Defensive [word] about Shestodnevo

“The Protective Word about the Sixth Day” was written by St. Gregory of Nyssa, probably in 379 in Armenia at the request of his brother Peter, Bishop of Sebaste. The treatise aims to eliminate the misunderstanding of some passages in the “Conversations on the Six Days” by St. Basil the Great, refute the accusations of incompleteness and contradictions, and clarifies some questions omitted by St. Vasily due to their low accessibility to the understanding of his listeners. Since St. Vasily in his “Six Days” was interested mainly in the literal meaning of the biblical text and avoided allegorism, then St. Gregory in his work adheres to the same techniques. At the conclusion of his apology, St. Gregory of Nyssa states that he tried to preserve the literal meaning of what was written and to reconcile the natural view with the letter. Some researchers see in the treatise of St. Gregory, a certain natural philosophical polemic with the “Conversations on the Six Days” of St. Basil the Great. *The title of the work in Greek is ᾿Απολοϒητικὸς περὶ τῆς ξαημέρου. *The title of the work in Latin is Apologia in Hexaemeron. A word of protection to brother Peter What are you doing, man of God, ordering us to dare what is inaccessible to man, to take on such things in which it is not only impossible to succeed, but in which, in my opinion, it is not impeccable to undertake? What in the great Moses, in his wise and divinely inspired tale of the world, seems to contain a contradiction according to the initially perceived meaning of what was written, you ordered us, having found in this some meaning consistent with the subject, to bring it into mutual connection, to prove that the Holy Scripture is in agreement with itself, and to do this after the divinely inspired review that our father left about this, to whom everything those who read, acting, in my opinion, well and justly, are amazed no less than at the wise saying of Moses himself. What relation does the ear have to the grain, which is made of grain, and not a grain, or better yet, it is also a grain in internal strength, but differs from it in size, in beauty, in variety and in appearance; the same attitude (someone else might say) to what was said by the great Moses has the thoughts processed by the great Basil with a laborious review. What Moses expressed in a few and definite words, our teacher, having grown with sublime wisdom, in the image of that likened to the kingdom, “the mustard seed” (Matthew 13.31), which in the heart of the worker grows into a tree, he made not an ear of grain, but a tree: and it abounds everywhere with thoughts, instead of branches it spreads teachings, and with a pious purpose it stretches into heights, so that exalted and lofty souls, in the Gospel called “the birds of heaven” (Matthew 13.32), according to the size of such branches, can nest on them; because the agreement of questions serves as a kind of nest for the soul, resting this inquisitiveness of a mind that stops at nothing, which is like some kind of circling flight back and forth. Therefore, is it possible to plant a small branch of our understanding against such a great tree of words? Or do you not order this? And I would never have decided to oppose the hard work of our father and teacher with my own work? But gardeners do wonders, managing to diversify the fruits on one tree. And this is their way of cultivating plants: having plucked a small petal from another tree with a skin continued at the base, on another large plant they put this skin into a cut in any part of it, so that the inserted, feeding on the natural sap of the large plant, is born into a branch. So I, my understanding, like some small offspring, having grown together with the moisture of the great tree - the wisdom of our teacher, will try to become his branch, becoming as close as possible to me with his thoughts, and filling myself with the abundance of reasons for reflection given to me in them. For I think that some did not understand well the purpose of what he wrote in the Sixth Day; and therefore they blame him for not giving them clear knowledge about the sun; why is this luminary specially created after three days, and not together with other stars; since it is not possible for the daily measure to be determined in the morning and in the evening, unless the sun certainly begins to produce evening by its setting, and morning by its rising. And they also do not allow the creation of two heavens, saying: although the Apostle mentions the “third heaven” (2 Cor 12.2), nevertheless, doubt remains in this reasoning; because in the beginning one heaven was created, and then the firmament, about another heaven, that is, about the secondary creation, it is not written in Moses, and it cannot be proven that these two also mean a third heaven, since neither after the firmament was another created heaven, nor the expression: “in the beginning” does not allow us to imply any previously existing heaven. If the heaven was created in the beginning, then it is clear that creation began then. It would not be in accordance with reason to call it a beginning that has another higher principle. What occupies a second place in order is not a beginning, and is not called a beginning. This means that here too the mention of the second heaven belongs to the number of questions. Those who propose this and the like do not pay attention, it seems to me, to the purpose of the teaching that our father had, who, speaking in a crowded Church with such a crowd of people, necessarily took into account those who received the word. In this number of listeners, although there were many capable of understanding more sublime words, the majority were unable to follow a more subtle search for thoughts; like simple people, working people, engaged in sedentary work, like a congregation of wives who had not studied such sciences, and a crowd of children, and the elderly, they all had a need for such speech, which, through understandable instruction through the visible creation, and what is good in it, would lead to the knowledge of the Creator of all things. Why, if anyone judges what is said, taking into account the purpose of the great teacher; then he will not find any fault in his words. For he did not give a speech in which the proposed objections are hotly disputed, but was entirely occupied with the simplest interpretation of the sayings, in order to offer a word useful for the simplicity of those listening, and so that together his interpretation, pointing to the many different teachings of external wisdom, would satisfy several listeners capable of understanding the highest; and thus it was understandable to the common people, and aroused surprise among those in the know. But you, as if on Mount Sinai, having left a numerous people below, and having surpassed others in understanding, you are strengthening with the great Moses to enter into that darkness of contemplation of the mysteries in which he was, and saw the invisible, heard the unspeakable in words, and you try to find out the necessary order of creation, why, after bringing heaven and earth into being, light, in order to become light, awaited God's command, and the darkness was already there without commands? And if the light lacked nothing to illuminate the air below, and determine the time of day and night; then what was the need for the creation of the sun? And if together with the sky in the beginning the earth was brought into being; then why was what was brought into being not arranged? For to arrange and to create does not seem to be conceptually different. And if creation is the same as ordering, then why is what was created not arranged? And in the reasoning of the moist essence there are difficulties; namely, on top of the vault of heaven, which has the shape of a ball, it is impossible for anything fluid to stick. For how is moisture established on the slope, when the wet, of all necessity, flows from the convexity of the ball onto its inclined parts? How, with the incessant movement of what is under the moisture, will it have constancy in itself, always sliding on its own foundation? Why does it not dissipate with the fastest rotation of the pole, which undoubtedly repels what is on it? And the loss of moist nature seems incredible to those objecting; because collections of water are always equally visible in springs, rivers, lakes, excluding only some sources, which, borrowing their abundance of water from the earth’s surface, pour out what is filled with rain and snow, and like temporary streams, according to the tide from above, both decrease and increase. With regard to sources from which a continuous current flows, without any diminution or increase, it is necessarily recognized that the moist essence in them is not lost: because what is squandered cannot always remain in equal measure. And fire, if it really did consume water, would not remain unincreasing in its own measure and not intensifying. For from the destruction of flammable matter it is impossible not to increase the nature of fire. So, if, being curious about this and the like, you strive to know everything sublime, then with your own wisdom you can see what is hidden in the darkness of Moses’ vision, turning not to anyone else, but to that grace that is in you, and experiencing the depths of God with that Spirit of revelation, which appears in you through prayers. But just as, according to the apostolic law, we must please each other for the sake of love, and it is common for a praiseworthy servant to carry out what he is commanded; then in as short words as possible, I will try to reveal my thoughts about this, using your prayer as a supporter of the word. But before I get down to business, let it be testified that we will not offer teachings contrary to what Saint Basil was wise about the world, even if our word, due to some sequence of thoughts, came to a different interpretation. On the contrary, let Vasilyevo retain the upper hand, yielding primacy to one divinely inspired covenant; and ours is offered to readers as a student exercise in some school, from which no harm will come to anyone, even if there is something in what has been said that does not agree with the general opinion. For we do not present this word as a dogma, which would give rise to slanderers, but we admit that we are only exercising our understanding in the proposed thoughts, and are not presenting an interpretative teaching in what follows. Therefore, let no one demand from my word that it take up the solution of the difficulties presented to us from the Holy Scriptures, and from what is correctly interpreted by our teacher, and seems to be inconsistent with general opinions. What I have to do is not come up with any justification for the contradictions that appear at first glance. On the contrary, let it be permitted, freely and in accordance with my purpose, to explore the meaning of the sayings; if only I am able, with God’s help, leaving my own expressiveness in the words, to come up with some coherent and consistent representation of what happened during creation. It is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), and therefore everything that contains the word about the existence of the world is said to be brought into existence during the six-day period. But before examining what is written, it is necessary, I think, to agree with the word that in the Divine nature, power accompanies will, and the will is the measure of God’s power. Will is wisdom; and it is characteristic of wisdom not to be ignorant of how each thing can happen. And with knowledge inseparable is power; why, together with how God knew what was about to happen, the power that created beings also acted, bringing into action what was intelligibly imagined, and as a result of knowledge, without being deceived in anything, so that the deed turned out to be in accordance with and inseparable from the decision of the will. For the decision of the will in God is at the same time the power that pre-wills that beings come into being, and prepares the occasions for the realization of what is imagined. Therefore, in the work of creation, one must imagine in God everything as a whole, will, wisdom, power, the essence of beings. And when this is really so: let no one bother himself by searching and asking about the substance: how and where does it come from? For, we hear, others say: “if God is not material; then where does the substance