1 John 1:1

And hence, although different points are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit, which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written." For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order.

"That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard."

Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.

What therefore he says, "from the beginning," the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes," he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled," he says, "of the Word of life." He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places,-this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.

"And our hands have handled of the Word of life; "that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched.

Read the testimony of John: "That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." False, of course, and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie.

But the very same apostles testify that they had both seen and "handled" Christ. Now, if Christ is Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh? If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in) the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in) the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who was also made flesh; whilst He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it is whom the apostles saw.

"That," says John, "which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the "Word in the beginning with God" the Father, and not the Father with the Word.

And this species of the divine patience indeed being, as it were, at a distance, may perhaps be esteemed as among "things too high for us; " but what is that which, in a certain way, has been grasped by hand among men openly on the earth? God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother's womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults of the tempter; while from being" Lord" He becomes" Master," teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience.

To God their beauty, to God their youth (is dedicated). With Him they live; with Him they converse; Him they "handle" by day and by night; to the Lord they assign their prayers as dowries; from Him, as oft as they desire it, they receive His approbation as dotal gifts.

Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the Lord Himself, When they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must turn away from following Him, but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from God, they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.

Concerning this more gracious touch John speaks: "...and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life."

But the writer of the Revelation puts himself forward at once in the very beginning, for he says: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which He gave to him to show to His servants quickly; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bare record of the Word of God, and of his testimony, and of all things that he saw." And then he writes also an epistle, in which he says: "John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be unto you, and peace." The evangelist, on the other hand, has not prefixed his name even to the catholic epistle; but without any circumlocution, he has commenced at once with the mystery of the divine revelation itself in these terms: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes." And on the ground of such a revelation as that the Lord pronounced Peter blessed, when He said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other, and both commence in the same way. For the one opens thus, "In the beginning was the Word;" while the other opens thus, "That which was from the beginning." The one says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father." The other says the same things, with a slight alteration: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: and the life was manifested." For these things are introduced by way of prelude, and in opposition, as he has shown in the subsequent parts, to those who deny that the Lord is come in the flesh. For which reason he has also been careful to add these words: "And that which we have seen we testify, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us: that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you."

