearly weeping. For women are ever prone to tears, and very much inclined to lament, especially when they have abundant occasion for shedding tears. What, then, induced the blessed Evangelist to go so much into detail, as to make mention of the women as staying beside the Cross? His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother's very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: "I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind. And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended, when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, so that he impetuously exclaimed: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What wonder, then, if a woman's frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? And when we thus speak, we are not shooting at a venture, as some may suppose, but are led to suspect this by what is written concerning the mother of our Lord. For we remember that the righteous Simeon, when he received the infant Lord into his arms, after having blessed Him, and said: Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart, O Lord, according to Thy Word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, he also said to the holy Virgin herself: Behold, this Child is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against; yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. By a sword he meant the keen pang of suffering, which would divide the mind of the woman into strange thoughts; for temptations prove the hearts of those who are tempted, and leave them bare of the thoughts that filled them.

Let's begin with some things that we ought to know about John, but which we usually don't. John was very likely the Lord's first cousin on their mothers' side. John was a son of Zebedee, and his mother's name was Salome, which we can find out by comparing Mark 16:1 and Matt.27:56. Mark says that the third woman who went to the tomb was Salome and Matthew said it was the mother of Zebedee's children. And then in John 19:25, it says that four women were present at the crucifixion—two Marys from Mark and Matthew, the Lord's mother, and the Lord's aunt. This helps make sense of how the Lord would entrust the care of His mother to John, which on this reading would be her nephew. It also helps explain the particular closeness of Jesus and John (John 21:7).

John was also from a well-to-do family with respectable connections. His father had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who was a financial patroness of the Lord's ministry (Luke 8:3; Mark 15:40). John was known to the high priest (John 18:15-16), and was able to get Peter into the place where the Lord was being tried.

We also know a great deal about John's giftedness and related challenges. Jesus named him, together with his brother, a son of thunder (Mark 3:17). He was a fire-eater, and sometimes succumbed to the temptations that come with that—which would be misdirected zeal and ambition. He was one of the disciples who wanted Jesus to torch a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54), and it was Salome who made the request for James and John to sit at Christ's left and right hand (Matt. 20:20; Mark 10:37). John was not formally trained (Acts 4:13), but was nonetheless a staggering genius. He was a tender and humble man as revealed by all his writings, but it is very plain that this was the result of the Spirit taming a lot of horsepower.

He remained in Jerusalem for a number of years—at least 14 (Gal. 2:9), but then moved to Ephesus, where he wrote his gospel (according to Irenaeus. That was the time during which he was exiled to Patmos. According to early reports, he lived until the reign of Trajan (which started in 98 A.D.)

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.

Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.

But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor."

And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.

He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified."

Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor... They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

The Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the Less," and here, "Mary of Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names.

The Mary which in Mark and Matthew is called the mother of James and Joses, was the wife of Alpheus, and sister of Mary the mother of our Lord: which Mary John here designates of Cleophas, either from her father, or family, or for some other reason. She need not be thought a different person, because she is called in one place Mary the mother of James the less, and here Mary of Cleophas, for it is customary in Scripture to give different names to the same person.

But the women stood by the Cross, and the weaker sex then appeared the manlier; so entirely henceforth were all things transformed.

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

[NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

The lamb, Mary, beholding her lamb advancing to the slaughter, Followed him wearily with the other women, saying, "Where are you going, O my son?… Is there another wedding again in Cana, And are you hurrying there now In order that you may make wine from water for them? Shall I go with you, my child, or should I wait for you instead? Give me some word, O Word, And do not pass me by in silence, You who have kept me pure, My son and my God.…

"You go on, O child, to an unjust death, And no one shares in your suffering with you. Peter does not accompany you— He who said to you, 'I shall never deny you, even if I die.' Thomas has left you—the one who cried out, 'Let us all die with him.' And again the others, family and sons [of God], Destined to judge the twelve tribes, where are they now? Not one of all of them is here. But the one above all, You, alone, O Son, saved all who were opposed [to you]. You reconciled all who were against [you], My son and my God." …

[Jesus replies] "O Mother, hold on for a little longer, and you will see how, like a healer, I strip down and come where they lie dead And heal their wounds, Cutting their callousness and hardness with the point of the spear. And when I receive the vinegar, I use it as an astringent on the wound; And when I have opened up the cut with the scalpel of the nails, I will use my tunic as a dressing, Having my cross as the remedy, I use it, O Mother, so that you may sing with understanding: 'By suffering he has redeemed suffering, My son and my God.'

"Therefore leave behind your grief, O Mother And set out on your journey with joy. For I am already hurrying towards that for which I came, To fulfill the plan of him who sent me; For, this was from the beginning what was ordained for me Even by my Father, and it did not displease my spirit then that I should become incarnate And suffer on behalf of the fallen. Hurry then, O Mother, announce to all, 'By suffering he strikes down the one who hates Adam And, having conquered, he comes, My son and my God.' "

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

Why is Mary of Cleopas called the sister of His Mother, when Joachim had no other child? Cleopas was a brother of Joseph. When Cleopas died childless, according to the account of some, Joseph took his wife for himself and begat children for his brother. One of them is the Mary now mentioned. She is called a sister of the Theotokos, that is, a relative. For Scripture has the custom of calling kinsmen brothers. For example, Isaac says of Rebekah that she is his sister, although she was his wife. So here too the reputed daughter of Cleopas is called the sister of the Theotokos by kinship. In the Gospels there appear four Marys: one is the Theotokos, who is called the Mother of James and Joses, for they were children of Joseph, born from his first wife, perhaps the wife of Cleopas. The Theotokos is called their Mother, as a stepmother, for She was considered the wife of Joseph. Another is the Magdalene, from whom the Lord cast out seven demons; the third is the wife of Cleopas, and the fourth is the sister of Lazarus.

2434 Thirdly, we see the part played by the friends of Jesus. First, the Evangelist mentions the women who were standing there; secondly, his eagerness for the care of his mother (v 26); thirdly, the ready obedience of the disciple (v 27).

2435 Three women are mentioned as standing by the cross of Jesus: his mother, then his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When the Evangelists mention the women who were standing with Christ, it is only John who mentions the Blessed Virgin. Two questions occur about this incident.

2436 Matthew (27:55) and Mark (15:40) say that the women were standing far off, while John says that they stood by the cross. One could say in answer that the women mentioned by Matthew and Mark were not the same as those mentioned by John. However, the difficulty with this answer is that Mary Magdalene is in the group mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also in the group mentioned by John. So one should say that all were referring to the same women. But there is no contradiction. Near and far are relative; and nothing prevents something from being near in one sense and far in another. The women were said to be near because they were within the range of sight, and they could be described as afar because other people were between them and Jesus. Or, one could say that when the crucifixion was beginning, the women were standing near Christ and were able to speak to him; while later, when a number of people came forward to taunt him, the women withdrew and stood further away. Thus John is telling what happened at first, and the other Evangelists what happened after.

2437 The other issue is that John mentions Mary of Clopas, while in place of her, Matthew and Mark mention Mary, the mother of James, who is also described as Mary of Alphaeus. We should say about this that Mary of Clopas, mentioned by John, is the same as Mary of Alphaeus, mentioned by Matthew. For this Mary had two husbands, Clopas and Alphaeus. Or, one could say that Clopas was her father.

2438 The fact that the women stood by the cross while the disciples left Christ and ran away is an expression of their unfailing affection. As Job (19:20) says: "My flesh is consumed, my bones cleave to my skin," where the flesh can stand for the disciples, who ran off, and the skin can stand for the women, for they stayed close to Christ.

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

"This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several other parts also of the divine literature.

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).