come from? How is the quantitative from the non-quantitative, the visible from the invisible, from the one without size and definite outline, necessarily determined by volume and size? And everything else that is seen in matter, how and from where did He produce it, Who in His nature has nothing like it”? But for every question about matter, we have one solution - not to assume that the wisdom of God is not powerful, and power is not wise; but on the contrary, to adhere to the thought that one is inseparable from the other, that both turn out to be one and the same, so that together and together with one, the other is seen. For the wise will of God is revealed by power in what is done, and the effective power of God is completed by the wise will. Therefore, if in one and the same thing and at the same time there is wisdom and power, then He is not unaware of how the substance for the structure of beings could be found, and He does not lack the power to bring the intellect into action. The Almighty, through his wise and powerful will to perfect beings, laid the foundation in the aggregate for everything from which matter is composed: lightness, heaviness, density, porosity, softness, hardness, moisture, dryness, coldness, warmth, color, image, outline, extension. All these properties in themselves are concepts and mere mental representations. For none of them in itself is a substance, but by converging with each other, they become a substance. Therefore, if we say about the One who prevails in wisdom and power that he knows everything and can do everything, then we will come, perhaps, somewhat closer to the sublime word of Moses, who says: in the title (this word was used by Aquila instead of the word: beginning) heaven and earth were created by God. Since the Prophet made the book of Genesis an introduction to the knowledge of God, and Moses’ goal was to lead those devoted to sensuality through the visible to an understanding that exceeds sensory understanding, and heaven and earth determine what we know through vision; that word named them as the extreme volumes of beings cognizable by us through the senses, so that, having said: the containing being received from God, to mean by it all the contents within these limits, and instead of saying: God created all beings in the aggregate, it said: in the title or in the beginning God created heaven and earth. For these two words have one meaning: in the beginning and in the title; both equally express the totality. In a word: the title shows that everything is brought into existence together, and in the word: in the beginning, instantaneity and continuity are expressed. The word: beginning is alien to the concept of any continuation. As a point is the beginning of a line, and an atom is the beginning of a bodily volume; so the moment is the beginning of time extension. Therefore, the total position of the foundation of beings by the ineffable power of God is called by Moses the beginning or title, in which everything is said to have taken place. For he called the extreme limits of creatures, and at the same time silently pointed out what lies between these limits. I mean the limits by human feeling, which does not extend to what is under the earth, and does not ascend further than the sky. So, in words: the beginning of the world’s existence presupposes such an understanding that God suddenly and in an instant laid the foundation for the reasons, reasons, and forces of all beings. The first aspiration of God's will was followed by the essence of each of the creatures: sky, ether, stars, fire, air, sea, earth, living beings, plants, everything that was visible to God's eye is indicated by the word of power, as the prophecy says, “he who knows everything before he was” (Dan. 13:42). When, by power and wisdom, the foundation was laid for the completion of each of the parts of the world, a necessary series followed in a certain order, so that fire appeared first and first of all other visible things in the universe, and after the fire it appeared that it was necessary to follow what preceded it, and after this the third, which artistic nature demanded; also, the fourth and fifth and everything else that followed appeared in this order not due to some spontaneous collision and not as a result of a disorderly and directionless movement. But just as the necessary order of nature requires consistency in what is brought into being, so Moses, in the form of a narrative setting out the wise teaching about the nature of things, speaks about the creation of each creature, adding some creative God's verbs by which each of the creatures is brought into being, and does this beautifully and magnificently; because everything, in some harmonious connection and wisely created by God, truly is a certain voice; because, although we do not know what God’s essence is, nevertheless, having imagined in our minds God’s Wisdom and God’s power, we assure ourselves that we have comprehended God with our minds. Therefore, when the universe came into being, before each of the creatures filling the universe appeared on its own, darkness was poured over everything. For the brilliance of fire, hidden in the particles of matter, has not yet appeared. How flints remain invisible in the darkness, although by nature they have a luminiferous power, when they mutually strike each other, they generate fire from themselves; but as soon as a spark appears from them, and with its lightness they themselves become visible: so everything was invisible and not revealed until the luminous essence came into manifestation. For when, by a single wave of God’s will, the universe was suddenly inseparably composed, and all the elements were still mixed with each other, then the fire scattered everywhere remained darkened, darkened by the excess of matter. But since there is a certain all-pervading and easily moving power in it; then, at the same time as the command was given by God to the nature of beings to bring the world into being, fire burst forth from every heavy nature, and suddenly illuminated everything with light. But what happened according to the word of wisdom by the power of the Creator, Moses mentions this as a commanding word of God, saying: “And God said: Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3); because with God, and according to our concept, deed is word; why everything brought into being by Him is brought into being by the word; and what is from God, it is impossible to imagine anything unreasonable in it, no matter how composed and spontaneous it is. But on the contrary, we must believe that each of the creatures contains some kind of wise and artistic word, although it is inaccessible to our gaze. So what did God say? Since such broadcasting is an imperative word, then it is divine, I think, we will understand this, relating this saying to the word embedded in the creature. So the great David interpreted similar broadcasts to us, saying: “You have done everything wisely” (Ps. 103:24). Those commanding verbs in the creation of creatures, which Moses wrote with the voice of God, David called wisdom, contemplated in created things. That’s why he says that “the heavens preach the glory of God,” that is, in a harmonious rotation, the artistic spectacle they open for those in the know replaces the word. For having said: “the heavens preach,” and “the firmament proclaims” (Ps. 18:2), David hereby corrects those who more roughly understand what was said, and think, perhaps, to hear both the sounds of broadcasting and articulate words in the telling of heaven; why does he say: “there is no tongue, and there is no speech where their voice is not heard” (Ps. 18:4); and thereby shows that the wisdom contemplated in creation is a word, although not articulate. And also, since Moses says that there were certain messages from God to him, spoken in miracles performed in Egypt; then the Psalmist interpreted them more sublimely than many understand, saying: “they showed among them the words of His signs and [His] wonders in the land of Ham” (Ps 104.27). For the Psalmist, having said that the effective power of each of the created beings is brought into activity by a certain word, with this saying made it clear that he did not so name the word actually spoken, but the power manifested in miracles. Therefore, here too, although the luminiferous force preceded the speed and mobility of nature and was separated from beings, separating itself from the foreign, and everything shone, illuminated by this radiant force, nevertheless, the word by which the essence of fire acted in this belonged to the one God who put the luminiferous word into nature. The great Moses testifies to this in his writing when he says: “And God said, Let there be light” (Gen. 1.3), expressing, as I think, the idea that the creation of light, which exceeds all human concepts, is God’s word. For we see only one thing that is happening, and we accept the miracle into ourselves by feeling. Where is the hidden fire instantly reborn? If it ignites when flints collide with each other, which ones? Or does it come from friction of other things? and what is this force that consumes what is engulfed in fire, and illuminates the air with flame? We can neither see this nor form any concept about it, but we say that the reason for this extraordinary miracle is hidden in the one God, who, according to the ineffable law of power, created that light is generated by fire; as Moses testifies in his word: “And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:3–4). For it was truly characteristic of the only God to see that the light would be such good; the poverty of our nature looks only at what has happened, and is unable to see or praise the law by which this is accomplished; because praise is given to what is known, and not to what is not known. So it is said: “And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1.4). What happens necessarily according to the very sequence of nature in a certain order and harmony, Moses again attributes to God’s activity, teaching, as I think, what was said that God’s wisdom premeditated everything that happened subsequently, one after another in a certain necessary order. For when the luminous essence, scattered throughout the universe, flowed towards its kin, and everything gathered around itself; then, darkened by the other substance of the elements, it was necessarily shaded, and this shadow was darkness. And this happening consistently, so that no one would attribute it to some random collision, Moses calls it the work of God, who put this power into what he created. That the nature of fire is fast, ever-moving and strives to spring up, this is known to every phenomenon. That according to this beginning the word is supposed to mean this sequentially, Moses describes historically in the form of a narrative: “and there was evening, and there was morning” (Gen. 1:5). For who does not know that since creation is understood in two ways, as something intelligible and something sensible, the legislator now has the task of not describing the intelligible, but showing us in phenomena the structure of the sensible. Since from the very moment when the universe began to be formed, fire, like some kind of arrow, thrown away by alien elements, by the lightness and swiftness of its natural movement, was expelled from everything, and with the same speed of thought, penetrating the sensual essence, could not continue to move in a straight line, because the intelligible creature, due to its lack of commonality, does not mix with the sensual, and fire is something sensual; then for this reason, having reached the extreme limits of creation, fire necessarily makes a circular movement, forced by the force invested in its nature to a common movement with the universe, while there is no place for it to move in a straight direction (because every sensory creature is confined within its own limits), makes its way along the extreme limit of sensory nature, moving wherever it is convenient, since, according to what we said before, the intelligible nature does not give way to fire. Therefore, Moses, following the movement of fire in thought, says that the created light did not remain in the same parts of the world, but, flowing around the roughest composition of beings, alternately, with strong movement, brings lightness to the unilluminated parts, and darkness to the illuminated parts. And perhaps, due to the temporal extent of such succession taking