ON THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word (Jn. 1:1). What is “in the beginning”? For we also read in the ancient Books: In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). And in the Epistle of him whose Gospel it is, and about whose “beginning” we are trying to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: That which was from the beginning. (1 Jn. 1:1) The Epistle therefore and the Gospel have one and the same meaning. For it is one thing that is said in the old text, In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and another when he says, In the beginning was the Word; and, That which was from the beginning (1 Jn. 1:1). For to be in the beginning, and to be from the beginning, mean one and the same thing, in the case of that which from the beginning was what it was, and did not begin to be. For that which begins to be, was not from the beginning; and therefore it is subjected to a beginning, that is, to be the first among other things in order, because, being itself made at the beginning, it began to have others after itself, which were made after it. As we read that in the beginning God made heaven and earth: he did not say, In the beginning were heaven and earth; because when they did not yet exist, and God was disposing Himself to make the world, in the beginning, that is, among the other things which were to contribute to the construction of the world, God first made heaven and earth; because beginning is the starting point of one who undertakes something that is first in order. But that which is said, that in the beginning it was, that is, the Word, is meant to have existed before the beginning of the higher and lower creation; so that it should by no means be understood as having been made first among these things which have been created, as if it were made earlier, when God was disposing Himself to make creation. Therefore, if in the beginning it was, that is, it was before all things, it always was. And so too it was the Word. Where? With God, he says, lest it should be thought unworthy and in any way subject to a beginning, it which always was with God. For it is fitting that what was before all things with God should not be subjected to any beginning. Therefore he added: And the Word was God. Now he shows plainly that what was said above applies to the Word; for he says, The Word was God: and concerning God one must not think otherwise than that He should always be said to have been. For if He began to be, He is a creature; if He is a creature, He is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature; and therefore the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because He did not begin to be (He was, in fact), He is rightly said to be God. But He is said to have always been with God because He is God not from Himself, but from God. On this account His name is said to be the Word of God, as the faith of the same evangelist shows in his Revelation. For he says among other things: And His name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). For in order that He might not be signified as the One from whom are all things, but as the One through whom are all things, that is, not as the Father but as the Son, He is called the Word of God: so that, because God cannot be without His Word, this One who is called the Word of God may be believed to have always been with God; and because the Word is not outside Him whose Word it is, this Word which was with God may be understood as signified to be not from elsewhere, but from God; and because He is from God, He is not absurdly called God. Therefore he does not make two gods by saying that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will. For if we men, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more, where the natures are different? and neither would God be said to be with God. For the God who was and is with God does not have from Himself that He is God; otherwise, neither would He be said to be God with God, nor would the Word of God be called God the Word; but because that which is from God does not signify any other kind of being than that which God Himself is, the Word of God is called God, so that, because He is said to be the Word of God, He should not be referred to another God. And the fact that He is called God happens for this reason, lest it should tend to the injury of God, if that which was from God were not at all called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved, and the fitting honor has been rendered, since He who is God from God has not been received in His own glory, but in that of Him from whom He is God. For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father; because questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. No one doubts about God, but about Him who is God from God. For every tongue of those in heaven and on earth confesses one God; but it is disturbed in the mystery of the one God. It trembles when it hears the Word of God called God; for it is struck by bodily representations, because the word of a man cannot be called a man; whereas God is by nature simple, not composed of members, nor having an inside and an outside, nor a before and after, nor top and bottom; but, if it can be said, He is wholly and entirely the same in all respects, nowhere variable or unlike Himself; and His one brightness is measureless. For if fire has neither front nor back, nor inside and outside, how much more its Creator? Therefore, because everything that God is, is entirely one and simple, it does not conflict, when something that is from God is called God. Therefore, partly according to a human example, and partly not according to a human example, the Son of God who is the Word of God is God. For in the same way in which sons of men are men, the Son of God is God; but because sons of men are men by mixture, in this respect the Son of God is not God by that example; because from the simple God He is simply born. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from Him; but because our word is not what we ourselves are, in this respect the Word of God is not from God in the same manner; because the Word of God is a reality, not a sound that fades away. Nor, because we and God share common words, will there be one and the same explanation for us and for God in the actual effect of things. For we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. How did He make? Perhaps as we make our works with the hand? And further on it says: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Whom do we suppose God spoke to? For He surely did not speak to man, but to Him who could make, who was also going to make man, as indeed He did. But how did He speak? Perhaps as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, then, that certain words are indeed shared between us and God, but they differ in their effect: for God acts in a different way than we do; and He is said to speak, but not in our manner. So also the Word of God is not a word of the kind we use, which, once it is spoken, no longer exists; that Word, however, remains, because it is such a Word that it hears, and speaks, and works. Moreover, it is not only the Word of God, but also the Power and the Wisdom of God, this is the Son of God. In respect to effect, He is called the Son of God; in respect to the speech by which God addresses us through Him, He is called the Word of God; in respect to the wisdom by which God teaches us His mystery through Him, He is called the Wisdom of God; and in respect to the operation by which God made and makes all things through Him, He is called the Power of God. These titles could fit no one except the Son of God. Precisely because He is God from God, He is said to possess all that is God’s. For by being born He obtained all things of God. It would not be fitting that the Word of God, and the Power and Wisdom of God, should be called degenerate: for this is what “God the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom” means. But Christ, because He is wholly God from the whole God, is God; and He is called the Wisdom of God, and the Power, and the Word: that is, He is God from God, and with God. Therefore it is said, This was in the beginning with God. In order to overcome the minds of unbelievers, Scripture burst forth under force, to show that Christ is God, since everywhere, for the sake of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God. Now, however, in plain words it has said that He is God, and that He has always been with God, laying open the mystery of God, lest God be thought utterly solitary. It has declared that God is not called one in order that He be considered solitary, but that, although there be two or three, yet from the one, the unity is not discriminatory, because whatever is from the one is referred back to that very one, since He is one, even though all things are said to be from God. Yet there is a difference between that which properly came forth from God and that which was created from outside at His command: that is, there is a difference between that which proceeded from His substance and that which, when it in no way existed, was created by His will. For that which proceeded from the substance of God was never subsequent to His substance; whereas that which was created began to be a substance when it was created: and therefore the Trinity alone has no beginning. Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery has diminished the merit of faith: for the more hidden that which is believed is, the greater is the reward of the believer, and the lesser the punishment of the doubter. But the disclosure of the mystery, while it has made the merits of believers lesser, has stirred up greater punishments for the unbelieving. For a clearer law makes one more guilty. The testimony of the Saviour Himself, by which He called God His own Father, would have sufficed. For which of the believers would doubt that the Son in substance is in no way different from the Father? But because the unreasonableness of heretics, by inventions of unbelief, began to assail the laws of faith by receiving the Son of God otherwise than He is proclaimed, it was added, for the sake of making this known, that He was before all things with God and is God, so as to reveal what the concept of a true Son mystically contained. By this, divine mercy appears to have provided for human weakness, by unveiling what had been reserved, as enclosed, for the merits of a stronger faith. Therefore it added, saying, All things were made through Him, so that if anyone from what had been said above still hesitated in any respect, since human understanding is narrow for grasping divine things, from this he might become capable, when he hears, All things were made through Him. Therefore he would by no means think Him to be a thing made, since he hears that all things were made through Him by God; for if He Himself were a thing made, it would not have said that all things were made through Him by God: nor indeed was He made through Himself. To reveal this more fully still, it added, And without Him, it says, was made nothing: in saying this, it excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are still those who refuse to believe, nevertheless, when it shows that nothing was made without Him, it has taught that in no way ought He to be suspected of being a creature. For how can He Himself be said to be a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without Him? If God made Him, Scripture lies. But far be it. For Scripture is faithful, and, in order to cut off error, it uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human beings unto salvation. Finally it subjoined, What was made in Him was life (Jn. 1:2–4): in Him, that is, in the Word, it signifies that what was made is life. As the Lord Himself also says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself (Jn. 5:26). It is not that the Word was without life, and afterwards life was either given or made in Him; rather, He wishes the Word itself to be understood as life. If one can say of God the Father that He Himself is one thing and has in Himself another; so also of His Son: for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave the Son to have life in Himself. Human words are not fit to explain divine realities. Therefore what is said seems flawed, in that, while the Son of God is not a creature, that which is, is said to have been made in Him. And if it had said, “what was begotten in Him,” even so it would have seemed flawed. But to show His substantial generation, it pointed to the work made in it by such language as it could use, by which it exists, demonstrating that His generation has life in itself. For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that same life is not in our power. He, however, is said to have life in Himself precisely because He is able to give life and to create what He wills to exist and to live. For this He is said to be born, that He might be able to do all that the Father does; because He has life in Himself just as the Father has. For this is what it means that He made all things through Him and in Him: He so begot Him as to have in Himself life, through which He can make all things, not because He Himself is something other than life, but since His life can both live and create others to live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we indeed live, but we do not have life itself in us in such a way that we also give life to others. This reality the Apostle Paul also recalls among other things when he says: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature; for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers; all things were created through him and in him” (Col. 1:15–16). Now the Gospels agree with this teaching of the two Apostles, John and Paul: for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers, and the world, and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that “what was made, in him is life,” Paul signified in the same way when he said that “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created.” And further on: “All things were created through him and in him.” “Through him” he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but “in him,” because he so begot the Son that he might have the power to make all things visible and invisible. This consisted in making life in him, so that he might both live, and bestow life on others for living, understanding, acting, and upon the other living beings according as he willed, as the image of God. For when he is called the image of God, this refers to both aspects: for by his express birth he possesses in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is truly the Father who is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God. Surely, because he called the Father invisible, he did not thereby make the Son visible, since the Son is by nature what the Father is. And since the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more its Creator? But he meant this of what is in heaven, not of what is on earth; for although the Son is invisible, yet he is seen there, that is, in the heavenly realms, by the Apostles or by others of that kind, of whom he said: “Father, I will that where I am, they also may be with me, and may see my glory” (Jn. 17:24). And elsewhere: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8); that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image; which is God in God. As the body is the image of a bodily thing, so God is the image of God: for the Father is the pattern, and the Son is the pattern taken from the pattern, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit; “For he shall take of mine,” he says (Jn. 16:14). And therefore in the Son God is seen as in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4–8), so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing in between that could stand as an obstacle between the Father and the Son, as he himself bears witness when he says: “Neither has anyone seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46). But if in the Son the Father is seen, why is it said that no one is worthy to see God, since he is seen in the Son, because the Son does not differ from the Father? He does not differ at all in substance, because he is the true Son; it differs, however, in the degree of origin [causalitatis], because all power is from the Father in the Son; and in substance the Son is not lesser, yet in authority the Father is greater, as the Lord himself testifies, saying: “If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28). Keeping this order, the Apostle Paul also says: “One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Cor. 8:6): so that the first degree is “from whom are all things”; the second, “through whom are all things”; the third, “in whom are all things.” And because none of these is inferior, they are signified in the unity of God, as the Apostle says: “For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory forever and ever” (Rom. 11:36).

Many think that these words apply to the postresurrection appearances of Jesus and say that John is speaking of himself and the other disciples who first of all heard that the Lord had risen and afterwards saw him with their own eyes, to the point where they touched his feet, his hands and his side and felt the imprint of the nails. For even if Thomas was the only one who actually made physical contact with him, he was representative of the others, for the Savior told them all to touch him and see for themselves. But others take these words in a deeper sense, noting that they do not simply speak about touching but also about handling the "word of life which was from the beginning." Who can this refer to, other than to the one who said: "I am that I am"? Another interpretation is that we have now seen openly with our own eyes the one who was in the beginning, of whom the law and the prophets spoke, saying that he would come. He has indeed come and was seen in the flesh, and after much handling of the scriptural texts which bear witness to him, this is what we believe about the Word of life.

Who is he that with hands doth handle the Word, except because "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us"? Now this Word which was made flesh that it might be handled, began to be flesh, of the Virgin Mary: but not then began the Word, for the Apostle saith, "That which was from the beginning." See whether his epistle does not bear witness to his gospel, where ye lately heard, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Perchance, "Concerning the word of life" one may take as a sort of expression concerning Christ, not the very body of Christ which was handled with hands. See what follows: "And the Life was manifested." Christ therefore is "the word of life." And whereby manifested? For it was "from the beginning," only not manifested to men: but it was manifested to angels, who saw it and fed on it as their bread. But what saith the Scripture? "Man did eat angels' bread." Well then "the Life was manifested" in the flesh; because it exhibited in manifestation, that that which can be seen by the heart only, should be seen by the eyes also, that it might heal the hearts. For only by the heart is the Word seen: but the flesh is seen by the bodily eyes also. We had wherewith to see the flesh, but had not wherewith to see the Word: "the Word was made flesh," which we might see, that so that in us might be healed wherewith we might see the Word.

How can you believe that what always existed took a beginning later on?

Given that this same John also said, "No one has ever seen God," how can he assure us that the living Word of life has been seen and touched? It is clear that it was in his incarnate and human form that he was visible and touchable. What was not true of him by nature became true of him in that way, for he is one and the same indivisible Word, both visible and invisible, and without diminishing in either respect he became touchable in both his divine-human nature. For he worked his miracles in his divinity and suffered for us in his humanity.

This is directed towards Jews and Greeks, who also slander our mystery as being more recent. It shows therefore that it is also ancient, because from the beginning, that is, at the same time as the conceived [ἐννοηθείσῃ] beginning. Or that it is not only by law, but also of the visible creation itself, that this is more inspiring: for the former had a beginning, but this was even before that beginning. Therefore, when the mysteries of the Greeks arose yesterday or the day before, what can anyone say? Those things that are praised in the self-indulgence of the mind have received a substance that barely withstands late, when filthiness was already prevalent among men, of which both discipline and remembrance as we decline from the better to our confusion of night.
Therefore, demonstrating the magnificence of our mystery from its very antiquity, John added that this is also life, and life measured not by time-based space, but having persistence and always existing with the Father, saying things that are in accordance with what was said in his Gospel. For there it is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Jn. 1:1) However, this "was" does not designate a time-based subsistence, but is the essence of a lasting thing, and the principle, basis, and foundation of all that have come to be, without which not even these could exist. Each of them, as they are born, is said to be something determined, for example, to be an angel, to be the sun, to be the sky, and all other things. But the Son, being alone, comes to participate in all things for existence. Therefore, Paul says: "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 18:28)
This to have heard according to the introductory doctrine, where one first receives, comes to live itself, not corporally, but perfectly knowing, after long exercise and consideration: which is also called contact with the Word of life, which said: "I am the life." (Jn. 14:6) However, this can also be said about the Word that was in the beginning: namely, that we have heard it would come through the law and the prophets. Therefore, we have seen and touched this one coming in the flesh: "for no one has ever seen God visibly." (Jn. 1:18, 1 Jn. 4:12) Nor did we hastily decide from the appearance, but after a long examination, that is, the mutual questioning of the law and prophetic testimonies concerning Him, we believed in the Word appearing in the flesh. But, what we have seen, that is, we have admired with our eyes. For Θεασθαι "to have looked upon" is to gaze with wonder and astonishment. Therefore, we have not perceived or touched what was there, for who can declare this generation? (Isa. 53:8) But what has happened: either through interactions of understanding, as has already been said, or also through the senses, as Thomas after the resurrection. (Jn. 20:26) For he was one and inseparable, the same both visible and invisible, both seized and unable to be comprehended, both touched and unable to be touched, speaking in a human manner and performing miracles as God.
However, we say this because of the supreme union of the Word with the flesh. The series of words is this: 1:1-2c That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, of the Word of Life; for the life was revealed, and we have seen it, and bear witness: And I declare to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us: therefore, what we have seen, we also declare to you.
Here therefore the discourse responds where it is said. What therefore we have seen. However, the discourse was not reported as we have: first indeed because of the use of abbreviated words, then also despising the trivialities of the Greeks, and showing that our salvation is not in words, but in works, and making us more attentive in these matters, lest we should immediately find what is proposed there and become negligent. Furthermore, dealing with divine matters, he wished to conceal in obscurity those things which were more uplifting than could be accepted by profane ears, nor should they be safely spread to them. For it is not the act of a sensible man, nor of a discerning consideration, to throw what is holy to dogs, and to cast pearls before swine. (Matt. 7:6)

The disciples were with Jesus from the beginning, and so they could preach what they had seen and heard in his presence without any ambiguity.

That which we have seen and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life. For not only did they see the Lord with their physical eyes like the others, but they also perceived His divine power with their spiritual eyes. Especially those who saw Him transfigured on the mount, among whom was John himself. And when he says, "and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life," he refutes the madness of the Manichaeans, who deny that the Lord assumed true flesh; the apostles could not doubt the truth of this flesh, as they attested not only by seeing but also by touching; especially John himself who, accustomed to recline on His bosom at supper, touched His limbs more freely the closer he was. And even after His resurrection from the dead, their hands touched concerning the Word of life, as they understood without any doubt that He had taken on true flesh, though now incorruptible, hearing Him say: "Touch and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have" (Luke 24). It is well said, "and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life," because as they proved the truth of His resurrected flesh by touching with their hands, they more surely knew Him to be the Word of life, that is, the true God. Hence Thomas, who was specially ordered to touch Him, immediately upon touching the flesh, confessed Him to be God, saying, "My Lord and my God" (John 20).

About this epistle many have erred, supposing that it was written by the apostle John, yet if they had investigated the matter they would have seen that the thought, shape and authority of this letter are greatly inferior to the sound words of the Evangelist.

He says this both to the Jews and to the pagans, who disparage the mystery of our salvation as something recent. The Apostle shows that it is also ancient, for it is from the beginning and contemporaneous with the beginning conceived in the mind, or that it is more ancient not only than the law, but even than the visible creation itself, for creation had a beginning, but it existed even before the very beginning. For what can anyone say about the pagan mysteries, which appeared yesterday and the day before? They, accompanied by debauchery, arose late, at a time when impurity already dwelt in people, which that debauchery serves as a crowning point and monument, and through which we descended from a good state into the darkest night. Presenting the greatness of our mystery in its comparative antiquity, the Apostle adds that it is also Life — Life not measured by a span of time, but self-existent, as always being with the Father, as it is also said in the Gospel: "and the Word was with God" (John 1:1). The word "was" signifies not a temporal existence, but the self-existent being of a known subject, the origin and foundation of everything that received being, such that without it the latter could not have come into being. Although it is said of every created being that it is — for example, there is an angel, there is a heaven, there is a sun, and so forth — yet properly and perfectly only the Son alone is, through Whose participation all things come into being. Therefore Paul also says: "in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). He who previously heard about this from the initial teaching passes on to the seeing of Him, not bodily but intellectually, and not with bodily eyes but with mental ones. "Handled" is said of the Word of Life, Who said: "I am the life" (John 14:6). Perhaps it is said this way also about the Word existing in the beginning, because we heard from the law and the prophets that It would come. When It came openly with flesh, we saw It and handled It. For God, as He is in Himself, "no one has ever seen" (John 1:18). And we attached ourselves to the Word that appeared not carelessly, but, as already said, after handling, that is, after investigation in the law and the prophets we believed in the Word that appeared in the flesh. We saw and handled not what It "was" (for "who shall declare His generation?" (Isaiah 53:8)), but what It "became," and we handled It both by mental touch and at the same time by sensory touch, as, for example, Thomas did after the resurrection. For He was One and undivided, One and the Same — visible and invisible, containable and uncontainable, untouchable and tangible, speaking as a man and working miracles as God. So we speak of the Word on account of the most intimate union of God with the flesh.

"Beheld" means the same as saw with one's own eyes and marveled; for θεάσασθαι derives from θαυμάζειν and means: to look with wonder. "Handled" means the same as examined. The connection of the discourse is as follows: that which was from the beginning, which we heard, and saw, and beheld with our eyes, and which our hands handled concerning the Word of life, which was manifested, and which we saw, and bear witness to, and declare unto you, that is, the eternal life which is with the Father and was manifested to us; so then, what we saw, that we also declare unto you,

The Apostle did not proclaim in the way we do, first, for the sake of brevity of speech, then out of disregard for Hellenic empty talk, further, to show that our salvation is not in words but in deeds, and finally, to make us more attentive, so that we, finding what is set forth easy and as if self-evident, would not become distracted. Beyond this, the Theologian wished by obscurity to conceal that which is above impure hearing and with which it is unsafe to fill it; "for to give what is holy to dogs and to cast pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6) is contrary to sound reason.

The third certainty derives from an intellectual vision combined with bodily vision. This occurred in the minds of the apostles. What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled, the Word of Life. And we announce to you nothing else than what we have seen. Wherefore Thomas wanted to touch, and was told: "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed." And the blessed Virgin Mary, the teacher of the Apostles and Evangelists, came in contact with this Word in her womb and on her lap.