In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

“(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 beginning1 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. 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.”

“(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 shew 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.”

“(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.”

“The Evangelist John, as has been said, principally intends to show the divinity of the incarnate Word; and therefore this Gospel is divided into two parts. For first he intimates Christ's divinity; second he makes it manifest through the things which Christ did in the flesh, and this at the second chapter: "and on the third day." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth Christ's divinity; second he sets down the manner in which Christ's divinity became known to us, there: "and we saw his glory," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; second of the incarnation of the Word of God, there: "there was a man sent from God." But because in each thing two things are to be considered, namely being and operation, or its power, therefore first he treats of the being of the Word as to the divine nature; second of its power, or operation, there: "all things were made through him." Concerning the first he does four things. First he shows when the Word was, because "in the beginning was the Word"; second where it was, because "with God"; whence he says, "and the Word was with God"; third what it was, because God; whence he adds, "and the Word was God"; fourth how it was, because "this was in the beginning with God." The first two pertain to the question "whether it is"; but the second two pertain to the question "what it is." Now concerning the first, we must see what this is which is said, "in the beginning was the Word." Here three things concur that must be diligently inquired into, according to the three terms of this sentence. And first, what this is which is said, "Word"; second, what this is which is said, "in the beginning"; third, what this is which is said, "the Word was in the beginning." Now for the understanding of this name "Word," it must be known that, according to the Philosopher, the things which are in the voice are signs of the affections which are in the soul. But it is customary in Scripture that the things signified are named by the names of the signs, as that in 1 Corinthians 10:4: "and the rock was Christ." Now of necessity it is required that that intrinsic thing of our soul, which is signified by our exterior word, be called a word. But whether the name "word" belongs first to the thing uttered by the exterior voice, or to the conception of the mind itself, is of no importance for the present. Yet it is plain that that which is signified by the voice, existing interiorly in the soul, is prior to the word itself uttered by the exterior voice, inasmuch as it exists as its cause. If therefore we wish to know what the interior word of the mind is, let us see what that signifies which is uttered by the exterior voice. Now in our intellect there are three things: namely the very power of the intellect; the species of the thing understood, which is its form, standing to the intellect itself as the species of color stands to the pupil; and, third, the very operation of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of these is signified by the word uttered by the exterior voice. For this name "stone" does not signify the substance of the intellect, because this is not what the one naming intends to say; nor does it signify the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this too is not the intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the very act of understanding, since to understand is not an action proceeding outward from the one understanding, but remaining in him. That therefore is properly called the interior word, which the one understanding forms in understanding. Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. For according to its operation which is called the understanding of indivisibles, it forms a definition; but according to its operation by which it composes and divides, it forms an enunciation, or something of this kind. And therefore, that which is thus formed and expressed through the operation of the intellect, whether defining or enunciating, is signified by the exterior voice. Whence the Philosopher says that the notion which a name signifies is the definition. This therefore thus expressed, namely formed in the soul, is called the interior word; and therefore it is compared to the intellect not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands; because in this thing expressed and formed it sees the nature of the thing understood. Thus therefore we have the signification of this name "Word." Second, from the things which have been said, we can conceive that a word is always something proceeding from an intellect existing in act. Again, that a word is always the notion and likeness of the thing understood. And if indeed the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, then the word is the notion and likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds; but if the one understanding and the thing understood are different, then the word is not the likeness and notion of the one understanding, but of the thing understood: as the conception which someone has of a stone is the likeness of the stone only, but when the intellect understands itself, then such a word is the likeness and notion of the intellect. And therefore Augustine places the likeness of the Trinity in the soul according as the mind understands itself, but not according as it understands other things. It is clear therefore that in every intellectual nature it is necessary to posit a word: because it belongs to the very notion of understanding that the intellect, in understanding, forms something; and the formation of this is called a word; and therefore in every being that understands one must posit a word. But intellectual nature is threefold, namely human, angelic, and divine: and therefore the word is threefold. Namely the human, of which in Psalm 13:1: "The fool said in his heart: There is no God." There is also the angelic, of which in Zechariah 1:9 and in many places of sacred Scripture it is said: "the Angel said," etc. The third is the divine Word, of which in Genesis 1:5: "God said: Let there be light," etc. When therefore the Evangelist says "in the beginning was the Word," it cannot be understood of the human or angelic word: because each of these words is made, since man and Angel have a beginning and cause of their being and operation; but the word of a man or of an Angel cannot pre-exist them. But of which word the Evangelist understood, he declares by this, that he says this Word was not made, since all things were made through it; and this is the Word of God, of which John here speaks. But it must be known that this Word differs from our word in three respects. The first difference is, according to Augustine, that our word is first formable before it is 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 which are understood by us, except perhaps in first principles, which, since they are simply known, are known at once without the discourse of reason. As long therefore as the intellect is thus tossed about hither and thither by reasoning, the formation is not yet perfect, except when it has perfectly conceived the very notion of the thing: and then first it has the notion of the thing perfectly, and then first it has the character of a word. And hence it is that in our soul there is thought, by which is signified the very discourse of inquiry, and the word, which is already formed according to the perfect contemplation of truth. Thus therefore our word is first in potency before it is in act; but the Word of God is always in act: and therefore the name "thought" does not properly belong to the Word of God. For Augustine says, in the fifteenth book of On the Trinity, that the Word of God is so called that it is not called thought, lest something as it were changeable be believed in God. But that which Anselm says, namely that for the supreme Spirit to speak is nothing other than to behold by thinking, is said improperly. But the second difference of our word to the divine Word is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. For because we cannot express all our conceptions by one word, therefore we must form many imperfect words, through which we separately express all the things which are in our knowledge. But in God it is not so: for since he understands both himself and whatever he understands through his essence, by one act, the single divine Word is expressive of the whole that is in God, not only of the persons, but also of creatures: otherwise it would be imperfect. Whence Augustine says: if anything less were in the word than is contained in the knowledge of the one speaking, the word would be imperfect. But it is established that it is most perfect; therefore it is only one. Job 33:14: "God speaks once." The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature with us, but the divine Word is of the same nature with God: and therefore it is something subsisting in the divine nature. For the understood notion, which the intellect is seen to form of some thing, has intelligible being only in our soul; but to understand in our soul is not the same as what the nature of the soul is, because the soul is not its own operation. And therefore the word which our intellect forms is not of the essence of the soul, but is an accident to it. But in God to understand and to be are the same; and therefore the Word of the divine intellect is not something accidental, but something pertaining to his nature: because whatever is in the nature of God is God. Whence Damascene says that the Word of God is substantial, and existing in a hypostasis, but the rest, namely our words, are powers of the soul. From the premises it is also clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always taken personally in divine matters, since it implies nothing but something expressed by one understanding. Likewise, that the Word in divine matters is the likeness of that from which it proceeds; and that it is coeternal with that from which it proceeds, since it was not formable before formed, but 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 coessential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance. It is also clear that, since in every nature that which proceeds, having a likeness of the nature of that from which it proceeds, is called a son, and this Word proceeds in the likeness and identity of the nature of that from which it proceeds, it is fittingly and properly called Son, and its production is called generation. Thus therefore the first is clear, namely what this is which is said, "Word." Now concerning this, four questions arise. Two are of Chrysostom. The first is why John the Evangelist, leaving aside the Father, began immediately from the Son, saying "in the beginning was the Word." Now to this there is a twofold response. One is that the Father had become known to all in the Old Testament, though not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was unknown: and therefore in the New Testament, in which the knowledge of the Word is treated, he begins from the Word, or Son. The other is that through the Son we are led to the knowledge of the Father; below, 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me." Wishing therefore to lead the faithful to the knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began from the Son, immediately adding about the Father when he says "and the Word was with God." The second question is also of Chrysostom. For since, as has been said, the Word proceeds as a Son, why did he say "Word," and not "Son"? To this also a twofold answer is given. First, because "son" says something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of a son, one might think that that generation is such as he can comprehend, namely material and passible; therefore he did not say "Son" but "Word," which implies an intelligible procession, so that it not be understood that that generation was material and passible. Showing therefore that the Son is born from God impassibly, he destroys the vicious suspicion through the appellation "Word." Otherwise it can be said thus: the Evangelist was about to treat of the Word inasmuch as it had come to manifest the Father. Whence, since the notion of manifestation is more implied in the name "Word" than in the name "Son," therefore he rather used the name "Word." The third question is of Augustine in the Book of 83 Questions, which is this: in the Greek, where we have "word," there is "logos." Since therefore "logos" signifies in Latin both "reason" and "word," why did the translators translate it "word," and not "reason," since reason is something intrinsic, just as the word also is? I answer. It must be said that "reason" properly names the concept of the mind according as it is in the mind, even if nothing be done exteriorly through it; but by "word" is signified a relation to exterior things: and therefore, because the Evangelist by this, that he said "logos," intended to signify not only the relation to the existence of the Son in the Father, but also the operative power of the Son, by which all things were made through him, the ancients rather translated it "word," which implies a relation to exterior things, than "reason," which only suggests the concept of the mind. The fourth question is of Origen, which is this. Scripture in several places, speaking of the Word of God, names it not absolutely "Word," but with an addition, namely "of God," when it says "the Word of God," or "of the Lord": Ecclesiasticus 1:5: "the fountain of wisdom is the Word of God on high," and Revelation 19:13: "and his name, the Word of God." Why therefore did the Evangelist, when he was speaking here of the Word of God, not say: "in the beginning was the Word of God," but said only "Word"? I answer. It must be said that although there are many participated truths, yet there is one absolute truth, which by its essence is truth, namely the divine being itself, by which truth all words are words. In the same way there is one absolute wisdom elevated above all things, namely the divine wisdom, by the participation of which all the wise are wise. And also one absolute Word, by whose participation all those having a word are called speakers. But this is the divine Word, which through itself is a word elevated above all words. In order therefore that the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he set it before us absolutely as "Word," without any addition; and because the Greeks, when they wish to signify something set apart and elevated from all others, are accustomed to add an article to the name by which that thing is signified — just as the Platonists, wishing to signify separate substances, for instance the separate good, or the separate man, called it "the per se good," or "the per se man" — therefore the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separateness and elevation of this Word above all things, added an article to this name "logos," so that, if it were said in Latin, it would be "the Word." Second, it must be considered what this signifies which is said, "in the beginning." But it must be known that "beginning," according to Origen, is said in many ways. For since a beginning implies a certain order to other things, it is necessary to find a beginning in all things in which there is order. Now order is found in quantities; and according to this a beginning is spoken of in numbers and in length, for instance of a line. Order is also found in time; and according to this a beginning of time, or of duration, is spoken of. Order is found in the disciplines, and here it is twofold: according to nature, and in relation to us; and in both ways a beginning is spoken of. Hebrews 5:12: "you ought to be masters by reason of the time." And in this way, according to nature indeed, in the Christian discipline the beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and Word of God, that is, according to his divinity. But in relation to us the beginning is Christ himself, inasmuch as "the Word was made flesh," that is, according to his incarnation. Order is also found in the production of a thing; and according to this a beginning is spoken of on the part of the thing generated, namely the very first part of the thing generated or made: as the foundation is called the beginning of a house. Or on the part of the maker: and thus there is a threefold beginning, namely of intention, which is the end, which moves the agent; of reason, which is the very form in the mind of the artificer; and of execution, which is the operating power. In these ways, therefore, it must be inquired concerning "beginning," how "beginning" is here taken, when he says "in the beginning was the Word." It must be said therefore that it can be taken in three ways. In one way, according as "beginning" stands for the person of the Son, who is the beginning of creatures according to the notion of active power, and by way of wisdom, which is the notion of the things that are made; whence it is said in 1 Corinthians 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." Whence also the Lord says of himself below, 8:25: "I am the beginning, who also speak to you." Thus therefore, taking "beginning" in this way, that which is said, "in the beginning was the Word," is to be understood as if he said "in the Son was the Word," so that the sense is: the Word itself is the beginning, according to the manner of speaking by which life is said to be in God, which nevertheless is nothing other than God himself. And this is Origen's exposition. The Evangelist therefore here says "in the beginning," so that at once, in the beginning, he might show the divinity of the Word, as Chrysostom says, while he asserts that it is the beginning; because according to the determination of all, the beginning is the most honored. In the second way "beginning" can be taken as it stands for the person of the Father, who is the beginning not only of creatures, but of every divine procession; and thus it is taken in Psalm 109:3: "with you is the beginning in the day of your power." According to this, therefore, it is said "in the beginning was the Word," as if it were said: "in the Father was the Son." And this is the exposition of Augustine, and also of Origen. But the Son is said to be in the Father because he is of the same essence with the Father. For since the Son is his own essence, in whatever the essence of the Son is, there is the Son. Because therefore in the Father is the essence of the Son through consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Whence below, 14:10, it is said: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." In the third way "beginning" can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense is "in the beginning was the Word," that is, the Word was before all things, as Augustine expounds, and by this is designated the eternity of the Word, according to Basil and Hilary. For by this, that it is said "in the beginning was the Word," it is shown that whatever beginning of duration be taken — whether of temporal things, which is time, or of aeviternal things, which is aeviternity, or of the whole world, or any imagined extension through many ages — in that beginning the Word already was. Whence Hilary says in the seventh book of On the Trinity: "Times are passed through, ages are transcended, epochs are taken away. Put whatever beginning you will of your opinion; the Word already was, of which the discourse treats." And this is what is said in Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning." But that which is before the beginning of duration is eternal. Thus therefore according to the first exposition, the causality of the Word is asserted; but according to the second, the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who speaks the Word; but according to the third, the coeternity of the Word. It must also be considered here that it is said "the Word was," which is of the past imperfect tense, and this seems most to be suited for designating eternal things, if we attend to the nature of time and of the things that are in time. That which is future is not yet in act; but the present is in act, and by the fact that it is actually present, it is not designated to have been: but the perfect past designates that something has existed, and is now determined, and has now ceased to be; but the imperfect past signifies that something was, and is not yet determined, nor has ceased to be, but still remains. Therefore pointedly John, wherever he sets down something eternal, says "was" (erat); but where he says something temporal, he says "was" (fuit), as will be clear below. But as to the notion of the present, the present tense is most suited for designating eternity, which marks something to be in act, which always belongs to eternal things: and therefore it is said in Exodus 3:14: "I am who am"; and Augustine says that he alone truly is, whose being knows not past and future. It must also be considered that this word "was," according to the Gloss, is not taken here inasmuch as it signifies temporal motions, after the manner of other verbs, but according as it marks the existence of a thing: whence it is also called the substantive verb. But someone can ask, since the Word is begotten by the Father, how it can be coeternal with the Father: for a man, a son begotten by a father who is a man, is posterior to him. To which it must be said that the beginning of origin is found to be prior in duration to that which is from the beginning, on account of three things. First indeed, because the beginning of the origin of some thing precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the beginning; as a man does not begin to write immediately when he exists, and therefore in time precedes the writing. Second, by the fact that the action has succession, and therefore even if it begins together with the agent, yet the term of the action is after the agent: as, at the same moment fire is generated in these lower regions, it begins to tend upward; yet the fire is prior to its being aloft, because the motion by which it tends upward is measured by a certain time. In the third way, because from the will of the beginning is determined the commencement of the duration of that which is from the beginning, as from the will of God is determined the beginning of the duration of the creature: whence God was prior to the creature. But none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. For God did not exist prior to his having begun to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God were understanding in potency before in act, which is impossible. Likewise it cannot be that the very generation of the Word is successive: for thus the divine Word would be unformed before formed, as happens in us, who by thinking form words; which is false, as has already been said. Likewise it cannot be said that the Father by his will bestowed a beginning of duration on his Son; because God the Father does not generate the Son by will, as the Arians said, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceived the Word, and therefore God the Father was not prior to the Son. Some likeness of this appears in fire, and in the brightness proceeding from fire: for the brightness proceeds naturally and without succession. Likewise, if fire were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal: on account of which the Son is called the brightness of the Father; to the Hebrews 1:3: "who, since he is the brightness of glory," etc. But in this likeness connaturality is lacking, and therefore we name him Son, although in human sonship coeternity is lacking: for it is necessary to arrive at divine knowledge from many likenesses of sensible things, because one does not suffice; and this is what is said in the book of the Council of Ephesus, that the Son always coexists with the Father: for the brightness proclaims impassibility, the nativity shows the Word, but the name "Son" suggests consubstantiality. We therefore name the Son by different names, to express his perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. For in order that he be shown connatural to the Father, he is called Son; in order that he be shown in no way dissimilar, he is called image; in order that he be shown coeternal, he is called brightness; in order that he be shown immaterially begotten, he is called Word. Then he says "and the Word was with God." Here is set down the second clause, which the Evangelist places in his narration. Here first the signification of two words must be considered which were not placed in the first clause, namely "God" and "with." For what "Word" is, and what "beginning" is, has already been expounded. These things therefore which are newly placed in this second clause, namely "God" and "with," let us investigate and pursue more diligently. And that we may better understand the exposition of this second clause, something must be said about the signification of each, insofar as it pertains to the matter at hand. It must be known therefore, in the first place, that this name "God" signifies divinity, but in a supposit and concretely; but this name "deity" signifies deity in the abstract, and absolutely: and hence it is that it cannot stand for a person by its natural power and by its manner of signifying, but stands only for the nature. But this name "God" naturally has, from its manner of signifying, that it stand for some one of the persons, as this name "man" stands for the supposit of humanity, and therefore whenever the truth of the statement, or the predicate itself, requires that this name "God" stand for a person, then it stands for a person, as when we say, "God generates God." And so when here it is said "with God," it is necessary that "God" stand for the person of the Father, because this preposition "with" signifies a distinction of the Word, which is said to be "with God"; and although it signifies a distinction in person, yet not in nature, since the nature of the Father and the Son is the same. The Evangelist therefore wished to signify the person of the Father by this, that he said "God." But it must be known concerning this that this preposition "with" implies a certain conjunction of the thing signified by the nominative to the thing signified by the oblique case, like this preposition "in." But differently, because this preposition "in" signifies a certain intrinsic conjunction; but this preposition "with" in a certain way implies an extrinsic conjunction. And we say both in divine matters: namely that the Son is in the Father, and is with the Father; and the intrinsic indeed pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic (if it be permitted so to speak, since "extrinsic" is said improperly in divine matters) is referred only to the personal distinction, since the Son is distinguished from the Father only by origin. And therefore by both of these, both consubstantiality in nature is designated, and distinction in persons: consubstantiality indeed, inasmuch as it implies a certain conjunction; but distinction, inasmuch as it signifies a certain distinction, as was said above. And because this preposition "in," as was said, principally designates consubstantiality, inasmuch as it implies an intrinsic conjunction, and consequently the distinction of persons, inasmuch as every preposition is transitive; but this preposition "with" signifies principally the personal distinction, but consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain conjunction as it were extrinsic — therefore the Evangelist in this place specially used this preposition "with," so that he might suggest the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, when he said "and the Word was with God," that is, the Son with the Father, as one person with another. But it must be known that by this preposition "with" four things are signified, by which four contrary objections are excluded. For this preposition "with" signifies, first, subsistence in the nominative; because those things which do not have subsistence per se are not properly said to be "with" something: as we do not say whiteness to be "with" a body, and similarly of other things which do not subsist per se. But those things which subsist per se are properly said to be one "with" another; as we say a man to be with a man, and a stone with a stone. Second, it signifies authority in the oblique case, for a king is not properly said to be "with" a soldier, but a soldier is properly said to be "with" a king. Third, it says distinction: for someone is not properly said to be "with" himself, but one man is "with" another. Fourth, it signifies a certain conjunction and society: for when someone is said to be "with" another, a certain social conjunction between them is suggested to us. But according to these conditions implied in the signification of this preposition "with," the Evangelist fittingly subjoins this clause, namely "the Word was with God," to the first clause, namely "in the beginning was the Word." For, setting aside one of those three expositions of this, "in the beginning was the Word" — namely that according to which "beginning" is put for the Son — to each of the other expositions — namely to that which says "beginning" is the same as "before all things," and to that according to which "beginning" is taken for the Father — a twofold objection is made by the heretics; and thus there are four objections, which we can exclude by the four conditions of this preposition "with" set down above. Of these the first is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things; but before all things there was nothing; where therefore was the Word, if before all things there was nothing? But this objection proceeds according to the imagination of those who hold that everything which is, is somewhere and in a place. Which indeed is excluded by John, when he says "with God." And he designates conjunction according to the last of the said conditions, so that the sense is, according to Basil: where therefore was the Word? He answers "with God," not in some place, since it is incircumscribable, but with the Father, who is comprehended by no place. The second question to the same point is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things. But those things which are before all things seem to proceed from no source; since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which proceeds from it; therefore the Word does not proceed from another. But this objection is excluded when he says "the Word was with God," so that the "with" is taken according to the second condition, according to which it implies authority in the causal sense, and the sense is, according to Hilary: from whom is the Word, if it is before all things? The Evangelist answers "the Word was with God"; as if to say: although the Word lacks a beginning of duration, yet it does not lack a beginning or an author: for it was with God, as with an author. The third question is to the other exposition according to which "beginning" stands for the Father; which is this: you say "in the beginning was the Word," that is, the Son was in the Father; but that which is in something does not seem to be subsisting, as a hypostasis: as the whiteness which is in a body does not subsist. But this objection is resolved by this, that he says "the Word was with God"; so that the "with" is taken according to the first condition, by which it implies subsistence in the nominative; and thus, according to Chrysostom, the sense is: the Word was in the beginning, not as an accident, but was with God, as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis. The fourth question to the same point is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, in the Father; but that which is in something is not distinct from the Father. But this objection is excluded by this, that he says "and the Word was with God"; so that the "with" is taken according to the third condition, according to which it signifies distinction: so that the sense is, according to Alcuin and Bede, the Word was with God, and thus it was in the Father through the consubstantiality of nature, which nevertheless is with him through the distinction of person. Thus therefore by this clause "and the Word was with God," is shown the conjunction of the Word to the Father in nature, according to Basil; but the distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the substance of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; the authority of the Father over the Word, according to Hilary. But it must be noted, according to Origen, that by this, that he says "the Word was with God," he shows that the Son always was with the Father. For in the Old Testament the word of the Lord is said to have come to Jeremiah, or to any other, as is clear in many places of Scripture, but it is not said: "the word of the Lord was with Jeremiah" or "with another"; because the word comes to those who begin to have the word, after they did not have it. Whence the Evangelist did not say "the Word came to be with the Father," but "was with the Father": because from the time the Father was, the Word was with him. Then he says "and the Word was God." This is the third clause of John's narration, which indeed follows most fittingly according to the order of teaching. For because John had said of the Word when it was and where it was, it remained to ask what the Word was; that is, the Word was God, so that the "Word" is put on the part of the subject, and the "God" on the part of the predicate. But since one must first ask concerning a thing what it is, before where and when it is, it seems that John perverts this order, suggesting first concerning the Word where and when it is. But to this question Origen responds that the Word of God is said to be "with" man in one way, and "with" God in another way. For with man it is as perfecting him, because through it man is made wise and good, Wisdom 7:27: "she makes friends of God and prophets." But with God the Word is not said to be so, as though the Father were perfected through the Word and illuminated by it; but it is with God in such a way that it receives natural divinity from him who speaks the Word, from whom it has that it is the same God with him. From this, therefore, that it is by origin with God, it was necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father, before showing that the Word was God. But it must be known that by this clause "the Word was God," a reply can be made to two objections which arise from the preceding. Of these one arises from the name "word," and is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, and with God; but it is established that "word," according to the common usage of speaking, signifies some voice and the enunciation of necessary things, the manifestation of thoughts; but these pass away and do not subsist; it could therefore be believed that the Evangelist was speaking of such a word. But this question is sufficiently excluded by what has been said, according to Hilary and Augustine, in the first Homily on John, who says that it is manifest that "word" in this place cannot be taken for speech, because since speech is in motion and passes away, it could not be said that "in the beginning was the Word," if the Word were something transient and in motion. Likewise, when he says "and the Word was with God," the same is given to be understood; for it is sufficiently clear that to be in (inesse) is one thing, and to be present with (adesse) is another. For our word, since it does not subsist, is not present with, but is in; but the Word of God is subsisting, and therefore is present with. And therefore the Evangelist pointedly said "the Word was with God." But nevertheless, that the cause of the objection may be totally removed, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying "and the Word was God." The other question arises from this, that he had said "with God." For since the "with" says distinction, it could be believed that the Word was with God, namely the Father, distinct from him in nature. And therefore, to exclude this, he immediately adds the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying "and the Word was God"; as if to say: not separated from the Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God. Note also the special manner of signifying, because he says "the Word was God," putting "God" absolutely; in order that he might show that it is not God in that manner in which the name of deity is said to be attributed to a creature in sacred Scripture; because sometimes a creature participates in this name with some addition. As that in Exodus 7:1: "I have appointed you the god of Pharaoh," to designate that he was not God simply, nor by nature, because he was appointed god of someone determinately; and that in Psalm 81:6: "I have said, you are gods," as if to say: by my reputing, not according to the truth of the thing, you are gods: for it is one thing to be reputed God, and another to be God. Whence the Word is called God absolutely, because it is God according to its essence, and not by participation, like men and Angels. It must also be known that concerning this clause Origen erred shamefully, taking the occasion of his error from the manner of speaking which is had in the Greek. For it is the custom among the Greeks that they add an article to any name, to designate a certain distinction. Because therefore in the Gospel of John, in the Greek, to this name which is "Word," when it is said "in the beginning was the Word," and likewise to this name which is "God," when it is said "and the Word was with God," an article is added, so that it is said "the Word," and "the God," to designate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other words, and the primacy of the Father in the divinity; therefore, since in this which is said "the Word was God" an article is not added to this name "God," which stands for the person of the Son, Origen blasphemed that the Word was not God by essence, although it is essentially Word, but is called God by participation: but the Father alone is God by his essence. And thus he held the Son to be less than the Father. But that this is not true, Chrysostom proves by this, that if the article placed to this name "God" implied a greater status in the Father in respect of the Son, it would never be added to this name "God" when it is predicated of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father, and always when it is said of the Father the article would be added. But we find the contrary through two authorities of the Apostle, who marks Christ as God with the addition of the article, saying in the Epistle to Titus 2:13: "awaiting the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God." For there "God" stands for the Son, and the article is added to it in the Greek; therefore Christ is the great God. Likewise the same Apostle, Romans 9:5, says: "from whom is Christ, who is over all things, God blessed forever." There likewise the article is placed to the "God" in the Greek. Moreover, 1 John, final chapter, verse 20: "that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life." Christ therefore is not God by participation, but true God. It is clear therefore that what Origen invented is false. But the reason why the Evangelist did not add the article to this name "God" is assigned by Chrysostom; namely because he had already named "God" twice with the addition of the article, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it is understood. Or it must be said, and better, that "God" is here placed in the predicate, and is taken formally; but it is customary that to names placed in the predicate an article is not placed, since it would imply a distinction. But if "God" were here placed on the part of the subject, it would stand for whatever person, whether for the Son or for the Holy Spirit; and then there is no doubt that in the Greek the article would there be added.”

“Austin says (de Civitate Dei, lib. 10, cap. 29) that his friend Simplicius told him he had heard a Platonic philosopher say that these first verses of St. John's gospel were worthy to be written in letters of gold. The learned Francis Junius, in the account he gives of his own life, tells how he was in his youth infected with loose notions in religion, and by the grace of God was wonderfully recovered by reading accidentally these verses in a bible which his father had designedly laid in his way. He says that he observed such a divinity in the argument, such an authority and majesty in the style, that his flesh trembled, and he was struck with such amazement that for a whole day he scarcely knew where he was or what he did; and thence he dates the beginning of his being religious. Let us enquire what there is in those strong lines. The evangelist here lays down the great truth he is to prove, that Jesus Christ is God, one with the Father. Observe, I. Of whom he speaks - The Word - ho logos. This is an idiom peculiar to John's writings. See Jo1 1:1; Jo1 5:7; Rev 19:13. Yet some think that Christ is meant by the Word in Act 20:32; Heb 4:12; Luk 1:2. The Chaldee paraphrase very frequently calls the Messiah Memra - the Word of Jehovah, and speaks of many things in the Old Testament, said to be done by the Lord, as done by that Word of the Lord. Even the vulgar Jews were taught that the Word of God was the same with God. The evangelist, in the close of his discourse (Joh 1:18), plainly tells us why he calls Christ the Word - because he is the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has declared him. Word is two-fold: logos endiathetos - word conceived; and logos prophorikos - word uttered. The logos ho esō and ho exō, ratio and oratio - intelligence and utterance. 1. There is the word conceived, that is, thought, which is the first and only immediate product and conception of the soul (all the operations of which are performed by thought), and it is one with the soul. And thus the second person in the Trinity is fitly called the Word; for he is the first-begotten of the Father, that eternal essential Wisdom which the Lord possessed, as the soul does its thought, in the beginning of his way, Pro 8:22. There is nothing we are more sure of than that we think, yet nothing we are more in the dark about than how we think; who can declare the generation of thought in the soul? Surely then the generations and births of the eternal mind may well be allowed to be great mysteries of godliness, the bottom of which we cannot fathom, while yet we adore the depth. 2. There is the word uttered, and this is speech, the chief and most natural indication of the mind. And thus Christ is the Word, for by him God has in these last days spoken to us (Heb 1:2), and has directed us to hear him, Mat 17:5. He has made known God's mind to us, as a man's word or speech makes known his thoughts, as far as he pleases, and no further. Christ is called that wonderful speaker (see notes on Dan 8:13), the speaker of things hidden and strange. He is the Word speaking from God to us, and to God for us. John Baptist was the voice, but Christ the Word: being the Word, he is the Truth, the Amen, the faithful Witness of the mind of God. II. What he saith of him, enough to prove beyond contradiction that he is God. He asserts, 1. His existence in the beginning: In the beginning was the Word. This bespeaks his existence, not only before his incarnation, but before all time. The beginning of time, in which all creatures were produced and brought into being, found this eternal Word in being. The world was from the beginning, but the Word was in the beginning. Eternity is usually expressed by being before the foundation of the world. The eternity of God is so described (Psa 90:2), Before the mountains were brought forth. So Pro 8:23. The Word had a being before the world had a beginning. He that was in the beginning never began, and therefore was ever, achronos - without beginning of time. So Nonnus. 2. His co-existence with the Father: The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Let none say that when we invite them to Christ we would draw them from God, for Christ is with God and is God; it is repeated in Joh 1:2 : the same, the very same that we believe in and preach, was in the beginning with God, that is, he was so from eternity. In the beginning the world was from God, as it was created by him; but the Word was with God, as ever with him. The Word was with God, (1.) In respect of essence and substance; for the Word was God: a distinct person or substance, for he was with God; and yet the same in substance, for he was God, Heb 1:3. (2.) In respect of complacency and felicity. There was a glory and happiness which Christ had with God before the world was (Joh 17:5), the Son infinitely happy in the enjoyment of his Father's bosom, and no less the Father's delight, the Son of his love, Pro 8:30. (3.) In respect of counsel and design. The mystery of man's redemption by this Word incarnate was hid in God before all worlds, Eph 3:9. He that undertook to bring us to God (Pe1 3:18) was himself from eternity with God; so that this grand affair of man's reconciliation to God was concerted between the Father and Son from eternity, and they understand one another perfectly well in it, Zac 6:13; Mat 11:27. He was by him as one brought up with him for this service, Pro 8:30. He was with God, and therefore is said to come forth from the Father. 3. His agency in making the world, Joh 1:3. This is here, (1.) Expressly asserted: All things were made by him. He was with God, not only so as to be acquainted with the divine counsels from eternity, but to be active in the divine operations in the beginning of time. Then was I by him, Pro 8:30. God made the world by a word (Psa 33:6) and Christ was the Word. By him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, God made the world (Heb 1:2), not as the workman cuts by his axe, but as the body sees by the eye. (2.) The contrary is denied: Without him was not any thing made that was made, from the highest angel to the meanest worm. God the Father did nothing without him in that work. Now, [1.] This proves that he is God; for he that built all things is God, Heb 3:4. The God of Israel often proved himself to be God with this, that he made all things: Isa 40:12, Isa 40:28; Isa 41:4; and see Jer 10:11, Jer 10:12. [2.] This proves the excellency of the Christian religion, that the author and founder of it is the same that was the author and founder of the world. How excellent must that constitution needs be which derives its institution from him who is the fountain of all excellency! When we worship Christ, we worship him to whom the patriarchs gave honour as the Creator of the world, and on whom all creatures depend. [3.] This shows how well qualified he was for the work of our redemption and salvation. Help was laid upon one that was mighty indeed; for it was laid upon him that made all things; and he is appointed the author of our bliss who was the author of our being. 4. The original of life and light that is in him: In him was life, Joh 1:4. This further proves that he is God, and every way qualified for his undertaking; for, (1.) He has life in himself; not only the true God, but the living God. God is life; he swears by himself when he saith, As I live. (2.) All living creatures have their life in him; not only all the matter of the creation was made by him, but all the life too that is in the creation is derived from him and supported by him. It was the Word of God that produced the moving creatures that had life, Gen 1:20; Act 17:25. He is that Word by which man lives more than by bread, Mat 4:4. (3.) Reasonable creatures have their light from him; that life which is the light of men comes from him. Life in man is something greater and nobler than it is in other creatures; it is rational, and not merely animal. When man became a living soul, his life was light, his capacities such as distinguished him fRom. and dignified him above, the beasts that perish. The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord, and it was the eternal Word that lighted this candle. The light of reason, as well as the life of sense, is derived from him, and depends upon him. This proves him fit to undertake our salvation; for life and light, spiritual and eternal life and light, are the two great things that fallen man, who lies so much under the power of death and darkness, has need of. From whom may we better expect the light of divine revelation than from him who gave us the light of human reason? And if, when God gave us natural life, that life was in his Son, how readily should we receive the gospel-record, that he hath given us eternal life, and that life too is in his Son! 5. The manifestation of him to the children of men. It might be objected, If this eternal Word was all in all thus in the creation of the world, whence is it that he has been so little taken notice of and regarded? To this he answers (Joh 1:5), The light shines, but the darkness comprehends it not. Observe, (1.) The discovery of the eternal Word to the lapsed world, even before he was manifested in the flesh: The light shineth in darkness. Light is self-evidencing, and will make itself known; this light, whence the light of men comes, hath shone, and doth shine. [1.] The eternal Word, as God, shines in the darkness of natural conscience. Though men by the fall are become darkness, yet that which may be known of God is manifested in them; see Rom 1:19, Rom 1:20. The light of nature is this light shining in darkness. Something of the power of the divine Word, both as creating and as commanding, all mankind have an innate sense of; were it not for this, earth would be a hell, a place of utter darkness; blessed be God, it is not so yet. [2.] The eternal Word, as Mediator, shone in the darkness of the Old Testament types and figures, and the prophecies and promises which were of the Messiah from the beginning. He that had commanded the light of this world to shine out of darkness was himself long a light shining in darkness; there was a veil upon this light, Co2 3:13. (2.) The disability of the degenerate world to receive this discovery: The darkness comprehended it not; the most of men received the grace of God in these discoveries in vain. [1.] The world of mankind comprehended not the natural light that was in their understandings, but became vain in their imaginations concerning the eternal God and the eternal Word, Rom 1:21, Rom 1:28. The darkness of error and sin overpowered and quite eclipsed this light. God spoke once, yea twice, but man perceived it not, Job 33:14. [2.] The Jews, who had the light of the Old Testament, yet comprehended not Christ in it. As there was a veil upon Moses's face, so there was upon the people's hearts. In the darkness of the types and shadows the light shone; but such as the darkness of their understandings that they could not see it. It was therefore requisite that Christ should come, both to rectify the errors of the Gentile world and to improve the truths of the Jewish church.”

“In the beginning - That is, before any thing was formed - ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Gen 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, Joh 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the Eternal God. Was the Word - Or, existed the Logos. This term should be left untranslated, for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. The first I consider as proper an apellative of the Savior of the world as I do either of the two last. And as it would be highly improper to say, the Deliverer, the Anointed, instead of Jesus Christ, so I deem it improper to say, the Word, instead of the Logos. But as every appellative of the Savior of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work, so the epithet Λογος, Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him, who is the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world, Joh 1:9; who is the fountain of all wisdom; who giveth being, life, light, knowledge, and reason, to all men; who is the grand Source of revelation, who has declared God unto mankind; who spake by the prophets, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, Rev 19:10; who has illustrated life and immortality by his Gospel, Ti2 1:10; and who has fully made manifest the deep mysteries which lay hidden in the bosom of the invisible God from all eternity, Joh 1:18. The apostle does not borrow this mode of speech from the writings of Plato, as some have imagined: he took it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and from the subsequent style of the ancient Jews. It is true the Platonists make mention of the Logos in this way: - καθ' ὁν, αει οντα, τα γενομενα εγενετο - by whom, eternally existing, all things were made. But as Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and others, traveled among the Jews, and conversed with them, it is reasonable to suppose that they borrowed this, with many others of their most important notions and doctrines, from them. And the Word was God - Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.”

“In the beginning was the word: [1] or rather, the word was in the beginning. The eternal word, the increated[uncreated?] wisdom, the second Person of the blessed Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, as he is here called (ver. 14.) of the same nature and substance, and the same God, with the Father and Holy Ghost. This word was always; so that it was never true to say, he was not, as the Arians blasphemed. This word was in the beginning. Some, by the beginning, expound the Father himself, in whom he was always. Others give this plain and obvious sense, that the word, or the Son of God, was, when all other things began to have a being; he never began, but was from all eternity. — And the word was with God; i.e. was with the Father; and as it is said, (ver. 18) in the bosom of the Father; which implies, that he is indeed a distinct person, but the same in nature and substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is repeated again in the second verse, as repetitions are very frequent in St. John. — And the word was God. This without question is the construction; where, according to the letter we read, and God was the word. (Witham) — The Greek for the word is Logos , which signifies not only the exterior word, but also the interior word, or thought; and in this latter sense it is taken here. (Bible de Vence) — Philo Judæus, in the apostolic age, uses the word Logos , p. 823, to personify the wisdom and the power of God. Logos estin eikon Theou di ou sumpas o Kosmos edemiourgeito . By a similar metonymy, Jesus Christ is called the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection. — And the word was God. Here the eternity and the divinity of the second Person are incontrovertibly established; or, we must say that language has no longer a fixed meaning, and that it is impossible to establish any point whatever from the words of Scripture. (Haydock)”