place in the lower country (I mean the succession of light and darkness), Moses also ascribes to God the names of day and night, inspiring about everything that happens sequentially not to imagine that it began by chance, or from someone else. Therefore he says: “And God called the light day, and the darkness night” (Gen. 1:5). Since the luminiferous force naturally could not remain at rest when the light passed through the upper part of the circle, and its tendency was downward, then when the fire descended, what lay above was necessarily covered with shadow, because the ray was probably darkened by the coarsest nature. Since the removal of the light was called “evening” by Moses, and when the fire again rose from the lower part of the circle and again extended its rays to the upper parts, he called what was happening “morning”, thus naming the beginning of the day. But let us repeat a little of what was said above, so that what is proposed in the Divine Scripture will assist us in continuing the review we have made. The first thing that spoke about the existence of the world was: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1). We understood this in such a way that the word means the totality of the composition of beings, indicating to those who contain it the contents inside: because the extreme limits, of course, also encompass the average. The extreme limits for human feeling are heaven and earth: since the human gaze is limited on both sides by them. Therefore, as he who said: “in His hand are all the ends of the earth” (Ps. 94:4) meant the middle between the ends; so Moses, by mentioning limits, makes an indication of the material basis of the whole world. We affirm that the words placed in the middle contribute to the same understanding; for it is written: “the earth was formless and empty” (Gen. 1.2): and from this it is clear that everything was already possible at the first aspiration of God towards creation, as if from the investment of some force seeding the existence of the universe, but in reality each individual thing did not yet exist. For it is said: “The earth was formless and empty” (Gen. 1:2); and this also means as if to say: the earth both was and was not; because the qualities have not yet matched her. The proof of this thought is that, according to Scripture, it was “invisible.” For the invisible is not color; and color is produced as if by a certain outflow of the image onto the surface, but the image is not possible without the body. Therefore, if the earth was invisible, then, of course, it was colorless, and colorlessness implies the absence of an image, and along with this latter, the absence of a body. Consequently, at the initial foundation of the world, the earth, like everything else, was among the creatures, but it was waiting for what was given by the structure of qualities, which means to come into being. Scripture, having said that the earth was “invisible,” shows by this that no other quality was yet visible with it; and by calling it “unsettled,” it will be understood that it has not yet been brought into thickening by bodily properties. This idea is further clarified by the writings of Symmachus, Theodotion and Aquila. One said: “the earth was idle and indifferent”; another: “she was emptiness and nothingness”; third: “nothing and nothing.” And this, in my reasoning, is expressed in the word: “idle”, which was not yet in reality, but had existence in the mere possibility, and in the word: “indifferent”, that the qualities were not yet separated from one another, and could not be cognized each in particular and in itself, but everything appeared to the eye in some kind of continuous and indifferent quality, no color, no image, no volume, no heaviness, no quantity, or anything else similar, taken separately in itself. The words “emptiness and nothingness” point to the same idea. For with the word: “emptiness” Theodotion expressed the ability to contain qualities; and from this we understand that the Creator of the universe previously gave the earth the power of accepting qualities; She was some kind of emptiness, and had nothing in herself until she was filled with qualities. The third expression of Aquila, as found by him in the Philosophy of Epicurus, I think to leave without consideration. For Epicurus also says something similar about the first principle of beings, showing with such statements that the inconsistent nature of atoms is an empty word and means nothing; and this is similar to the expression: “nothing and nothing.” But let's return again to the continuation of the review. When the fire once flowed around the most extreme limit of sensory nature, why did the firmament come into being after this, about which it is said that it is the boundary between the upper and lower waters? For I think that the firmament, whether it be one of the four elements, or something different from them, cannot be imagined, as external philosophy imagined, as a solid and stubborn body; On the contrary, the extreme limit of the sensory essence, according to which, due to the ever-moving force, the nature of fire rotates, in comparison with the eternal, incorporeal, intangible property, is called the firmament in Scripture. Who does not know that everything solid is condensed by some kind of obstinacy; and what is condensed and persistent is not free from the quality of heaviness; what is heavy by nature cannot be striving to rise up. On the contrary, the firmament is higher than all sensual creation; therefore, conformity with reason requires not to imagine something gross and corporeal about the firmament, but, as has been said, in comparison with what is intelligible and incorporeal, everything that belongs to the sensory, although by natural subtlety it escapes our observation, is called firmament. Therefore, what was enveloped by fire during its circular circulation (the limit of material essence is embraced), then, having once been described by some of its own limits, according to its material nature it is rightly called the firmament in comparison with what is below, but it is also called heaven, just as light is given the name day, and darkness is given the name night. The separation of the waters separated by the firmament is not contrary to this assumption and is in accordance with Scripture. For in accordance with what was stated after what was said about the earth, it is written: “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1:2). Therefore, we think that it is just as impossible for the Spirit of God to be the Spirit of darkness as He is alien to all evil. And to this one can imagine thousands of sayings of Holy Scripture that God is “the true Light” (John 1:9), and lives “in the unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16) And the Spirit of God is by nature the same as God himself. And if the nature of God and the Spirit is one, and God is light, then, of course, the Spirit of God is also light. Light, without a doubt, makes that which it floats over remain in the light. And the water over which God’s Spirit hovered is something other than this downward-flowing nature of flowing waters; it is separated by the firmament from the heavy and downward rushing water.. If in Scripture it is also called water (which, as we guess from the highest speculation, means the fullness of intelligible powers); then let this similarity not bother anyone; because God “is fire that gives fire” (Deut. 4:24), but the concept of this fire has no material meaning. Therefore, just as, having learned that God is fire, you imagined Him as something other than this visible fire, so having been taught that the Spirit of God floats over the water, imagine not this nature rushing down and flowing to the earth; because the Spirit of God does not move over earthly and fickle things. So, in order for this concept to be revealed to us more clearly, let us briefly repeat the meaning of what has been said, namely: the firmament, which is called heaven, is the limit of sensory creation, and beyond this limit follows a certain intelligible creature, in which there is no image, no size, no limitation by place, no measure of extension, no color, no outline, no quantity, or anything else seen under the sky. And let no one think of me that in this way, in my view of the sayings, understanding them allegorically, I introduce a confusion of concepts, and through this I agree with the opinions of those who before us had a similar view, and say: the abyss is called the fallen powers, and by the darkness at the top of the abyss we mean the ruler of the world of darkness. I will never agree to such a lawless thought as to imagine evil as God’s creation, when God’s word briefly spoke clearly: “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). If everything that God created is good, the abyss and what is around it are not outside what God created; it follows that even though it is an abyss, it is good in the proper sense, although the light invested in beings does not yet shine near this abyss. Therefore, when I hear the word “deep” in Scripture, I affirm that this means many waters. For this is how this word is defined in Psalmody, where it is said: “The waters saw You, O God; the waters saw You and were afraid, and the deeps trembled” (Ps. 76:17-18). And when I hear that there is darkness near the abyss, then I imagine that the luminous power embedded in the nature of beings has not yet appeared. Having been taught by Scripture that the separation of the waters is caused by the hardness, I think that it is not contrary to justice and the meaning of the word to act, understanding the separation of the waters in such a way that it should mean the different nature of the separated waters, to be convinced that some waters strive to flow out easily, even surpassing the ease of fire; and therefore, being above the warm essence, they are not carried away by the movement of what is below them, and are not brought into the opposite order by warmth, but remain the same without being diminished, and do not allow the fire circling under them any passage through them. For how can the immaterial become the container of the material? Other waters are the same ones whose nature we know with the eye, touch, and taste. They tend to the bottom, appear transparent, differ in taste by the quality invested in them; and the nature of the knowable does not force us to subsume these waters under any other concept. And that which is also called waters, but is invisible, has no fluidity, is not encompassed at all by anything that usually restrains the moist nature, but both outside the place and within itself does not give access to any quality cognizable by the senses, because the Spirit of God floats over it, and because it is recognized as higher than heaven, and because it is outside everything cognizable by the senses, I think, everyone who is capable of judging, carried away assumptions about the intelligible essence, imagine it as something other than ordinary water. For on the basis of what we have investigated, we have come to the idea that everything movable is contained within an intelligible nature, and has a circulation around itself. The limit of the movable is the limit of extended nature, beyond which there is an intelligible and immeasurable nature, free from properties, place and extension. Therefore, regarding the most extreme limit of sensory essence, beyond which there is nothing like what is cognizable in the visible, we affirm that this limit is signified by the name of the firmament: and this our opinion is confirmed by Scripture, saying: “And God separated the water that was under the firmament from the water that was above the firmament. And it was so” (Gen. 1:7). For this shows that in the beginning one water was not dissolved by the other, but with the commonality of names the nature was not mixed: for it is not said that what became under the firmament was above the firmament, but that one was “under the firmament,” and the other something “above the firmament.” If at the very beginning it is determined that one will take a position at the bottom in the darkness, and the other not in the darkness; for what is in the Spirit of God is, of course, in the light and separated from darkness, and at the same time it was above the firmament that appeared in the middle; then let a reasonable listener judge whether our word in what was said has departed in any way from proper understanding. Such is this and similar things that we have imagined about the original composition of beings, about why light, in the power of its essence, is not later than beings, although Scripture speaks of darkness before the story of light, and such are our fortune-telling about the firmament and the division of the waters, the nature of which, divided into the downward and the light, leads us to assumptions consistent with each of the like predicates. When the waters, both visible and intelligible, were separated from each other, and the middle facet of the twofold nature of the waters turned out to be the sky, about which it is said that it was brought into being in the beginning along with the earth and with everything laid down as the foundation of the structure of the world, and now completed and named with the appearance of the firmament, determined by the rotation of fire; then the second circle of light again began to both darken and illuminate the lower part. And these things were named, as one thing followed another, and together they made up a day. As a consequence of this, the property of number also necessarily came into creation; because number is nothing other than the addition of units. Everything that appears in any specific outline is called a unit. Therefore, since the circle, which defines itself, is complete on all sides; then the Word beautifully called one revolution of the circle something unified, saying: “and there was morning, and there was evening: one day” (Gen. 1:5). And again another appeal also called one; adding both together, it came to two. Thus, the Word, together with the parts of creation, introduced number, a sequence in order signified by numerals. For he says: “And there was evening, and there was morning: the second day” (Gen. 1:8). When this has happened, the nature of beings, maintaining consistency, again produces what must have followed what happened before. But even this divine work is preceded by God’s command; because Moses everywhere protects our minds so that not a single creature would be imagined to exist without God, but wonder at each of the created beings would lead him to the Creator. Having said how the entire luminous and fiery essence was separated from other creatures by its own qualities, Scripture remained silent about the structure of air, although in natural science the second place after fire that rose upward belonged to air, which in lightness has some affinity with the lightness of fire; and then it was already necessary to talk about the heavy nature: however, Moses is talking about the latter, and does not touch the air with a word; not because it brings nothing to the fullness of the whole world, and not because it is devoid of the power of the elements, but probably because, with the softness and pliability of nature, the air accepts every creature into itself, allows it to be seen in itself, and itself has neither its own color, nor image, nor surface, but takes on someone else’s color and someone else’s image. For when it is illuminated by light it becomes light, and what is shaded becomes dark, but in itself is neither light nor dark; takes on every image, is painted in every kind of color, contributes to every movement of everything moving in it. Easily gives in to what is rushing in him in one direction or another; and here and there, cut by the volume of the moving, it is itself restored behind this volume. And when any kind of moisture pours from a vessel, it gives free movement to what is being poured out, and automatically enters the empty place inside the vessel. And thousands of similar cases prove the softness and pliability of the airy nature. And so, since human life takes place in it, almost all the power of life is contained in it, the effectiveness of sensory instruments borrows its strength from the air; through it we see and hear, through it we also smell things, and by taking a breath, the most important of life’s actions is accomplished; he who stops breathing will certainly stop living together; It is for this reason that the wise Moses himself did not take up the natural science of this close and related element to us, which we feed on from birth, considering this innate and related relationship of our nature to the air to be a sufficient teacher for us in this regard. But what appears in the air in the continuation of creation, he depicted in words in all its details. The wise and comprehensive order of created things, which after the second day separates water from earth, is again called God's word and command. For indeed, everything accomplished by wisdom is the word of God, not articulately spoken by any instruments, but spoken by the very miracles of phenomena. The earthy quality was still mixed with the moist nature; therefore, was it possible for anyone else to so thicken the earth with its own qualities that, after bringing all its parts into a homogeneous state, in a compressed and oppressed state, the contained moisture was squeezed out of it, while the water was separated from the earthen admixture, and gathered around itself, enclosed in the earth’s depressions? And indeed this was a work of God’s power and God’s wisdom; That’s why Moses says that this miracle was controlled by God’s word, which issued a certain commanding saying; and as I discuss this, with this imperative saying Moses points to the word embedded in the nature of the creature. For he says: “Let the water that is under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear. And it became so” (Genesis 1.9) Look, this is the necessary order of nature! Since water is extracted from the earth, what is separated from the moisture is dried, and since the moisture is not already dissolved by the earth in the form of dirt, the water must be solidified by some kind of reservoirs so as not to be lost to it due to the fluidity of nature, if nothing were to block its spilling. But it seems to me not untimely to again make mention of the waters above the heavenly. If here, in order to contain the waters, the earth necessarily takes on a special form, as if enclosing their fluidity in some depths, and by its own immobility imparting constancy to the fickle nature of the waters; then how does this water, if it really is water, stand on an unstable surface, and on an inclined one remain without spilling? If we assume that the nature of the two waters is the same; then, by all necessity, the same thing that we see in the local waters must be concluded about the heavenly waters. Consequently, the heavenly ridge is riddled with watercourses, covered with abysses, similar to those formed on the earth between rapids, so that the water would be retained in these depressions. Therefore, what will they say, when the circular rotation of the pole tilts to the bottom what is now at the top, will they come up with any roofs on the circles so that the suspended water does not pour out of the depressions? They say: fire is wasteful, it needs some substance that would constantly feed the flame, so that it does not weaken, destroying itself if there is a lack of hot substance. And I, although the lofty word of our teacher agrees with such an opinion, I ask readers not to be offended if I completely enslave myself to what was proposed above in this review of creatures. The teacher’s goal was not to make his own opinions a law for the listeners, but to make his teaching a certain path to the truth for those taught. Therefore, when we take up the lessons remaining after him, we mean things that are consistent with them. And this word of ours, if it turns out to be probable, may it be attributed to the wisdom of the teacher. So what can we conclude about the proposed objection? Not only in fire and water do we see opposite qualities, but in each of the elements one can certainly find in its properties some kind of struggle of opposites. As in the mentioned elements, cold is opposed by warmth, and wet by dryness; so again, in another respect, in earth and air, mutually opposite qualities appear to one another: hardness and rarefaction, stubbornness and compliance, and everything else that in each of these elements separately is known from the opposite. Therefore, it is impossible to say that in these elements one feeds on the opposite of the other; because with a decrease in the heavy, the lightness of the air does not increase, the density of the earth does not produce rarefaction in the opposite element, the other properties of the earth do not, by their loss, nourish the qualities of the air; Thus, another will say, wet and cold, although they are opposite to warm and dry, do not feed on the mutual destruction of each other, and the possibility of one of these qualities not being in the possibility of not being the other. In this case, if the preservation of one and the other quality was possible only with the destruction of both two, neither one nor the other could exist; because in each there is equal power to destroy the other, and always the excess of the predominant serves as the destruction of the insufficient. And that this position is true can be known from experience itself. When any substance is engulfed in fire, then water will be introduced; then one can clearly see the mutual destruction of these two elements; the dominant one destroys the other, since each is equally inferior to the power of the one approaching it. And while the forces in both are equal, both equally produce mutual destruction of each other, neither feeds on the other, but both are destroyed by each other. As with animals devouring each other, it is unnatural to say that animals exterminated by each other live with each other; so the resistance of the wet to the dry could not preserve either one in existence if the death of one nourished the other. But it seems to me that it would be good, keeping to the consistency of thought, to continue our word like this: since “God saw everything that He had created, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1.31); then I affirm that in each of the creatures the perfection of goodness must be seen. For the addition of the word: “great,” strengthening the meaning, clearly shows that there is no lack of perfection. As in the whole genus of animals, although one can see countless differences in breeds between them, we nevertheless affirm about each breed that it corresponds to the general approving verdict about creatures, namely, that they are equally “good”; because approval does not apply to the visible: whether it be a centipede, an earthly frog, animals born from the rotting of sewage, and they are “very good.” Since the Divine eye does not look at the outer appearance of created things, goodness is not determined by goodness, not by goodness, but because every being, whatever it is, has a perfect nature within itself. For not being a bull does not mean being a horse; on the contrary, in each of them nature preserves itself, acquiring special reasons for its special existence, not drawing strength from the destruction of nature, but having it to maintain being. Likewise, the elements, although they relate to each other differently, each in itself is “very good,” because each in itself, according to its own special law, is full of goodness. The earth is good; because it does not need the destruction of the air in order for it to be earth, but remains with its own qualities, observing itself with the natural power put into it by God. Goodness and air; for the continuation of his existence he does not require that there be no land; but is content with the powers that are in him by nature. So water is good, and fire is good, because both water and fire are complete in their own qualities, and by the power of God’s will they constantly remain in the measures of their original existence that are special to them. “The earth,” it is said, “endures forever” (Eccl. 1.4), neither diminishing nor increasing. The air is kept within its specific limits; the fire does not diminish. Why, of all creatures, is water alone one of the exhaustible things? And moreover, when we see that the fiery essence and power are great in comparison with beings, as a clear proof of which those who have thought about the sublime cite the fact that the sun is many times larger than the earth; so that its shadow does not extend over a long distance in the air, taking the form of a cone due to the superiority of the solar magnitude in the stream of solar rays. Therefore, if one thing is so small in comparison with the other that