Chapters from the treatise “On the Book of Genesis” (early edition)

What is incomprehensible to us in natural things (and this, as we believe, was produced by the omnipotent Artist God) should be spoken not affirmatively, but demonstratively, especially in those books that are recommended to us by Divine authority and in which it is difficult for a person who rashly asserts something doubtful to avoid the charge of blasphemy. But, on the other hand, inquisitiveness in research should not go beyond the limits designated by the Catholic faith. And since many heretics are in the habit of interpreting the Divine Scripture according to their own understanding, which does not agree with Catholic teaching, then before discussing the book (of Genesis), I consider it necessary to briefly outline the fundamental principles of the Catholic faith. They are as follows: Almighty God the Father created and ordered all creation through His only begotten Son, that is, Wisdom and Power, consubstantial and coeternal with Himself, together with the Holy Spirit, also consubstantial and coeternal. Therefore, Catholic teaching instructs us to call this Trinity one God and to believe that He created and created all things insofar as they exist; so that every creature, both rational and corporeal, or, in the words of Scripture, both visible and invisible, was created not from the divine nature, but by God out of nothing, and there is nothing in it pertaining to the Trinity, except perhaps that it was created by Him. Therefore, one must speak and believe in such a way that all creation is neither consubstantial nor coeternal with God. On the other hand, everything created by God is “good”; evil, therefore, is not something that exists, but everything that we call evil is either sin or punishment for sin. And sin itself is nothing more than a vicious inclination of our free will, when we incline toward what righteousness prohibits, and to abstain from what is a matter of our free choice; Thus, the sin lies not in the things themselves, but in the illegal use of them. The lawful use of things is for the soul to remain in the law of God and with complete love be subordinated to God alone, and to rule everything else that is already subordinate to it without passion and lust, that is, according to the commandment of God, for in this case it will rule without difficulty and misfortune, with the greatest ease and bliss. The same disastrous state, when the soul is tormented by creatures that disobey it and itself, in turn, does not submit to God, is the punishment for sin, for when it was submissive to God, then the creature also submitted to it. It turns out that fire itself is not evil, since it is God’s creation, but it burns our weak being as a result of sin. Those sins that we necessarily commit before God’s mercy, after we have fallen into our current state due to the sin of free will, are called natural sins. But man was renewed through Jesus Christ our Lord, when the ineffable and immutable Wisdom of God itself deigned to receive the full and perfect man; He was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended into heaven. All this has already happened; now He must come at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead and to resurrect in the flesh. Those who believe in Christ are given the Holy Spirit. He founded the Mother Church, which is called Catholic (universal) because it is perfect in the totality of its members, is not confined to any one of them, and is spread throughout the whole world. Those who repent are forgiven of all previous sins and are promised eternal life and the kingdom of heaven. In accordance with this faith, one must look at what in the book (of Genesis) can be subject to testing and research. The interpreters of Scripture recommend four ways of explaining the Law, the names of which can be given in Greek, but defined and explained in Latin. They are: historical, allegorical, analogical and etiological. Historical is when some divine or human action is remembered; allegorical, when sayings are understood allegorically; analogical, when the agreement of the Old and New Testaments is indicated; etiological, when reasons for words and actions are given. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). So, these words can be considered from the following angles: should they be understood only in a historical sense, or do they mean something allegorically, to what extent, further, do they agree with the Gospel and why the book (of Genesis) begins with these words. In a historical sense, the question is possible what “in the beginning” means: at the beginning of time, or in the Beginning, i.e. in the very Wisdom of God, for the Son of God, when asked who He was, answered: “Who is from the beginning” (John 8:25). After all, there is a Beginning without beginning, and there is a Beginning from another Beginning. The beginning without beginning is the Father alone, which is why we believe that everything (came from) one Beginning. The Son is the Beginning in the sense that He is from the Father. Even the first rational creature can be called the beginning of that of which in God’s creation it serves as the head. In fact, since the beginning is also called the head, the apostle says: “The head of every man is Christ, the husband of every woman, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cop. 11:3): thus the creation is subordinate to the Creator. Or perhaps “in the beginning” is said because that was the first creation? But can heaven and earth be called first in the series of creations, if angels and all intelligent forces were originally created? After all, we must consider angels to be created by God, as stated in the psalm, where (along with other created things) angels are also mentioned, to whom it is also said: “Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded, and they were created” (Ps. 149:2, 5). But if angels were originally created, then we can ask: were they created in time, before time, or along with time? If the first, then time, which is also creation, was created before the angels; if the latter, then the opinions of those who claim that time began with heaven and earth are false. If the angels were created before time, then one must ask how this is consistent with the further words: “And God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven to separate the day from the night, and for signs, and seasons, and days, and years”? From these words it is clear that time began when the sky and celestial bodies began to move along the path determined by him; and if so, then how could there have been days earlier than the beginning of time, which received its beginning from the movement of the luminaries created, as it is said, on the fourth day? Or, perhaps, the mention of those days was introduced out of condescension towards human weakness, in accordance with the laws of storytelling, in order to give people an idea of ​​sublime objects through simple speech, since the narrator’s speech itself cannot do without a beginning, middle and end? Or is the mention of the luminaries made in order to designate in connection with them the time that is measured by the continuity of bodily movements? After all, we define time this way: through the movement of bodies. But if so, then we need to ask: can there be time outside the movement of bodies? In the movement, for example, of an incorporeal creature, such as the soul or mind, which, undoubtedly, moves when thinking, and in this movement reaches one earlier and the other later, and “earlier” and “later” are unthinkable outside the concept of time. If we accept all this, then at the same time we will have to admit the idea that time was before heaven and earth, since angels were created before heaven and earth. For then there was already a creature that spent time in incorporeal movements. And this will not be a mistake if we admit the existence of time together with such a creature, just as it exists in our soul, which, thanks to bodily feelings, is accustomed to bodily time. Or perhaps there is no time at all in the dominant and incorporeal creatures? But, be that as it may (and this is a very mysterious subject and inaccessible to human thought), we must take it on faith, although this exceeds the capabilities of our thinking, that every creature has a beginning and that, among all other things, time was created, and therefore it also has a beginning and is by no means co-eternal with the Creator. One can also think that by the words “he created ... heaven and earth” we mean the creation of all creation in general, so that the ethereal firmament and invisible higher forces are called heaven, and the earth is the lower part of the world with all the animate beings inhabiting it. Or is the highest invisible creature simply called heaven, and the earth the lowest and visible one... But one can also ask: is the current (ordered) world understood by heaven and earth, or do these names designate the original formless matter, which then, in an ineffable way, according to the word of God, acquired its present form, with all its forms, species and nature? For although it is said that the world was created “from ugly matter,” it cannot be said that matter itself was not created by the One from whom, as we acknowledge and believe, everything came. So, perhaps, the arrangement and bringing of each individual thing into a definite and harmonious form is called the world, and matter itself is called heaven and earth, as if the seed of heaven and earth: that was heaven and earth in a disordered and mixed form, in a state convenient for the perception of forms from the Artist God. This is how long it took to discuss the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” for nothing about them was to be asserted lightly. “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the deep; and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1:2). Heretics (Manichaeans), who slander the Old Testament, usually slander this passage like this: “How did God create heaven and earth in the beginning, if the earth already existed?” They say this, not realizing that this only explains what the earth was like, about which it was previously said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This should be understood this way: God at the beginning created heaven and earth, but this earth created by God was formless and empty until He Himself ordered it and brought it out of its original confusion into a harmonious form. This can also be understood this way: the same matter is mentioned here, which in the first verse was called heaven and earth, so the meaning of what was said will be this: in the beginning God created heaven and earth, but what was called heaven and earth was formless and empty earth, and darkness (was) over the deep, i.e. that which is called heaven and earth was a certain mixed matter, from which, by isolating the elements from it and assuming form, the world was formed, consisting of the two largest parts, heaven and earth. This initial mixture of matter is called, in order to simplify the understanding (of the readers), formless, that is, disordered, and empty earth; darkness over the abyss is an indication of the infinite depth (of primary matter). This depth is called an abyss because no one’s thought can comprehend it due to its (absolute) formlessness. "And darkness is upon the deep." Was there an abyss below and darkness above, as if space were already divided? Or, since the description of mixed matter still continues, which in Greek is called χαοζ, is it said: “And darkness was upon the abyss” because there was not yet light, which, if there had been, then, of course, would have been above, illuminating what is below? In fact, if you carefully consider what darkness is, it turns out that it is nothing more than the absence of light. Thus, these words convey the following thought: “There was no light over the abyss.” Therefore, matter, which is determined by the further action of God into the forms of (concrete) things, is called formless and empty earth and depth devoid of light, having previously been called by the name of heaven and earth, as was said above; unless, however, under the name of heaven and earth, the writer of everyday life first wanted to designate the entire universe, and then move on to the study of parts of the world. “And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.” The writer did not previously say that God created water, but because of this, one should in no way think that God did not create water and that it already existed before He created anything. “For,” as the apostle said, “all things are from Him, by Him, and to Him” (Rom. 11:36). Consequently, God created water, and to think otherwise is a great misconception. But why is nothing said about this? Didn’t the writer (here) want to also call water that very matter that he previously called heaven and earth, then formless and empty earth, then the abyss? In fact, why not call it water if it was also called earth, when (in essence) it was neither formed water, nor earth, nor anything else? Perhaps at first it was called heaven and earth, then - formless and empty earth, and, finally, water for the purpose of first, under the name of heaven and earth, to designate the matter of the entire universe, for which it was created completely out of nothing; then, by the name of formless and empty earth, to designate formlessness, since among all the elements, earth is the most formless and the least light; finally, by the name of water, to designate matter subject to the action of the Creator, for water is more mobile than earth, and therefore matter subject to the action of the Creator, in view of the ease of processing and greater mobility, should have been called water rather than earth...