Книга двенадцатая

In this book bl. Augustine first talks about angels, and precisely about where some have good will, others have evil, and what was the cause of the bliss of the good angels and the misfortune of the evil ones. Then he speaks of the creation of man and teaches that he was created not from eternity, but in time, and not by another Creator, but by God. Chapter I. On the unity of nature of good and evil angels Before proceeding to consider the creation of man, during which the origin of the two cities will become clear in relation to rational mortal beings, just as it was clarified in the previous book in relation to the angels, I consider it necessary to first say something about the angels themselves, in order to thereby, as far as possible, prove how decently and appropriately the communication of people with angels is spoken of: so that not four cities, that is, two cities of angels and the same number of human ones, are rightly recognized, but only two, that is, societies, one of which consists of good and the other of evil - not only angels, but also people. There should be no doubt that the opposing aspirations of good and evil angels did not arise from differences in nature and origin, for both were created by God, the good Creator and Creator of all beings, but from will and desires. While some constantly remain in the Good that is common to all, which God himself serves for them, in His eternity, truth and love, others, more enjoying their power, as if they themselves were serving their own good, have deviated from the common Good of all, which gives bliss, to their own, and possessing vain arrogance instead of the highest loyalty, empty deceit instead of undoubted truth, a desire for division instead of inseparable love, became proud, deceitful and envious. Thus, the reason for the bliss of the former is that they are devoted to God. From here, as if by contradiction, one should conclude the reason for the latter’s misfortunes, which is that they are not devoted to God. Therefore, if they ask: why are they blessed, the correct answer will be: because they are devoted to God; and when they ask: why are these unhappy, the correct answer is: because they are not devoted to God. For a rational or intelligent creature, only God is the Good through which it becomes blessed. So, although not every creature can be blessed (for this gift is not achieved or received by animals, trees, stones, etc. of the same kind), however, which can, it can not by itself, since it was created from nothing, but through Him by whom it was created. With the achievement of Him she is blissful, with the loss of Him she is unhappy. The one who is blessed not through another good, but through himself, cannot himself be unhappy because he cannot lose himself. So we say that there is no unchangeable good except the one, true and blessed God; what He created, although good, because it is from Him, is changeable, because it was created not from Him, but from nothing. It is not the highest good: because God is the highest good; but what is also important is that changeable good, which, in order to be blessed, can be attached to the unchangeable Good, which serves as a good for it to such an extent that without It it would necessarily be unhappy. But other creatures in this world are not the best only because they cannot be unhappy. It is impossible to call other members of our body better than the eyes because they cannot be blind. Just as a sentient nature, although suffering, is better than a stone, which in no way can suffer, so a rational nature, even if it is unhappy, is superior to that which is devoid of reason and feeling, and therefore is not subject to misfortune. And if this is so, then for that creature that is created with such an advantage that although it itself is changeable, yet through attachment to the unchangeable Good, that is, to the highest God, it receives bliss and satisfies its needs only when it is blessed, and in such a way that only God can satisfy it, for such a creature the main vice is not to cleave to God. Every vice harms nature and is therefore unnatural. Thus, that other creature differs from this one, devoted to God, not by nature, but by vice; although this vice shows how great and what praise nature itself deserves. For whose vice is condemned, his nature is undoubtedly praised. This serves as a fair reproach to vice, that it disfigures nature, which is worthy of praise. Therefore, just as when blindness is called a defect of the eye, it is indicated that vision belongs to the nature of the eye; Likewise, when deafness is called a defect of the ears, it is indicated that hearing belongs to their nature; so when the vice of an angelic creature is called that it is not devoted to God, this clearly shows that it is in its nature to be devoted to God. And what great praise is it, further, to be devoted to God in order to live with Him, philosophize with Him, rejoice in Him and enjoy such a Good immortally, without delusion and carefree? Who can adequately imagine this in thought or express it in words? So, since every vice harms nature, the very vice of the evil angels, the fact that they are not devoted to God, sufficiently shows that God created their nature so good that it is harmful for it not to be with God. Chapter II. There is no essence contrary to God, since to Him, who is characterized by the highest and permanent existence, only that which has no existence appears completely opposite We said this so that anyone, reading our discussions about the fallen angels, would not think that they could have received, as it were, a different nature from another beginning and that God was not the Creator of their nature. From this ungodly error, the sooner and easier everyone will be freed, the more clearly he is able to understand what God said through the angel when he sent Moses to the children of Israel: “I am who I am” (Ex. III, 14). For being the highest essence, that is, possessing the highest and unchangeable being, God gave being to those things that he created out of nothing; but being is not the highest, as He himself seems to be, but gave more to some, less to others, and thus distributed the natures of beings according to degrees. For just as wisdom received its name from philosophizing, so from existence (esse) essence (essentia) is called - a name, it is true, that was not used by the ancient Latin authors, but is already in use in our times, so that our language also has what the Greeks call οὐσία. For this word literally means essence. Therefore, the nature that has the highest existence and by which everything that exists is created is opposed only to that nature that does not have existence. The opposite of existing is non-existent. Therefore, God, the highest essence and Creator of all and all kinds of essences, is not disgusted by any essence. Chapter III. About the enemies of God not by nature, but by contrary will, which, harming them themselves, causes harm to good nature, since vices do not constitute what does not harm The enemies of God are called in the Scriptures those who, not by nature, but due to vices, resist His power, not being able to harm Him, but harming themselves. They are enemies by desire to resist, and not by power to do harm; because God is unchangeable and incorruptible. Therefore, the vice by which those who are called His enemies resist God is evil not for God, but for themselves. And this is not for any other reason, but only because he spoils the natural good in them. Thus, it is not nature that is disgusting to God, but vice. For that which constitutes evil is contrary to good. And who will deny that God is the highest Good? So, vice is disgusting to God, just as evil is disgusting to good. Then, that nature which is corrupted by vice is good; therefore, there is no doubt - he is disgusted with this good; but he is disgusting to God only as evil to good; and for the nature that it spoils, it is not only evil, but also a harmful evil. For no evil can be harmful to God; but it is harmful to natures that are changeable and corruptible, but at the same time good, as is proven by the presence of the vices themselves. For if they were not good, vices could not harm them. And what is the harm caused to them by vices, if not that vices take away from them purity, beauty, health, virtue and all those blessings of nature that usually disappear or are diminished by vice? If they were not there at all, by taking away a good, vice would not cause harm, and therefore would not be a vice. For vice cannot exist and not harm. It follows from this that although vice cannot harm the unchangeable Good, it can only harm the good, because it exists only where it harms. The same thing can be expressed this way: vice cannot exist in the highest Good, and can only exist in some good. Consequently, one good can exist anywhere, but one evil cannot exist anywhere; because those natures that are corrupted by a vicious evil will, insofar as they are vicious, are evil, and insofar as they are natures, they are good. Even in the case when a vicious nature is subject to punishment, the good lies not only in the fact that it is nature, but also in the fact that it does not remain unpunished; because it is fair, and everything that is fair, without a doubt, is good. After all, no one suffers punishment for natural vices, but only for arbitrary ones. For even that vice, which, having strengthened as a result of habit and too strong development, has become, as it were, natural, has its origin in the will. We are speaking, however, in the present case about the vices of that nature which has a mind that perceives the rational light, with the help of which it distinguishes the just from the unjust. Chapter IV. On the nature of the dumb or inanimate, which does not constitute disharmony in its kind and order with the beauty of the universe For it would be strange to consider the vices (imperfections) of animals, trees and other changeable and temporary things, devoid of reason, feeling or life, spoiling their destructible nature, worthy of condemnation; because these creations, by the will of the Creator, received such a way of being in order to, disappearing and appearing again, represent the lowest degree of beauty of times, in its way corresponding to the known parts of this world. For there was no need to equate the earthly with the heavenly and there was no reason for the former not to exist in the world just because the latter is better. Therefore, when, where it was proper for it to be, one appears in the place of the other, the lesser yields to the greater, the conquered takes on the properties of the victor—this represents the order of transitory things. The beauty of this order does not attract us because we, being, due to our mortal condition, a part of it, cannot embrace it in its entirety, to which the parts that arouse our dissatisfaction fully correspond. Therefore, we are quite rightly encouraged to believe in creative craft where we ourselves are not able to see it, so that through empty human recklessness we do not dare to reproach the work of such a great Artist for anything. However, these involuntary and unpunished vices of earthly objects, if we understand the matter rationally, for the same reason serve as an indication of the goodness of these natures, of which there is not a single one that does not have God as its Creator and Creator; because we are also dissatisfied if vice destroys in them what we like in their nature. Sometimes, however, people do not like nature itself when it causes them harm and when people have in mind not nature, but their own benefit; what, for example, were those animals that in large numbers punished the pride of the Egyptians (Ex. VIII). But in this case they can also blame the sun; because some criminals and those who do not pay their debts are exposed to the sun by decision of the judges. Not from the point of view of our advantage or disadvantage, but nature considered in itself gives glory to its Artist. Likewise, the nature of eternal fire is undoubtedly worthy of praise, although it will serve to punish condemned sinners. For what is more beautiful than a blazing, full of power, luminous fire? What is more beneficial than its warmth, healing power and cooking ability? Although there is nothing more painful than its burning sensation. So, although otherwise harmful, when used appropriately it turns out to be extremely beneficial. For who can express in words its benefit in this world? There is, of course, no point in listening to those who praise the light in the fire, but blame the heat - they praise and blame not according to nature, but from the point of view of their own benefit or disadvantage. They want to see, but they don’t want to burn. They do not pay attention to the fact that the same light that they like is harmful to weak eyes due to inconsistency; and in the heat that they do not like, some animals live without harm, due to conformity. 114 Chapter V. That the Creator is worthy of praise in every form and manner of nature So, all natures, insofar as they exist and therefore have their own measure, their own form and some mutual agreement among themselves, are truly good. And being where they should be in the order of nature, they retain their existence to the extent that they received it. Having not received eternal existence, they move, in accordance with the benefit and change of those creatures to which they are subject according to the laws of the Creator, to a better or worse state, striving, according to divine providence, to the end that is indicated to them in the system of equations of the universe; so that such damage, which leads mutable and mortal natures to destruction, does not destroy their being, which they had before, to such an extent that from here what should be cannot come to pass. And if this is so, then God, who has the highest being and created every essence that does not have the highest being (for what is created from nothing should not be equal to Him and which in no way could have been if it had not been created by Him), should not be blamed for any shortcomings encountered, but should be praised when considering every nature. Chapter VI. What is the reason for the bliss of good angels, and what is the reason for the misfortune of evil angels? Therefore, the true cause of the bliss of the good angels is that they cleave to Him Who possesses the highest being. And if we look for the reason for the misfortune of the evil angels, it will actually turn out to be that, having turned away from the one who has the highest being, they turned to themselves, who do not have the highest being. What can we call this vice if not pride? For “the beginning of sin is pride” (Sir. X, 15). They did not want to retain their strength with Him (Ps. 58:10); and so, instead of having being to a greater extent, if they were devoted to Him, who has the highest being, they, preferring themselves to Him, preferred that which has being to a lesser extent. This is what constitutes the first depreciation, the first impoverishment and the first vice of that nature, which was created in such a way that, although it does not have the highest being, it could nevertheless use what has the highest being to acquire bliss. Having turned away from the latter, although she did not turn into nothing, she began to have existence to a lesser extent, which is why she became unhappy. If you start looking for the reason why the evil will occurred, you won’t find one. For what makes the will evil when it also commits an evil deed? Evil will causes evil deeds, but there are no reasons for evil will. For, if such a thing existed, it would either have any will or not. If she had, she would have either good or evil; if good, how would she produce evil? After all, in this case, good will would be the cause of sin, which is absurd. If what produces an evil will itself has an evil will, then what produced this latter? What then is the cause of the first evil will? After all, the first evil will cannot be produced by another evil will that would precede the first. If they answer that it was not produced by anything, for it has always existed, then I will ask: in what nature? If in none, then it was not there at all, and if in some, then it spoiled and destroyed it, caused harm and deprived it of good. Therefore, evil will could not exist in an evil nature, but only in a good one, and in a changeable one, for only a changeable will can harm a vice. For if it did not harm, then it would not be a vice, and therefore it would not be possible to say that we are talking about evil will. Further, if he harmed, then he harmed, of course, by depriving or diminishing good. Consequently, the evil will could not be eternal in that which previously contained natural good, which the evil will could deprive through causing harm. But if, therefore, it was not eternal, then the question is, who produced it? It remains to be assumed that evil will was produced by something in which there was no will. Again I ask: is this last one higher than the first, or lower, or equal to it? If higher, then better; How then is it deprived of will, when it should not only possess it, but also, as the highest, possess a more good will? The same should be said about equals. It remains to assume that it is lower, in which there is no will, and that it produced an evil will in the angelic nature, which was the first to sin. But since this lowest thing itself, even if it were the very last of the earthly, constitutes nature and essence, then it must also be good, having measure and form in its kind and order. So how can anything good produce evil will? How, I say, can good be the cause of evil? For when the will, having abandoned the higher, turns to the lower, it becomes evil not because it has turned to evil, but because its very turning has a perverse property. Therefore, it was not something lower that made the will evil, but the will itself, having become evil, turned perversely and disorderly towards the lower. If two people, whose flesh and spirit are in the same condition, pay attention to the beauty of a body, and one of them is inclined to illicit pleasure, and the other unshakably maintains his chaste will, then what is the fault of the beautiful body? Or perhaps the flesh of the sinner is to blame? But why is it worse than the flesh of another? Or is the spirit to blame? But why not both? Is it possible to say that one of them succumbed to the temptation of an evil spirit, agreeing with him as if against his will? In this case, I will ask what produced this agreement, this evil will in him? To make things clearer, let's imagine that both were tempted, but one succumbed and the other resisted. What conclusion follows from this if not that one wanted to lose his chastity, and the other did not. And why, if not of their own free will, especially since their state of body and spirit was initially the same? The eyes of both saw equally, the spirits of both were equally tempted; Those who want to know what made the will of one of them evil find nothing. If we say that he himself made it evil, then what was he himself before, if not good nature, the Creator of which was God, the unchangeable Good? Anyone who claims that he who succumbed to temptation himself created an evil will in himself, because before the evil will he was undoubtedly good, let him ask himself why he made it so: was it because it was nature, or because it came from nothing? And then he will understand that evil will appeared not because it is nature, but because its nature was created out of nothing. If nature were the cause of evil will, then we would be forced to admit that evil comes from good and that good is the cause of evil, since good nature produces evil will. But how can a good nature produce an evil will before it itself has an evil will? Chapter VII. One should not look for the cause that produces evil will So, let no one look for the cause that produces evil will (causam efficientem), since it is not productive, but destructive (destroying - non efficiens, sed deficiens); because evil will is not a replenishment (effectio), but a decrease (defectio). For to deviate (to decline - deficere) from that which has the highest existence to that which has existence to a lesser degree means to begin to have an evil will. Then wanting to find the cause of these deviations - a reason, as I said, not producing, but destroying - would be the same as if someone wanted to see darkness or hear silence. We know both, but we know it not in manifestation, but in the absence of manifestation. So, let no one ask me about what I know that I do not know; unless for the purpose of learning from me ignorance of what should be known, that it is impossible to know. For that which is known not in manifestation, but by the absence of manifestation, then, if one can express it this way, is known in some way through ignorance, so that it is not consciously known. For when the gaze of the bodily eye runs over bodily images, it sees darkness only where it ceases to see anything. In the same way, the sensation of silence is part of hearing, although it is felt in no other way than the absence of hearing. Likewise, spiritual manifestations, although our mind mentally contemplates, but where they do not exist, there we learn through ignorance.” For “who will consider his own errors” (Ps. XVIII, 13)? Chapter VIII. About perverse love, by which the will retreats from the unchangeable Good to the changeable Good What I know for sure is that the divine nature can never, anywhere and in any respect have a decline; and what is created from nothing can decrease. However, since the latter has being to a greater extent and does good (for only in this case does it do something), then it has productive causes; and if it deviates and therefore does evil (for what in this case does it do except vain things?), then it has destructive causes. I also know that in someone who has an evil will, something happens in him that would not have happened if he had not wished it; and therefore it is not necessary, but arbitrary deviations that are subject to fair punishment. For deviations, deviations are not for evil, but evil deviations; that is, not to evil natures, but evil because they occur contrary to the order of natures from the highest being to the lowest. Covetousness, for example, is not a vice of gold, but of a person who has a perverse love for gold, abandoning the truth, which he should value incomparably higher than gold. In the same way, intemperance is a vice not of beautiful and attractive bodies, but of the soul, which has a perverted love for bodily pleasures, despising abstinence, through which we spiritually unite with that which, while remaining unchanged, is more beautiful and attractive. And vanity is a vice not of human praise, but of the soul, which has a perverse love for praise from people, neglecting the evidence of its conscience. In the same way, pride is a vice not of the giver of power and not of the power itself, but of the soul, which has a perverse love for its power, despising the more just power of the strongest. Therefore, whoever has a perverted love for a good of any nature, even if he has achieved it, he himself becomes evil when he possesses the good, and (becomes) unhappy, as having been deprived of a better good. ****** Chapter IX. The holy angels, having the Creator of nature, do they also have in Him the author of good will through the abundant influence of love in them by the Holy Spirit So, if there is no productive or, so to speak, existential (essentialis) cause of evil will, because from it itself begins the evil of changeable spirits, belittling or perverting the good of their nature; and this will is produced only by deviation, by which God is abandoned, but for which there is no reason at all; then, if we were to say that in the same way there is no cause that produces good will, we should be afraid that they might think that the good will of good angels was not created, but co-eternal with God. But if they themselves are created, then how can it be called uncreated? Then, if it was created, was it created with them, or were they first without it? But if together with them, then there is no doubt that it was created by the One by whom they themselves, and as soon as they were created, then they became attached to the One by whom they were created with the love with which they were created. Those others separated from their community because these remained in the same good will, and those, having departed from it, changed precisely as a result of evil will, thereby deviating from the good will, which, of course, they would not have deviated from if they had not wanted to. If the good angels were previously without good will and created it in themselves without divine assistance, then this would mean that they themselves made themselves better than God created them. It won't happen. For what were they without good will, if not evil? Or, if they were not evil because there was no evil will in them (because they could not deviate from that which they had not yet begun to have), then in any case they were not yet as good as they began to be when they began to have good will. Or, if they could not make themselves better than He created them, better than Whom no one can do anything; then, of course, only with the assisting help of the Creator could they have good will in order to be better through it. And since their good will did that they began to turn not to themselves, who have a lesser degree of existence, but to the One who possesses the highest being, and, becoming attached to Him, began to receive a greater degree of existence and through participation in Him to live wisely and blissfully, then what else is revealed from this, if not that all good will would be insufficient, remaining with only desire, if He Who, having created good out of nothing, nature, capable of perceiving Him, did not make it better by filling it with Himself, having previously aroused in it an ardent desire for Himself? The following should also be considered: if the good angels themselves created good will in themselves, did they create it with any will, or without any will? If there is no will, then it was not created at all. And if by any will, then evil or good? If evil, then how could an evil will produce a good will? If good, then they already had it. And who created this latter, if not He who created them with good will, that is, with pure love, with which they could be attracted to Him - created them, creating their nature and at the same time giving them grace? Thus, one must believe that the holy angels were never without good will, that is, without the love of God. And those who, having been created good, became evil of their own will, which good nature created only after an arbitrary deviation from good, so that the cause of evil was not good, but a deviation from good, - those either received the grace of divine love to a lesser extent than those who remained in it, or, if both were created equally good, when they fell by evil will, those who survived, as a result of great assistance, achieved that fullness of bliss from which they can never fall, as we talked about in the previous book. Thus, with due praise, the Creator should confess that not only in relation to holy people, but also about holy angels, it can be said that the love of God is poured out in them by the Holy Spirit given to them (Rom. V, 5), and that not only for people, but initially and primarily for angels, it was good about what is written: “But it is good for me to draw close to God” (Ps. 72:28). For whom this good is common, they have a holy community both with Him to whom they cleave and among themselves, and they constitute one city of God, serving both as a living sacrifice to Him and as a living church to Him. As I said about the angels, I now consider it necessary to say about how that part of this city came into being through creation by the same God, which is formed for union with the immortal angels from mortal people and while, subject to death, wanders the earth or rests in special dwellings and the place of residence of souls among the deceased. For the human race received its beginning from one man, whom God originally created according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, who rightly has extraordinary authority throughout the world and among all peoples, whose faith in him, among other truths, it itself predicted with true divinity. Chapter X. On the falsity of that history which ascribes many thousands of years to past times So, let's leave the assumptions of people who themselves do not know what they are talking about about the origin of the human race. Some believed both about the world itself and about people as if they had always existed. Therefore, Apuleius, describing this genus of animals 115, says: “Each individually they are mortal, but in their totality as a whole genus they are eternal.” It was objected to them that if the human race existed forever, then how could their history tell the truth, telling about who invented what, who were the first founders of the free and other sciences and arts, or who first began to inhabit this or that country, part of the earth or island? To this they answer 116 that at certain intervals, although not the whole, but a large part of the earth is so devastated by floods and destroyed by fire that the number of people is reduced to an insignificant number, from which their former number is then born again, and thus every now and then that which is actually restored, having been destroyed and exterminated by the mentioned extraordinary devastations, appears and is built up as if for the first time; and as for, they say, a person, then he could have originated only from a person. But they say what they think, not what they know. They are also deceived by some extremely false writings, which imagine that history embraces many thousands of years, 117 whereas, according to the Holy Scriptures, we have not yet counted even a full six thousand years from the creation of man. Hence (in order not to talk for a long time about how these empty works, in which a much larger number of millennia are presented, are refuted, and not to prove that they absolutely do not deserve any trust) is the famous letter of Alexander the Great to his mother Olympias. 118. He wrote this letter, recounting the story of a certain Egyptian priest, borrowed from the last of the works considered sacred by them, and embracing kingdoms also known in Greek history. Of these kingdoms, the Assyrian kingdom, according to the mentioned letter of Alexander, is more than five thousand years old; according to Greek history, it is about one thousand three hundred years old from the time of the reign of Bel; The aforementioned Egyptian places this king at the very beginning of this kingdom. The Persian and Macedonian kingdoms continued until the time of Alexander himself, with whom he spoke, more than eight thousand years; Meanwhile, the Greeks allocated four hundred eighty-five years to the Macedonian kingdom until the death of Alexander, and two hundred and thirty-three years to the Persian kingdom, until its destruction by the same Alexander. Thus, the latter numbers are incomparably smaller than the Egyptian ones and cannot be equal to them, even if they are tripled. They say that the Egyptians once had such short years that each of them was limited to four months 119; so that the fuller and more regular year, which both we and they now have, is equal to three of their ancient years. But even at the same time, Greek history, as I said, cannot be consistent with Egyptian history regarding chronology. Therefore, one should rather believe the Greek, since it does not exceed the true number of years contained in our Holy Scriptures. Then, if this especially famous letter of Alexander is very far from being reliable in determining time, then much less should one believe those writings that, full of fabled antiquity, they wanted to contrast with the authority of the most famous and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them and which the whole world actually began to believe, as was predicted. They proved the truth of their story about the past by the exact fulfillment of the future they predicted. Chapter XI. About those who, although they do not consider the present world eternal, but either recognize an innumerable number of worlds, or think that the same world, after a certain circle of centuries, is constantly reborn and destroyed Others, not considering this world eternal, either recognize not only this world 120, but countless worlds, or, recognizing one world, they think that after a certain number of centuries it is reborn and perishes countless times. 121 The latter come to the inevitable conclusion that the human race does not receive its original existence through birth from people. For those of whom we spoke above assert that after floods and the destruction of countries by fire, which they do not consider to be universal, a few people always remain to restore their former number. But these cannot think that at least a few people would survive in the world during its destruction. Recognizing the world itself as being reborn from its matter, they also believe that the human race is reborn in it from its elements, and then the human generation multiplies from its parents, just as the generations of other animals multiply. Chapter XII. How should one respond to those who claim that the first creation of man occurred late? What we answered when it came to the origin of the world to those who want to represent the world as eternal, but having received the beginning of its existence, as Plato clearly admits 122 (although some believe that he said one thing and thought something completely different), I could say the same in response regarding the first creation of man to those who stop in bewilderment before the question: why was man not created earlier in innumerable and endless times, but created so late? that, according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, less than six thousand years have passed since it began to exist. If they are puzzled by the shortness of time, if it seems to them that too few years have passed since the moment when, according to the testimony of our writings, man was created, then let them take into account that nothing lasts, that has some final limit, and that all the definite spaces of centuries, if we compare them with infinite eternity, should be considered not small, but equal to zero. Therefore, if we were to say that since God created man, not five or six, but sixty or six hundred thousand, six or sixty million years have passed; or if they began to increase this amount so many times that they would not even find a name to indicate the number of years since God created man, then one could ask: why didn’t God create him earlier? The beginningless-eternal peace of God that preceded the creation of man is such that if we compare with it any enormous and inexpressible number of centuries, which, however, has certain limits by which it is limited, the comparison will not correspond to even the comparison of the slightest drop of water with the totality of the waters of all seas and oceans. Let the first of these two objects be extremely small, and the other extremely large; but they both have limits. The same amount of time, which has some beginning and is limited by some limit, no matter how much we increase it, in comparison with that which has no beginning, must be considered the smallest, or rather insignificant. If from this time, reducing its number, even if it is so enormous that there is not even a name for it, we take away the smallest particles one by one, leading the calculation back to its beginning, just as when taking away the days of a person, starting from the day on which he now lives to the one on which he was born, this reduction will someday reach the beginning. But if from space, which has no beginning, one takes away one after another, counting backwards - I’m not talking about small quantities consisting of hours, months, years - but also such huge spaces as embrace the sum of centuries, which cannot be calculated by any mathematicians, but which, however, is destroyed by the gradual removal of small particles; and if you take them away not once or twice, or even more often, but constantly: what will come of this, since you can never reach the beginning, which does not exist at all? Therefore, what we are asking now, after more than five thousand years, is what descendants may ask with curiosity after six hundred thousand years, if the life of mortal people, sometimes born, sometimes dying, and their ignorant weakness will last for that long. Those who lived before us could also raise this question. Finally, the first man himself could have asked, either on the next day after his creation, or on the same day, why he was not created earlier. But if it had been created earlier, this dispute about the beginning of temporal things would have had the same grounds before, now, and subsequently. Chapter XIII. On the circulation of centuries, forming certain periods in which, according to some philosophers, everything returns to the same order and in the same form The philosophers of this world believed that this dispute could or should be resolved in no other way than by admitting the circulation of times, in which the same thing is constantly renewed and repeated in the nature of things, and argued that subsequently the circulations of coming and passing centuries will continue to occur continuously, whether these circulations will be in a constantly existing world, or whether it, being reborn and perishing at certain intervals, will always present in the form of something new what has already been and what will be again. This is a mockery of the immortal soul, and they absolutely cannot bring it out of a humiliating state, even if it has achieved wisdom: because it constantly strives for imaginary bliss, but constantly returns to true misfortune. For how can one call that bliss true, the eternity of which one can never hope for, because the soul either, due to extreme ignorance, does not know that it is actually threatened by misfortune, or is most unhappily afraid of it while possessing bliss? And if she never returns to misfortune and moves from a disastrous state to bliss, then it means that something new happens in time, which has no time limit. But why, in this case, does not the same happen to the world? Why does the same not happen to man created in the world? Why shouldn’t he, in sound teaching, follow the path of the right path, avoid some imaginary circuits invented by false and insidious sages? Some believe that what is written in the first chapter of the book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes: “What has been, that will be; and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. There is something about which they say: “look, this is new”; but this was already in the centuries that were before us” (Eccl. I, 9-10), it is said about these circulations, returning and restoring everything in the same form 123. But he said this or about what he spoke about above, that is, about generations, of which some pass, others come, about the circular movements of the sun, about the flows of rivers, or, perhaps, about the genera of all things that appear and disappear. For example, there were people before us, they exist with us, and they will exist after us; just like certain animals and trees. The most extraordinary phenomena, going beyond the ordinary, although they differ from each other and some are told that they happened only once, no matter how wonderful and extraordinary they are, they certainly have happened before and will happen; It is nothing new or unprecedented that extraordinary phenomena occur under the sun. Some, however, interpreted these words in the sense that the Wise One wanted to make it clear that everything had already been done in the predestination of God and therefore nothing was new under the sun. In any case, the idea that with these words Solomon designated those cycles which, in their opinion, repeat the same times and the same temporary things, is incompatible with right faith, so that, for example, just as in a certain century the philosopher Plato taught students in the city of Athens in a school called the Academy, so for countless centuries before, through very extensive but definite periods, the same Plato, the same city, the same school and the same students; and subsequently, after countless centuries, they must repeat themselves again. It’s alien, I say, to our faith. For Christ died once for our sins; having risen, “he no longer dies: death no longer has power over Him” (Rom. VI, 9); and after the resurrection we “will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. IV, 17), to whom alone we say what is inspired in the sacred psalm: “You, Lord, will keep them, you will keep them from this generation forever” (Ps. XI, 8). I consider the following words to be quite consistent with this: “The wicked walk everywhere” (Ps. XI, 9): not because their life will pass through the circles they imagine, but because this is precisely the path of their error, that is, false teaching. Chapter XIV. About the temporary creation of the human race, which took place not according to the new advice of God and not according to the changeable will of God Is it surprising if, wandering in these whirlpools, they find neither entrance nor exit? They do not know where the human race began or where it will end; because they cannot comprehend the heights of God: how He, being Himself eternal and without beginning, began, however, from a certain moment, created in time and times, and man, whom He had never created before, and created not according to a new and sudden, but according to an eternal and unchangeable decision. Who is able to explore and experience this unsearchable and untestable height, according to which God in time, by his unchangeable will, created temporary man, before whom there was no other person, and from one man multiplied the human race? For the psalm, having prefaced the words: “You, Lord, will preserve them, keep them from this generation forever” (Ps. XI, 8), and then reflecting those in whose insane and wicked teaching the soul is in no way granted eternal liberation and bliss, adding: “The wicked walk everywhere” (Ps. XI, 9), as if they were saying to him (David): “What do you believe, what thoughts and opinions do you hold? Is it possible to think that God suddenly wanted to create a man whom he had never created before in endless eternity - a God with whom nothing new can happen, in whom there is nothing changeable? - then immediately answers, turning his speech to God himself: “Thou hast multiplied the sons of men according to Thy height” (Ps. XI, 9). Let, he says, people think what they want; let them imagine what they please; let them conduct their reasoning as they please. “According to Your height,” which no man can comprehend, “Thou hast exalted the sons of men.” This is an extraordinary height that God was eternal, that for the first time he wanted to create a person whom he had never created before for some time, and that at the same time he did not change His advice and will. Chapter XV. To represent God, who was from eternity, and Lord from eternity, is it to be supposed that there has always been a creature over which He has lordship; and how can we call something created from