Книга 2

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate water from water. And God created the firmament, and separated the water that was under the firmament from the water that was above the firmament. And so it became. And God called the firmament heaven. And there was evening, and there was morning: the second day” (Gen. 1.6–8). The word of God, by which it is spoken: “Let it be,” as well as His good pleasure, as well as the evening and the morning, was said earlier, and therefore there is no need to repeat (I want to warn that no matter how many times in the future we return to such subjects, they should be understood in accordance with what was stated above). Now we should consider whether by the firmament we mean the sky visible to us, towering above all the air space where the sun and luminaries were created on the fourth day, or whether the air itself is called the firmament. Many argue that our waters cannot reach the starry sky, since their heaviness has such a property that they either spill over the surface of the earth, or rush in the form of steam close to the surface. And no one should, trying to refute them, refer to the omnipotence of God, for whom everything is possible, so that even the heaviest waters, as we know and feel them, can, according to His word, overflow above all the stars. For in the present case the subject of our inquiry is the question of how, according to the Scriptures, God established the natures of things, and not of what it pleased Him to work in them or through them as a miracle of His power. In fact, if God did not want the oil to remain under the water, then it appeared that way, and yet it cannot be said that the nature of it (the oil) became incomprehensible to us because, being poured below the water, it certainly moves to its surface. So, the question is whether the Creator of things, who ordered everything by measure, number and weight, indicated (Wis. 11:21), the waters have not one place, characteristic of their gravity, near the earth, but also above the sky, which is spread out and established beyond the air. Those who do not admit this base their evidence on the gravity of the elements, saying that the sky is in no way compacted from above like a pavement so that it can withstand the weight of the waters, for such density can only belong to the earth, and everything that is dense will no longer be heaven, but earth. After all, elements differ not only in their place (in space), but also in their special properties, thanks to which they occupy their places. Thus, water is placed on the surface of the earth, and even if it flows or stands underground, as happens in caves and grottoes, then in this case its position is determined not by the earth that is above it, but by the one that is below it. And if some earth falls from above, it does not remain floating on the surface of the water, but plunges into it and moves towards the earth, reaching which it stops, for this is its place; so that the water remains at the top and the earth at the bottom. From this it is clear that although this part of the earth was previously above the water, it was supported not by it, but by another earth, just as the vaults of caves are supported. We consider it necessary here again to warn against the error from which we warned in the first book, namely: so that any of our people, meaning the words of the psalm: “He established the earth on the waters” (Ps 135.6), should not think of referring to this testimony of Scripture to refute people who so subtly talk about the gravity of the elements, for they, not restrained by the authority of our writings and not knowing in what sense Having spoken the words of the psalm, they would rather laugh at the sacred books than reject what they either perceived on undoubted grounds or investigated through the most obvious experiments. Meanwhile, the above words can be interpreted allegorically in the sense that since in the church, heaven and earth often mean spiritual and carnal (people), then the heavens are related to the pure understanding of truth, as it is said: “He created the heavens in wisdom” (Ps 135.5), and the earth - to the simple faith of ordinary people, based not on fabulous fabrications, and, as a result, unstable and unsteady, but based on prophetic and evangelical preaching, and therefore strong, receiving confirmation in baptism, which is why it is said: “He established the earth on the waters”; or, if someone certainly wants to understand this saying literally, then he has reason to say that we are talking about an island or even a mainland rising above the water, and, perhaps, about the vault of a cave. But no one should understand the words: “He established the earth on the waters” as an indication that water is a natural support for the mass of the earth. And the fact that air is higher than water, although due to the vastness of its volume also covers land, is evident from the fact that not a single vessel, immersed with its neck in water, is filled with water; It is clear that the nature of the air requires a higher place. In fact, at first glance the vessel seems empty, but it is easy to see that it is filled with air; So, if we begin to immerse it in water with its neck down, then the air, not being able to come out of it either from above or from below (for it is supported from below by water), with its density repels the water and does not allow it to fill the vessel; further, if we lower the vessel sideways, then water will enter the vessel through the lower part of the neck, and air will come out through the upper part; if water is poured into a vertical vessel, the air rises to the top (and leaves) through those parts (neck) that remain free when water is poured. And if you immerse a vessel in water with great force, so that either from the side or from above, water rushes into it from all sides (neck), then the air, rushing upward, breaks through the water with a loud gurgle: this is due to the fact that the air, rising to the top and giving water access to the bottom, meets its resistance and forms bubbles, and bursting bubbles (produce a gurgling sound). But it is useless to expect that water will pour into a vessel with its neck down; rather, the vessel itself will tip over and fill with water. And who doesn’t know that fire strives to occupy a higher place than air? So, even if you hold a burning torch with its upper end down, the flame will still rush upward. But since the fire soon goes out, absorbed by the excess air surrounding it, it cannot penetrate its entire height. However, as they say, above the air there is pure fire - the sky, from the nature of which the stars and luminaries are believed to be created, i.e. the same nature of fiery light, only shaped in a spherical form. But just as air and water, in contact with the earth, yield to its gravity, just as air, in turn, yields to water, so that it is both above the earth and above the water, in the same way, they say, it is necessary to admit that air, due to its mass, cannot maintain itself in the highest celestial spaces. From this it is clear that all the more there can be no place for water there, since air, which is much lighter than water, is not held above this fiery sky. Agreeing with this kind of consideration, someone made a laudable attempt to prove that there are waters higher than the heavens, in order to confirm the certainty of the words of Scripture by the most obvious and graphic examples. He began with the simplest thing, namely: he referred to the fact that the air is often called sky, and not only in everyday life, when we say that the sky is clear or cloudy, but also in the Scriptures, when they speak, for example, about birds of the air, although it is clear that birds fly in the air; Also, the Lord, speaking about the clouds, said: “You know how to discern the face of the sky” (Matthew 16.3). Meanwhile, we often see clouds accumulating in the air closest to the earth, when they lie on the slopes of hills and mountains much lower than their peaks. Having proved that the air is also called the sky, he wanted to make it clear that the sky is called the firmament precisely because it serves as a kind of delimiter between water vapor and those waters that spread over the earth in a more condensed form. After all, clouds, as lovers of mountain walks can often observe, are formed due to the condensation of tiny water drops; when these drops become more dense, forming large drops from many small ones, their weight can no longer be supported by the (less dense) air and they rush down in the form of rain. Thus, taking as a basis the air located between the moist vapors that form clouds and the seas spreading over the earth, he wanted to show how the sky can be between water and water. For my part, I cannot help but praise this kind of effort, because the opinion expressed is not contrary to faith, and can easily be proven with the help of illustrative examples. (This opinion even seems to us to be so) despite the fact that (according to it) the gravity inherent in the elements does not prevent the fact that above the highest heaven there should be water, represented in the form of the smallest particles, since water in the form of small particles can be higher than the air space. Air is heavier than the highest sky and is located below it, but it is undoubtedly lighter than water; and, however, no gravity prevents the mentioned vapors from being higher than the air. In the same way, more (as it were) subtle evaporation of moisture in the form of even smaller drops can rise higher than the sky. After all, they themselves (pagan philosophers) with the help of the most refined arguments prove that there is not a single body so small that it is already indivisible, but everything can be divided indefinitely, for a part of every body is also a body, and every body is divisible. And if so, then since water, broken up into tiny drops, can rise above the air, which is by nature heavier than water, then why can’t it, broken up even more, rise above the lightest sky? Some of our people are trying to refute people who deny the possibility of water being located above the starry sky on the basis of the gravity of the elements, relying on ideas about the properties and movements of stars. They claim that the star called Saturn is the coldest of all and takes thirty years to complete its journey, since it moves in the highest and therefore most extensive circle. At the same time, the Sun revolves in one year, and the Moon in one month, that is, they say, the faster (Saturn), the lower. Why, one may ask, is Saturn so cold if, rotating higher than the others, it, on the contrary, should also be the hottest? Moreover, when a spherical mass moves in a circular motion, its inner parts move more slowly and its outer parts move faster, so that in the same circular motion large spaces simultaneously meet short ones. But what is faster is, of course, hotter. Therefore, the star in question must be hot rather than cold. The only explanation for its coldness can be its proximity to the waters located above the sky, the presence of which is rejected by people (pagans) who love to speculate about the movement of the sky and stars. These are the considerations brought by some of our people against those who do not want to admit the presence of waters above the sky, although at the same time they consider the star rotating near the highest sky to be cold; but from this it would be quite possible to conclude that the water there is no longer in the form of thin evaporations, but in the form of dense ice. But in whatever form and whatever waters exist there, one thing is certain: they are there, for the authority of Scripture is immeasurably higher than any human invention. But others notice, and this, in my opinion, deserves attention, that after the words of God: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate water from water,” it is not simply added: “And it was so,” but it is said: “And God made the firmament, and separated the water that was under the firmament from the water that was above the firmament” (Gen. 1:6-7). They say that the words: “And God said...” indicate the Person of the Father, and the words: “And created...” indicate the fulfillment of the words of the Father by the Son. But then to whose action should we attribute the words: “And it became so”? If it is the action of the Father, then it turns out that the Father can create something without the Son, just as the Son can then create without the Father, but such (an opinion) is contrary to the Catholic faith; if not, then what prevents us from understanding the Creator of these actions as the same One who said that these actions should take place? At the same time, the following question is also possible: shouldn’t we see in the words: “And God said: let it be...” as if it were an order from the Father to the Son? But then why does Scripture say nothing about the Holy Spirit? Or the Trinity is indicated in the following sequence: “And God said: Let it be; - and God created; - and God saw that it was good”? However, how can one reconcile with the unity of the Trinity the fact that the Son creates as if by order, while the Holy Spirit freely recognizes what was created as good? And what word would the Father use to give orders to the Son, when the Son is the co-eternal Word of the Father, through Whom everything was created? Isn’t the very saying: “Let there be a firmament” the Word of the Father, His only begotten Son, in Whom everything that is created has its being, and even before it is created? And everything that has existence in Him is life, for everything that He created is life in Himself, and life, of course, is creative, but outside of Him it is creation. Therefore, in one way, what He created exists in Him, because He controls it and contains it, and in another way, what He Himself exists. For He Himself is life, which in Him is He Himself, since He, as life, is “the light of men” (John 1.4). That is why Scripture, since nothing could be created before time that was not co-eternal with the Creator, or in time, the idea of ​​the creation of which (if only we apply the term “idea” here) would not live a life co-eternal with the co-eternal Word of the Father, before indicating this or that creature, it cites the words: “And God said: let it be.” For the only reason that a thing is created is because it was created in the Word of God. Thus, God did not say: “Let it be” as many times as it is given in Scripture: having once begotten the Word, in Him He spoke everything that was then created separately. But in the narrative itself, taking into account our ability to perceive, when indicating each kind of creatures, the eternal cause of this kind is separately correlated with the Word of God: the cause itself was not repeated, although the author repeats: “And God said.” Indeed, if at first it had been written: “The firmament was created in the midst of the waters to separate water from water,” and someone had asked how it was created, then, of course, he should have answered: “God said: let it be,” i.e., in the eternal Word of God there was a reason for the firmament to appear. It turns out that Scripture, as it were, warns these kinds of questions, starting with indicating the cause (creation). So, when we read: “And God said: Let it be,” we must understand these words to mean that the reason for this “let it be” was in the Word of God. When we read: “And it became so,” we must understand that the created creature did not step beyond the boundaries of its kind prescribed for it in the Word of God. When, finally, we read: “And God saw that it was good,” we must understand this not in such a way that in the good pleasure of His Spirit it was pleased to subject (the created) to a kind of examination after it had been created, but rather in such a way that this goodness, which was pleased to call the created thing into being, was also willing that it should continue to exist. And yet there is still reason to ask why, after the words: “And it became so,” which indicates the completion of an action, it is added: “And God created the firmament”? Indeed, by the very words: “And God said, Let it be... and it was so” (Gen. 1:6–7) it is made clear that God spoke this in His Word and that it was created by His Word; thus, these words indicate not only the Face of the Father, but also the Face of the Son. For if, to indicate the Face of the Son, a repetition is made with the words: “And God created,” then did He really gather the water on the third day so that the dry land would appear, not through the Son? But it doesn’t say: “And God created it so that the water would be gathered,” or, “And God would gather the water.” And light, was it not also created through the Son? But no repetition was made about him either. The writer could have mentioned here: “And God said: Let there be light. And there was light. And God made light, and God saw the light, that it was good” (Gen. 1:3–4). But, having said: “And God said: let there be light,” he does not add anything beyond this and immediately says: “And there was light,” and then immediately reports about the pleasingness of the light to God, about its separation from darkness and about the naming of names. What does this repetition mean when it comes to others (creations)? It is possible that on the first day, the day of the creation of light, a spiritual and rational creature was created, that is, all the holy Angels and Powers, called “light” by God; and the writer of everyday life, having said: “And there was light” (Gen. 1:3), did not then repeat the words about creation, since the rational creature was not created in such a way that it first learned about its formation, and then was