2.

See here again, an absurdity; by the same succession of consequences we will bring the argument to such a point, that even hence you may learn their folly. In this way they assert things by no means befitting of the Spirit. Being driven from their other ground, they apply those things to men, which they before thought to be spoken worthily of the Spirit. However, let us examine the reading itself this way also. The creature is now called "life," therefore, the same is "light," and John came to witness concerning it. Why then is not he also "light"? He says that "he was not that light" (ver. 8 ), and yet he belonged to created things? How then is he not "light"? How was he "in the world, and the world was made by him"? (Ver. 10.) Was the creature in the creature, and was the creature made by the creature? But how did "the world know him not"? How did the creature not know the creature? "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." (Ver. 12.) But enough of laughter. For the rest I leave it to you to attack these monstrous reasonings, that we may not seem to have chosen¹ to raise a laugh for its own sake, and waste the time without cause. For if these things are neither said of the Spirit, (and it has been shown that they are not,) nor of anything created, and yet they still hold to the same reading, that stranger conclusion than any which we before mentioned, will follow, that the Son was made by Himself. For if the Son is the true Light, and this Light was Life, and this Life was made in Him, this must needs be the result according to their own reading. Let us then relinquish this reading, and come to the recognized reading and explanation.²

And what is that? It is to make the sentence end at "was made," and to begin the next sentence with, "In Him was Life." What (the Evangelist) says is this, "Without Him was not anything made that was made"; whatever created thing was made, says he, was not made without Him. See you how by this short addition he has rectified all the besetting³ difficulties; for the saying, that "without Him was not anything made," and then the adding, "which was made," includes things cognizable by the intellect,⁴ but excludes the Spirit. For after he had said that "all things were made by Him," and "without Him was not anything made," he needed this addition, lest some one should say, "If all things were made by Him, then the Spirit also was made." "I," he replies, "asserted that whatever was made was made by Him, even though it be invisible, or incorporeal, or in the heavens. For this reason, I did not say absolutely, all things,' but whatever was made,' that is, created things,' but the Spirit is uncreated."

Do you see the precision of his teaching? He has alluded to the creation of material things, (for concerning these Moses had taught before him,) and after bringing us to advance from thence to higher things, I mean the immaterial and the invisible, he excepts the Holy Spirit from all creation. And so Paul, inspired by the same grace, said, "For by Him were all things created." (Col. i. 16.) Observe too here again the same exactness. For the same Spirit moved this soul also. That no one should except any created things from the works of God because of their being invisible, nor yet should confound the Comforter with them, after running through the objects of sense which are known to all, he enumerates also things in the heavens, saying, "Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers"; for the expression "whether" subjoined to each, shows to us nothing else but this, that "by Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

But if you think that the expression "by"⁵ is a mark of inferiority, (as making Christ an instrument,) hear him say, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands." (Ps. cii. 25.) He says of the Son what is said of the Father in His character of Creator; which he would not have said, unless he had deemed of Him as of a Creator, and yet not subservient to any. And if the expression "by Him" is here used, it is put for no other reason but to prevent any one from supposing the Son to be Unbegotten. For that in respect of the title of Creator He is nothing inferior to the Father; hear from Himself, where He saith, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." (c. v. 21.) If now in the Old Testament it is said of the Son, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," His title of Creator is plain. But if you say that the Prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, even so the conclusion is the same. For Paul would not have decided that the same expression suited the Son, unless he had been very confident that between Father and Son there was an equality of honor; since it would have been an act of extremest rashness to refer what suited an incomparable Nature to a nature inferior to, and falling short of it. But the Son is not inferior to, nor falls short of, the Essence of the Father; and therefore Paul has not only dared to use these expressions concerning Him, but also others like them. For the expression "from Whom," which you decide to belong properly to the Father alone, he uses also concerning the Son, when he says, "from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." (Col. ii. 19.)