eternity that cannot be coeternal? I do not dare to say that the Lord God was not once Lord 124. Nor can I doubt that man has never existed before, that man was created for the first time at some point in time. But when I think about what kind of thing the Lord was always the Lord, if there was not always a creature, I am afraid to say anything in the affirmative. I turn to myself and remember what was said that there is no person capable of knowing the advice of God, of thinking what God wants; for the thoughts of mortals are fearful, opinions are deceptive, but the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthly dwelling burdens the over-anxious mind (Wis. IX, 13-15). So, if I say that of these many things (because, without a doubt, there are many that I cannot find that one of these or other than this, which I perhaps do not even think about, is really true), about which I meditate in this earthly dwelling, there has always been a creature, the Lord of which has always been He who is always Lord and has always been Lord, but at one time one, at another another, so that we do not call any of them coeternal The Creator: then he is threatened with an absurd and alien to the light of truth conclusion that the creature, now and then at other times, one disappearing and another appearing in its place, was always mortal, and began to be immortal only when our age came, in which the angels were created, if indeed they are designated by that primordial light, or, rather, by that sky, about which it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. I, 1); although they did not exist before they were created, lest anyone should think that they are co-eternal with God, if they, as immortals, are recognized to have always existed. If I say that the angels were not created in time, but were before all times and their Lord was always God, who was always Lord; then I may be asked: “If they were created before all times, could there always have been those who were created?” To this, perhaps, there may be such an answer: “How could they not always be, when what happens at all times is quite appropriately called always existing?” And they were so present at all times that they were even created before all times (this, however, is true if times began from heaven, and the angels were already before heaven). But if time did not begin from the sky, but was also before the sky, although it did not consist of hours, days, months and years (for these dimensions of space-time, usually and in the proper sense called times, began with the movement of the heavenly bodies, which is why God, when creating them, said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to illuminate the earth and to separate the day from the night, and for signs, and times, and days, and years” (Gen. I, 14)), but was revealed in a certain changing movement, in which one came earlier, another later, because it could not be together; if, therefore, something similar happened before heaven in the angelic movements and therefore was already time, and the angels from the moment they were created had movement in time: then in this case they were at all times, since times were created with them. And who can say that what was not always what was at all times? But if I give such an answer, they will say to me: “How is it that they are not co-eternal with the Creator, if He always existed and they always existed? How can one call them created when they always seem to have been? How to answer this? Should we not say that they always existed, because they were at all times, either as created along with time, or as those with whom times were created? and at the same time - created? We will not say that times themselves were not created; but no one will doubt that there was time at all times. For if there was not time at all times, then there was a time when there was no time. And who, even the most reckless one, will say this? We can quite rightly say: “There was a time when there was no Rome; there was a time when there was no Jerusalem; there was a time when Abraham was not; there was a time when there was no man,” etc. Then, if the world was created not with the beginning of time, but after some time, we can say: “There was a time when there was no world.” But to say: “There was a time when there was no time,” would be as absurd as if someone said: “There was a man when there was no man,” or: “There was this world when there was no this world.” Of course, if you understand one thing in one case, and another in another, you can use this expression in some way, meaning the following: “There was another person when this person was not.” In such a case we can correctly say: “There was another time when this time did not exist.” But who, even the most extravagant, will say: “There was a time when there was no time?” Therefore, just as we call time created, although it is said to have always existed, because time existed at all times; so if there have always been angels, it does not follow from this that they were not created. They are called always former because they were at all times; and at all times they were because without them the times themselves could in no way exist. For where there is no creature through whose changing movements times are formed, there cannot be times at all. Therefore, although they always existed, yet they were created; and from the fact that they have always existed, it does not at all follow that they are co-eternal with the Creator. For He was always in unchangeable eternity, and they were created, although they are called always being because they were at all times and without them there could in no way be times. But since the flow of time is formed through changes, time cannot be coeternal with unchangeable eternity. And therefore, although the immortality of angels does not end in time and cannot be either past, as if it had not already existed, or future, as if it had not yet come: nevertheless, their movements, which give rise to times, pass from the future to the past; and therefore they cannot be co-eternal with the Creator, about Whom it cannot be said that in His movement either there was something that no longer exists, or there will be something that does not yet exist. Thus, if God was always Lord, then He always had a creature to serve His sovereignty; but not a creature born of Him, but created by Him out of nothing and not co-eternal with Him: for He was before it, although at no time was it without it, preceding it not by passing time, but by abiding eternity. But if I answer thus to those who ask how He was always the Creator, always the Lord, if there was not always a creature who served Him; or how it was created, and not co-eternal with the Creator, if it has always been, then I am afraid that I would rather be considered as asserting what I do not know, rather than teaching what I know. Therefore, I return to what our Creator has been pleased to let us know; and what He gave to the wisest to know in this life, or what He gave the knowledge of in another life to be completely perfect, I recognize as exceeding my strength. But still, I found it necessary to talk about this, without affirming anything, so that the readers would see what dangerous questions they should refrain from, and so that they would not consider themselves capable of everything, but, on the contrary, would understand how savingly it is to obey the commandment of the Apostle, who says: “By the grace given to me, I say to everyone among you: do not think more about yourself than you ought to think; but think modestly, according to the measure of faith that God has allocated to everyone” (Rom. XII, 3). If the baby feeds according to his strength, then, as he matures, he will be able to perceive more; if he exceeds his strength in this, he will become exhausted before he grows. Chapter XVI. How should we understand that God promised man eternal life before eternal times? I confess that I have no idea what centuries passed before the creation of the human race; but I have no doubt that there is absolutely no creature coeternal with the Creator. And the apostle speaks of eternal times, and not of the future, but, what is more surprising, of the past. Here are his words: “In the hope of eternal life, which God, who is unchangeable in word, promised before the ages, and in due time revealed His word” ( Titus 1:2–3 ) Thus, according to him, before there were eternal times, which, however, were not co-eternal with God. If, before ancient times, He not only existed, but also promised eternal life, which He revealed at the appropriate time, then what else does this mean if not His Word? For this Word is eternal life. How else could He promise, promising, without a doubt, to people who had not yet existed before the ages, if not that in His eternity and in His Word itself, co-eternal with Him, was already predetermined what was to happen in its time? Chapter XVII. What does sound faith assert regarding the unchangeable decision or will of God, contrary to the conclusions of those who believe that the works of God, repeating from eternity, constantly return through the same circulations of centuries I also have no doubt that before the creation of the first man there never was any man, neither the same one who returned several times through some kind of circulation, nor any other similar to him in nature. The arguments of philosophers cannot turn me away from this faith, of which the most ingenious is the one according to which they assert that nothing indefinite can be comprehended by any knowledge, and therefore, they say, God has with Himself all the finite foundations of all finite things conscious of Him. His goodness should not at any time appear idle so that His action, which was preceded by eternal inactivity, seemed temporary, as if God, as a result of repentance for his previous beginningless inactivity, began to create. Therefore, they say, it is necessary that the same thing must be constantly repeated, and must constantly pass in order to repeat itself again, either with the constant existence of a changing world, which has always been, but was created without the beginning of time, or with the constantly repeating and must constantly be repeated creation and destruction of it at certain moments. Otherwise, they say, recognizing God as having begun His creation for the first time, we will come to the conclusion that He in some way condemned His previous inactivity as idle and lazy and, as a result, displeasing to Him, and therefore changed it. If we imagine that He always created, although temporary, but now one thing, now another, and thus finally came to the creation of man, whom He had never created before, then it turns out that not by virtue of knowledge, which, as they think, something indefinite cannot be covered, but as if by the suggestion of the moment - as it came to mind, by some random inconstancy - He created what he created. Then, they say, if we allow those circulations in which, either during the existence of the world, or when it includes its own repeating origins and destructions in these circulations, the same temporary phenomena are repeated; then neither an inactive, and, moreover, such a long and beginningless peace, nor an unforeseen accident of His deeds is attributed to God. For if the same thing were not repeated, then the infinite could not be embraced in its diversity by any of His knowledge or foresight. Even if reason were not able to refute these proofs, with which the wicked try to seduce our simple piety from the straight path, so that we wander around with them, then faith must ridicule them. But with the help of the Lord our God, a sound mind breaks these revolving circles invented by the imagination. They are mainly mistaken and prefer to walk a false, roundabout path rather than the true and direct one, because they measure with their human changeable and limited mind the divine mind, completely unchangeable, embracing all infinity and calculating everything countless without alternating thoughts. What happens to them is what the apostle says: “They measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves unreasonably” (II Cor. X, 12). When it comes to their mind to do something new, they do it according to a new decision (because they have a changeable mind); so God, whom they cannot comprehend, but imagine themselves instead of Him, they compare not Him with Him, but themselves, and not with Him, but with themselves. It is indecent for us to think that God is in one disposition when He rests, and in another when He acts; because it cannot even be said of Him that He was in one disposition or another, as if something could happen in His nature that did not exist before. For whoever has this or that disposition obviously experiences a certain state, and everything that experiences a similar state is changeable. So, the thought of His rest should not be combined with the thought of idleness, laziness and inaction, just as the thought of His activity should not be combined with the thought of work, tension and effort. He can act while resting, and rest while acting. He can do a new thing not according to a new one, but according to an eternal purpose; and not out of repentance for previous failure to do, He begins to do what He did not do before. But if first it rested, and then began to do (I don’t know how this can be understood by a person), then, without a doubt, what was called “before” and “later” was in relation to things that were not before and then appeared. In Him, the subsequent will did not change or destroy the previous one, like another will; but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He created that the things He created were not before, until they were, and so that they were later, when they began to be. Through this, He amazingly showed those who could see that He had no need for creatures, but created them out of one goodness, since even without them He remained in beginningless eternity no less blessed. Chapter XVIII. Against those who say that the infinite cannot be understood even by divine knowledge As for their other opinion, according to which the infinite cannot be comprehended even by divine vision, then they can only dare to assert that God does not know all numbers, and thus plunge into this abyss of deep wickedness. Everyone knows that numbers are infinite, because whatever number you recognize as their completion, it can not only increase through the addition of another number, but no matter how large it is and no matter how large the number embraces in counting itself and in the science of numbering, it can not only double, but even multiply. But every number is limited by its properties and none of them can be equal to any other. Thus, they are not equal to one another and are different, each of them individually, of course, but all together - infinite. So, does God really not know all numbers due to their infinity, and does God’s knowledge extend only to a certain amount, but does not know the rest of the numbers? Who, even the most reckless person, would say this? But those for whom the authority of Plato, who suggests that God created the world on the basis of numbers, is important, will not dare to despise numbers and recognize them as not subject to divine knowledge; Yes, and we read about God that He arranged everything by measure, number and weight (Wis. XI, 21). The prophet also speaks about Him: “Who brings out the army by counting them?” (Isa. 40:26); and the Savior in the Gospel says: “Even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew X, 30). So we must not doubt that He knows every number. “His understanding,” as the psalm says, “is immeasurable” (Ps. 146:5). Therefore, the infinity of number, even if there is no number for infinite numbers, cannot be incomprehensible to Him Who has no number in mind. Everything that is encompassed by knowledge is limited by the consciousness of the knower; in the same way, every infinity is limited in some ineffable way in God, because it is not immense for His knowledge. Therefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite for the knowledge of God, by which it is embraced; then who are we, little people, who dare to put a limit to His knowledge, saying that if the same temporal phenomena had not been repeated in the same cycles of time, then God could not have foreseen everything created by Him in order to create, nor know when He had already created - God, whose wisdom, simple in diversity and uniform in diversity, embraces everything immensity with such immense knowledge that if He wished constantly create something new and different from the previous one, then even this could not be disorderly and unforeseen for Him! And He would not have foreseen this in the near future, but would have kept it in eternal foreknowledge. Is this so, and the so-called centuries of centuries are connected among themselves by a continuous sequence, replacing one another, mutually dissimilar, but ordered - and only those who are freed from misfortune invariably remain in their blissful immortality without end; or whether by centuries of centuries we mean centuries that remain with constant immutability in the wisdom of God and, as it were, serving as the productive causes of those centuries that pass over time - I do not undertake to decide. Perhaps centuries can be called a century, so that the century of centuries will mean the same thing as centuries of centuries; just as the heaven of heaven is called something other than the heaven of heavens. For the Lord called the firmament heaven, above which are the waters (Gen. I, 8); however, the psalm says, “Praise Him, the heavens of the heavens and the waters that are above the heavens” (Ps. 149:4). Which of these two meanings centuries of centuries can have, or whether they have some other meaning different from these two, is a very deep question. But for the question we are now dealing with, it is not so important if we leave it without resolution for now - whether we would be able to say anything definite about it, or through careful consideration of it we would only become more cautious, so as not to decide to assert anything in such darkness of the subject. In this case, we are talking against the opinion that asserts the existence of similar circuits, according to which the same thing is supposedly necessarily repeated after certain periods of time. Whichever of the above opinions about the centuries of centuries is correct, it has nothing to do with these circulations. Will these centuries of centuries not repeat the same thing, but protruding from each other an ordering with an unchanging abiding in bliss of those who are irrevocably freed from misfortunes; or are they eternal centuries of centuries, as if ruling over the temporal centuries subordinate to them: in both cases, the above-mentioned circulations do not take place, returning the same thing, because they are completely refuted by the eternal life of the saints. Chapter XX. About the wickedness of those who claim that souls participating in the highest and true bliss repeatedly return through the cycles of time to the same misfortunes and disasters Indeed, whose pious ear can admit that after a life passed through with so many and such great misfortunes (if, however, we should call this life life, which is rather death 125, and, moreover, so difficult that the death that frees us from it is feared out of love for this death), that after such great, many and terrible evils, from which, moreover, through true piety and wisdom we were once cleansed and liberated, we achieved the sight of God and became blessed by the contemplation of the incorporeal light through participation in the unchangeable immortality of Him, for the achievement of Whom we burn with love, only to then, of necessity, be deprived of Him, and, having been deprived and cast down from this eternity, truth and happiness, were subjected to hellish mortality, shameful recklessness and vile misfortunes, in which God is abandoned, the truth is hated, bliss is found in vile obscenity; and that this in the same form would be repeated an infinite number of times before and repeated an infinite number of times after in certain periods of past and future centuries? And all this is only so that through these certain circulations, in which everything constantly passes and then returns again, through our imaginary bliss and true misfortune, although alternating, but due to the incessant replacement of one by the other - constant, His works become known to God; because He supposedly can neither rest from work nor explore the infinite with His knowledge! Who can listen to such things? Who will believe this? Who will allow this? If this were true, then not only would it be more prudent to remain silent about it, but it would even be (I will express my thought as best I can) more learned not to know it. If there we will be blessed because we do not understand this, then why should we here, through knowledge of this, further increase our misfortune? And if there we must necessarily know about this, then let us not know at least here, so that the expectation here would be happier than there - the achievement of the highest Good: at least here the eternal life that must follow is expected, and there, although a blessed life is known, it is not eternal, but must one day be lost. They say that no one can achieve this bliss unless, by studying real life, he understands for himself these cycles in which bliss and misfortune alternately follow one after the other. But in this case, how do they assert that the more someone loves God, the easier it will be to achieve bliss - they who teach what weakens this very love? Who, in fact, will not weaken and cool his love for God when he imagines that of necessity he will have to leave Him and begins to adhere to a way of thinking contrary to His truth and wisdom, and, moreover, at a time when, having achieved bliss, he will achieve, to the best of his abilities, complete knowledge of Him? No one can sincerely love a friend if he knows that he will become his enemy. No, it is not true what they threaten us with - that true misfortunes will continue endlessly, and will only be frequently and also endlessly interrupted by intervals of imaginary bliss. For what is more false and deceptive than this bliss, when even in such light of truth we will not know about the future disaster; then our present misfortune will be more knowledgeable, in which we know about future bliss. If the impending disaster is not hidden from us there, then the soul will spend more blissfully the ill-fated times, after which it will achieve bliss, than the blessed ones, after which it will return to ill-fated. Thus, the expectation of our misfortune is happy, and the expectation of happiness is unhappy. And it turns out that since here we suffer real disasters, and there we are afraid of upcoming ones, it is more likely that we can be constantly unhappy than ever blessed. But since this is false, as piety says and truth proves (for it does not falsely promise us true bliss, which will be assured forever and will not be interrupted by any misfortune), then we, following the straight path that Christ serves for us, will direct, with the help of this Leader and Savior, our faith and mind away from the vain and reckless circulation of the wicked. If the Platonist Porfiry did not want to follow his opinion about these circulations and the continuous alternating descent and return of souls, and either due to the conviction of the falsity of the opinion itself, or taking into account Christian times, he preferred to say what I mentioned in the tenth book 126, namely: that the soul is sent into the world to know evil, so that, having been purified and freed from it, when it returns to the Father, it is no longer has not been subjected to such a thing, then how much more should we turn away and move away from this lie, hostile to the Christian faith? After these circulations are refuted and their lies are proven, no necessity forces us to think that there is no beginning of time from which the human race appeared, since, supposedly, as a result of some circulations, there is supposedly nothing new in things that did not exist before in certain periods of time and that would not have existed subsequently. For if the soul is liberated so as never to return to misfortune, as it has never been liberated before, then something happens to it that has never happened before and that is very great, that is, it represents never-ending eternal bliss. If such novelty, which has not been repeated and will not be repeated in any cycle, occurs in immortal nature, then on what basis do they assert that it cannot exist in mortal things? They will say that bliss is not new for the soul, because it returns to the One in Whom it has always been; in this case, the news is liberation itself, because it is liberated from a misfortune in which it has never been before, and the news itself is a misfortune that has never existed before. If this novelty is not part of the order of things governed by divine providence, but rather happens by chance, then where, in this case, are these definite and regular circulations, in which nothing new happens, but the same thing that happened before is repeated? And if this novelty is not excluded from the order of things governed by divine providence, then whether the soul is sent or it has fallen *******, in any case there may be something new that did not exist before, but which, however, is not alien to the order of things. And if the soul, through imprudence, could inflict upon itself a new misfortune, which was not unforeseen by divine providence, so that it could include this misfortune in the order of things and not unforeseen free the soul from it, then with what recklessness of human vanity do we dare to assert that the deity cannot create things new, not for him, but for the world - such as he has never created before, but which were never unforeseen for him? They will say that although liberated souls will not return to misfortune, nevertheless, when this happens, nothing new is happening in the world: because constantly one or the other has been liberated, is being liberated, and will be liberated constantly. But if this is so, then they must at least admit that new souls are being created, with whom new misfortunes and new liberation occur. If they are recognized not as new, but as existing from eternity, from which new people are formed every day, from whose body these souls, with a wise life, are freed so that they never return to misfortune, then they will certainly have to admit an infinite number of them. For no matter how great the finite number of souls, it could not be sufficient for the past infinite centuries, so that people would constantly come from it, whose souls would always be freed from this mortality so as never to return to it. And in this case, they will absolutely not be able to explain how an infinite number of souls appears among those creatures that, in order to be known to God, are recognized by them as finite. So, since the mentioned rotations, in which the soul seemed to necessarily have to return to the same misfortunes, have been refuted by us, then nothing remains more decent for piety than to believe that it is not impossible for God to again produce what He never produced, and, by virtue of ineffable foresight, to have an unchangeable will. As for, further, whether the number of souls liberated and no longer able to return to misfortune can constantly increase, let those who talk with such subtlety about the limitation of the infinity of things decide for themselves; We will draw our own conclusion from both possible solutions. If it can, then on what basis do they assert that things cannot be created that have never been created before, if a number of liberated souls that never existed before were not only created once, but will never cease to be created? If there should be any definite number of liberated souls who will never return to misery, and if this number should no longer increase, then whatever it is, in any case it never existed before; it could not grow and reach a certain amount without some kind of beginning; likewise, this has never begun before. So, to be this beginning, man was created, before whom there was no man. Chapter XXI. About the creation of the first man and in him the human race So I have cleared up as best I could this very difficult question of the eternity of God creating new things without any change of will. Now it is not difficult to see how much better it is that He multiplied the human race from one man, whom He created first, than if this race began from many. Of the animals He created alone, living alone, as if wandering alone, seeking primarily solitude, such as: eagles, kites, lions, wolves and the like; others - attracted to each other, preferring to live in societies and herds, such as: pigeons, starlings, deer, wild goats and others of the same kind. He multiplied both genera, however, not from individual individuals, but commanded them to be many at the same time. But man, whose nature He created as if average between angels and animals, so that if he, submissive to his Creator as the true Lord, kept His commandment with reverent obedience, he could move into the society of angels, without the mediation of death achieving blissful and endless immortality, and if, by virtue of his free will, he offended the Lord his God with arrogance and disobedience, then doomed to death, he lived like animals, as a slave of lust and condemned to eternal torment after death - He created only one and only man. This is not, of course, in order to leave him alone, without human society, but in order to thereby more strongly arouse in him the desire for social unity and for the bonds of consent, since people are united among themselves not only by the similarity of nature, but also by ties of kinship, because He wanted to create the wife who was supposed to unite with her husband not like him, but from himself, so that the entire human race would spread from one person. Chapter XXII. The fact that God knew in advance that the first man He created would sin, but at the same time foresaw what a great multitude of pious descendants of His would pass, by His grace, into the company of angels God knew that man would sin and, being already guilty of death, would produce mortal offspring, in which the fury of sin would intensify to such an extent that animals of the same kind, devoid of rational will, which from the very beginning He produced in multitude from water and earth, would live more calmly and peacefully among themselves than people, whose race spread from one to encourage harmony. For neither lions among themselves, nor dragons among themselves, ever waged such wars as men waged. But He also foresaw that many pious people would be called by His grace to adoption and, after the remission of sins and justification by the Holy Spirit, would be united in eternal peace with the holy angels, when the last enemy - death - would be destroyed. It was this society that should have benefited from the idea that God created the human race from one man to indicate to people how pleasing to Him is unity in the midst of multitudes. Chapter XXIII. On the nature of the human soul, created in the image of God So God created man in His image. For He created for him such a soul, (thanks to) which man would be superior in intelligence and understanding to all animals of the earth, water and flying, which did not have such a mind. He formed a man from the dust of the earth and imparted to him by means of a breath of this quality the soul of which I have spoken, either by having already created it before, or rather by creating it by means of a breath and deciding that this breath which He created by blowing (for what else does it mean to blow, if not to make a breath?) was the soul of a man. Then He, as God, created for him from a rib taken from his side a wife for childbearing. All this, of course, should not be presented in a bodily form, similar to what we usually see in artists who, with their bodily members, produce from some earthly substance that which they are able to do through diligence and art. The Hands of God signify the power of God, Who produces the visible invisibly. But this is considered more fabulous than true by those who measure the power and wisdom of God, which can and even gives birth to seeds without seeds, by these ordinary everyday actions, but in fact they misrepresent the original creation, because they do not know it. As if what they know about conception and birth does not seem even more incredible when told to people who are not familiar with it, although very many attribute this to more bodily causes of nature than to the actions of the divine mind. Chapter XXIV. Can angels be called the creators of any creature, even the smallest one? But in the present books we have nothing to do with those who do not believe that the divine mind does this and cares about it. Those who believe their Plato, that not by the Supreme God who created the world, but by other, lesser ones created by Him 127, all mortal animals were created with His permission or command, among which man occupies the main and closest place to the gods - those, if they free themselves from superstition, because of which they try to somehow justify their sacred services and sacrifices to their imaginary creators, they will easily free themselves from this misconceptions It is inconsistent with religious feeling to think and assert that there is any creator of even the most insignificant and mortal nature, besides God, and, moreover, before such a one could be known. The angels, whom they prefer to call gods, if by His command or permission they apply their labor to what is born in the world, are not called among us the creators of animals, just as farmers are not called the creators of fruits and trees. Chapter XXV. Every nature and every species of the world's creation is exclusively the work of God. Another thing is the appearance that is given from the outside to some bodily substance, as do potters and artisans and artists of this kind who draw and sculpt forms similar to the bodies of animals; and another thing is the one who has causes that act from within according to the secret and hidden will of living and rational nature, which from non-existence creates not only the natural types of bodies, but also the very souls of living beings. The first of the above types can be attributed to every artist; the second - only to the only Artist, God, Who created the world and angels, when there was no world and no angels. From what divine and, so to speak, productive force, uncreated, but capable of creating, did the roundness of the sky and the roundness of the sun receive their appearance during the creation of the world? From the same divine force did they receive the appearance of the roundness of the eye, and the roundness of the apple, and other natural forms that we see in all objects and which are given not from the outside, but by the inner power of the Creator, who said: “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” (Jer. XXIII, 24). I do not know what assistance the originally created angels provided to the Creator when He created other creatures, and therefore I do not dare to attribute to them something that is perhaps beyond their strength, and I do not consider myself entitled to deny what is possible for them. But the creation and formation of all natures, on which depends the fact that they are natures in all respects, I attribute, even with their assistance, to that God to whom they themselves consider themselves obliged to offer thanks for their existence. Thus, we not only do not consider farmers to be the creators of any fruit, since we read: “He who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God makes everything grow” (1 Cor. III, 7), but also the earth itself, although it seems to be the fertile mother of everything, bringing out the rising seeds and strengthening the roots, for we read: “God gives him a body as He wills, and to each seed his own body” (1 Cor. XV, 38). In the same way, we do not consider ourselves to have the right to consider a woman the creator of her fetus, but call its Creator the One who said to one of His servants: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer. I, 5). And although the soul of a pregnant woman can, as it were, clothe the fetus with certain qualities, just as Jacob did with the help of variegated rods, so that livestock of variegated colors would be born (Gen. XXX, 37-39), however, it does not produce the nature being born, just as it did not produce itself. So, whatever bodily or vegetable causes may take place at the birth of creatures through the actions of angels, or people, or any animals, whatever desires or mental movements of the mother may be able to be imprinted on the features of the embryos, the natures themselves, which appear with certain properties and qualities according to their kind, are produced by the highest God, Whose hidden power, penetrating everything with its incorruptible presence, gives being to everything that in one way or another has being. For without His creativity it would not only not have been this or that, but it would not have existed at all. Therefore, if, on the basis of the appearance that the artist gives from the outside to bodily objects, we say that Rome or Alexandria had for their builders not architects and workers, but kings, by whose will, decision and order they were built, namely, the first by Romulus, and the second by Alexander, then all the more should we call the creator of nature only God, Who does not produce anything from such material as He Himself does not create, and has no workers other than those whom He Himself created; and if He takes away His productive power from things, then they will not exist, just as they did not exist before their creation. But I say “before” in the sense of eternity, not time. For who else could be the creator of times, except the One who created that, the movement of which determines the flow of time? Chapter XXVI. About the opinion of the Platonists, who thought that although the angels themselves were created by God, they were nevertheless the creators of human bodies Plato, however, believed 128 that the lesser gods, created by the Supreme God, created other animals in such a way that they took the immortal part from Him, and created the mortal part themselves. Therefore, he recognized them as the creators not of souls, but of bodies. But since Porphyry says that for the purification of the soul, every body should be avoided, and, together with Plato and other Platonists, believes that those who lived intemperately and wickedly return to mortal bodies to suffer punishment, and, according to Plato, even to the bodies of animals, and according to Porphyry - only people, then, in order to be consistent, they must say that these gods, whom they consider it necessary to honor as our creators, are the organizers our shackles and prisons, and do not create us, but imprison us in houses of correction and impose the heaviest shackles on us. Thus, the Platonists either should not threaten souls with punishment through these bodies, or should not instill in us the need to honor those whose handiwork they urge us to avoid if possible. However, both are false, for souls do not suffer such punishments, and they have a completely different Creator. After all, if life in this body is given only as a punishment, then how does the same Plato say that the world could not be the most beautiful and the best if it were not filled with all kinds of creatures, mortal and immortal? If our existence, although we are created mortals, is a gift from God, then how can returning to bodies serve as punishment? And if God, as Plato constantly reminds us, contains in the eternal mind images of both the whole world and all creatures, then how did He not create everything Himself? Or did He not want to be the Creator of some creatures, although His ineffable and praiseworthy mind possessed the proper art for their creation? Chapter XXVII. In the first man the entire human race began, regarding which God foresaw which part of it would be awarded righteousness and which part would be condemned to torment The true Catholic religion rightly recognizes and preaches that He is the Creator of all animals as a whole, that is, both their souls and their bodies. Standing at the head of them (earthly animals), man, created by Him in His image, was created alone either for the reason that I gave above, or, perhaps, for some other, unknown and more important, but was not left alone. There is no other kind of being that loves discord to such an extent due to vice and at the same time is so sociable by nature. Our nature could do nothing to warn against the vice of disagreement before its occurrence, or to cure it after its discovery, than by reminding us of that progenitor, whom God created one for this purpose, so that this would encourage the preservation of the agreement of many. By creating a wife from a rib, it was clearly shown by what kind of love a husband and wife should be united. These works of God are unusual because they were the first. Those who do not believe them should not believe any miracles, because miracles would not be called miracles if they were performed in the ordinary natural order. Under the control of divine providence, nothing happens without a reason, even if the reason itself is hidden from us. One of the sacred psalms says: “Come and see the works of God, as if he placed wonders on earth” (Ps. 45:9). But why the wife was created from the rib of her husband and what this first-of-its-kind miracle meant, we will talk about this in another place. Since it is time to finish this book, we will limit ourselves for now to the position that in the first man two societies, as if not yet discovered, but already existing in the foreknowledge of God, received their beginning, like two cities in human society. For from him people were to come, some of whom were to be added for punishment to the society of evil angels, and others for reward to the society of good ones, according to the hidden and righteous judgment of God. If Scripture says: “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth” (Ps. XXIV, 10), then His grace cannot be unjust and His justice cannot be cruel. See below, book. XXI; Ch. 24. “This is what happens when the eye, in order to see the darkness, turns away from the light: with the light the darkness was invisible to it, but even without the light it cannot see anything; the only thing he can do without light is not-see, and it is this not-seeing that turns out to be the vision of darkness for him.” (Plotinus. “On the nature and source of evil.” - Enneads. I.8:9). That is, we learn not to know what “is perceived outside of sensation, through some kind of illegal (unlawful) conclusion, and it is almost impossible to believe in it.” (Plato. Timaeus). Senec. nat. qua_est. lib. V, c. 27 et 29; Cicer. de nat. deor. lib. II Cicer. de divinit. lib. 1; Lact. lib. VII, c. 14. See above, book. VIII, ch. 5. See below, book. 18, ch. XLI. Origenes περì Ἀργῶν lib. III, cap. 5. See bl. Augustine, on the Trinity, book. V, ch. 16. Cicer. de republ. lib VI. An indication of two opinions, of which, according to one, the soul is given to bodies or sent into them by God, and according to the other, as a result of the fall, it receives a body as punishment. You might be interested in: