All things were made through Him. Do not consider the Word, he says, to be overflowing in the air and disappearing, but consider everything imaginable and sensible to be the Creator. But the Arians again insistently say: "As we say that the door is made with a saw, although it is a tool here, and another moved the tool – a master, so by the Son all things came into being, not as if He were the Creator Himself, but an instrument, like a saw, and the Creator is God and the Father, and He uses the Son as an instrument. Therefore the Son is a creature created in order that everything might come into being by Him, just as a saw is built in order to do carpentry work." Thus repeats the evil host of Arius. "What should we say to them simply and directly?" If the Father, as you say, created the Son in order to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be inferior to the creature in honor.

What is more insane than these speeches? "Why, they say, did the Evangelist not say: this Word created all things, but used the following preposition (through)? Lest you think that the Son is unbegotten, without beginning, and contrary to God, for this reason He said that the Father created all things by the Word. For imagine that a king, having a son and intending to build a city, entrusted its construction to his son.

I will also tell you that if you are perplexed by the pretext of "through" and wish to find some passage in the Scriptures that says that the Word Himself created all things, then listen to David: "In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands" (Psalm 101:26). See, he did not say, "Through Thee the heavens were created, and the earth was founded," but, "Thou didst found, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands." And that David says this about the Only-begotten, and not about the Father, you can learn from the Apostle who uses these words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8-10), and you can learn from the Psalm itself. For when he says that the Lord looked upon the earth to hear the sighing, to absolve the slain, 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 upon the earth, whether by it we mean that on which we move, or our earthly nature, or our flesh, according to what is said: "Thou art the earth" (Gen. 3:19), which He took upon Himself; He also loosed us, bound by the chains of our own sins, the sons of Adam and Eve who were killed, 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 Thy name to men" (John 17:6). To whom are these actions befitting, the Father or the Son? All things are to the Son, for He has proclaimed the name of the Father in His teaching. Having said this, Blessed David adds this: In the beginning, O Lord, Thou didst founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Is it not obvious that he presents the Son as the Creator, and not as an instrument? "If, in your opinion, the preposition introduces a certain diminution, what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father?" For God is faithful, he says, who was called in the communion of His Son (1 Corinthians 1:9). Is it here that he makes the Father an instrument? And again: Paul is an apostle by the will of God (1 Corinthians 1:1). But this is enough, and we must return again to the same place from which we began. "All things were made through Him." Moses, speaking of the visible creature, did not explain to us anything about intelligible creatures. And the Evangelist, embracing everything in one word, says: "All things" were seen and imagined.

And without Him, nothing was made that was made. Since the Evangelist said that the Word created all things, so that no one should think that He also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "All things were by Him." What is everyone? —created. As if he had said so, whatever is in created nature, all this received its existence from the word. But the Spirit does not belong to the created nature; therefore He did not receive existence from Him. Thus, without the power of the Word, nothing came into being that did not come into being, that is, anything that was in created nature.

In Him was life, and life was the light of men. The Doukhobors read the present passage thus: "And without Him nothing was made"; then, putting a punctuation mark here, they read as if from a different beginning: "That which was made, in Him was life," and interpret this passage according to their own thought, saying that here the Evangelist speaks of the Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit was life. Thus say the Macedonians, trying to prove that the Holy Spirit was created, and to number Him among the creatures. But we are not so, but, putting a punctuation mark after the words "that was made," we read from a different beginning: "In Him was life." Having said of creation that all things came into being by the Word, the Evangelist goes on to say of providence, that the Word not only created, but also preserves the life of the created. For in Him was life. "I know of the following reading of this passage in one of the saints: 'And without Him was not anything made that was made in Him.' Then, putting a punctuation mark here, he began further: "there was life." I think that this reading does not contain an error, but contains the same correct idea. For this saint also correctly understood that without the Word nothing came into being that did not come into being in Him, since everything that came into being and was created was created by the Word Himself, and consequently without Him there was no existence. Then he began again: "There was life, and life was the light of men." The Evangelist calls the Lord "life" both because He sustains the life of all things, and because He gives spiritual life to all rational beings, and "light," not so much sensual as intellectual, enlightening the soul itself. He did not say that He was the light of the Jews alone, but of all "men." For we are all men, inasmuch as we have received understanding and understanding from the Word Who created us, we are therefore called enlightened by Him. For the reason given to us, by which we are called rational, is the light that guides us in what we should and should not do.

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not enveloped it. "Light," that is, the Word of God, shines "in darkness," that is, in death and error. For He, having submitted to death, so overcame it that He compelled it to vomit even those whom it had previously devoured. And in pagan error the preaching shines. "And the darkness did not overtake him." Neither death overcame Him, nor error. For this light, that is, the Word of God, is insurmountable. Some considered the flesh and earthly life to be "darkness." The Word shone even then, as it became in the flesh and was in this life, but darkness, that is, the opposite force, tempted and pursued the Light, but found Him invincible and invincible. The flesh is called darkness not because it is so by nature (let it not be!), but because of sin. For the flesh, as long as it is governed by the law of nature, has absolutely no evil, but when it moves beyond the limits of nature and serves sin, it becomes and is called darkness.

There was a man sent from God, his name was John. 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 speech about the Forerunner. And what else, if not about the birth of John the Baptist, can there be a word before the speech about 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 of God. When you hear that he was sent from God, then know that he did not say anything from himself or from people, but everything is from God. For this reason he is called an angel (Matt. 10:11; Malach. 3:1), and the advantage of an angel is not to speak of himself. When you hear about an angel, do not think that John was an angel by nature, or that he came down from heaven; He is called an angel by deed and service. Since he preached and foretold the Lord, he was called an angel for this. For this reason the Evangelist, in refutation of the assumption of many, who perhaps thought that John was an angel by nature, says: "There was a man," sent from God.

He came for a testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. This one, he says, was sent from God to bear witness to the light.

Did all also believe through him? No. How then does the Evangelist say: that all may believe? How? — as much as depended on him, he testified in order to attract everyone, and if some did not believe, then he does not deserve blame. And then the sun rises to illuminate everyone, but if someone shuts himself up in a dark room and does not use its ray, then is the sun to blame for this? So it is here. John was sent that all might believe through him; if this does not happen, he is not to blame.

Он не был свет, но был послан, чтобы свидетельствовать о свете. Так как часто случается, что свидетель бывает выше того, о ком свидетельствует, то чтобы ты не подумал, что и Иоанн, свидетельствующий о Христе, был выше Его, евангелист в опровержение этого лукавого помысла говорит: “он не был свет”. Но, может быть, кто-нибудь скажет: ужели мы не можем называть светом ни Иоанна, ни иного кого из святых? Светом мы можем назвать каждого из святых, но оным светом (to fwV), с членом, не можем назвать. Например, если кто тебе скажет: Иоанн есть ли свет? — согласись. Если же спросит так: ужели Иоанн есть оный Свет? — скажи: нет. Ибо сам он не есть свет в собственном смысле, но свет по причастию, имеющий сияние от истинного света.

Был свет истинный, который просвещает всякого человека, приходящего в мир. Евангелист намерен говорить о домостроительстве Единородного во плоти, что Он пришел к Своим, что Он стал плотию. Итак, чтобы кто-нибудь не подумал, что Он не существовал прежде воплощения, для сего возводит мысль к бытию прежде всякого начала и говорит, что Свет истинный был и прежде воплощения. Этим он ниспровергает и ересь Фотина, и Павла самосатского, утверждавших, что Единородный тогда получил бытие, когда родился от Девы, а прежде сего не существовал. И ты, арианин, не признающий Сына Божия истинным Богом, слушай, что говорит евангелист: “свет истинный”. И ты, манихей, говорящий, что мы созданы злым творцом, слушай, что Свет истинный просвещает всякого человека. Если злой творец есть тьма, то он не может никого просвещать. Посему мы создания истинного Света. И как, скажет иной, просвещает всякого человека, когда мы видим некоторых омраченными? Сколько зависит от Него Самого, Он просвещает всех.

Если же некоторые худо воспользовались разумом, те сами омрачили себя. Иные разрешают это возражение так: просвещает, говорят, Господь “всякого человека, приходящего в мир” (kosmoV, украшение, порядок), то есть в лучшее состояние, и старающегося украсить свою душу, а не оставлять ее беспорядочною и безобразною.

В мире был, и мир чрез Него начал быть, и мир Его не познал. Был в мире как вездесущий Бог, а можно сказать, что был в мире и в отношении к промышлению и сохранению. Впрочем, говорит: что я говорю, что был в мире, когда не было бы и мира, если б Он не сотворил его? Со всех сторон доказывает, что Он �

Но “мир — говорит, — Его не познал”, то есть худые люди, занявшиеся мирскими делами. Ибо имя “мир” означает и эту вселенную, как и здесь сказано: “мир чрез Него начал быть”; означает и мудрствующих по мирскому, как здесь сказано: “мир Его не познал”, то есть люди, приверженные к земле. Но все святые и пророки познали.