water, measured together with all the earth, is a small part of the solar value, then how long would it take this small amount to be exhausted by such a fire? But we see that the sea is always equally full, and the flow of rivers remains in its size, and such experience testifies that the moisture is not at all depleted. But just as fire was not originally brought into being by the destruction of moisture, but was created by the same power as moisture; Thus, in accordance with the original structure of the element, the continuation of its existence will forever be preserved, and the fire will not disturb the moist nature for its continuation. They say: we often see that the earth is moistened by rain; and then, as soon as the sun warms up more strongly what is exposed to its rays, the earth, which was recently wet, becomes dry. Where is the humidity here, they continue, if the warmth of the beam completely destroyed it? Therefore, will they really say that water, if water is poured from one pot into another, and the full vessel suddenly becomes empty, because it is not in one vessel, but it is in another, does not exist at all? And what happens in this case, assuming the above, no one will sin against justice. For it is equally possible for moisture to flow from one container to another, and for evaporated wetness from the ground to rise into the air; since moisture naturally sublimes to the top when the heat of the upper layer draws it in small parts from the ground to itself. A sign of what is happening is that often, when coarser vapors emerge from the depths of the earth, a cloud-like substance appears to flow, and the density of the vapors is such that it is visible to the eye. And sometimes there may be evaporation of phlegm, consisting of such small parts that its thinness is in some way equal to air, and then only becomes visible to the eye when the evaporation of such moisture combines with itself, and thus turns into a cloud through condensation; why do these thin and vaporous moistures float lightly in the air for a time and are carried by the winds; but if, due to the mutual affinity of the moisture, merging together, they become heavier, then they take the form of a drop falling from the air to the ground. So the heat did not destroy what it extracted from the earth, but from this very thing a cloud was formed, and the thickened cloud became water, which, again mixing with the earth, turned into steam, and the steam, taking the form of a cloud, became rain; and from the rain the earth again gave birth to vapor; the vapors, condensed into clouds, poured out, and what was poured out was again returned to the air in vapor; and in this way a circle is formed, turning around itself, and always making the same revolutions. Can you point out the plants and plant buds? – Everything goes in the same circle. Moisture flows through plants or seeds into the buds: and if anything earthy enters with it, leaving it in the volume of the nourished, when what is below is dried up by the surrounding, again evaporates into something homogeneous with itself. The air, being rarefied in its parts, which are thinner than the thinnest particles of steam, everything in it is inferior to its relatives. So dust, if a lot of it is scattered in the air, returns to the earth again. And the moisture is not destroyed, but certainly finds something akin and close to itself, swirling in the air, to which, clinging and growing from the addition of similar particles, it again takes on the volume of the cloud; and thus in the form of drops it is restored to its own nature. Why is it that everywhere and in everything that is visible in the elemental world is preserved to the same extent as the wisdom of the Creator originally established for each creature for the improvement of the universe. But I know the following objection: often during intense heat you can see some clouds scattered in the air, which, if someone looks at them longer, can somewhat refute this position that the moist nature is not in the least destroyed. For the crowded fragments of cloud, scattered in large numbers in the air, first decrease in volume, burned by the overwhelming heat, and then are completely destroyed, scorched by the heat, so that not even a small residue remains after the moisture is dried out by the heat. And you can’t reassure yourself with what’s said about couples. For that which is above the clouds and this cloudy and wind-tossed air, due to the subtlety of its nature, has such a dissolution that it does not accept anything heavy. On the contrary, all vapors and smokes limit their upward tendency to that partly coarse layer of air surrounding the earth, which is unnatural to rise upward, because the subtle and ethereal does not accept anything coarser. Likewise, those who described the tops of some of the highest mountains say that they are always higher than the clouds and inaccessible to the winds, and it is also impossible for birds to fly there, just as it is impossible for aquatic animals to live in the air. And all this clearly proves that in the air, and precisely in its upper layer, there is a limit that serves as a stop to all the coarsest vapors rising from the earth. Therefore, until summer, snow remains unmelted on the mountain tops, since the formation of vapor constantly cools the air there. And the fire-like stripes, which others call falling stars, according to the natural sciences of the wise, come from the same reason. When, by the force of some winds, part of the coarse air filled with various substances is carried into its etheric layer, what rises up immediately ignites, and this flowing flame is carried in the direction given by the wind; when the wind subsides, the flame goes out along with it. So, it cannot be said that after the destruction of a cloud by the wind, vapors are formed again, and therefore, in accordance with what has been said about the vapors rushing below, one can hope for the restoration of the destroyed moisture; one must agree with those who teach that moisture burns up and turns into nothing. But, although I am convinced that the moisture in the vapor is destroyed by an excess of heat, I consider it a sign of a vain and contentious person to contradict what is obvious; however, since when examining the truth from all sides one must not be tired of anything, I nevertheless affirm that the measure of moist nature remains undiminished, and what is spent is always certainly replenished to replace what is missing. And this opinion makes the following firm for me. In the action of fire, we learn from experience that fire does not consume all the qualities of a substance, but only the one that it can embrace. Let's say for example about the substance of oil; when it is separated from the cold quality, then the moisture from this substance is conveniently extracted by the warmth of the fire, and turns into flame. But it is not only oil that is changed into flame by fire, but the moisture in the fire produced by oil, after the fire, as they say, becomes dry dust; which the smoke from the lamp clearly proves, blackening what is above the flame; and if the smoke continues for a long time, then a thick layer forms on the area blackened by it. Whence it appears that oil, dried by fire, changes into thin and inconspicuous particles, in this form passes into the air, and from there settles on the ground. And that there is an outpouring of thin particles of smoke in the air, this is proven by the fact that even the nostrils of those who inhale this air are blackened, and often the internal air exhaled from the chest turns out to be black, because it, too, is colored by the color of the smoke entering the inside when the air is inhaled. So it is clear from this that, although the moisture of the oil is transformed into dryness, the material volume, being dispersed in the air in the form of thin and inconspicuous particles, is not destroyed into non-existence. Therefore, what we have learned about this moisture from actual experience, namely, that moisture changes only into dryness, but the material is not completely destroyed - if anyone imagines this same thing about any moisture, he will not sin against justice. For it is clear that the whole consists of parts. And what we learn about a part, we learn about the whole. No one, even the most argumentative one, will contradict that there is only one humidity in the generic concept. But the moisture of the oil, burned by the fire, became fine dust. This means that any moisture, having been in fire, changes the quality of the parts, from being wet it becomes something dry, and is not destroyed altogether. Since a cloud is a condensation of steam, and steam is the decomposition of moisture into thin particles; then, when a cloud is burned by a flame, this thin and indivisible volume of vapor, although it will not retain a moist quality, must, of all necessity, not turn into nothing, and not become something irreplaceable. Four qualities are seen in the pair: moisture, coldness, heaviness, size. Of these, the qualities opposite to fire are destroyed by the power of the prevailing one. Neither humidity nor coldness, having been in fire, remains so. But size is also akin to the essence of fire; for it is visible in quantity; the quantitative does not oppose quantity. Therefore, if steam retains the quantity and is separated from the quality of humidity and coldness; and with magnitude, the quality of gravity is also preserved, which essentially lies in the nature of steam (gravity usually belongs equally to both wet and dry); then our mind, adhering to strict consistency, will not find it difficult to understand how water, having become earth, as a result of the fact that the vapors change quality, assumes a similar nature. For dryness and heaviness are characteristic of the quality seen in the earth, and this is what the burned steam is transformed into. And it seems to me that those who have made this beginning would do well not to abandon the sequence of research to which this review will naturally come, leading to the truth. For the sea, apparently, always remains within its limits for the very reason that, just as there is always a slight addition of water in it, so water in the form of vapor is exhausted into the upper layers of the air with warming warmth, which, like a blood-sucking horn, lifts up the finest parts of the moist nature. This reasoning appears to be contradicted by the coldness of the surrounding air in Mediterranean and northern countries, because the sea does not heat up there much, and there is no formation of vapor; but this objection can be eliminated by twofold reasoning. Firstly, the sea is everywhere one and continuous in itself, although it is divided into thousands of reservoirs, but their mutual communication is nowhere interrupted, why, if in the south there is more evaporation from the always present presence of heat, then the decrease in water that occurs there makes itself felt in cold countries, and the water flows by itself, according to the natural tendency to always move downwards. And then this is also confirmed by the fact that every sea, no matter what water it is made of, is salty as a result of the formation of vapor; because a special property of the nature of salt is dryness. And if the same quality is equally dissolved throughout the whole sea; this means that salinity in every part of the sea equally produces what is characteristic of it; for each nature certainly produces something corresponding to its own strength. Just as fire burns, snow cools, honey sweetens, so salts dry. So, since the drying nature of salts is mixed everywhere in the seas, as Divine wisdom foresaw this for the most convenient formation of vapors (salinity, overcoming the wet nature of its dryness, displaces and expels from the sea everything that consists of thin parts in the water); then it would not be contrary to justice to also think that there is a waste of moisture everywhere, because the air exhausts the sea with vapors. But that every moisture in the air becomes a cloud, and from there rain pours out onto the earth, this was shown by the previous word, and the prophecy teaches this, writing such a thing to God, when it says: “he calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the earth” (Am. 5:8), and much more. And that all clouds ignite and completely burn out from the heat that is higher than them, we learned this from reality. Therefore, it remains not to lose sight of the objection that naturally arises before us from what has been said. For others, based on previous research, will say: from the example of what happens with oil, we learned that the material in an object does not die after combustion, but passes into the air, changed by the action of fire; But after the destruction of moisture by the opposite quality, is it possible for a moist nature to remain forever undiminished, when the essence of heat incessantly burns up moisture in vapor and turns it into the quality of dryness, as this review has shown on the basis of research? Therefore, if moisture evaporates, and the humidity, being divided in vapor into thin and indivisible sections, becomes perceptible to heat; then, after the transition of moisture into a dry quality, it is necessary to recognize as more true the position that there is a certain abundance of water, from which what is consumed by fire is always replenished. Or perhaps, in support of such an opinion, another will borrow from Scripture some evidence about the opening of the heavenly “bogs” (Gen. 7:11), when the whole earth was to become under water, every mountain peak was to be in the great depths of water. But I maintain that an objection taken from Scripture can be eliminated by another Scripture. For I know what is the usual use of Divine utterances in Scripture. What does it mean with the word: “open”, and what does it indicate with the word: “will close?” For it is clear that what is concluded is revealed, and what is opened is concluded. Thus, when the drought intensified during the time of Elijah, Scripture says: “the heavens were shut up for three years and six months” (Luke 4.25). I think that the expression of Scripture: “the abysses of heaven were opened” is used in the same sense as this: “the sky was closed” during a period of rainlessness. But then, through the prayer of Elijah, a “cloud” that appeared from the sea (1 Kings 18.44) opened the sky for them by shedding rain. And this clearly shows that then it was not the opening of the heavenly firmament that poured out as rain the so-called waters above the firmament, but Scripture calls the sky the air surrounding the earth, which defines the place of vapor, that is, the limit of the subtlest nature of what is above it, beyond which nothing heavier has any power to ascend, neither a cloud, nor wind, nor steam, nor evaporation, nor a bird. Therefore, what is above our heads is usually called heaven by Scripture: thus the “birds” flying in this air are called “heavenly” (Gen. 1:26). But if this is really the case; that word of ours did not resolve another issue; why the transformation of vapor into dryness does not diminish the moisture lost from the predominance of the warm essence. But for this it would be good to invent another way of thinking, consistent with the view of this word; and perhaps, with careful attention, we will be able to avoid making mistakes in making assumptions appropriate to the subject of our discussion. I hear a prophecy in which the greatness of God’s power is depicted by miracles in creation; it says: “Who hath exhausted the waters with his handful, and measured the heavens with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in balances” (Isa. 40:12)? With these words, I think, the prophet clearly teaches that each of the elements is described by special measures: because the meaningful power of God, which the prophet calls a hand, a handful, a span, encloses each of the creatures in a special way in the proper measure. Therefore, if the heavens are measured by God's power, the waters by the hand, the whole earth by the handful, and the hills are weighed, and a clear measure is determined for the mountains; then, by all necessity, each being must remain with its own measure and standard, so that neither increase nor contraction can occur in what is measured by God and embraced by His power. Therefore, if prophecy testifies that in creatures there is no addition or decrease, then each certainly remains forever in its own measure, even when the nature of creatures turns out to be changeable, transforming everything into one thing or another, changing every thing into something else, and from this again, through transformation and alteration, leading back to what it was originally. But that wet steam, having been in a flame, turns into an earthy quality, being transformed by combustion into something dry, this is sufficiently understood in what has been said above by the oil presented as an example, and after this it is necessary to consider whether, after changing the substance of the steam into the opposite quality, it is possible for this residue of steam to remain at the top, as this word notes in one place, transformed by combustion into something subtle and inconspicuous? I think that based on the examples you know, we can conclude this. For here the thin particles of smoke do not forever remain floating in the air, but due to the rarefaction of the air they converge with their relatives, coloring the ground, walls and wood on the roofs. Therefore, in accordance with this, it can also be assumed about steam that it, raised by the winds upward into the lofty and flaming layer of air, when transforming into a moist quality, retains materiality, and having become dry, it is attracted to what is related and returns to the earth. For each of the beings with nature has the power to attract what is peculiar to it; Therefore, there is no inconsistency in making the assumption that steam, becoming somehow dry and earthy, is mixed with the dryness of the earth due to this quality. Therefore, if every substance of the moist essence were oily; then, due to the roughness of this quality, combustion would turn the color of such vapors to black, and what was happening would be obvious to everyone, being a demonstrably accepted form. But since something very subtle and transparent is produced in the vapors of the watery nature, and, according to what was proven above, when they enter the fire, they change their wet quality to dry; then, if our thought recognizes this as something essential, by all necessity this something subtle, escaping from our observation, must be represented as pure and airy. But if someone recognizes feeling as more reliable than the concept of reason, and tries to discern with his eyes these indivisible and inconspicuous quantities; then anyone who wishes can see that the air is filled with such particles when sunlight, entering through the window, makes more visible that part of the air that is illuminated by the beam. For what is inaccessible to the eye in the rest of the air is seen with the help of a ray in an infinite variety rotating in the air. Therefore, whoever stops his eye on this will find that the flow of these subtle particles always tends to the bottom. What is revealed in a part of the air serves as proof that similar things happen in everything, because everything is similar to itself, and the whole is made up of parts. And if the stream of these subtle and indivisible particles at any time strives through the air towards the earth; It is clear that something non-ethereal, being crushed into these particles, scatters in the air; because the nature of fire is not subject to fragmentation and spilling into thin parts; then, by all means, we must be convinced that the substance of the same thing that was shown in this word ascending in vapor descends to the bottom, and that the moisture that was attracted by the nature of heat, being burned and becoming earthy, is no longer retained by fire, but again returns to the earth. So food, after it is changed in us by digestion into a certain subtle quality, to which part of the body it approaches during digestion, that part is digested and becomes an addition. And since there is a diversity of members in the composition of the body in terms of dryness and moisture, in terms of warmth and coldness; then, no matter what member the food is located at, it becomes that member by its nature; because he, having mastered it in good time, assimilates the subtlety of what is digested: in a similar way, from these indivisible quantities the insensitive increase that constantly occurs on earth occurs. Why is it that what adheres to every object, whatever it is in essence that receives, changes into that nature, and becomes earth in earth, sand in sand, stone in stone, in everything; Whatever the solid substance that is received, what is accepted turns into what has taken possession of it. If anyone recognizes the hardness of the stone as not allowing such an increase; then, despite the consistency of our reasoning, I do not consider it necessary to argue with those who think so; because their reasoning will have no force if we assume that this stream of earthy particles falling from above from what does not accept them is carried by the winds to what is related. But someone else may say that our word omits its own purpose, and assuming to prove that moist nature forever remains in its original measure, without noticing it, leads to the opposite conclusion. For whether what is sublimated upward in the fire remains, or, having become dry, returns to the earth, in both cases there will be an equal decrease in water, and nevertheless, this reasoning proves the need for an excess of moisture, due to its always inevitable decrease. Therefore, our word will need to again consider the nature of beings, so that our reasoning in it will open for us the path to the intended goal. Therefore, what kind of nature is this? Of the elemental beings visible in the composition of the supermundane world, the Creator of all things created nothing immutable and unchangeable, but everything exists in each other, is supported by each other; because the transforming force, by some kind of circular rotation, transforms everything earthly from one thing to another, and from what is applied to another, it leads again to what it was before. And since this change in the elements occurs continuously, it is necessary for everything to move from one to another, moving away from each other, and again drawing closer to each other in equal measure. For none of this can be preserved by itself unless the nature is supported by the admixture of something foreign. How, another will ask, does the transforming and changing force make a circular path through the four elements? Because not all of them happen. one from the other, and the circle of change does not pass equally through each of the creatures. But although water pours out into the air in vapors, and the vapors, having nourished the flame, become earthed again, and through communication with the fire become something similar to ashes; however, the earth, having accepted them into itself, stops the course of this change. For the nature of water has not yet been investigated, whether it has its origin from the earth. So it remains to be seen whether it is possible for earth to transform into the nature of water. Of course, no one will accuse us of verbosity if we go as far as possible into the study of what requires this as a consequence of what has been said. Thus, we see many dry substances that, due to some natural feature, are moistened by themselves, as for example this can be noticed on salt, on metals and on substances composed of some kind of burnt moisture, the distinctive property of which is dryness, but if some kind of phlegm touches them, they become moist, and the dryness changes in itself into a moist quality. So I know that the nature of honey from roasting becomes in some way dry, and again from some circumstance decomposes into moisture. But I leave this because it is better to give consistency to the situation on the basis of some necessary beginning. We know that in each of the elements there is not one quality with which what is composed of that element is replenished and is separated from what is from the opposite element, but each thing is recognized under different qualities, some of which are not communicable with each other, while others are equally characteristic and appropriate to the qualities that mutually struggle with each other; for example: in earth and water, dryness and moisture do not mix with each other; but in each of these elements there is equally coldness, which in some way unites what is mutually struggling. Again, water is separated from air in the opposite direction of heavy and light. But between them there is an equally visible moisture in the nature of both elements. Again, the air is far from fire, and is opposite to it due to the struggle between heat and cold; but communication also has the quality of lightness, and communication of this quality serves as a kind of reconciliation of their natural opposition. Then the fire is separated from the earth by heaviness and lightness, but dryness is common to both qualities, and through it the separated enters, as it were, into a mutual union with each other. But what do I mean, with this I begin my research? The fact that coldness is equally seen in the earth, and in water, and in air, is to a greater extent characteristic of moisture, somewhat protecting the nature of water, and by its resistance to heat, slowing down the damage caused by dryness. Therefore, just as dryness is akin to warmth, it is impossible for fire alone to show itself not in dryness; So we can rightly say that coldness is combined with moisture, because for each of the qualities seen in fire, there must be an opposite quality in water, so that moisture fights dry, and warmth fights cold. Therefore, if it has been proven that moisture, along with coldness, constitutes the nature of water; then it should be concluded that according to the strength of the cold quality naturally contained in the earth, there is water in the earth, and earth in the water. For the natural combination of moisture and coldness does not allow them to be completely separated from each other. But although wet and cold are sometimes found separately, each in itself, however, each is not exactly one, but in one both are seen, if possible. For just as the dispersion of moisture in the air is followed by cooling in the parts of the moist vapor; so on the contrary, since coldness is preserved in the depths of the earth, and moisture does not lose the quality associated with it, but the cold force, naturally contained in the earth, becomes, as it were, a seed of the nature of moisture, always generating from itself the quality associated with it; since the changing efficiency, as a result of strong cooling, transforms the earth into water. And if anyone asks us for an account of this: how this change produces the transformation of solid into wet; then we will also be unable to explain this, like everything else. For how does water spread into the air, and what is heavy finds its place in the light, or how does change transform the heavy into light? We understand with our senses that this happens, but we cannot explain these deeds of nature with our minds. But if anyone accepts experience as evidence of such an assumption; we are ready to prove this by presenting as witnesses the words of well diggers. Since the waters are contained in the depths, they first dig up dry soil, and going lower in their work, they do not suddenly encounter water in its entirety, but first, by touch, they conclude that there is some dampness in the earth: then, having reached a cooler layer due to the depth, they find lumps similar to mud; after this, as the work deepens into even more cooled layers, a slight seepage of moisture appears; then, after excavating a certain passage under the base of the stone, where in all likelihood the solar heat, delayed by the density of the stone, has not yet penetrated, the workers finally discover some thin veins of water, between which a mutual connection is made in the depths around them, and the well is then filled with water. Therefore, what is happening here in the void made by human hands is that the moisture pressed from everywhere towards the well collects in it; it is natural for the same thing to happen in every place, that is, from thin moisture constantly communicated by some veins to flow through wider passages, when the thin currents are connected to each other. This is how water is revived when cold moistens the earth, and the moisture formed by cold itself completes the entire nature of water. From here the water, already collected and becoming a stream, where the most convenient path opens, breaks through the earth for exit; and this is called the source. A sign that coldness is accompanied by the origin of waters is that the countries lying to the north and cooler are abundant in waters. For the sunlit and southern countries would be irrigated to the same extent if the lack of cooling did not prevent the origin of moisture. Just as water collected during rain becomes a stream from the merging of drops; but if someone looks at the drops themselves, taken separately, then in each drop something small and almost nothing will appear to him; So, with a small amount of moisture constantly forming below, when from many streams the collection of thin particles becomes one, all this turns into the composition of the river. Whoever rejects these assumptions, where does he recognize the inexhaustible sources of rivers as coming from? Can he imagine any lakes in the bowels of the earth? But even those, if there is no influx in them, will certainly soon be exhausted; why it will be necessary to assume that there are still other lakes above them. And the sequence of the word will require the filling of other lakes, although it will be assumed that they will serve to fill the first, and it will become necessary to find out from what sources the latter are filled. And thus the word, extending to infinity, will not stop anywhere, suggesting lakes above lakes, so that they do not lack sources, until it finds where the latter are filled from, in which the origin of the waters originates. Therefore, as for finding the reason for the first origin of water: it is much more thorough to see this in the composition of sources, and not to imagine underground lakes, the existence of which immediately becomes contrary to reason, due to the property of watery nature, tending to the bottom. For how can that which by nature flows downwards flow upward? Moreover, about what size of these lakes does the constant flow of so many waters give reason to guess, so that, pouring out such quantities for so many times, they could remain empty, while inside them nothing replaces what flows out? But as a result of our research, it is clear that the river’s water supply does not become scarce, because the earth turns into water. The volume of the earth, as a result of the water emanating from it, is not diminished: because the constantly occurring transformation of dry vapors always replenishes what decreases in its volume. And when this is the case, the idea of ​​changing the elements from one to another will no longer seem untenable to us. But the mind acts consistently when, in the transformation of each thing into another, it sees both the beginning of the existence of the one into which it was transformed, and the restoration again into the one it was originally. For example, water entering the air in vapor becomes air: moistened air is dried in the fire that is above it; the earthy in moisture is separated from it by the nature of fire; and this, when it happens in the ground, is transformed into water with a cold quality. And thus a continuous order is accomplished; nothing decreases or excesses, but everything remains forever in its original measures. So, on the basis of these studies, we should understand by the waters “above the firmament” something other than a moist nature, since from what has been said it became clear that the nature of fire is not nourished by a decrease in moisture. For according to what we have studied, it has been proven that heat is not nourished, but is extinguished by cold, and the wet is destroyed, and not multiplied by the dry. But it’s time to turn our attention to another question, namely, why after the third day were all the heavenly bodies created? That each of the miracles performed was preceded by a certain commanding word from God (since Moses historically teaches us these lofty dogmas), we explored this in the previous words, in which we made it clear that the command is not the voice of God uttering the words; but that artistic and wise power of each of the created beings, by which these miracles are performed in them, is God’s Word, and is called by Him. And how the entire fullness of creation came into being according to the first will of God; then the necessary order, following the investment of wisdom in the being, in the manifestation of each of the elements, is a consequence of God’s commands. For at the first creation of the sensual creature, having combined in a comprehensive word, Moses pointed out everything, saying: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1). Having expressed himself about the completeness of beings: “create,” then in a certain natural order the word denotes the ongoing appearance of each of the beings. Therefore, light arose along with everything, but did not suddenly appear in everything, while the dark parts of the creation remained blocking the path of the luminous force. But at the same time, as God gave to the creature to serve for its decoration, in the lightness and mobility of nature, the fiery and luminous power of the creature that emerged first of all was manifested; and until time it was all gathered in itself, and flowed around everything; after that, she again began to separate herself in parts towards what was related and consistent. For from what is visible it is clear that there is more than one force of luminous nature. But whoever, out of all the collected light, calls the generic name one light, he will not sin: because God’s Word at the beginning expresses everything in the singular, commanding: “let there be light” (Gen. 1.3), and not lights. And if anyone pays attention to the phenomena; then he will see in creatures a large difference in luminiferous power. Why does the Psalmist say: “He made great lights, for His mercy endures forever” (Ps 135.7) And the Apostle says: “There is another glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another of the stars; and star differs from star in glory” (1 Cor 15.41), because there is, of course, a great difference in light. For if everything that is listed by Paul usually shines, and each luminary has a certain special power and glory, then it is fair, according to the generic concept, to call everything one light, and to see in each luminary a difference that is not united and separate. And if this is really so: then, I think, our fortune-telling will not sin against the sequence of thoughts if we assume this to those who understood Moses, namely, that initially all the luminous power, collected in itself, was a single light. Since in the nature of the whole universe, in relation to greater and lesser degrees of subtlety and mobility, a great certain difference was seen; then a three-day continuation of time was enough for the mutual separation of each thing in the world from one another to occur clearly and unintegratedly, so that the most subtle and light, purely immaterial, in the fiery essence occupied the most extreme limit of the sensory creature, followed by the intelligible and incorporeal nature, and everything less active and more numb was composed within the space surrounded by that subtle and light nature; and this again, according to the difference in the properties embedded in it, was divided into seven parts, according to the mutual affinity of all the corresponding and close particles of light, and according to the separation of those in which there is something foreign. So, through the mutual confluence of all these particles, how many of them were infused into the luminous essence of solar nature, one great luminary came into being; and also, both on the moon and on each of the other moving and fixed stars, the combination of particles of each with a homogeneous one produced which one of the visible luminaries. Thus everything came into existence. It was enough for the great Moses to name only the more famous of them - “great luminary” and “lesser luminary” (Gen. 1:16), and call everything else by the generic name: “stars”. If the weakness of our mind is hampered by this, being unable to penetrate the subtlety of God’s wisdom, then let no one marvel at this, looking at the poverty of our nature, for which it is desired not only to not sin in anything, but to be able to comprehend at least one thing. I say this with the intention of explaining what was the reason for this three-day continuation, and that such time was sufficient for the separation of each light body. For it is clear that there is certainly some reason, although inaccessible to our gaze, for which the measure of this time served to separate the luminiferous essence both by its specific course and by the amount of activity of fire in its movement, and the portions of light were distributed according to the properties of the luminaries, so that these infinite differences of lights each placed itself in its own position, which is indicated by a natural property where each was led by the natural force invested in it, and nothing happened. confusion or confusion; because by Divine wisdom, according to the natural property that is given to each luminary, an immutable order has been established among them, so that the highest country is occupied by those who ascend upward more easily than any height, aspiring essence. And of these again others, either placed in the middle, or became southern, or deviated to the north, or took the middle place between them, filled either the Milky Way or the zodiacal circle, and in it again they produced either one or another outline of the constellation; and again in a constellation it is not by chance that each of the stars located in its outline has a position or there. or here; but where the property uniformly invested in the star led, there it remains in immutable constancy according to the strength of its nature, in accordance with the prevailing wisdom of the Creator. This and similar things are such that the mind, looking at this, becomes exhausted and condemns its own laziness, not having the strength to find the reason why a three-day continuation of time was sufficient for the separation of such a number of stars; or how, due to the infinite composition of the motionless sphere surrounding the earth, in the middle of all space, the great wisdom of God placed the solar nature, so that we would not live completely in darkness, when the light shed by the stars, before reaching us, would be exhausted in the intermediate distance. Therefore, the illuminating power of solar nature has been placed above us at such a height that the ray is not weakened by great distance, and does not become unpleasant for us due to excessive proximity; and what is more material and coarser than everything that is above us, I mean the body of the moon, is placed lower, flowing around the countries closest to the earth; and the nature of this body turns out to be something in between, equally endowed with non-luminous and luminous power. For the moon’s own luminosity is hindered by the coarseness of its essence, but when the sun’s ray is reflected, it turns out to be not completely devoid of a luminous nature. But although it is impossible to see the reason in each of the creatures for the wisdom manifested, the poverty of our nature makes it impossible; However, from the order indicated by the Legislator in the creation of beings, it is possible, I think, to discern a certain sequence of what was created, for those who know how to see enough of what should follow what, and by some guesses to understand it to some extent. So let's repeat the sequential order of creations. And it is the following: after the phenomenon of universal and generic light that preceded everything, due to its mobility, there followed the rounding of the firmament, determined by the circular circulation of fire. By separating the heavier natures from the light nature, the heavy qualities, separated on earth and water, are successively distinguished from each other. And when the lower nature is brought into structure, the thin, light, high-floating essence, because it was not all homogeneous in itself, in the intermediate continuation of the passing time, from the general is divided into homogeneous properties; in this essence, the countless number of stars formed, according to the natural property embedded in each part, rises to the very top of the creation, and each star takes its own place, without ceasing the ever-present desire to move and without leaving the position in which it is placed. But just as the order of the stars is motionless, so their nature is in constant motion. Following this, the star, which in terms of its swiftness ranks second after the fastest in movement, receives the lowest circle as its lot: and again the third and fourth circles, even up to the seventh, are given to the stars in relation to their nature to speed; each one is inferior to the higher one to the same extent as its nature, in comparison with the stars that are above it, is slower in movement. Therefore, this is done on the fourth day, not because then light was created, but because the luminiferous property coalesced around the natural and characteristic of it, and both the other stars and the sun and moon, visible in a larger volume than the others, appeared, the existence of which in the original foundation borrowed its origin from light, but the composition of each luminary was brought to perfection in three days; because everything that moves certainly moves in time, and for the mutual addition of parts to each other, some extension of time is necessary. And therefore, the great Moses described everything about the structure of beings not out of sequential order, if the preliminary power of the Creator laid a material foundation for everything in the aggregate, and the particular manifestation of the visible in the world took place in a certain natural order and in sequence over a certain continuation of time. Then the light appeared in general, and now all the luminous nature has shone in special bodies, which include the sun and the moon. And as substances that have a certain flowing force, although they all flow, not all are therefore necessarily homogeneous with each other, but on the contrary, each has some difference with the other (for example, oil, mercury, water, if someone mixes all these substances and pours them into one vessel, then after a short time, it will first become clear that mercury, since it is heavier than others and tends more strongly to the bottom, collects its own parts, even if they are everywhere scattered; then the water merges with itself; and then the oil particles float to the top of everything and are combined with each other); So, I think, we should guess about what constitutes the subject of our review, changing from what was said in the example one thing that, here in fluid substances what happens due to gravity, there in a nature that strives to rise up turns out to happen in the opposite order. Since at the initial foundation of beings everything tended upward with ease, how much speed there was in each substance in terms of strength, which was invested in everything by nature; then everything with equal speed should flow together; and also, at different speeds, to separate one from the other, as far as this was characteristic and possible. Therefore, as in the example, the separation of these fluid substances by their arrangement did not produce new substances, but the substances that were already existing and mixed with each other showed each in its purity and one separately from the other; so after a three-day continuation of time, the luminiferous nature and luminiferous power of the sun were not created again, but, as spread throughout the universe, they were separated and collected into themselves. If someone asks us for words about the third heaven, about which Moses wrote nothing, but which Paul saw, and, being in it, as if in some sanctuary of wisdom, he heard unspeakable things; then we will say that this third heaven is not outside of what we have explored. It seems to me that the great Apostle, stretching out to everything that he saw before him, transgressing the limits of all sensory nature, entered a contemplative state, so that his view of what he imagined became completely non-physical. He himself expresses this in his own words, saying: “I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago (whether in the body - I don’t know, or out of the body - I don’t know: God knows) was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Cor 12.2). Therefore, I think that Paul called the most extreme limit of the sensory world the third heaven, dividing the visible universe into three parts, and, according to the custom of Scripture, calling each department heaven. For the word of Scripture, according to the special use of expressions, calls the limit of the coarser air one sky, to which the clouds, the winds and the nature of high-flying birds ascend; because he talks about the clouds of heaven and the birds of the air; and not only calls it heaven, but also with the addition of the name: “firmament.” For he says: “Let the water bring forth living things; and let the birds fly over the earth, through the firmament of the sky" (Gen. 1.20). Then he calls another sky and firmament what is seen inside the motionless sphere, where the moving stars make their way. For he says: “And God created two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth” (Gen. 1.16, 17). It is clear to anyone who has paid any attention to the structure of the universe that the entire space in which the luminaries rotate as they strive upward, and the most extreme limit of the sensory world, this boundary of the intelligible creature, is called by Scripture both the firmament and the sky. Therefore, he who desired that which is above the word, and did not “look,” as he commands us, “look not at what is visible, but at what is invisible: for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor 4.18), where his lust delighted him, there he was taken up by force. And when he points to this so much desired for him, instead of saying: “man”, who has passed through all sensible creation, and was in the sanctuary of the intelligible nature, “moreover, from childhood you know the sacred scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3.15), he designates this with the words of Scripture, calling the third heaven the end of these three seen in the universe departments For he left the air behind him, walked the paths of rotation of the stars that fill the environment, passed the upper arch of the ethereal limits, and being in a constant and mental nature, he saw the beauties of paradise, and heard what human nature cannot express. This we, the man of God, respond to what is proposed to us by your prudence, and without transforming the expressions of Scripture into an allegory that has a figurative meaning, and without leaving the objections made to us without examination. But as much as possible, accepting the speech in its own meaning, when reviewing the names, we adhered to the consistent connection of nature, and thus, as far as possible, we proved that there are no contradictions in what is self-consistent, although it seems contradictory on a superficial reading. We considered it in vain to describe everything else that was accomplished during the six-day peacemaking, because the lofty word of the teacher did not leave anything unobserved that was subject to research, except for the structure of man, on which we had previously worked in a special book, we sent to your perfection, both in that word and in the present asking you and all readers not to think that we are going into competition with the zeal of the teacher, on the contrary, here and there, replenishing as much as possible. It was possible, what was missing in his work on the six-day period, we added a discussion about man, but here we took care to write this for those who demand consistency in what is set forth in Scripture, so that together we both preserve the literal meaning of what is written and reconcile the natural view with the letter. If what has been said is not enough; then, without any envy, both your prudence and each of the readers will complete what is missing. For the gift-giving of the rich was not hindered by the investment of two widow's mites; and those who brought leather, wood, and hair to Moses for the tabernacle did not serve as an obstacle to those who offered gifts of gold, and silver, and precious stones. Therefore, we will accept with love, if what we bring is accepted, although as hair, but only in your scarlet robe, woven with gold, it will be placed on the word of the outer garment, whose name is: “the word of manifestation and truth,” as Moses says (Lev. 8:8), preparing for the priest new vestments, according to the command of God Himself, to Whom belongs glory and power with the Only Begotten Son and the All-Holy Spirit in forever and ever, amen. You might be interested in: