All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

“(Hom. v. [iv.] 1) Moses indeed, in the beginning of the Old Testament, speaks to us in much detail of the natural world, saying, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and then relates how that the light, and the firmament, and the stars, and the various kinds of animals were created. But the Evangelist sums up the whole of this in a word, as familiar to his hearers; and hastens to loftier matter, making the whole of his book to bear not on the works, but on the Maker.”

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

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

“Then he says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Here the fourth clause is set down, which is introduced on account of the preceding clause. For from the fact that the Evangelist had said that "the Word was God," a twofold false understanding could be taken up by those who do not think rightly. One is that of the pagans, who posit a plurality and diversity of gods, and say that their wills are contrary; as those who fable that Jupiter fought with Saturn, and as the Manichaeans, who posit two contrary principles of nature. Against this error the Lord said, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God." Since therefore the Evangelist had said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," these men could bring this forward in support of their error, understanding that the God with whom the Word is, is one, and the Word himself another, and moreover of another, or contrary, will; which is against the law of the Gospel. Therefore, to exclude this, he says, "The same was in the beginning with God"; as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God in such a way that nevertheless he is not one having divinity separately, but is with God, namely in one and the same nature in which the Father himself is. Likewise, by the fact that he says "the Word was God," lest it be understood that they had contrary wills, he added this, namely that the Word was in the beginning with God, that is, with the Father; not divided from him, not contrary, but having with him identity of nature and concord of will: which union indeed comes about through the communion of the divine nature in the three persons, and through the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son. Another error could be drawn from the aforesaid words by the Arians, who hold that the Son is less than the Father, because of what is said: "The Father is greater than I." For they say that the Father is greater than the Son, both as to eternity and as to the divinity of nature. So that the Evangelist might exclude this, he added, "The same was in the beginning with God." For Arius admits the first clause, namely "In the beginning was the Word"; yet he does not wish that there "beginning" be taken for the Father, but for the beginning of creatures. Whence he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and therefore is in no way coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by that clause, "The same was in the beginning"—not indeed of creatures, but "in the beginning with God," that is, from the time God existed. For never was the Father solitary from the Son, or Word, but this, namely the Word, was always with God. Likewise, Arius confesses that the Word was God, yet less than the Father. But this is excluded by what follows. For there are two things proper to the great God, which Arius attributed singularly to God the Father, namely eternity and omnipotence. Therefore in whomever these two are found, he is the great God, than whom no one is greater; but these two the Evangelist attributes to the Word; therefore the Word is the great God, and not less. He says indeed that eternity is in the Word by the fact that he says, "The same was in the beginning with God"; that is, the Word was from eternity, not only in the beginning of creatures, as Arius understood, but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. And omnipotence he attributes to the Word by the fact that he adds, "All things were made through him." Origen, however, expounding this same clause quite beautifully, says that it is not other than the first three, but that it is a certain epilogue of the aforesaid. For the Evangelist, after he had intimated the truth of the Son, about to pass on to intimating his power, gathers up again, as if summarizing in a summary, in the fourth clause, what he had said beforehand in the first three. For first, by the fact that he says "the same," he understands the third clause; but by the fact that he says "was in the beginning," he recollects the first; and by the fact that he adds "was with God," he recollects the second, so that thus you do not understand one Word which was in the beginning and which was God, but that this Word, which was God, was in the beginning with God. If therefore one rightly considers these four propositions, one will find that through them all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers are evidently destroyed. For certain heretics, such as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not pre-exist the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his being and duration, positing that he was a pure man, but merited divinity through good merits. Which also Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said. The Evangelist excludes their error, saying "In the beginning was the Word," that is, before all things, and in the Father from eternity; therefore he did not take his beginning from the Virgin. Sabellius, however, although he confessed that God who took on flesh did not take his beginning from the Virgin, but was from eternity, nevertheless said that the person of the Father, who was from eternity, and of the Son, who assumed flesh from the Virgin, was not another, but that the Father and the Son were personally the same; confounding the Trinity of persons in the divine. Against this error the Evangelist says, "And the Word was with God," namely the Son with the Father, as one with another. Eunomius, however, posited that the Son was entirely unlike the Father; and this consequently the Evangelist excludes, saying "And the Word was God." Arius, however, said that the Son was less than the Father; but this the Evangelist excludes when he says, "The same was in the beginning with God," which was expounded above. By this also the errors of the philosophers are excluded. For certain of the ancient philosophers, namely the natural philosophers, posited that the world came about not from any intellect, nor through any reason, but by chance; and therefore from the beginning they did not posit reason or intellect as any cause of things, but only flowing matter, such as atoms, as Democritus posited, and other material principles of this kind, as others posited. Against these is what the Evangelist says, "In the beginning was the Word," from which, namely, things took their beginning and not from chance. Plato, however, posited the subsisting ideas of all made things, separated in their own natures, through the participation of which the material things exist: for instance, through the separated idea of man, which he called man-in-himself, they have that they are men. So therefore, lest you understand this reason, through which all things were made, to be ideas separated from God, as Plato posited, the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was with God." Other Platonists also, as Chrysostom reports, posited God the Father as most eminent and first, under whom they posited a certain mind, in which they said were the likenesses and ideas of all things. Therefore, lest you understand it thus, that the Word was with the Father as if under him and less than him, the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was God." Aristotle, however, posited in God the ideas of all things, and that in God the intellect and the one understanding and the thing understood are the same; nevertheless he posited that the world was coeternal with him. And against this is what the Evangelist says, "The same," namely the Word alone, "was in the beginning with God"; so that this "the same" does not exclude another person, but another nature coeternal. Note also in the aforesaid the difference of John from the other Evangelists, namely how he began his Gospel more worthily than the others. For they announced Christ the Son of God born in time; Matthew 2:1: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem." But John says that he was from eternity, "In the beginning," he says, "was the Word." They also say that he suddenly appeared among men; Luke 2:29: "Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; because my eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." But John says that he was always with the Father. "And the Word," he says, "was with God." Others say that he was man; Matthew 9:8: "They glorified God, who gave such power to men." But John says that he is God. "And the Word," he says, "was God." Others said that he conversed with men; Matthew 17:21: "And as they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said," etc.; but John says that he was always with the Father. "The same," he says, "was in the beginning with God." Note also that the Evangelist significantly recites this "was," to show that the Word of God exceeds all times, namely present, past, and future. As if to say: he "was" beyond the present, past, and future time, according to what is touched upon in the Gloss. After the Evangelist had intimated the being and nature of the divine Word, as far as it can be told by man, he consequently manifests its power. And first he shows its power as to all things which proceed into being; second, specially as to men, there, "The life was the light of men." Concerning the first he sets down three clauses, which we do not distinguish at present, because according to the diverse expositions of the saints they are to be distinguished in diverse ways. The first clause, then, is "All things were made through him," which is brought in to show three things about the Word. And first, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as was said above, the Evangelist had excluded the error of Arius, showing the coeternity of the Son with the Father by the fact that he had said "The same was in the beginning with God"; but here he excludes the same error, showing the omnipotence of the Son, saying, "All things were made through him." For to be the beginning of all made things is proper to the great, omnipotent God, according to that of Psalm 134:6: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased he hath done, in heaven and on earth." Therefore the Word through which all things were made is the great God and coequal to the Father. Second, to show the coeternity of the Word to the Father, according to Hilary. For since by the fact that he had said "In the beginning was the Word" someone could understand this to have been said of the beginning of creatures, that is, that there was some time before every creature in which the Word was not, therefore, excluding this, the Evangelist said, "All things were made through him." For if all things were made through the Word, then also time itself. From which he argues thus: if all time was made by him, then no time was before him, nor with him, because he was before all things; therefore they are coeternal from eternity. Third, according to Augustine, to show the consubstantiality of the Word to the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, then the Word itself cannot be called made: because if it is made, it is made through some word, since all things were made through the Word. It is necessary therefore that there be another word, through which the Word, of whom the Evangelist here speaks, was made. And that Word we call the Only-begotten of God, through whom all things were made, because he is neither made nor a creature; and if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, since every substance apart from the divine essence is made. But the substance which is not a creature is God. Therefore the Word, through which all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since it is neither made nor a creature. So therefore you have the equality of the Word to the Father, according to Chrysostom; the coeternity, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality, according to Augustine, by the fact that he says, "All things were made through him." But three errors are here to be guarded against. And first the error of Valentinus. For he understood, by what is said, "All things were made through him," that the Word gave to the creator the cause that he should create the world, so that all things are said to have been made through the Word thus, as if from the Word there proceeded that the Father created the world. And this seems to lead into the position of those who said that God made the world on account of some exterior cause; which is against that of Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord hath made all things for himself." But this is false, because, as Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the creator, furnishing him matter for making, he would not have said "All things were made through him," but, conversely, all things were made through the creator from the Word. Second, the error of Origen is to be avoided, who says that the Holy Spirit, among all things, was made through the Word, from which it follows that he is a creature: and this Origen posited. But this is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit is of the same glory and substance and dignity with the Father and the Son, according to that of the last chapter of Matthew, 19: "Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"; and according to that of 1 John 5:7: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." When therefore the Evangelist says, "All things were made through him," it is not to be understood absolutely all things made, but in the genus of creatures and made things. As if to say: all things which were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if it were understood absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him: which is blasphemous. Therefore neither the Father, nor anything substantial to the Father, was made through the Word. Third, another error of the same Origen is to be avoided. For he said that all things were made through the Word thus, as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were lesser, and as an instrument of the Father. But that by this preposition "through" a lesser standing is not signified in the oblique case, namely in the Son, or Word, is clear from many places of Scripture. For the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 1:9, speaking of the Father: "God is faithful, through whom you are called into the fellowship of his Son." If he through whom something is done has a superior, then the Father also will have a superior; but this is false; therefore by the preposition "through" a lesser standing is not signified in the Son, when all things are said to be made through him. For a greater clarification of this, it must be known that when something is said to be done through someone, this preposition "through" denotes causality in the oblique case with respect to the operation in some manner, but in diverse ways. For since the operation, according to the mode of signifying, is considered as intermediate between the one operating and the thing operated, the operation itself can be considered in two ways. In one way, according as it goes forth from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, according as it is terminated at the thing operated. Sometimes therefore the preposition "through" signifies the cause of the operation, according as it goes forth from the one operating; but sometimes, according as it is terminated at the thing operated. It signifies the cause of the operation, according as it goes forth from the one operating, when that which is signified by the oblique case is a cause to the one operating that he operates, whether efficient or formal. Formal indeed, as fire heats through heat: for heat is the formal cause of the heating of fire. But the moving or efficient cause, as second agents operate through the first, as if I say that the bailiff operates through the king, because the king is the efficient cause to the bailiff that he operates. And in this way Valentinus understood that all things were made through the Word, as if the Word were a cause to the founder that he should make all things. But the causality of the operation, according as it is terminated at the thing operated, this preposition "through" imports, when that which is signified by it is not itself the cause that one operates, but is the cause of the operation according as it is terminated at the thing operated. As when I say, the carpenter makes a bench through an axe, which is not a cause to the carpenter that he operates, but we posit it to be the cause that the bench is made by the one operating. So therefore when it is said, "All things were made through him"; if the "through" denotes the efficient cause, or the one moving the Father to operate, it must be said that the Father operates nothing through the Son, but operates all things through himself, as was said. But if the "through" denotes the formal cause, then, since the Father operates through his wisdom, which is his essence, he operates through his wisdom, as he operates through his essence; and because the wisdom and power of the Father is attributed to the Son, 1 Corinthians 1:24, we say: "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God," therefore we say by appropriation that the Father operates all things through the Son, that is, through his wisdom. And therefore Augustine says that this which is said, "from whom are all things," is appropriated to the Father; "through whom are all things," to the Son; "in whom are all things," to the Holy Spirit. But if the "through" denotes the causality on the part of the thing operated, then this which we say, that the Father operates all things through the Son, is not appropriated to the Word, but is proper to him, because this—that he is the cause of creatures—he has from another, namely from the Father, from whom he has being. Nor yet, on account of this, does it follow that he is the instrument of the Father, although everything that is moved by another to operating something has the notion of an instrument. But when I say that someone operates through a power received from another, it can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically the same: and in this way, he who operates through a power received from another is not less, but equal, to him from whom he receives. Since therefore the Father gives to the Son the same power which he has, through which the Son operates, when the Father is said to operate through the Son, on account of this the Son is not to be said less than the Father, nor his instrument. But this follows in those who do not receive the same power from another, but a different and created one. So therefore it is clear that neither the Holy Spirit, nor the Son, is a cause to the Father that he operates, nor the Father's minister or instrument, as Origen raved. But if the aforesaid words, "All things were made through him," are rightly considered, it evidently appears that the Evangelist spoke most properly. For whoever makes something, it is necessary that he pre-conceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and idea of the thing made: as the form pre-conceived in the mind of the craftsman is the idea of the chest to be made. So therefore God makes nothing except through the concept of his intellect, which is the wisdom conceived from eternity, namely the Word of God, and the Son of God: and therefore it is impossible that he make anything except through the Son. Whence Augustine says in On the Trinity that the Word is an art full of all the living ideas. And thus it is clear that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him. But it must be noted, according to Chrysostom, that all the things which Moses enumerates through many words in the production of things from God, saying: "The Lord said, Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," etc., all these the Evangelist, surpassing them, comprehends in one word, saying "All things were made through him." The reason of this is that Moses wished to hand down the emanation of creatures from God, and therefore enumerates them one by one; but John, hastening to a higher matter, in this book intends to lead us specially into the knowledge of the creator himself. Then he says, "And without him was made nothing." This is the second clause, which some understood perversely, as Augustine says in the book On the Nature of the Good. For from this manner of speaking which John here uses, placing this which is said, "nothing," at the end of the sentence, they believed that this "nothing" is held affirmatively, as if "nothing" were something which was made without the Word; whence they wished that this clause was set down by the Evangelist to exclude something which was not made by the Word. Whence they say that after the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," he consequently adds "And without him was made nothing," as if to say: I say that all things were made through him in such a way that nevertheless without him something was made, namely nothing itself. And from this there proceeded a threefold heresy, namely that of Valentinus, who, as Origen says, posits many principles, and from those principles says that thirty ages proceed. Yet the first principles which he posits are two, namely the deep, which he calls God the Father, and silence. From these two he says ten ages proceeded. And from the deep and silence he says there are two other principles, namely intellect and truth, from which eight ages proceeded. And from intellect and truth he says there are two other principles, namely word and life, from which twelve ages proceed, and thus they are thirty. And from word and life, according to the age, there proceeded the man Christ and the Church. So therefore Valentinus posited that many ages preceded the bringing forth of the Word. And therefore he says that, because the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," lest anyone understand those preceding ages to have been perfected through the Word, he consequently added "And without him was made nothing," that is, all the pre-existing ages and those things which were in them; which John therefore calls "nothing," because they exceed human reason, nor can they be grasped by the intellect. The second error proceeding from this was that of the Manichaean, who posited two contrary principles, one namely of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He says therefore that after John had said "All things were made through him," lest it be believed that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately subjoined "And without him was made nothing," that is, the things subject to corruption, which are said to be nothing, because their being is continually to be changed into nothing. The third error is that of those who wish that by "nothing" the Devil be understood, according to that of Job 18:15: "Let the companions of him that is not dwell in his tabernacle." They say therefore that all things were made through the Word, except the Devil. And therefore they expound "Without him was made nothing," that is, the Devil. But all these three errors, proceeding from one source, namely from this—that they wish "nothing" itself to be taken affirmatively—are excluded by this: that "nothing" is not here set down affirmatively, but only negatively. So that the sense is: all things were so made through the Word, that nothing participating being is which was not made through him. But perhaps someone will object, saying that this clause was superfluously added, if it be understood negatively, because the Evangelist, in saying "All things were made through him," seems to have said sufficiently that there is not anything which was not made through the Word. To which it must be said that, according to many, this particle is introduced in manifold ways, and for many causes. Of which one cause is, according to Chrysostom, lest anyone reading in the Old Testament and finding only visible things enumerated by Moses in the creation of things, should believe that those only were made through the Word. Therefore the Evangelist, when he had said "All things were made through him," namely which Moses enumerates, therefore consequently added "Without him was made nothing"; as if to say: nothing of the things which are, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. And in this way speaks the Apostle, Colossians 1:16, saying that all things were created in Christ, whether visible or invisible: where the Apostle makes special mention of the invisible things, because concerning them Moses had not openly made mention, on account of the rudeness of that people, which could not be elevated above sensible things. It is also introduced, according to Chrysostom, in another way thus. For someone reading in the Gospel many signs and miracles done through Christ, such as that of Matthew 11:5: "The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed," etc., could believe, by what John says, "All things were made through him," that there ought to be understood only all those things which are contained in those Gospels, and nothing else made through him. And therefore, lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist consequently brings in "And without him was made nothing"; as if to say: not only those things which are contained in the Gospels were made through him, but nothing of the things which were made was made without him. And thus, according to Chrysostom, this particle is introduced to show the total causality, and it is as if completive of the preceding. But according to Hilary this particle is introduced to show that the Word has its operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," it could be understood that the Father is excluded from all causality; therefore he consequently adds "And without him was made nothing." As if to say: all things were made through him in such a way that nevertheless the Father made all things with him. For "without him" is as much as if it were said "not alone"; so that the sense is: it is not he alone through whom all things were made, but he is another, without whom nothing was made. As if to say, "without him," with another operating, namely the Father, "was made nothing"; according to that of Proverbs 8:30: "I was with him forming all things." But in a certain homily which begins "The spiritual voice of the eagle," and is attributed to Origen, another quite beautiful exposition is found. For it is said there that in the Greek there is "choris," where in the Latin we have "sine" (without). Now "choris" is the same as "foris" (outside) or "extra" (beyond); as if to say, all things were so made through him that outside him nothing was made. And therefore he says this to show that through the Word and in the Word all things are conserved; according to that of Hebrews 1:3: "Bearing all things by the word of his power." For there are certain things which do not need the one operating except as to their coming-to-be, since they can subsist after they have been made, without the influx of the agent; as a house needs indeed the craftsman as to its coming-to-be, but nevertheless persists in its being without the influence of the craftsman. Therefore, lest anyone believe that all things were so made through the Word that it is their cause only as to their coming-to-be, and not as to their conservation in being, therefore the Evangelist consequently subjoined "And without him was made nothing." That is: nothing was made outside him, because he encompasses all things, conserving them. But this particle is expounded according to Augustine and Origen and many others thus, that by "nothing" is understood sin. For since, when he said "All things were made through him," it could be understood that evil and sin were made through him; therefore he consequently added "and nothing," that is, sin, "was made without him." For as art is not the principle or cause of any defect in the things made by art, but is of itself the cause of their perfection and form, so also the Word, which is the art of the Father, full of living ideas, is not the cause of any evil or disorder in things, and especially of the evil of fault, which has the perfect notion of evil; but the cause of this evil per se is the will of the creature, whether of man or of Angel, freely turning away from the end to which it is naturally ordered. The one operating according to art, voluntarily erring, is the cause of the defects occurring in the things made by art, not through the art, but through the will. Whence in such things the art is not the principle or cause of the defects, but the will: and therefore evil is a defect of the will, and not of any art: and therefore, inasmuch as it is such, it is nothing. So therefore this particle is added to show the universal causality of the Word itself, according to Chrysostom; the fellowship with the Father, according to Hilary; and the power of the Word in conserving, according to Origen. Likewise the purity of the causality: because it is the cause of good things in such a way that it is not the cause of sin, according to Augustine and Origen and many others. Then he says, "That which was made, in him was life." Here the third particle is set down, where the false understanding of the Manichaean is to be guarded against, who was moved by this word to say that all things which are, live; for instance a stone, wood, and man, and whatever else is in the world. And he punctuated thus: "that which was made in him"—distinguish—"was life." But it would not be life unless it lived; therefore whatever was made in him, lives. He wishes also that "in him" be the same as if it were said "through him," since commonly in Scripture "in him," or "through him," is taken; as that of Colossians 1:16: "In him, and through him were all things created." But this exposition shows this understanding to be false. It can nevertheless without error be expounded in manifold ways. For in that homily "The spiritual voice" it is expounded thus: "that which was made in him," that is, through him, "this was life," not in itself but in its cause. For in all caused things this is common, that the effects, whether produced by nature or by will, are in their causes not according to their own being, but according to the power of their own cause; as the lower effects are in the sun as in a cause, not according to their being, but according to the power of the sun. Since therefore the cause of all effects produced by God is a certain life and an art full of living ideas, therefore everything which was made in him, that is, through him, was life in its cause, namely in God himself. Augustine, however, reads otherwise, punctuating thus: "that which was made"—distinguish—"in him was life." For things can be considered in two ways, namely according as they are in themselves, and according as they are in the Word. If they be considered according as they are in themselves, thus not all things are life, nor even living, but some lack life, some live. As the earth was made, metals also were made, which are neither life nor live; animals were made, men were made, which according as they are in themselves are not life, but only live. But if they be considered according as they are in the Word, they are not only living, but even life. For the ideas existing spiritually in the wisdom of God, by which things were made by the Word itself, are life: as a chest made by the craftsman in itself indeed neither lives nor is life, but the idea of the chest, which pre-existed in the mind of the craftsman, lives in a certain manner, inasmuch as it has intelligible being in the mind of the craftsman; yet it is not life, because it is not in his essence through the very understanding of the craftsman, nor is it his being. But in God his understanding is his life and his essence: and therefore whatever is in God not only lives but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Whence a creature in God is the creating essence. If therefore things be considered according as they are in the Word, they are life. This exposition you have elsewhere. Origen, however, on John reads this otherwise, punctuating thus: "that which was made in him"—distinguish—"was life." Where it must be noted that of the Son of God something is said according to himself, as he is called God omnipotent, and things of this kind; but something is said of him by comparison to us, as Savior and Redeemer; and something in both ways, as wisdom and justice. But in all things which are said of the Son absolutely and according to himself, it is not said that he is made, as the Son is not said made God, nor omnipotent; but in those which are said in comparison to us, or in both ways, the addition of "made" can be added, so that it be said according to that of 1 Corinthians 1:30: "Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justification, and sanctification, and redemption." And thus, although he was always in himself wisdom and justice, nevertheless it can be said that he was newly made unto us justice and wisdom. According to this, therefore, Origen, expounding, says that although in himself he is life, nevertheless he was made unto us life by the fact that he vivified us, according to that of 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so also in him all shall be made alive." And therefore he says that the Word which was made unto us life, "in him was life," that at some time it might be made life to us; and therefore he immediately subjoins "And the life was the light of men." For Hilary punctuates thus: "And without him was made nothing which was made in him," and afterwards let it be said "was life." For he says in the second book On the Trinity that when the Evangelist says "And nothing was made," it could be ambiguous whether certain other things which were made through him were made not through him, yet not without him; but in them he associated the maker; and that this clause was added for the correction of the preceding. Therefore, lest this be understood, the Evangelist, when he had said "All things were made through him," subjoins "And without him was made nothing," which nevertheless was made "in him," that is, through him: and the reason of this is, because "it was life." For it is manifest that in this way all things are said to be made through the Word, inasmuch as the Word proceeding from the Father is God. But let us suppose that someone has a father who is a son not perfectly having the operations of a man, but comes to this little by little; it is manifest that he will make many things, not through that son, although not without him. Since therefore the Son of God had the same life from eternity which the Father also had, according to that below, 5:26: "As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself," therefore it cannot be said that God the Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because "it was life." For in living things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precede perfect life; but in that which is life per se, which does not participate life, but is absolutely and simply life, there can in no way be any imperfection. Since therefore the Word is life per se, there was never in it imperfect life, but always perfect; and therefore nothing was so made "without him," that it was nevertheless not made "in him," that is, through him. Chrysostom, however, has another manner of reading, and punctuates thus: "And without him was made nothing that was made." And the reason of this is, because someone could believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. And therefore the Evangelist, wishing to exclude this, says "that was made," because the Holy Spirit is not something made; and afterwards follows "in him was life," which is introduced on account of two things. One is that, after the production of all things, there be shown the indeficiency of the causality with respect to things not only produced, but also to be produced. As if to say, "in him was life," by which namely he was able not only to produce all things, but also which has an indeficient flow and causality without loss of change for producing things continually, as a living fountain which is not diminished by continuous flowing; but water collected and not living, when it flows away, is diminished and fails; whence it is said in Psalm 35:10: "With thee is the fountain of life." The second is that there be shown that the governance of things is through the Word. For since "in him was life," it is shown that he did not produce things by necessity of nature, but by will and intellect, and that he governs the things produced; Hebrews 4:12: "The word of God is living," and so forth. And because among the Greeks Chrysostom is of such great authority in his expositions, that where he himself has expounded something in sacred Scripture, they admit no other exposition, therefore in all the Greek books it is found punctuated thus, as Chrysostom punctuates, namely in this manner: "Without him was made nothing that was made."”

“All things were made by him - That is, by this Logos. In Gen 1:1, God is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are One. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become God; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings. On these important passages I find that many eminently learned men differ from me: it seems they cannot be of my opinion, and I feel I cannot be of theirs. May He, who is the Light and the Truth, guide them and me into all truth!”

“All things were made by him, [2] and without him was made nothing that was made. These words teach us, that all created being, visible, or invisible on earth, every thing that ever was made, or began to be, were made, produced, and created by this eternal word, or by the Son of God. The same is truly said of the Holy Ghost; all creatures being equally produced, created, and preserved by the three divine Persons as, by their proper, principal, and efficient cause, in the same manner, and by the same action: not by the Son, in any manner inferior to the Father; nor as if the Son produced things only ministerially, and acted only as the minister, and instrument of the Father, as the Arians pretended. In this sublime mystery of one God and three distinct Persons, if we consider the eternal processions, and personal proprieties, the Father is the first Person, but not by any priority of time, or of dignity; all the three divine Persons being eternal, or co-eternal, equal in all perfections, being one in nature, in substance, in power, in majesty: in a word, one and the same God. The Father in no other sense is called the first Person, but because he proceeds from none, or from no other person: and the eternal Son is the second Person begotten, and proceeding from him, the Father, from all eternity, proceeds now, and shall proceed from him for all eternity; as we believe that the third divine Person, the Holy Ghost, always proceeded without any beginning, doth now proceed, and shall proceed for ever, both from the Father and the Son. But when we consider and speak of any creatures, of any thing that was made, or had a beginning, all things were equally created in time, and are equally preserved, no less by the Son, and by the Holy Ghost, than by the Father. For this reason St. John tells us again in this chapter, (ver. 10.) that the world was made by the word. And our Saviour himself (John v. 19.) tells us, that whatsoever the Father doth, these things also in like manner, or in the same manner, the Son doth. Again the apostle, (Hebrews i. ver. 2.) speaking of the Son, says, the world was made by him: and in the same chapter, (ver. 10.) he applies to the Son these words, (Psalm ci. 26.) And thou, O Lord, in the beginning didst found the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands, &c. To omit other places, St. Paul again, writing to the Colossians, (Chap. i. ver. 16, 17.) and speaking of God’s beloved Son, as may be seen in that chapter, says, that in him all things were created, visible and invisible—all things were created in him, and by him, or, as it is in the Greek, unto him, and for him; to shew that the Son was not only the efficient cause, the Maker and Creator of all things, but also the last end of all. Which is also confirmed by the following words: And he is before all, and all things subsist in him, or consist in him; as in the Rheims and Protestant translations. I have, therefore, in this third verse, translated, all things were made by him, with all English translations and paraphrases, whether made by Catholics or Protestants; and not all things were made through him, lest through should seem to carry with it a different and a diminishing signification; or as if, in the creation of the world, the eternal word, or the Son of God, produced things only ministerially, and, in a manner, inferior to the Father, as the Arians and Eunomians pretended; against whom, on this very account, wrote St. Basil, lib. de spiritu Sto. St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril, on this very verse; where they expressly undertake to shew that the Greek text in this verse no ways favours these heretics. The Arians, and now the Socinians, who deny the Son to be true God, or that the word God applies as properly to him as to the Father, but would have him called God, that is, a nominal god, in an inferior and improper sense; as when Moses called the god of Pharao; (Exodus vii. 1.) or as men in authority are called gods; (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) pretend, after Origen, to find another difference in the Greek text; as if, when mention is made of the Father, he is styled the God; but that the Son is only called God, or a God. This objection St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and others, have shewn to be groundless: that pretended significant Greek article being several times omitted, when the word God is applied to God the Father; and being found in other places, when the Son of God is called God. See this objection fully and clearly answered by the author of a short book, published in the year 1729, against Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, p. 64, and seq. (Witham) — Were made, &c. Mauduit here represents the word: —“1. As a cause, or principle, acting extraneously from himself upon the void space, in order to give a being to all creatures:” whereas there was no void space before the creation. Ante omnia Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et locus, et omnia. (Tertullian, lib. cont. Prax. chap. v.) And St. Augustine in Psalm cxxii. says: antequam faceret Deus Sanctos, ubi habitabat? In se habitabat, apud se habitabat. — The creation of all things, visible and invisible, was the work of the whole blessed Trinity; but the Scriptures generally attribute it to the word; because wisdom, reason, and intelligence, which are the attributes of the Son, are displayed most in it. (Calmet) — What wonderful tergiversations the Arians used to avoid the evidence of this text, we see in St. Augustine, lib. iii. de doct. Christ. chap. 2; even such as modern dissenters do, to avoid the evidence of This is my Body, concerning the blessed Eucharist. (Bristow)”

“All things, &c.--all things absolutely (as is evident from Joh 1:10; Co1 8:6; Col 1:16-17; but put beyond question by what follows). without Him was not any thing--not one thing. made--brought into being. that was made--This is a denial of the eternity and non-creation of matter, which was held by the whole thinking world outside of Judaism and Christianity: or rather, its proper creation was never so much as dreamt of save by the children of revealed religion.”