formed, but in its very creation it had knowledge of this, i.e., it had it through the enlightenment of the Truth, striving for Which and acquired its form; whereas all other creatures are created in such a way that they first appear in the knowledge of a rational creature, and then in their own kind. Hence, the creation of light first existed in the Word of God, in the Wisdom co-eternal with the Father, according to the idea of ​​Which he was then created: there (in the idea) he was not created, but born, but here he was already created, because he acquired form; That's why God said: “Let there be light. And there became light” so that what was in the Word could be revealed in action. Meanwhile, the structure of heaven first existed in the Word of God in accordance with the born Wisdom, then it was arranged in the spiritual creation, that is, in the knowledge of angels in accordance with the wisdom created in them, and, finally, heaven itself was created in its own kind. In the same way, the types of water and earth, the nature of trees and herbs, the celestial lights and living creatures produced from water and earth appeared. In fact, angels, unlike animals, comprehend sensible things not only with the help of bodily sense organs: even if they use such organs, they still learn with their help what they already internally know in the very Word of God, by which they are enlightened in order to live wisely, for they are the light that was created first of all, if, of course, by the light created on the first day we mean spiritual light. Therefore, just as the idea by which a creature is created exists in the Word of God before the creation of the creature itself, just as the knowledge of this idea first appears in a rational creature not darkened by sin, and then the creation of the creature itself. For the angels did not, like us, perfect themselves in acquiring wisdom by perceiving the invisible things of God through the consideration of created things (Rom. 1.20), but from the very moment of their creation they enjoy holy eternity and reverent contemplation of the Word, and hence, looking at created things from the point of view of what they see internally, they either approve of just actions, or condemn sins. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that God showed His holy Angels, who received their education in the first creation of light, what He intended to create later. For they would not have known the mind of God if God had not revealed it to them. “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who was His adviser? Or who gave Him in advance that He should repay? For all things are from Him, by Him and to Him” (Rom 11.34–36). Therefore, when the knowledge of the creation appeared in them, which was to be created after and to appear in its own generation, they were instructed by God himself. Therefore, when, after the creation of light, by which we mean spiritual creatures that have received education from the eternal Word, we hear during the creation of other creatures the words: “And God said: Let it be,” then we must understand by this the intention of Scripture to turn our gaze to the eternity of the Word of God. And when we read: “And it became so,” then by this we should understand the knowledge that arose in a rational creature of the idea existing in the Word of God about the creation of creation; so that this latter was in some way first created in the knowledge of that creature, which, due to a certain preliminary movement in the Word itself, was the first to know about creation. When we read after this: “And God created,” then by these words we should already understand the appearance of the creature itself in its kind. Finally, when we hear: “And God saw that it was good,” then we must understand these words in such a way that the Goodness of God is pleased with what was created - it is pleased that what She was pleased to call into existence continued to exist according to its kind when the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. We are often asked what shape the sky is according to our scriptures. Many people like to talk at length on this topic, although our authors wisely remain silent about it, since this knowledge is useless for a blessed life and, even worse, (such discussions) waste a lot of precious time, which would be much better devoted to the consideration of saving subjects. Indeed, what does it matter to me whether the sky, like a ball, surrounds the earth, which occupies a central place in the system of the world, on all sides, or covers it only on the upper side, like a circle? But since we are talking here about the reliability of Scripture, lest anyone (as I have already pointed out more than once), not understanding the divine words, but either encountering in our books, or hearing from others about something written in them about similar subjects, which, in his opinion, contradicts the ideas he has formed, should not consider everything else in their exhortations and prophecies useless, it must be said that our writers had a correct idea of ​​the shape of the sky, but The Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not want them to preach to people about such things that were useless for salvation. But, they will object to us, how will it not contradict the people who attribute the shape of a ball to the sky when they say: “You ... stretch out the heavens like a skin” (Ps 103.2)? As for me, let them contradict themselves, since what they say is false; for what is supported by divine authority is more likely to be true than the guesses that the weak human mind puts forward. But if they could justify their views with something undoubted, which at first glance would contradict what was said about the skin, then we would have to prove that this (expression) does not contradict (their views). Indeed, they could refer to our Scripture itself, where in another place it is said: “He stretched out the heavens like a thin cloth, and spread them out like a tent to live in” (Isaiah 40.22). rounded tent? But since it is necessary to understand that these two expressions cannot in any way contradict each other, then each of them separately may well agree with the opinion (if this opinion is true, which is quite likely) according to which the sky is like a ball. Indeed, our comparison (of the sky) with a tent, even if taken literally, should not present any difficulty for those who consider the sky to be a ball. After all, it is possible that Scripture mentions only that part of the sky that is above us. Therefore, if the sky is not a sphere, then it is a tent, and if it is a sphere, then it is a tent, but only on each side separately. But what was said about the skin is much more difficult to reconcile not only with the ball, which may be nothing more than just a human fantasy, but also with the tent. Therefore, I am inclined to interpret this saying allegorically, which is written in detail in the thirteenth book of my “Confession.” Whether this is understood this way, or, taking into account the opinion of strict adherents of the literal understanding, in some other way, but one thing is clear: tents are sometimes called flat, and both bellows and bladders are made from leather. Some of the brethren even ask questions about the movement of the sky, inquiring whether it stands still or moves. If, they say, the sky moves, how will it be firmament? And if motionless, then how do the stars, which are generally believed to be fixed on it, perform a circular motion from east to west, with the septentrions describing the shortest circles around the pole? It turns out that the sky, if there is another pole hidden from us on the other side, rotates like a ball, and if there is no other pole, then like a circle? To this I will answer that to find out whether this is really so, a lot of research has been carried out by hardworking people and with a subtle mind. I don’t have time for this, just as those whom we want to guide on the path of true salvation should not have it, for the benefit of them and our holy church. Let them know one thing for sure: that the name “firmament” (Gen. 1:6) does not at all imply that the sky must necessarily be motionless (for the firmament is not what is motionless, but what is solid, and not necessarily solid in itself, but as a firmly established limit dividing the higher waters from the lower); Equally, the movement of the luminaries should not prevent us from recognizing the immobility of the sky, if only the truth convinces us that it stands motionless, since researchers have established that if the sky is motionless, and only the luminaries rotate, then this can be fully consistent with the phenomena we observe. “And God said: Let the waters that are under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear. And so it became. And God called the dry land earth, and the collection of waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:9–10). We have already said enough about this action of God, in connection, however, with the study of another subject in the first book. Therefore, here we will only briefly note that anyone who is not interested in exactly when the very form of water and earth was created should think that on that day only the division of the lower elements was made. Whoever is interested in the question of why the sky and light were created in days, while the earth and water were created outside and before all days, and why the former were created according to the word of God: “Let it be” (Gen. 1:3), and the latter were not created according to the word of God, but were only separated, let him, with the help of sound faith, understand what Scripture says even before the beginning of days: “The earth was without form and void” (Gen. 1:2 ), suggesting by this what kind of earth was created by God when: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). After all, it is precisely the ugliness of bodily matter that Scripture designates in the above words, denoting it with a commonly used expression. However, let anyone not too perceptive think that Scripture, dividing matter and form in words, also divides them by time, as if at first only matter was created, and only then, after a certain period of time, it was given form. God created both at the same time and produced already formed matter, and only the formlessness of this matter, as I said, is designated by Scripture by the commonly used name of earth or water. For the earth and water, even as we now observe them, are much closer to ugliness than the celestial bodies. And since everything that had an image in matter is counted from the ugly by the number of days, and from this corporeal matter, as stated above, the sky was created, the appearance of which is very different from the appearance of the earth, then what remained after this in matter for the formation of objects in the lower region (Scripture) did not consider it possible to include in the order of created things with the words: “Let it be,” for what remained could no longer receive the same form that the sky received, but lower, fragile and close to ugliness. So, after uttering the words: “Let the water be gathered... and let the dry land appear” (Gen. 1:9), these two elements received their own, well-known and universally observed types: water - mobile, and earth - motionless; That’s why it is said about the first “let it be gathered”, and about the second - “let it appear”, since water is flowing, and earth is a solid and motionless element. “And God said, Let the earth produce green grass, grass yielding seed, and a fruitful tree, bearing fruit according to its kind, in which is its seed on the earth. And so it became. And the earth brought forth grass, grass yielding seed according to its kind, and tree yielding fruit, in which is its seed according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning: the third day” (Gen. 1.11–13). The following deserves attention here: grass and trees are creatures different from the type of water and earth, therefore they could not remain in these elements and it was especially spoken of by God that they should come out of the earth; the words: “And it became so” confirms that this is exactly what happened, and the words: “And God saw that it was good” confirms God’s favor towards them. However, all this happened on the same day (when the earth also happened), since they (plants) are connected and connected with the earth by their roots. “And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven to separate the day from the night, and for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; and let them be lamps in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth. And so it became. And God created two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and God set them in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning: the fourth day” (Gen. 1.14–19). Here we must examine the question of why such an order was chosen that earth and water were separated and the earth produced all kinds of greenery before the luminaries appeared in the sky. Here we cannot refer to the fact that (the luminaries) were chosen as something special, introducing such diversity into the course of days that it worthily adorned the beginning, the middle, and the end (for in a series of seven days, the fourth day is the middle); it is impossible because on the seventh day no creature was created. Is it possible to say that the peace of the seventh day was in harmony with the light of the first, why did the luminaries appear in the middle? But if we look for correspondences between the first and seventh days, then the same should be indicated regarding the second and sixth days, and what is common between the firmament of heaven and man, created in the image of God? Is it just that heaven occupies the entire upper part of the world, and man is left to dominate the lower? But what then can we say about livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth, also produced on the sixth day - what similarity can they have with heaven? Or it may be that, since by light we mean the first created formation of the spiritual creature, it was necessary that the corporeal creature should also be created, that is, our visible world, which was created in the (subsequent) two days due to the two largest halves of which the universe consists (which is why the spiritual and corporeal creation itself, taken together, is often called heaven and earth); so that the region of air, with its most stormy layer, belongs to the earth’s half, for as a result of moist evaporation, the air here becomes a dense body, while the calmer (upper) layer, where there are no longer winds and storms, belongs to the sky. And as soon as such a totality of bodily mass was formed, located in that one place where the world was placed, it followed that inside it was filled with parts that would move from place to place with the movements characteristic of each of them. Herbs and trees cannot belong to this order, since they are attached to the earth with their roots, and although the movement of juices is observed during their growth, they themselves remain motionless where they feed and grow, which is why they belong rather to the earth itself than to the category of those creatures that move in water and on the ground. Further, since the first two days are devoted to the formation of the visible world, the remaining three are reserved for the formation of its moving visible parts. And since the sky was created earlier, it should have been decorated with this kind of parts earlier; and so, on the fourth day, luminaries appeared, which, shining above the earth, illuminated the lower regions, so that their inhabitants would not remain in darkness. And since the weak bodies of these creatures restore (strength) by rest replacing movement, it was arranged so that the rotation of the sun created the alternation of day and night, determining the time for wakefulness and sleep; however, the night was not left without decoration, but with the light of the moon and stars it maintains vigor in those people who have to work at night, as well as in those creatures that cannot stand sunlight. As for the words: “And for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years” (Gen. 1:14), the question arises: did time really begin only on the fourth day, as if the three previous ones could do without time? How can one imagine that the first days passed outside of time, and did they even pass at all? Unless it remains to be assumed that by day the types of created things were called, and by night the absence of any types; so by night we should understand matter that has not yet received formation and form, from which it was only intended to form something. Indeed, even in already existing things, behind their constant changeability, one can discern the ugliness of matter, for matter (by itself) cannot differ either in space or in time. And perhaps night refers to the very changeability of already created things, or rather, I would say, the ability to change, for creatures are characterized by variability even when they remain unchanged. Evening and morning (so named) not in the sense of past and coming time, but in the sense of the limit delimiting created natures. However, other explanations for these words are possible. Who, again, will comprehend the meaning of the words: “And for signs”? Who will understand what signs we are talking about here? In any case, not about those that are a waste of time to observe, but about useful and important ones, for example, those that sailors study when plotting a course, or those that serve to determine the weather. On the other hand, and by times, which here are made dependent on the stars, of course, not the length of time, but the (seasonal) fluctuation of temperatures. For if even before the creation of the luminaries there was any kind of bodily or spiritual movement, so that something from the future passed through the present into the past, then this movement could not do without time. And who will argue that such a movement could only arise with the creation of the stars? But hours, days and years, as we know them, got their start from the movement of the stars. Therefore, if we understand times in this sense, i.e. as certain moments (of time), determined by us by the clock or by the state of the sky, when the sun rises from the east to the midday zenith, and then from here descends to the west, so that after its sunset the moon rises, ready to set with the onset of morning, then days are complete rotations of the sun from east to east, and years are either, again, rotations of the sun, but not from east to east, but those that it makes, going around the constellations for three hundred and sixty-five days and six hours (that is, a quarter of a full day, which is why every four years one full day is added, which the Romans call bissextum), or longer and hidden years from us, for, as they say, such are formed from the rotation of the planets. So, if times, days and years are understood in this way, then everyone will undoubtedly agree that they are determined by the planets and luminaries. For the words: “And for signs, and times, and days, and years” are given in such a way that it is not known whether they refer to all planets, or whether days and years refer to the sun, and signs and times to other planets. Many people start lengthy discussions about how the moon was created; and if only they would bicker, otherwise they also strive to teach! The moon, they say, was created full, because it was indecent for God to create anything imperfect in the stars on the day on which, as it is written, the stars were created. But if so, others object, then the moon was created in the phase of the first, and not the fourteenth day, for who begins to count in this way? For my part, I do not dare to affirm either one or the other, but I know one thing for sure: whether the moon was created in the initial phase or in the full phase, it was created perfect by God. God is the creator and builder of natures, and everything that only each nature produces and reveals from itself at the appropriate time and due to natural development, all this is already contained in it in a hidden form, although not in the form of form or mass, but in the idea of ​​this nature. Do we really call a tree, deprived of fruits and leaves in winter, imperfect? The same can be asked about the seed in which its future is hidden. However, there is nothing shameful in saying that God created something imperfect in order to later bring it to perfection. The only thing that deserves censure is the opinion that God created something imperfect, and someone else perfected it. Yes, and why fool yourself and others with obscure questions about the moon, without, however, asking what kind of person the Lord created the earth, when at the beginning he created it formless and empty, and only on the third day gave it form and structure? And if they understand what is said about the earth not in the sense of continuity of time, since God created matter simultaneously with (material) things, but in the sense of continuity of narrative, then why in this case do they lose sight of the fact that the moon (under all circumstances) has a solid and perfectly round body, even shining on the earth in the form of a sickle? It is clear that if its light increases or decreases, then it is not the luminary itself that changes, but what is kindled by it. (Others believe) that the moon always has only one half of its sphere shining, and when it turns it towards the earth (and the full turn occurs on the fourteenth day), its light increases; (others believe) that its surface is illuminated by the rays of the sun, and when it approaches it, then only its crescent is visible to us, but when it is opposite the sun, then we see a full circle, that is, we can see everything that is illuminated on it. There are, however, those who say that the moon was created with fourteen days, not because it should be called full at creation, but because God, according to Scripture, created it at the beginning of the night, and at the beginning of the night the moon is visible only when it is full. After all, before the full moon it can often be seen during the day, and when it wanes, it appears deep after midnight. But the beginning of the night should be understood rather as leadership, as evidenced by both the Greek archlu and the message of the psalm: “He has created great lights, for His mercy endures forever; the sun is to rule the day... the moon and stars are to rule the night” (Ps 135.7-9), so there is no need to count from the fourteenth and think that the moon was not created in the initial phase. They often ask whether the celestial bodies visible to us, i.e., the sun, moon and stars, shine with the same light, and if not, then whether this is due to their different distances from the earth. Moreover, as for the moon, the majority has no doubt that its light is weaker than the sun, since, as they claim, it is illuminated by the sun. It is often said about stars that some of them are not only equal to the sun, but even greater than it, and appear smaller only because they are very distant. As for us, we will say: be that as it may, it is clear that all the luminaries were created by the Artist-God; however, we must not shy away from the words confirmed by apostolic authority: “There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another of the stars; and star differs from star in glory” (1 Cor 15.41). However, without contradicting the apostle in any way, they can tell us that the stars indeed differ in glory, but only for the eyes of the inhabitants of the earth, especially since the apostle cited these words when discussing the resurrection of bodies; Yes, fame is one thing, but size is another. But then let them explain how they themselves attribute such power to the sun that, according to them, with its rays it can attract or repel other stars, and the main stars, which they worship and prefer to others. It is difficult to believe that the power of its rays could control stars equal or even greater. And if, according to their statements, there are stars higher than the signs (of the zodiac) and more than septentrions, which do not experience any influence from the sun, then why do they honor the stars passing through these signs more? And why are they called mistresses of these signs? And although they often assert that the slowdowns and retreats of the stars depend not on the sun, but on other, more hidden reasons, it is clear from their books that in their demons, to which those who have gone astray from the path of truth attribute the power of destinies, they assign primary importance to the sun. But let these who have fallen away from the Father who is in heaven say whatever they please about heaven; It is indecent for us to waste time on sophisticated research about the distances and sizes of stars. Let us better think that there are greater lights than the rest, as is said in Scripture: “And God created two great lights,” but not equal to each other, for it is added: “The greater light was to rule the day, and the lesser light was to rule the night” (Gen. 1:16). And our eyes confirm that these two luminaries shine brighter than others, for the day is bright only thanks to the sun, and the night, although decorated with stars, is not as bright without the moon as with the moon. As for all their rantings about the influence of the stars and imaginary experiments of astrological science, which they call ἀποτελέσματα, we must in every possible way protect the purity of our faith from them; With such verbal disputes they try to weaken the impulse in us to pray and in bad deeds that deserve the most just reproach, with ungodly perversity they teach us to rather blame God, the creator of the stars, than the person who committed the offense. But let them listen to what their own philosophers say, as if our souls by nature are not only subordinate to the heavenly bodies, but in the sense in which they teach, are not more powerful than earthly bodies, or let them themselves learn that although the many different bodies of animals and plants are conceived at the same time and at the same time in countless numbers are born not only in different, but also in the same places, however, in their development, actions and sufferings are so diverse that, honestly, there simply wouldn’t be enough stars for them all. And what could be more absurd if, agreeing with what was said above, they answer that the stars influence the destinies of only people? What then to do with twins who were born at the same time, but live differently, are happy differently or not, and die differently? Let us assume that even at birth they had some differences, but the further difference in their destinies is so great that it can no longer be deduced on the basis of astrological calculations. At his birth, the hand of the baby Jacob turned out to be holding the heel of his elder (brother), so that together they seemed to be one body. Their so-called constellations could not be different. Is it really possible that an astrologer, observing these constellations, could say from the same horoscope that one of the brothers will be loved and the other unloved by his mother? For if he had said anything else, he would have told a lie, and if he had told the truth, he would have done so not at all according to the predictions of his absurd books. And if they do not believe this story, since it is based on our narratives, then how can they cancel the very nature of things? And since they claim that they are never mistaken if they know exactly the hour of conception, then let them not consider it difficult to pay attention to the conception of twins. It must be admitted that sometimes they say something true, but they speak according to some innermost suggestion, which is sometimes experienced by the ignorant human mind. And since this serves the purpose of seducing people, it is often the suggestion of demons who know something true in the field of temporary objects, partly because they have either more accurate feelings, or more subtle bodies, or richer life experience; partly because the holy angels, at the command of God, reveal to them what they learn from Almighty God. Sometimes these despicable spirits, in the form of prophecies, predict what they themselves intend to do. Therefore, a true Christian must beware of both astrologers and all soothsayers, especially those who speak the truth, lest, having caught his soul with the assistance of demons, they do not entangle him in their community. They also ask whether the heavenly bodies we see are simply bodies, or whether they have some kind of spirit-rulers, and if they do, then whether they are animated by them, just as animals are animated by souls, or (gain life) from their presence alone, without any connection with them. Now it is difficult for us to understand and explain, but upon further consideration of Scripture we may come across more convenient passages, based on which, in accordance with the rules of sacred authority, it will be possible, if not to say something undoubted, then at least something probable regarding a given subject. In the meantime, in order to maintain the due moderation of a reverent tone, let us not say anything thoughtlessly about such a dark subject, lest we say something that upon further examination will be revealed as contrary to the Old and New Testament writings. Now let's move on to the third book of our work. You might be interested in: