It was with God in the beginning. This God the Word has never been separated from God and the Father. Since John said that the Word was also God, so that no one should be confused by this satanic thought: if the Word is also God, has He not ever rebelled against the Father, like the gods of the pagans in their fables, and if it separated from Him, did it not become an adversary of God? - he says that although the Word is also God, yet He is again with God and the Father, abides with Him and has never been separated from Him. - It is no less fitting to say this to those who hold to the Arian teaching: Hear, you deaf, who call the Son of God His work and creation; you understand what name the Evangelist applied to the Son of God: he called Him the Word. And you call Him work and creation. He is not the work and not the creation, but the Word. A word of two kinds. One is the inner one, which we have, even when we do not speak, that is, the ability to speak, for even he who sleeps and does not speak, nevertheless, has the word in him and has not lost the faculty. Thus, one word is inner, and the other is pronounced, which we also pronounce with our lips, activating the faculty of speaking, the faculty of the mind and the word lying within. Though in this way the word is of two kinds, yet neither of them fits the Son of God, for the Word of God is neither spoken nor internal. "Those words are natural and ours, and the Word of the Father, being above nature, is not subject to any intricacies. Therefore the cunning reasoning of Porphyry the pagan disintegrates by itself. In an attempt to overthrow the Gospel, he used the following distinction: if the Son of God is the word, then either the spoken word or the inner word; but He is neither; therefore He is not the Word. And so, the Evangelist resolved this conclusion first, saying that the inner and what is spoken is said about us and natural things, but nothing of the kind is said about the supernatural. However, even then it must be said that the doubt of the pagan would have had a basis, if this name "Word" were fully worthy of God and properly and essentially used about Him. But so far no one has yet found any name fully worthy of God; nor is this very "Word" used properly and essentially about Him, but it only shows that the Son was born of the Father impassibly, like the word from the mind, and that He became the messenger of the will of the Father. Why then do you, wretched one, become attached to the name, and when you hear of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, you descend upon material relations, and imagine in your mind carnal fathers and sons, and the wind of the air may be southerly, or northerly, or some other wind that produces a storm? But if you want to know what kind of word the Word of God is, then listen to what follows.

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 by a saw, although it is a tool here, and the other moved the tool - a master, so by the Son everything came into being, not as if He were the Creator Himself, but an instrument, like a saw there, 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 are we to say to them simply and directly?" If the Father, as you say, created the Son to have Him as an instrument for the perfection of creation, then the Son will be inferior in honor to the creature. For as in the case when a saw is a tool, what it builds is more honest than it, since the saw is made for the products, and not they for the saw; so also the creature will be more honorable than the Only-begotten, for for it, as they say, the Father created Him, as if God had not made of Himself the Only-begotten, if He had not intended to create all things. 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. Just as he 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 not only one, so here the Evangelist, by saying that all things were created by the Son, showed that the Father, so to speak, used Him as a mediator in creation, not as a lesser one, but on the contrary, as equal and able to fulfill such a great commission. I will also tell you that if you are confused by the preposition "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). You see, he did not say, "Through Thee the heavens were created, and the earth was founded, but "Thou" founded, 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 (1:8-10), and you can learn from the Psalm itself. For, having said 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 slain, 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 "through" again introduces a certain diminution, what do you say when Paul uses it about the Father? For God is faithful, saith He, and together be 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, then, lest anyone think that He also created the Holy Spirit, he adds: "All things were by Him." What is everyone? - created. Whatever he said 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 in one of the saints the following reading of this passage: "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 did not exist. 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; Mal. 3:1), and the advantage of an angel is not to say anything 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 to bear witness, 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. Then, lest anyone should think that his testimony was truly necessary for the Only-begotten, as if in need of something, the Evangelist adds that John came to bear witness to the Son of God, not because He needed His testimony, but so that all would believe through Him. 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.

He was not the light, but was sent to bear witness to the Light. Since it often happens that the witness is higher than the one about whom he testifies, so that you do not think that John, who testifies to Christ, was higher than Him, the Evangelist, in refutation of this evil thought, says: "He was not 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 Light, but we cannot call Light, in this sense. For example, if someone says to you, "Is John light?" -Admit it. But if he asks thus: Is John this Light, say: No. For he himself is not light in the proper sense, but light by communion, which has radiance from the true light.

There was the true Light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world. The Evangelist intends to speak of the Economy of the Only-begotten in the flesh, that He came to His own, that He became flesh. And so, lest anyone should think that He did not exist before the Incarnation, for this purpose He raises thought to being before any beginning and says that the true Light was also before the Incarnation. By this he overthrows both the heresy of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, who asserted that the Only-begotten then received existence when He was born of the Virgin, and did not exist before. And you, Arian, who do not recognize the Son of God as the true God, listen to what the Evangelist says: "The true light." And you, Manichaeans, 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 true Light. And how, some will say, enlightens every man, when we see some darkened? As much as depends on Himself, He enlightens everyone. For tell me, perhaps, are we not all intelligent? Do we not all by nature know good and what is contrary to it? Do we not have the ability to know the Creator through meditation on creatures? Wherefore reason, which is given to us and instructs us by nature, which is called the law of nature, may be called the light given to us by God. But if some have made bad use of reason, they have darkened themselves. Others resolve this objection in the following way: they say, the Lord enlightens every person who comes "into the world" (in Greek, adornment, order), that is, into a better state, and tries to adorn his soul, and not leave it disorderly and ugly.

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 - Творец, отстраняя в одно время и безумие Манеса, говорившего, что все произвел злой творец, и безумие Ария, называвшего Сына Божия тварью, а вместе и всякого человека, приводя к исповеданию Творца, научая не служить тварям, но поклоняться Создателю. 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.

Пришел к своим, и свои Его не приняли. Здесь евангелист, очевидно, ведет речь о Домостроительстве спасения во плоти, и весь порядок мысли такой: Свет был истинный в мире, без плоти и не был познан, потом пришел к Своим с плотию. Под "своими" Ему можешь разуметь или весь мир, или Иудею, которую Он избрал, как долю наследия, как участок и собственность Свою (Пс. 113, 2). "И свои Его не приняли", или иудеи, или и прочие люди, Им сотворенные. Таким образом оплакивает безумие людей и удивляется человеколюбию Владыки. Будучи, говорит, своими Ему, не все приняли Его, ибо Господь не привлекает никого насильно, но предоставляет на собственное усмотрение и произвол.

А тем, которые приняли Его, верующим во имя Его, дал власть быть чадами Божиими. Тем, которые приняли Его, рабы ли они, или свободные, отроки или старцы, варвары или греки, всем дал власть соделываться чадами Божиими. Кто же это такие? Верующие во имя Его, то есть те, которые приняли Слово и истинный Свет, и приняли верою, и обняли. Почему евангелист не сказал, что Он "сделал" их чадами Божиими, но "дал (им) власть" соделываться чадами Божиими? Почему? Слушай. Потому, что для сохранения чистоты не достаточно креститься, но нужно много старания, чтобы сохранить неоскверненным образ сыноположения, начертанный в крещении. Посему многие, хотя приняли благодать сыноположения чрез крещение, но по нерадению не пребыли до конца чадами Божиими. Иной, быть может, скажет и то, что многие принимают Его чрез веру только, например, так называемые оглашенные, но не соделались еще чадами Божиими, впрочем, если захотят окреститься, имеют власть удостоиться и этой благодати, то есть сыноположения. - Иной скажет еще и то, что хотя мы чрез крещение получаем благодать усыновления, но совершенство получим в воскресении; тогда надеемся получить совершеннейшее усыновление, как и Павел говорит: "усыновления ожидаем" (Рим. 8, 23). Посему и евангелист этот не сказал, что тех, кои приняли Его, Он сделал чадами Божиими, но дал им власть соделываться чадами Божиими, то есть получить эту благодать в будущем веке.

Которые не от крови, ни от хотения плоти, ни от хотения мужа, но от Бога родились. Делает некоторым образом сравнение Божественного и плотского рождения, не без цели напоминая нам о плотских родах, но чтобы мы, чрез сравнение познавши неблагородство и низость плотского рождения, устремились к Божественной благодати. Говорит: "которые не от крови" родились, то есть месячных, ибо ими питается и растет дитя во чреве. Говорят также, что и семя прежде в кровь обращается, потом образуется в плоть и прочее устройство. Поелику же некоторые могли сказать, что и рождение Исаака, значит, было такое же, каким рождаются верующие во Христа, так как Исаак родился не от кровей, ибо у Сарры прекратились месячные (отделения кровей) (Быт. 18, 11); - поелику некоторые так могли подумать, то евангелист прибавляет: "ни от хотения плоти, ни от хотения мужа". Рождение Исаака было, хотя не от кровей, но от хотения мужа, так как муж точно желал, чтоб от Сарры родилось ему дитя (Быт. 21, 8). А "от хотения плоти", например Самуил от Анны. Итак, можешь сказать, что Исаак от хотения мужа, а Самуил от хотения плоти, то есть Анны, ибо эта неплодная сильно желала получить сына (1 Цар. 1, 6), а может быть, то и другое было на том и другом. Если же ты хочешь научиться и еще чему-нибудь, то слушай. Смешение плотское бывает или от природного воспламенения, ибо часто иной получает очень горячее сложение и от того очень склонен к соитию. Это евангелист назвал хотением плоти. Или неудержимое стремление к соитию бывает от худой привычки и неумеренного образа жизни. Это стремление он назвал "хотением мужа", и так как оно есть дело не природного сложения, но неумеренности мужа. Поелику же сильная склонность к соитию оказывается иногда в жене, иногда в муже, то, может быть, "хотением мужа" евангелист означил сладострастие мужа, а "хотением плоти" сладострастие жены. Справедливо также под "хотением плоти" можешь разуметь похоть, которая воспламеняет плоть к смешению, а под "хотением мужа" согласие похотствующего на совокупление, каковое согласие есть начало дела. Евангелист положил то и другое потому, что многие похотствуют, однако же не увлекаются тотчас плотию, но одолевают ее и не впадают в самое дело. А те, коих она одолевает, доходят до желания совокупиться, потому что первоначально их воспламеняла плоть и тлеющая в ней похоть. Итак, евангелист хотение плоти благоприлично поставил прежде хотения мужа, потому что естественно похоть предшествует смешению; и то, и другое хотение по необходимости стекается при совокуплении. Все это сказано ради тех, кои часто делают неразумные вопросы, потому что, собственно говоря, всем этим выражается одна мысль, именно: выставляется на вид низость плотского рождения. - Что же мы, верующие во Христа, имеем большего пред подзаконными израильтянами? Правда, и они назывались сынами Божиими, но между нами и ими большая разность. Закон во всем имел тень будущего (Евр. 10, 1) и не сообщал израильтянам сыноположения (вполне), но как бы в образе и мысленном представлении, А мы, чрез крещение самым делом, получив Духа Божия, взываем: Авва, Отче (Гал. 4, 6). У них как крещение было образом и тенью, так и сыноположение их прообразовало наше усыновление. Хотя и они назывались сынами, но в тени, и самой истины сыноположения не имели, как мы теперь имеем чрез крещение.

И Слово стало плотию. Сказав, что мы, верующие во Христа, если желаем, соделываемся чадами Божиими, евангелист присовокупляет и причину столь великого блага. Ты хочешь, говорит, знать, что доставило нам это сыноположение? - то, что Слово стало плотию. Когда же слышишь, что Слово стало плотию, не подумай, что Оно оставило собственную Свою Природу и превратилось в плоть (ибо Оно не было бы и Богом, если бы превратилось и изменилось), но что, оставаясь тем, чем было, Оно стало тем, чем не было. Но Аполлинарий лаодикиянин составил отсюда ересь. Он учил, что Господь и Бог наш воспринял не целое естество человеческое, то есть тело с душою словесною, но одну только плоть без словесной и разумной души. Какая де была нужда в душе Богу, когда у Него телом управляло Божество, подобно как у нас телом нашим управляет душа? И основание сему думал видеть в настоящем изречении: "и Слово было плотию". Не сказал, говорит, евангелист, что Слово стало человеком, но "плотию"; значит, Оно восприняло не душу разумную и словесную, но плоть неразумную и бессловесную. Верно не знал он, несчастный, что Писание часто называет частью целое. Например, хочет оно упомянуть о целом человеке, а называет его частью, словом - "душа". Всяка "душа", яже не обрежется, погубится (Быт. 17, 14). Итак, вот, вместо того, чтобы сказать: всякий человек, поименована часть, именно: "душа". Называет также Писание целого человека плотию, когда, например, говорит: "и узрит всякая плоть спасение Божие" (Ис. 40, 5). Нужно бы сказать: всякий "человек", а употреблено имя "плоти". Так и евангелист вместо того, чтобы сказать: Слово стало "человеком", сказал: Слово стало "плотию", называя человека, состоящего из души и тела, одною частью. А как плоть чужда Божеского естества, то, может быть, евангелист упомянул о плоти с намерением показать необыкновенное снисхождение Божие, дабы мы изумились невыразимому человеколюбию Его, по которому Он для спасения нашего воспринял на Себя отличное и совершенно чуждое собственному естеству, именно плоть. Ибо душа имеет некоторое сродство с Богом, а плоть совершенно ничего общего не имеет. Посему-то я думаю, что евангелист употребил здесь имя только плоти не потому, будто бы душа не причастна воспринятою (вочеловечению), но для того, чтобы более показать, как чудно и страшно таинство. Ибо если воплотившееся Слово не приняло души человеческой, то души наши еще не исцелены, ибо чего Оно не приняло, того и не освятило. И как смешно! Тогда как первая заболела душа (ибо она в раю сдалась на слова змия и обманулась, а потом уже вслед за душою, как госпожою и владычицею, коснулась и рука), воспринята, освящена и уврачевана плоть, служанка, а госпожа оставлена без воспринятия и без уврачевания. Но пусть заблуждается Аполлинарий. А мы, когда слышим, что Слово стало плотию, веруем, что Оно стало совершенным Человеком, так как у Писания в обычае называть человека одною частью, плотию и душою. - Сим изречением ниспровергается и Несторий.