Книга 1

All divine Scripture is divided into two parts in accordance with how the Lord designated it, saying that a scribe, taught about the kingdom of heaven, is like a master who brings out from his treasury new and old; These parts are called two Testaments. But in all sacred books we must pay attention to what is revealed in them as (something) eternal, what is narrated as past, what is foreshadowed as future, and what is commanded or suggested as what we should do. The question now is whether to accept everything in the narration of the past in a purely allegorical sense, or whether it should be affirmed and defended at the same time as something that really happened. For not a single Christian will say that the words of the apostle should not be understood in an allegorical sense when he says: “All these things happened to them as types” (1 Cor. 10.11), and also when he explains the saying of the book of Genesis: “And they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2.24) as a great mystery in relation to Christ and to the Church (Eph. 5.32). So, if Scripture is to be examined in two ways, let us ask in what sense, besides the allegorical, it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); - is it at the beginning of time, or in the sense that they were created first of all, or in that Beginning, which is the Word, the only begotten Son of God? And how can one imagine that God, without any change in Himself, creates what is changeable and temporary? What is meant by the name heaven and earth: does this mean a spiritual and bodily creature, or only a physical one, so, one must think, the writer in the book (Genesis) was completely silent about the spiritual creature, and used the words “heaven and earth” for the purpose that he wanted to designate with them all the higher and lower bodily creation? Or the formless matter of both (creatures) is called heaven and earth, namely: on the one hand, spiritual life, as far as it can be in itself, without being turned to the Creator, because turning to the Creator gives it form and perfection, and if it is not turned to Him, it remains formless; on the other hand, bodily life, if only it can be imagined abstracted from any bodily quality that appears in any matter that has received a form, that is, when there are already forms of bodies perceived by sight or some other bodily sense? Or, perhaps, by heaven we must understand the spiritual creation, perfect from the very beginning and always blessed, and under the earth - corporeal matter, still imperfect; because it is said: “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gen. 1:2), which words apparently denote the formlessness of bodily substance. Or these last words denote the formlessness of both (creatures) - the bodily words: “The earth was formless and empty,” and the spiritual: “And darkness was upon the abyss”; So, rearranging the word, by the dark abyss we will understand the formless nature of life, if it does not turn to the Creator, from whom only it can receive form, so as not to be an abyss, and be enlightened, so as not to be dark? And how is it said: “And darkness is upon the face of the deep”? Was there not light then, which, if it had existed, would undoubtedly have been above and, as it were, spread over the surface, which is what happens in a spiritual creature when it turns to the unchanging and incorporeal light, God? And how did God say: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3)? Is it in time or in the eternity of the Word? If in time, then, of course, in a changeable way: how, in this case, can we imagine God speaking, if not through creation, because He himself is unchangeable? And if He said this through creation, then how will light be the first creation, if there was already a creation through which God said: “Let there be light”? And is light the first creation, when it has already been said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), or if through the medium of a heavenly creature a voice could be heard in a bodily and changeable way, which said: “Let there be light”? And if so, then the bodily light was created, which we see with bodily eyes, when God, through the spiritual creature, already created by Him at the time when He created heaven and earth in the beginning, said: “Let there be light,” just as these words could be spoken by action from above through the inner and hidden movement of the spiritual creature. Or perhaps the voice of God saying: “Let there be light” sounded bodily, just as the voice of God saying: “This is my beloved Son” sounded bodily (Matthew 3.17), that is, through the bodily creature that God created at the time when in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth, before the light created by the sound of this voice appeared? And if so, what language was the voice in when God said this? After all, at that time there was no difference in languages, which later appeared during the construction of the tower after the flood (Gen. 11.7). What was this one and undivided language in which God said: “Let there be light,” and who was the one who was supposed to hear and understand it and for whom such a voice was intended? Wouldn't such reasoning and fortune-telling be absurd and carnal? What shall we say? Unless we take for the voice of God that which is given to be understood by the sound of the voice when it is said: “Let there be light,” and not the bodily sound itself? But does this apply to the nature of that Word, about which it is said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1.1)? For when it is said about Him: “All things came into being through Him” (John 1.3), then this clearly indicates His creation of light, when God said: “Let there be light.” And if so, then the saying of God: “Let there be light” is eternal, because the Word of God is God with God, the only Son of God, co-eternal with the Father, although God, speaking in this eternal Word, created a temporary creature. For although we say “when” or “when,” and these words usually denote time, yet since something must be, it is eternal in the Word of God and happens when the reason that it should be lies in the Word of God, in which there is neither “when” nor “when,” because this Word is eternal. And what is this light that was created - something spiritual or physical? For if he is something spiritual, then he may well be the first, in this very saying (of God), a perfect creation, originally called heaven, when it was said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); so the words of God: “Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3) must be understood in the sense of the created and enlightened appeal of the creature to the Creator calling it to himself. And why is it said: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” and not: “In the beginning God said: let there be heaven and earth, and heaven and earth became,” just as it is told about light? Is it because the name of heaven and earth is given in general to everything that God created, after which we began to talk about particulars: what exactly and how He created, so that with each (creation) separately it is said: “And God said” (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29), i.e., everything that He created, He created through His Word? Or, perhaps, when the formlessness of both spiritual and corporeal matter was first created, there was no need to say: “Let it be,” for imperfection, unlike what is above and foremost, and due to some formlessness bordering on insignificance, does not agree with the form of the Word always inherent in the Father, by whom God eternally names everything, and, moreover, not with the sound of a voice and not with a thought that embraces the time of sounds, but coeternal with Himself the light of the Wisdom He gave birth to; it becomes consistent with the form of the Word, always and invariably inherent in the Father, when it itself, as it turns to that which truly and always exists, that is, to the Creator of its essence, receives form and becomes a perfect creation, so that in the words of Scripture: “And God said: Let it be” (Gen. 1: 3, 6) we must understand the incorporeal speech of God in the nature of the Word co-eternal with Him, calling to Himself the imperfection of the creature, so that it is not formless, but receives form according to its individual types, which are then discussed in detail in order. In this conversion and formation, she, becoming consistent in her kind with God the Word, that is, the Son of God always inherent in the Father, is filled with likeness and essence equal to that in which He and the Father are one (John 10.30); on the contrary, it happens to disagree with this form of the Word if, turning away from the Creator, it remains formless and imperfect. For this reason, the mention of the Son is made not because He is the Word, but only because He is the Beginning, when it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), for in these words the origin of the creation is indicated in the formlessness of imperfection; and that He is the Word is mentioned in the words: “And God said: let it be,” so that by the fact that He is the Beginning, the idea of the origin of the still imperfect creature existing from Him is suggested, and by the fact that He is the Word, the thought is given of the perfection of the creature, called to Him, so that it receives form, clinging to the Creator and in its own way becoming like the form eternally and unchangeably inherent in the Father, from Whom it becomes by what He is. For the Word - the Son does not have a formless life: for Him not only to be is the same as to live, but also to live is the same as to live wisely and blessedly. On the contrary, a creature, even if it is spiritual, thinking or rational, which, apparently, is closest to the Word, can have a formless life; because for her to be is not the same as to live, and to live is not the same as to live wisely and blissfully. After all, turning away from the unchanging Wisdom, she lives unreasonably and ill-fated, which constitutes her formlessness; on the contrary, it receives form when it turns to the unchanging light of Wisdom, the Word of God. She receives being from Him in order to simply be and live, but she turns to Him in order to live wisely and blissfully. For the beginning of the rational creature is eternal Wisdom; which principle, remaining unchanged in itself, never ceases with the innermost inspiration of the call to speak to the creature for which it serves as the beginning, so that it turns to the One from Whom it comes, because otherwise it cannot be formed and perfect. That is why, when asked who He is, the Lord answers: “He is from the beginning” (John 8.25). But what the Son says, the Father says, because when the Father speaks, the Word is spoken, which is the Son, the Son in an eternal way (if only this clarification needs to be made, since God speaks the co-eternal Word). For God has the highest Goodness and holy and righteous Love for His creatures, resulting not from the fact that He needs them, but from His favor towards them. For this reason, before reporting: “And God said, Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), Scripture says: “The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Gen. 1:2). Did (the writer of everyday life) want to call all corporeal matter by the name of water, in order to thus make us understand where everything that we can now recognize in its genera came from and was formed, calling (this matter) water because on earth, as we see, everything in its various forms is formed and grows from moist nature; or - some spiritual life, as if spreading out until (gaining) the form of its subsequent existence: in any case, the Spirit of God was rushing then, because it was on the good will of the Creator that everything that was to receive form and perfection depended, so that when God said in His Word: “Let there be light,” what was created, depending on the degree of its kind, remained in His good will, that is, good will; therefore, of course, it was pleasing to God, as Scripture says: “And God saw the light, that it was good” (Gen. 1:4). Thus, just as at the very beginning of creation, called by the name of heaven and earth for the sake of what was to be made from it, the creative Trinity is indicated (for in the words of Scripture: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), by the name of God we mean the Father, by the name of the beginning - the Son, Who is the beginning not for the Father, but for the original and best spiritual created through Him, and then for all creation; finally, in the words of Scripture: “The Spirit of God moved over the waters” (Gen. 1:2) we see the completion of the Trinity), just as in the further course and perfection of creation, with the appearance of certain types of things, we should see an indication of the same Trinity, namely, the Word of God and the Parent of the Word, when it says: “God said,” and of holy Goodness, in which God pleases everything that pleases Him as perfect. according to the degree of its nature, when it is said: “And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good” (Gen. 1:3–4). But why is creation mentioned first, and still imperfect, and only then – the Spirit of God, since in Scripture we read: “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1.2)? Is it not because limited and insufficient love loves in such a way that it obeys the one it loves; Therefore, when the Spirit of God, Who is the holy favor and love of God, is mentioned, it is said that He hovered over the waters, so that we would not think that God loves His future creations rather because of the need for them, rather than because of the fullness of His favor towards them. With this in mind, the apostle speaks of love, that he will show “an even more excellent way” (1 Cor 12.31); and elsewhere: “Know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph 3.19). Therefore, when it was necessary to instill such an idea about the Spirit of God, which is conveyed by the words “hovered over the waters,” it was natural to first indicate something that had already begun (to exist), over which He would hover; rushed, of course, not in the sense of movement in space, but by its superior power. That is why even then, when things received their perfection and their form at this beginning, God saw “that this is good,” for what was created was pleasing to Him by virtue of the good will by which He wanted it to come into being. Indeed, the motive by which God loves His creation is twofold: on the one hand, (He desires) that it come into being, on the other, that it exist. Therefore, in order for that which should exist to come into being, “the Spirit of God moved over the waters” (Gen. 1:2), and for it to exist, “God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:4, 8, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). And what was said about light, the same was said later about all (kinds of creation). For some of them, transcending all inconstancy of time, abide in complete holiness with God, while others (achieve this) according to the time allotted to them, while through the change and continuity of things the beauty of the ages is intertwined. But the words: “Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3), were they said by God on some day, or before every day? For if He spoke them in His co-eternal Word, then He spoke them, of course, outside of time; if this was said in time, then it was no longer in the co-eternal Word, but through some temporary creature, and since there was a creature, then light was not the first creation. And the fact that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) gives reason to think that this happened before every day, and by heaven we should understand a spiritual, already created and formed creature, and we are talking about a certain higher heaven, since the firmament, that is, our visible heaven, was created already on the second day. The name of the earth, invisible and unsettled, and darkness over the abyss, denotes the imperfection of that corporeal essence, from which temporary creations subsequently arose, the first of which was light. And how, through a creature created before time, it could be said before time: “Let there be light” is very difficult to understand. It is clear that this was not uttered by voice, for what is said out loud is bodily. Although, of course, the Lord could form a certain sound from the imperfection of the primary bodily essence, but then the first creation would be this sound, and not light. In addition, it takes time to say something out loud, and since time arose before the light, then what day did it refer to? For that was “one day” (Gen. 1:5), and, according to the account, the first day on which the light was created. It turns out that time and sound were also created on “one day”? But what is said out loud is intended for those who are able to hear, that is, perceive and distinguish air vibrations. What, then, did the invisible and unsettled have hearing? It's hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than this! So this was said spiritually; but is it in time, and therefore in movement, and in this spiritual movement, imprinted by the eternal Father through the co-eternal Son in the spiritual creature, that is, in the above-mentioned highest heaven, or outside of time, in an incomprehensible way inscribed by the Word in her thought and mind, and according to these words the lower and dark imperfection of bodily nature began to move, took shape and light appeared? But it is very difficult to understand how it is possible for a timeless command, comprehended by a (higher) creature through the timeless contemplation of truth in the form of ideas mentally imprinted by the Wisdom of God, to be communicated (by this creature) below, giving rise to temporary movements in temporary objects subject to education and management. If light must be understood in such a way that it has a primary place among creatures, then it itself is intelligent life, life that would spread over the formless mass if it were not turned to the Creator. When she turned to Him and was enlightened by Him, what is said about happened: “And there was light.” But someone will definitely ask: did everything happen outside of time, as it was said outside of time, for time is not applicable to the Word, the co-eternal Father? It is clear that such an understanding is unacceptable, since the Scripture, after the creation of light and its separation from darkness, clearly says: “And there was evening, and there was morning: one day” (Gen. 1:5). From this it is clear that this action of God was accomplished during the day, at the end of which, in the evening, came what serves as the beginning of the night, and at the end of the night the whole day was completed, so that the morning of the next day came, on which God made the next (His creation). But if the words: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3) were spoken by God outside of time (instantaneously) in the eternal mind of His Word, then it is puzzling why light was created so slowly that it took a whole day. Or perhaps light was also created instantly, but it took time to separate it from the darkness? But this is also strange, since the separation of light from darkness was clearly part of the action by which God created light: after all, there could be no light if it was not separated from darkness. And one more thing: how long could the naming of light and darkness take place, when “God called the light day and the darkness night” (Gen. 1:5)? It is clear that even if this were said vocally (i.e., it would require some period of time to be uttered out loud), it would hardly take more time than it takes us to pronounce this kind of phrase; unless someone gets such a crazy thought that, they say, God is so great that he could very well utter this phrase all day long. Moreover, we should not forget that God called day and night not out loud, by voice, but by His co-eternal Word, that is, the internal and eternal ideas of immutable Wisdom. Otherwise, questions would again arise: in what language was this spoken and to whom was what was said intended, if there was not yet a single bodily listener? Perhaps it should be assumed that although God's action was accomplished quickly, the light, without being replaced by night, remained until the time of day had expired; did the same thing happen with darkness, that is, with the night, until the morning came? But if I begin to assert this, then, I am afraid, I will be ridiculed by people who know (and this is not difficult to find out) that when night falls in our country, the sun illuminates those parts of the world through which, following from west to east, it returns to us, and therefore during the entire day, that is, a complete revolution of the sun, there is day in some places, and night in others. We cannot place God in just one part of the world, so that He has, say, only evening, while in other parts there is morning, day, and night at the same time! After all, Ecclesiastes says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets, and hastens to its place where it rises” (Eccl 1.5). When the sun passes across the southern part (of the sky), we have day, and when it moves to the northern part, completing its rotation, we have night. We, in fact, will not believe the poetic fables that the sun plunges into the sea at night, and in the morning, having washed itself, comes out on the other side. However, even in this case, night would not be universal, for the sun would illuminate the depths of the sea and day would come there. But it is clear that such an assumption is absurd. However, everything else is absurd, because when (the events in question) took place, the sun itself was not yet there. But if spiritual light was created on the first day, how could it end and be replaced by night? And if it is material, then what kind of light was it without the sun or any other luminaries? Even if we assume that light does not come directly from the sun, but is, as it were, its constant companion, then it must still make the same circuits, and we are faced with the same difficulties. Or perhaps God created light only in that part of the world where he intended to create man, and when the light from there retreated to other parts of the world, evening came? And why was the sun created “to rule the day” (Ps 135.8)? Wasn't that light enough? Or did this original light illuminate only the highest countries remote from the earth, and therefore was invisible on earth, which is why the creation of the sun was required? Or did you need to increase the light? And someone, as I heard, even said that with the words: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3) in the creation of the Creator, the very nature of light was introduced, and then, when it came to the luminaries, a particular indication was made that from this light it was created in the order of days in which the Lord wanted to do everything; but what is the nature of this light, where did it disappear with the onset of evening, so that after that night came - he did not say this, and, in my opinion, it is not easy to find an explanation for this. Let us not, in fact, think that this light was either extinguished so that evening would come, then it would be rekindled again so that morning would come, and this continued until the sun was created, that is, until the fourth day. But what kind of rotation before the creation of the sun ensured the change of the three (first) days, when the nature of the first-created light - if, of course, by this light we mean bodily light - remained motionless? Or, perhaps, someone will say that God called the earth and water mass darkness before its separation, which took place, as it is written, on the third day, because due to the super-dense physicality (of this mass), light could not penetrate it, or because its unlit side was in deep shadow? If this shadow, in accordance with the gigantic mass of the body, was so large that it occupied no less space than the day indicated by light, then it could well be called night. For not all darkness is night; darkness also occurs in large caves, into the deepest abysses of which light does not penetrate, but these unlit places are not called night; Night is only the darkness that envelops that part of the earth from which the day leaves. However, not every light is called day: the moon, stars, and lamps shine in the night; but day is the light that precedes and follows the night. But if the original light surrounded the mass of the earth on all sides, either remaining in a calm state or making circular movements, then in that case there would not be a single place left in which it could, as if parting, be replaced by night. Or was light created only on one side of the earth, so that, making circular movements, it allowed darkness to embrace the other? For when the whole earth was still covered with water, nothing prevented this watery and spherical mass from producing day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other by the absence of light night, which came there with the departure of light to the other side. But if the waters originally occupied the entire earth, then where were they collected, that is, in what part were the waters that left to expose the land collected? In fact, if there was a place on earth free from water where these waters could be collected, then it means that part of the land was already exposed. If the waters covered the entire earth, then where were they collected? Perhaps they were collected in height, just as grain threshed on a threshing floor is thrown up for winnowing and, collected there in a heap, it exposes the place that was previously covered with it? But who among those who have seen the evenly spread surfaces of the seas will believe in such a thing? And if (during low tides) other shores are exposed, then, obviously, there are shores that are covered at the same time. But when the agitating elements covered the entire earth, where could it retreat? Or should we assume that then the water was not so dense and surrounded the earth like a cloud? Then its condensation could indeed free up part of the space, where the land was exposed. However, the earth could compact and settle, and water could collect in the resulting depressions, freeing up land areas in other places. But in this case, it cannot be said about matter that it was formless, for it had at least a cloud-like appearance, and therefore the question may arise when exactly God created the type and quality of water and earth, since we do not find mention of this on any of the six days (of creation). Therefore, if He created water and earth before every day, for even before the appearance of the first day it is said: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), then by the name of earth we can understand the earth that had already received form with the waters that covered its surface, which in turn also had form, as well as in the further words of Scripture: “And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.” (Gen. 1:2) we can see not some formlessness of matter, but earth and water, although still devoid of light, which was created later, but already with all their inherent properties; so the land was called formless because it was hidden under water, and empty because it was not yet separated from the waters, bordered by shores and decorated with plants and animals. But if so, then why were these species, undoubtedly corporeal, created before any day? Why is it not written: “God said: let there be earth. And the earth became,” or: “God said: Let there be water. And the water became,” or, finally, since earth and water seem to be connected to each other by their lowest position: “God said: let there be earth and water. And the earth and water became"? And, on the other hand, if everything really happened exactly like this, then why wasn’t it added: “And God saw that it was good”? (But) it is known that everything that changes is formed from something formless; at the same time, both the Catholic faith teaches and common sense suggests that matter of any nature could not have originated otherwise than from God, the Creator and Originator of all being, both educated and capable of education. This consideration convinces us that such formless matter is indicated in words that are quite accessible even to the least insightful in spiritual wisdom: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and so on. to the words: “And God said” (Gen. 1:1–3), which is a transition to a consistent story about the order of formation of things. (Such an indication was made) not because unformed matter precedes in time objects that have received form, for both were created at the same time; just as sound constitutes the matter of a word, and words point to a sound that has already been formed, and the speaker does not speak in such a way that he first emits a formless sound, and then, as it were, absorbs it and forms it into a word, so the Creator God did not first create formless matter, and then, after reflecting, form it into a series of certain natures, but created matter immediately already formed. But since that from which something comes (substrate), if not by time, then by some other principle (causally) exists before that which comes from it, Scripture divided according to the time of narration that which God did not divide according to the time of creation. After all, if we are asked what came from what, whether words are made from sounds, or sounds from words, we will answer without hesitation that words are made from sounds, although the speaker pronounces both at the same time. Therefore, although God simultaneously created the matter that he formed and the things with which he clothed the matter, when in Scripture it was necessary to speak about both, and we can speak and write only sequentially in time, it is clear that first what was created was mentioned, and then what was created from it. After all, when we talk about matter and form, we understand that one does not exist without the other, but we speak about them as if separately. And since we speak separately, we write and read even more separately. So, there is no doubt that formless matter is nothing in the sense that it came into being only from God, and was created by Him at the same time as those things that were created from it. But if we can admit that the words: “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1:2) indicate (formless) matter, so that, with the exception of the mention of the Holy Spirit, what was said refers to the name of visible things, the words “earth” and “water” are used only to give an idea of formlessness to the least understanding people, for it is the earth and water is easier than anything else to be processed by hand - if, I say, this can be allowed, then it means that there was no formed mass, illuminating which on one side the light would produce day, while on the other side night would reign. If by day and night we would like to mean the expansion and contraction of light, then it is difficult to find a reason why this would be so. For at that time there were no animals that needed such changes in light and for which, as we know, the changes that appeared later began to be produced by the rotation of the sun. And in general it is difficult to imagine how such expansions and contractions could produce day and night. Indeed, the outflow of rays from our eyes is also a kind of outflow of light; it can contract when we look at nearby objects and expand when we look into the distance. But contractions do not at all prevent us from noticing distant objects, although, of course, we can see them better up close. Meanwhile, the light that is contained in the organs of vision is so weak that, without the help of external light, we would not be able to see anything; but since the nature of light (internal and external) is the same, I say that it is difficult to find an example that would show how, due to the expansion and contraction of light, day and night could occur. If, with the words of God: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), spiritual light was created, then by it one should understand not that true co-eternal Light with the Father, which enlightens every person, but the one about which it could be said: “First of all, it was created for Wisdom” (Sir 1.4). For when the eternal and unchanging, not created, but born Wisdom is transferred into spiritual and rational creatures, as well as into the souls of the saints, so that they, enlightened (by Her), can shine, then a certain bright mood of the spirit is revealed in them, which can be taken for the creation of that light when God said: “Let there be light.” And then, if by the (primordial) sky we understand not the corporeal sky, but the incorporeal (spiritual) one, standing above all heaven not in the sense of distance, but by the sublimity of nature, (the spiritual creation has become enlightened). And how this creature could be at the same time both that which was enlightened and this enlightenment itself, and how (we are forced) to talk about this separately - we talked about this in detail above, when we were talking about matter. But then how can we understand the night that followed, since there was also evening? And from what darkness was this light separated, as the Scripture says: “And God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:4)? Was it really possible that even then there were sinners and fools who had fallen away from the light of truth, between whom, on the one hand, and those who remained in the light, on the other, God made a division as between light and darkness, and, calling the light day and the darkness night, showed that He was not the creator of sinners, but their provider, rewarding what they deserved? Or, perhaps, that day is the name of all time (as such), and therefore it is called not the first day, but one: “And there was evening, and there was morning: one day” (Gen. 1:5); So it turns out that the word “evening” signifies the sin of the creature, and the word “morning” its renewal? But this kind of reasoning is an allegory, but in this work we decided to talk about Scripture according to the literal meaning of the events that took place, and not according to allegorical mystery. How then, from the point of view of created natures, will we find evening and morning in spiritual light? Perhaps the separation of light from darkness means the difference between what has already received form and the formless, and the definitions day and night indicate a certain uniformity, which testifies that God did not leave anything unordered and that formlessness itself is not disorderly, and that even the shortcomings and perfections of creation, alternating in everything transitory, serve as an addition to the beauty of the universe? For night is also ordered darkness. Therefore, immediately after the creation of light it is said: “And God saw the light, that it was good” (Gen. 1:4), although this could have been said after all (the events) of this day had taken place, i.e. after creating light, separating it from darkness and calling light day and darkness night; This is exactly what happened in the future in relation to other works (of creation). Here the sequence of events is such for the reason that formlessness was separated from an object that had already received form, so that a limit had not yet been set for it, but the formation of other, corporeal creatures from it was assumed. So, if the words: “And God saw that it was good” were spoken after the distinction (of light and darkness) by separation and name, then we might think that this signifies actions to which nothing should be added. But since only the light was perfect, it is said: “And God saw the light that it was good,” and separated it from the darkness and designated it. About formlessness, from which only other (creations) were to be formed, “good” was not said. When, thanks to the creation of the luminaries, the night that we know (the night produced by the rotation of the sun over the earth) was separated from the day, after this it is already said: “And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:18). For this (our) night is no longer a formless entity, but a part of space devoid of light; There is nothing left to add to this night that would have a more definite and different form. As for the evening and morning, then by the evenings of all the first three days, until the luminaries were created, one can understand the end of a perfect (creative) act, and by the mornings - the beginning of a new one. The main thing, however, we must not forget, which we have already said more than once, is that God acts not in time, not with the help, so to speak, of the movements of His spirit or body, as angels and people act, but in the eternal and unchanging ideas of His co-eternal Word and, I would say, the warmings of His, also co-eternal, Holy Spirit. For what was said in Greek and Latin about the Spirit, that He “move over the waters” (Gen. 1:2), according to the meaning of the Syriac language, which is close to Hebrew, must be understood (as they say, one learned Christian Syrian explained) not in the sense of “move over”, but “warmed.” And not in the sense of how, for example, tumors are warmed by warm water, but how eggs are warmed by birds, when the warmth of the mother’s body, combined with her love, contributes to the formation of chicks. So, one should not interpret the sayings of God in a carnal way, as spoken in time during each day of Divine actions. For the very Wisdom of God, having taken upon itself our weakness, appeared to gather the children of Jerusalem under its wings, “as a bird gathers its chicks” (Matthew 23.37), not so that we would always remain in infancy, but so that, while remaining infants for evil, we would be adults in mind (1 Cor 14.20). But when we are talking about mysterious objects and remote from our sight, then no matter what we read intelligently about it, which could, supported by the saving faith that animates us, give rise to new and new opinions, we should not cling too firmly to any of them, so as not to collapse along with it if a more careful study of the truth overthrows it. We should especially beware that, while advocating for our own opinion, we do not replace the opinion of Scripture with it, while wanting our opinion to be the opinion of Scripture; on the contrary, we must desire that the opinion of Scripture be our opinion. In fact, suppose that in the words of Scripture: “And God said: Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3) - one sees the creation of bodily light, and the other sees spiritual light. That there is spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith does not doubt this, and that there is bodily light, whether heavenly, supra-heavenly, or even pre-heavenly, followed by night, this is not contrary to faith until it is refuted by undoubted truth; in this case it will become obvious that such an opinion lies not in Divine Scripture, but in human ignorance. If, on the basis of an undoubted argument, it is proven that this opinion is true, then it will remain unclear which of the two true opinions the writer had in mind, and this will need to be understood from the context. But it may also happen that such a study will not bring clarity; moreover, if circumstances favor both, one can even assume that both opinions were meant together. After all, it often happens that a non-Christian knows a lot about the earth, sky and other elements of the visible world, about movement and circulation, about the size and distance of stars, about eclipses of the sun and moon, about the rotation of years and times, about the nature of animals, plants, stones and the like, and he knows so much that he can defend this knowledge with the most obvious arguments and life experience. Meanwhile, it can be extremely shameful, dangerous and even disastrous when some infidel can hardly restrain himself from laughing, hearing how a Christian, speaking about such subjects supposedly on the basis of Christian scriptures, speaks such nonsense that, as they say, he hits the sky with his finger. And it’s not so bad that the erring person is ridiculed, but that in the eyes of people, whose souls we are tirelessly concerned about saving, our writers look just as ignorant and therefore are despised by them. Indeed, when they notice that one of the Christians is mistaken regarding subjects well known to them and confirms his absurd opinion by referring to our scriptures, then how can they believe these scriptures regarding the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, since they have formed the idea that these scriptures lie even in those matters that can easily be verified either by experience or with the help of numbers? Indeed, it is difficult even to imagine how much grief and sadness these impudent ignoramuses bring to prudent brothers, when they, caught and convicted of an absurd and false opinion by those who do not recognize the authority of our scriptures, defending what they have said out of frivolous recklessness, refer with shameless lies to these sacred books, trying to justify their opinions with them, or even quoting from memory entire sayings, which they believe testify to their benefit, when in fact “they do not understand either what they say or what they affirm” (1 Tim. 1.7). Taking into account this kind of phenomena and trying to block their path, I have tried, as far as possible, to thoroughly examine the book of Genesis and, regarding words that have been used ambiguously for the purpose of exercising our thoughts, I have given various opinions, refraining from categorical statements as well as from prejudice regarding any other, perhaps better explanation, so that everyone can choose according to his own understanding what he can understand, and if he cannot, let him leave the honor to Scripture of God, but will keep the fear (of God) to himself. But since the words of Scripture that we are talking about can be explained in various ways, then let those who, puffed up by secular sciences, look at these words, intended to strengthen all pious hearts, moderate their ardor as something artless and crude; these can be likened to wingless creatures, reptiles on the ground and capable of flying no better than frogs, but laughing at the nests of birds. Even more dangerous is the delusion of some of our brothers who are not firm (in faith), who, hearing how these wicked people subtly and extensively talk about the numbers of celestial bodies and other things relating to the elements of the visible world, turn into nothing, preferring them to themselves and finding them great, disgustedly turn to the writings of saving piety and only barely bite into what they should happily eat, abhorring the hardness of an ear of grain. and lusting after rosehip flowers. They do not have the leisure to eat and see “how good the Lord is” (Ps. 33.9), and do not take (spiritual) food even on the Sabbath; they are too lazy to pluck the ears of corn, as the Lord allowed, on the Sabbath, and then rub them with their hands, clean them and make them suitable for food (Matthew 12.1). But perhaps someone will ask: “What grains did you clear with this crushing of your reasoning, which ones did you winnow? You asked a lot of questions but didn't bother to answer them. Give at least one positive answer to what, as you yourself say, can be understood ambiguously.” To this I will answer that I have already achieved that (true) bread from which I learned to answer people who seek to slander our saving scriptures; So, I am ready to prove that everything they said about the nature of things on the basis of correct arguments does not contradict our scriptures, but what they bring from their books against our scriptures, that is, the Catholic faith, is completely false, and this can either be proven or must be believed with certainty. At the same time, we are so devoted to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2.3), that we are not deceived by the chatter of false philosophy and are not afraid of the superstitions of false religion. And when we read the Divine Scriptures, which contain a variety of true meanings expressed in a few words and confirmed by the holiness of the Catholic faith, we choose primarily what seems to be the undoubted thought of the one (the writer) whom we read; if this question remains unclear, we try to choose something that does not contradict the meaning of Scripture as a whole and is in accordance with the right faith; Well, if it is difficult to disassemble and determine the composition of Scripture, then we choose what faith prescribes. For it is one thing to fail to understand what the author wanted to say, and quite another to stray from the path of piety. If both of these can be avoided, the reader achieves the best result, but even if the author's intention remains unknown, it is at least useful to look for an opinion consistent with sound faith. You might be interested in: